Evaluation of Nociception Using Quantitative Pupillometry and Skin Conductance in Critically Ill Unconscious Patients: A Pilot Study.

algesimeter analgesia automated pupillometer brain injury critically illness pain skin conductance

Journal

Brain sciences
ISSN: 2076-3425
Titre abrégé: Brain Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101598646

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Jan 2021
Historique:
received: 14 12 2020
revised: 09 01 2021
accepted: 13 01 2021
entrez: 20 1 2021
pubmed: 21 1 2021
medline: 21 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Pain assessment is a challenge in critically ill patients, in particular those who are unable to express movements in reaction to noxious stimuli. The purpose of the study was to compare the pupillary response and skin conductance to pain stimulation in critically ill unconscious patients. This observational study included adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale < 9 with a motor response < 5) and/or requirements for deep level of sedation. Automated pupillometry (Algiscan, ID-MED, Marseille, France) was used to determine pupillary reflex dilation during tetanic stimulation. The maximum intensity of the stimulation value allowed the determination of a pupillary pain index score ranging from 1 (no nociception) to 9 (high nociception): a pupillary pain index (PPI) score of ≤4 was used to reflect adequate pain control. For skin conductance (SC), the number of SC peaks per second (NSCF) was collected concomitantly to tetanic stimulation. An NSCF of ≤0.07 peak/second was used to reflect adequate pain control. Of the 51 included patients, there were 32 with brain injury and 19 receiving deep sedation. Mean PPI score was 5 (Interquartile Range= 2-7); a total of 28 (55%) patients showed inadequate control of the nociceptive stimulation according to the PPI assessment. Only 15 (29%) patients showed a detectable skin conductance, with NSCF values from 0.07 to 0.47/s. No correlation was found between skin conductance algesimeter (SCA)-derived variables and PPI score or pupillary dilation to pain. Detection of inadequate pain control might vary according to the method used to assess nociception in ICU patients. A poor agreement between quantitative pupillometry and skin conductance was observed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Pain assessment is a challenge in critically ill patients, in particular those who are unable to express movements in reaction to noxious stimuli. The purpose of the study was to compare the pupillary response and skin conductance to pain stimulation in critically ill unconscious patients.
METHODS METHODS
This observational study included adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale < 9 with a motor response < 5) and/or requirements for deep level of sedation. Automated pupillometry (Algiscan, ID-MED, Marseille, France) was used to determine pupillary reflex dilation during tetanic stimulation. The maximum intensity of the stimulation value allowed the determination of a pupillary pain index score ranging from 1 (no nociception) to 9 (high nociception): a pupillary pain index (PPI) score of ≤4 was used to reflect adequate pain control. For skin conductance (SC), the number of SC peaks per second (NSCF) was collected concomitantly to tetanic stimulation. An NSCF of ≤0.07 peak/second was used to reflect adequate pain control.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the 51 included patients, there were 32 with brain injury and 19 receiving deep sedation. Mean PPI score was 5 (Interquartile Range= 2-7); a total of 28 (55%) patients showed inadequate control of the nociceptive stimulation according to the PPI assessment. Only 15 (29%) patients showed a detectable skin conductance, with NSCF values from 0.07 to 0.47/s. No correlation was found between skin conductance algesimeter (SCA)-derived variables and PPI score or pupillary dilation to pain.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Detection of inadequate pain control might vary according to the method used to assess nociception in ICU patients. A poor agreement between quantitative pupillometry and skin conductance was observed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33467451
pii: brainsci11010109
doi: 10.3390/brainsci11010109
pmc: PMC7829933
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Références

Anaesthesia. 2010 Oct;65(10):1001-6
pubmed: 20712804
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 25;11(1):e0147720
pubmed: 26808971
Anesth Analg. 2015 Jun;120(6):1297-300
pubmed: 25993266
J Neurosci. 2001 Dec 15;21(24):9896-903
pubmed: 11739597
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Aug;123(2):e322-e327
pubmed: 30915996
J Neurosci Nurs. 2015 Jun;47(3):166-77
pubmed: 25943998
J Crit Care. 2009 Sep;24(3):472.e9-13
pubmed: 19327307
Front Integr Neurosci. 2012 Oct 17;6:94
pubmed: 23087627
Br J Anaesth. 2006 Dec;97(6):862-5
pubmed: 17060329
Clin J Pain. 2014 Nov;30(11):960-9
pubmed: 24480910
Anesth Analg. 2019 Dec;129(6):1540-1546
pubmed: 31743173
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002 Aug;46(7):887-95
pubmed: 12139547
Intensive Care Med. 2014 Aug;40(8):1115-23
pubmed: 25008977
Br J Anaesth. 2015 Feb;114(2):345-6
pubmed: 25596223
Crit Care. 2013 Mar 19;17(2):R51
pubmed: 23510014
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008 Dec;21(6):796-804
pubmed: 18997532
Crit Care Med. 2018 Sep;46(9):e825-e873
pubmed: 30113379
Saudi J Anaesth. 2018 Apr-Jun;12(2):204-208
pubmed: 29628828
Br J Anaesth. 2003 Sep;91(3):347-52
pubmed: 12925472
Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2018 Mar 1;60(1):92-101
pubmed: 29668462
Crit Care. 2014 Jul 25;18(5):R160
pubmed: 25063269
Crit Care. 2016 Mar 13;20:99
pubmed: 27072310
Anesth Analg. 1993 May;76(5):1072-8
pubmed: 8484510
Crit Care. 2013 Jul 24;17(4):R161
pubmed: 23883683
Anesthesiology. 2009 Dec;111(6):1308-16
pubmed: 19934877
Crit Care Med. 2001 Dec;29(12):2258-63
pubmed: 11801819
Clin Neurophysiol. 2000 Oct;111(10):1889-98
pubmed: 11018507
Am J Crit Care. 2006 Jul;15(4):420-7
pubmed: 16823021
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002 Nov 15;166(10):1338-44
pubmed: 12421743
J Clin Monit Comput. 2013 Dec;27(6):659-68
pubmed: 23835792

Auteurs

Sara Fratino (S)

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Lorenzo Peluso (L)

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Marta Talamonti (M)

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Marco Menozzi (M)

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Lucas Akira Costa Hirai (LA)

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Francisco A Lobo (FA)

Department of Anesthesiology, CHTMAD-Hospital de S. Pedro, 5000 Vila Real, Portugal.

Chiara Prezioso (C)

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Jacques Creteur (J)

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Jean-François Payen (JF)

Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care CHU Grenoble Alpes, University Grenoble Alpes, 38000 Grenoble, France.

Fabio Silvio Taccone (FS)

Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH