Suppr超能文献

重症监护疼痛观察工具(CPOT)、行为疼痛量表(BPS)和非语言疼痛量表(NVPS)在机械通气重症监护病房患者疼痛评估中的比较准确性:一项前瞻性观察研究。

Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.

作者信息

Thomas Derlin, Kuruppasseril Anoob J, Samad Rahmath A, George Edwin J

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesiology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.

Department of Gastroenterology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India.

出版信息

Indian J Crit Care Med. 2025 Jun;29(6):492-497. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24984. Epub 2025 Jun 5.

Abstract

AIM AND BACKGROUND

Evaluating pain in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation poses a unique clinical challenge, mainly because of their inability to self-report. Hence, our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) and the behavioral pain scale (BPS) in these patients. Additionally, we determined their individual and combined accuracy against the nonverbal pain scale (NVPS) and examined their correlation with physiological indicators, specifically heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty mechanically ventilated patients were enrolled, with eight subsequently dropping out. Sedation was maintained using morphine and midazolam infusions, targeting a Ramsay Sedation Score above 3. Pain evaluation with CPOT, BPS, and NVPS were done at rest and during two painful stimuli: tracheal suctioning and patient repositioning, along with HR and BP measurements. Data were collected at four time points: At rest, during suctioning, post-repositioning, and finally again at rest.

RESULTS

Combined CPOT and BPS displayed superior diagnostic performance, showing the highest sensitivity (0.88), specificity (0.85), and AUC (0.87). Individually, both BPS (sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.80) and CPOT (sensitivity 0.83, specificity 0.82) showed considerable accuracy, while NVPS (sensitivity 0.80, specificity 0.78) revealed comparatively lower sensitivity and specificity.

CONCLUSION

The combined use of CPOT and BPS offers the most reliable method for assessing pain in ventilated ICU patients. Even though NVPS can be an ancillary tool, a multimodal pain assessment strategy ensures optimal patient comfort and care.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Thomas D, Kuruppasseril AJ, Samad RA, George EJ. Comparative Accuracy of Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT), Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS), and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) for Pain Assessment in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Prospective Observational Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(6):492-497.

摘要

目的与背景

评估接受机械通气的重症患者的疼痛是一项独特的临床挑战,主要原因在于他们无法自我报告。因此,我们的研究旨在比较重症监护疼痛观察工具(CPOT)和行为疼痛量表(BPS)在这些患者中的有效性。此外,我们确定了它们相对于非语言疼痛量表(NVPS)的个体及联合准确性,并研究了它们与生理指标,特别是心率(HR)和血压(BP)的相关性。

患者与方法

招募了50例接受机械通气的患者,其中8例随后退出。使用吗啡和咪达唑仑静脉输注维持镇静,目标是Ramsay镇静评分高于3分。在静息状态以及两种疼痛刺激(气管吸痰和患者重新安置)期间,使用CPOT、BPS和NVPS进行疼痛评估,并测量HR和BP。在四个时间点收集数据:静息时、吸痰期间、重新安置后以及最后再次静息时。

结果

CPOT和BPS联合使用显示出卓越的诊断性能,敏感性最高(0.88)、特异性最高(0.85)和曲线下面积(AUC)最大(0.87)。单独来看,BPS(敏感性0.85,特异性0.80)和CPOT(敏感性0.83,特异性0.82)都显示出相当高的准确性,而NVPS(敏感性0.80,特异性0.78)的敏感性和特异性相对较低。

结论

CPOT和BPS联合使用为评估接受机械通气的重症监护病房患者的疼痛提供了最可靠的方法。尽管NVPS可以作为辅助工具,但多模式疼痛评估策略可确保患者获得最佳的舒适度和护理。

如何引用本文

Thomas D, Kuruppasseril AJ, Samad RA, George EJ. 重症监护疼痛观察工具(CPOT)、行为疼痛量表(BPS)和非语言疼痛量表(NVPS)在机械通气重症监护病房患者疼痛评估中的比较准确性:一项前瞻性观察研究。《印度重症监护医学杂志》2025;29(6):492 - 497。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4b0a/12186075/6a20f7b15cae/ijccm-29-6-492-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验