The aim of the present study was to develop and validate an objective index for nociception level (NoL) of patients under general anesthesia, based on a combination of multiple physiological parameters. Twenty-five patients scheduled for elective surgery were enrolled. For clinical reference of NoL, the combined index of stimulus and analgesia was defined as a composite of the surgical stimulus level and a scaled effect-site concentration of opioid. The physiological parameters heart rate, heart rate variability (0.15-0.4 Hz band power), plethysmograph wave amplitude, skin conductance level, number of skin conductance fluctuations, and their time derivatives, were extracted. Two techniques to incorporate these parameters into a single index representing the NoL have been proposed: NoLlinear, based on an ordinary linear regression, and NoLnon-linear, based on a non-linear Random Forest regression. NoLlinear and NoLnon-linear significantly increased after moderate to severe noxious stimuli (Wilcoxon rank test, p < 0.01), while the individual parameters only partially responded. Receiver operating curve analysis showed that NoL index based on both techniques better discriminated noxious and non-noxious surgical events [area under curve (AUC) = 0.97] compared with individual parameters (AUC = 0.56-0.74). NoLnon-linear better ranked the level of nociception compared with NoLlinear (R = 0.88 vs. 0.77, p < 0.01). These results demonstrate the superiority of multi-parametric approach over any individual parameter in the evaluation of nociceptive response. In addition, advanced non-linear technique may have an advantage over ordinary linear regression for computing NoL index. Further research will define the usability of the NoL index as a clinical tool to assess the level of nociception during general anesthesia.

Background The nociception level (NoL) index is an index of nociception based on nonlinear combination of heart rate, heart rate variability, photoplethysmograph wave amplitude, skin conductance, skin conductance fluctuations, and their time derivatives. The authors evaluated the abilities of the NoL index and other measures of nociception to discriminate between noxious and nonnoxious stimuli, to progressively respond to graded stimuli, and to respond to opioid administration. Methods Intraoperative NoL was compared to heart rate, pulse plethysmograph amplitude, noninvasive blood pressure, and the surgical pleth index around five specific stimuli: tetanic stimulation with and without fentanyl analgesia, intubation, first incision/trocar insertion, and a nonnoxious period. The response around first incision was analyzed at two target plasma concentrations of remifentanil. Results In 58 patients, the NoL index responded progressively to increased stimulus intensity and remained unchanged in response to nonnoxious stimuli. Compared to other accepted measures of nociception, the NoL index better discriminated noxious from nonnoxious stimuli with an area under the curve of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.97) and a sensitivity of 87% at a specificity of 84%. The NoL index was the only measure that reliably reflected two different analgesic concentrations of remifentanil during initial skin incision or trocar insertion. Conclusions The NoL index changes proportionately with patients’ response to various clinical and experimental noxious stimuli and discriminates noxious from nonnoxious stimuli with high sensitivity and specificity. The NoL index also responds progressively to increasing stimuli intensity and is appropriately blunted by analgesic administration. The NoL index was superior to other compared measures and appears to accurately characterize nociception during general anesthesia.

Monitors that estimate nociception during anesthesia may be used to guide opioid and other analgesics administration to optimize anesthesia care and possibly outcome. We reviewed the literature to evaluate current evidence of the effect of nociception-guided management over standard anesthesia practice during surgery. A systematic review of the literature on the effect of nociception monitoring on anesthesia practice was conducted. Reports were eligible if they compared nociception-guided anesthesia to standard practice during surgery. Primary endpoint of this review is intraoperative opioid consumption. Secondary endpoints included hemodynamic control, postoperative pain and pain treatment. We identified 12 randomized controlled trials that compared one of five different nociception monitoring techniques to standard anesthesia care. Most studies were single center studies of small sample size. Six studies reported intraoperative opioid consumption as primary outcome. There was considerable variability with respect to surgical procedure and anesthesia technique. For nociception monitors that were investigated by more than one study, analysis of the pooled data was performed. The surgical plethysmographic index was the only monitor for which an intra operative opioid sparing effect was found. For the other monitors, either no effect was detected, or pooled analysis could not be performed due to paucity of study data. On secondary outcomes, no consistent effect of nociception-guided anesthesia could be established. Although some nociception monitors show promising results, no definitive conclusions regarding the effect of nociception monitoring on intraoperative opioid consumption or other anesthesia related outcome can be drawn. Clinical trial number PROSPERO ID 102913.

Findings of this study suggest that when performed by a skilled provider, sedation for an IOP is as safe as sedation for a fracture reduction.

Women who have had a Cesarean Section (CS) frequently report severe pain and pain-related interference. One reason for insufficient pain treatment might be inconsistent implementation of evidence-based guidelines. We assessed the association between implementing three elements of care recommended by guidelines for postoperative pain management and pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in women after CS. The analysis relied on an anonymized dataset of women undergoing CS, retrieved from PAIN OUT. PAIN OUT, an international perioperative pain registry, provides clinicians with treatment assessment methodology and tools for patients to assess multi-dimensional pain-related PROs on the first postoperative day. We examined whether the care included [i] regional anesthesia with a neuraxial opioid OR general anesthesia with wound infiltration or a Transvesus Abdominis Plane block; [ii] at least one non-opioid analgesic at the full daily dose; and [iii] pain assessment and recording. Credit for care was given only if all three elements were administered (= “full”); otherwise, it was “incomplete”. A “Pain Composite Score-total” (PCStotal), evaluating outcomes of pain intensity, pain-related interference with function, and side-effects, was the primary endpoint in the total cohort (women receiving GA and/or RA) or a sub-group of women with RA only. Data from 5182 women was analyzed. “Full” care was administered to 20% of women in the total cohort and to 21% in the RA sub-group. In both groups, the PCStotal was significantly lower compared to “incomplete” care (p < 0.001); this was a small-to-moderate effect size. Administering all three elements of care was associated with better pain-related outcomes after CS. These should be straightforward and inexpensive for integration into routine care after CS. However, even in this group, a high proportion of women reported poor outcomes, indicating that additional work needs to be carried out to close the evidence-practice gap so that women who have undergone CS can be comfortable when caring for themselves and their newborn.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract