Intensive Care and Anesthesiology Department, Saint Eloi Hospital, Montpellier University Hospital, 80, Avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295 Montpellier Cedex 5, France Pain Clinic, Intensive Care and Anesthesiology Department, Carémeau Hospital, Nîmes University Hospital, Place Professeur Robert Debré, 30029 Nîmes Cedex 9, France National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) ERI 25/EA 4202, Montpellier University 1, 371 Avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, Arnaud de Villeneuve Hospital, 34295 Montpellier Cedex 5, France General Intensive Care Unit, Hotel-Dieu Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Pain. 2010 Dec;151(3):711-721. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.08.039. Epub 2010 Sep 16.
Unlike wards, where chronic and acute pain are regularly managed, comparisons of the most commonly used self-report pain tools have not been reported for the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. The objective of this study was to compare the feasibility, validity and performance of the Visual Analog Scale (horizontal (VAS-H) and vertical (VAS-V) line orientation), the Verbal Descriptor Scale (VDS), the 0-10 oral Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-O) and the 0-10 visually enlarged laminated NRS (NRS-V) for pain assessment in critically ill patients. One hundred and eleven consecutive patients admitted into a medical-surgical ICU were included as soon as they became alert and were able to follow simple commands. Pain was measured using the 5 scales in a randomized order upon enrollment-(T1) and after-(T2) administration of an analgesic or, in absence of pain upon enrollment, after a nociceptive procedure. The rate of any response obtained both at T1 and T2 (success rate) was significantly higher for NRS-V (91%) compared with NRS-O (83%), VDS (78%), VAS-H (68%) and VAS-V (66%). Pain intensity changed significantly between T1 and T2, showing a good validity and responsiveness for the 5 scales, which correlated well between each other. The negative predictive value calculated from true and false negatives defined by real and false absence of pain was highest for NRS-V (90%). In conclusion, the NRS-V should be the tool of choice for the ICU setting, because it is the most feasible and discriminative self-report scale for measuring critically ill patients' pain intensity.
与经常管理慢性和急性疼痛的病房不同,尚未报道重症监护病房(ICU)环境中最常用的自我报告疼痛工具的比较。本研究的目的是比较视觉模拟量表(水平(VAS-H)和垂直(VAS-V)线方向)、言语描述量表(VDS)、0-10 口头数字评分量表(NRS-O)和 0-10 视觉放大层叠 NRS(NRS-V)在评估重症患者疼痛方面的可行性、有效性和性能。一旦患者清醒并能够听从简单的命令,就会将 111 名连续入住内科-外科 ICU 的患者纳入研究。疼痛使用 5 种量表以随机顺序进行测量,在入组时(T1)和给予镇痛剂后(T2),或者在入组时无疼痛的情况下,在进行伤害性操作后进行测量。在 T1 和 T2 时均获得任何反应的比例(成功率),NRS-V(91%)明显高于 NRS-O(83%)、VDS(78%)、VAS-H(68%)和 VAS-V(66%)。T1 和 T2 之间的疼痛强度有显著变化,5 种量表均具有良好的有效性和反应性,彼此之间相关性良好。根据真实和虚假无疼痛定义的真实和虚假无疼痛计算的阴性预测值,NRS-V 最高(90%)。总之,NRS-V 应该是 ICU 环境的首选工具,因为它是最可行和最具鉴别力的自我报告量表,可用于测量重症患者的疼痛强度。