Argüello Erick, Bermeo Leonardo, Castillo Javier
Universidad Santiago de Cali, Cali, Valle del Cauca, Colombia.
Pain Physician. 2022 Jan;25(1):E1-E14.
Pain is essential for survival, but it is also a major clinical, social, and economic problem that demands adequate management. The latter involves timely and accurate assessment, so several efforts have been made to develop accurate and reliable pain assessment tools. Advances in objective pain assessment include a large body of work focused on determining whether autonomic-mediated peripheral responses can be used to predict pain intensity. However, there is still no clinically validated autonomic marker for objective pain assessment.
In order to identify possible causes of this situation, the present study reviews the most recent advances examining peripheral autonomic markers' ability to describe pain intensity.
Systematic literature review.
We conducted an online search on PubMed using terms such as "pain assessment," "experimental pain," "autonomic arousal," "heart rate," "heart rate variability," "electrodermal activity," "pupillary diameter," and "blood pressure." Articles published from 2010 through 2020 examining the abilities of peripheral autonomic markers to describe experimental pain intensity were collected and reviewed. From each of the included studies, we extracted information regarding autonomic parameters and stimulation modalities used by experimenters, as well as the sample size, gender, and health condition of the patients.
Twenty-six articles were included for analysis, from which only 2 studies reported the use of multiple modalities. Half of the documents reported sample sizes ranging from 20 to 50 patients, and only 3 studies used formal power calculation to determine the sample size. Most of the articles included only healthy patients, so the influence of age, gender, and pre-existing health conditions on the autonomic peripheral parameters' capabilities to reflect the experience of pain remains unexplored.
It is possible that several documents were not retrieved due to a potential search engine bias or the use of very specific terms. Furthermore, only studies reporting pain intensity as a unique measure of its severity were included.
The measurement of autonomic responses elicited by experimentally induced pain is one crucial step toward the development of reliable pain assessment tools. Still, several issues need to be addressed before continuing to explore the use of autonomic parameters for the assessment of pain. It is also recommended that future research endeavors in capturing the singularity of the pain experience involve the measurement of both peripheral (end organs) and central (brain) autonomic responses to pain.
疼痛对生存至关重要,但它也是一个重大的临床、社会和经济问题,需要进行适当管理。后者涉及及时准确的评估,因此人们已经做出了多项努力来开发准确可靠的疼痛评估工具。客观疼痛评估的进展包括大量致力于确定自主神经介导的外周反应是否可用于预测疼痛强度的研究。然而,目前仍没有经过临床验证的用于客观疼痛评估的自主神经标志物。
为了找出造成这种情况的可能原因,本研究回顾了检验外周自主神经标志物描述疼痛强度能力的最新进展。
系统文献综述。
我们在PubMed上进行了在线搜索,使用了“疼痛评估”、“实验性疼痛”、“自主神经唤醒”、“心率”、“心率变异性”、“皮肤电活动”、“瞳孔直径”和“血压”等术语。收集并回顾了2010年至2020年发表的研究外周自主神经标志物描述实验性疼痛强度能力的文章。从每项纳入研究中,我们提取了关于实验者使用的自主神经参数和刺激方式的信息,以及患者的样本量、性别和健康状况。
纳入26篇文章进行分析,其中只有2项研究报告使用了多种方式。一半的文献报告样本量在20至50名患者之间,只有3项研究使用了正式的功效计算来确定样本量。大多数文章仅纳入了健康患者,因此年龄、性别和既往健康状况对自主神经外周参数反映疼痛体验能力的影响仍未得到探索。
由于潜在的搜索引擎偏差或使用非常具体的术语,可能有几篇文献未被检索到。此外,仅纳入了将疼痛强度作为其严重程度唯一衡量指标的研究。
测量实验性疼痛引起的自主神经反应是开发可靠疼痛评估工具的关键一步。不过,在继续探索使用自主神经参数评估疼痛之前,仍有几个问题需要解决。还建议未来在捕捉疼痛体验独特性的研究中,应同时测量外周(终末器官)和中枢(大脑)对疼痛的自主神经反应。