Loin pain hematuria syndrome-visceral or neuropathic pain syndrome?

Loin pain hematuria syndrome (LPHS) is a rare pain syndrome, which is somewhat poorly characterized and challenging to treat. The condition of LPHS is still controversial and there is no consensus of validated diagnostic criteria or optimal treatment strategies. The epidemiology of LPHS is unknown and the mechanisms/etiologies contributing to LPHS remain uncertain. There exists some debate whether LPHS represents neuropathic pain or visceral pain. Curiously, for such a controversial pain syndrome there is substantially more written in the literature regarding surgical-type treatments than conservative treatments. A brief review of LPHS potential pathophysiology and potential treatment approaches is presented.     

Does failure hurt? The effects of failure feedback on pain report,pain tolerance and pain avoidance

In this study an experiment was conducted to examine whether failure experiences have an effect on pain report, pain tolerance and pain avoidance. Furthermore, it was investigated if negative affectivity (NA) affected the impact of failure feedback on pain report, either as a mediator, in the case of negative state affect, or as a moderator when NA as a personality trait was considered. Fifty-four healthy female volunteers were included and randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) failure feedback; (2) success feedback; (3) neutral control task. After the manipulation, subjects were given a cold pressor task in order to obtain pain measures. Regarding the effects of failure feedback on pain report, it was found that, in comparison with success feedback, failure feedback led to increased pain report. With regard to pain tolerance, pain was tolerated for longer when preceded by success feedback than when preceded by failure feedback. Differences between failure and control conditions did not reach significance. With regard to pain avoidance, no differences between the conditions were found. The hypothesized mediating role of negative state affect was not found. Though in the hypothesized direction, no significant effect was found for NA-trait moderating the influence of failure on pain. The discussion focuses on a number of research questions that remain to be answered, and the clinical relevance of the effects of failure and success experiences on pain report and pain tolerance.     

Does gender affect appraisal of pain and pain coping strategies?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of gender and a set of pain characteristics on the threat or challenge appraisal of pain and the impact of these appraisals on the coping strategies used to manage the pain. DESIGN: This study used a community telephone survey to examine these relationships for a troublesome pain experienced by respondents in the 2 weeks preceding the interview. STUDY RESPONDENTS: The sampling frame consisted of 1,430 households randomly selected from the Halifax-Dartmouth-Bedford community. Of the 390 respondents with a troublesome pain in the 2 weeks preceding the interview, 309 respondents agreed to participate (79% response rate). RESULTS: Women tended to report more pain located in the head and more somatic problems. They reported significantly more intense pain. For women and men, the most important impact on threat appraisal of pain was overall interference of pain and emotional upset due to pain. These two variables accounted for 48% of the variance in threat appraisal for women and 37% of the variance for men. There was no gender difference in emotional upset due to pain or in the impact of emotional upset on threat appraisal. There was no gender difference in challenge appraisal. Threat appraisal was associated with increased catastrophizing whereas challenge appraisal was associated with positive self-statements. Women reported significantly more problem solving, social support, positive self-statements, and palliative behaviors than did men. CONCLUSIONS: Interference of pain has a greater impact on threat appraisal of pain for women. Increasing threat appraisal is associated with health care utilization for women, but women's more frequent use of several coping strategies is unrelated to their appraisal of pain. Appraisal of pain may have important implications on coping and overall well-being of women and men.     

Prediction of postoperative pain - beneficial to perioperative pain management?

Pain treatment of surgical patients is still a deficient area, even if there are evidence-based possibilities of pain management. The aim of this study is to identify patients with a higher risk of severe postoperative pain at an early stage and improve nurses' pain management by identifying pain predictors whilst including them in analgesic treatment. In addition to the identification of predictors by a literature review, a cross-sectional study with 84 surgical patients of a convenience sample was undertaken to find possible predictors. The enquiry was conducted by means of a questionnaire which the patient had to fill in prior surgery. The intensity of pain was surveyed in a personal interview on the first post-operative day. Correlation analysis was applied to verify the statistical significance of patient characteristics as well as surgical variables. Out of the 14 variables preoperative pain was found to increase the risk of postoperative pain. Comparison with other studies showed inconsistent results for pain predictors, and therefore nursing pain management based on pain predictors seems questionable.     

Does pain mediate the pain interference with sleep problem in chronic pain? Findings from studies for management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain with duloxetine

Although sleep problems are common in patients with chronic pain, it is unclear whether pain mediates (causes) impaired sleep. The relationship between pain and sleep has been difficult to investigate because of the potential confounds of depression and somnolence. This report used clinical trials data for duloxetine in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) to investigate the direction of this association. Data were pooled from three double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week trials of patients with DPNP without mood disorder (n = 1,139). DPNP patients reporting somnolence and those who were receiving sedating concomitant medications were removed from the analyses (n = 93). Efficacy measures included weekly mean scores for average daily pain severity, night pain severity, and pain interference with sleep. Duloxetine at 60 and 120 mg per day separated from placebo for average pain and night pain improvement as early as one week after treatment began, whereas sleep interference improvement separated from placebo at the three visits it was assessed (Weeks 4, 8, and 12). Change in sleep interference was moderately to strongly correlated (P < 0.001) with changes in average pain (r = 0.46) and nighttime pain severity (r = 0.53). These results confirm the association between the improvement in daily pain and nighttime pain, and improvement in sleep interference for a large population without depression or somnolence. Although this association cannot establish causality, these results provide some evidence for the possibility that pain may mediate the sleep problem associated with DPNP and perhaps chronic pain in general.     

Measuring pain in non-verbal critically ill patients: which pain instrument?

Pain is experienced by many critically ill patients. Although the patient’s self-report represents the gold-standard measure for pain, many patients are unable to communicate in the ICU. In this commentary, we discuss the study findings comparing three objective scales for the assessment of pain in non-verbal patients and the importance of the tool selection process.In the previous issue of Critical Care, Chanques and colleagues [1] evaluate the psychometric properties of three behavioral pain scales validated for use in non-communicative critically ill patients. The authors compare two scales recommended in the practice guidelines for pain management of adult ICU patients by the Society of Critical Care Medicine [2] - that is, the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) [3] and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) [4] - and a routine scale in use at the host institution, the Non-Verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) [5].Assessing pain in non-communicative adult patients in the ICU must rely on the observation of behavioral indicators of pain. Selection of pain assessment tools in clinical practice must be done with rigor. Indeed, an assessment tool can be shown to be valid only for a specific purpose and a given group of respondents and context of care. All steps of scale development are important. The first step, selection of items and scale scoring, can be done by using a combination of various strategies, including an in-depth literature review, consultation of end users (for example, ICU clinicians and patients), and direct clinical observation and other sources. Content validation is a method of examining the content and relevance of the items that are useful for selecting or revising them. Once developed, reliability and validity of the scale use must be tested with the targeted patient group [6]. Reliability refers to the overall reproducibility of scale scores. The examination of inter-rater reliability is crucial to determine whether two or more trained raters reach similar scores using the same scale for the same patient and at the same time. Validity refers to the interpretation of the pain scale scores and its ability to indicate that the individual is actually in pain. As behavioral pain scales aim to detect the presence of significant pain, the examination of criterion and discriminant validation is necessary. Criterion validation allows the comparison between behavioral scores and the gold standard (that is, the patient’s self-report of pain). Discriminant validation refers to the ability of the pain scale to discriminate between conditions or procedures known to be painful or not and its ability to detect significant changes over time (responsiveness). Because validation is an ongoing process, it is imperative that its use be evaluated by independent groups of caregivers who were not involved in its development, with various ICU patient groups or with a translated version of the scale. Finally, the ease of their implementation in ICU settings and the impact of their use on pain management practices and patient outcomes must be evaluated.Evaluation of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain scales in ICU patients unable to self-report has been recently performed [7,8]. Of the eight pain scales developed for adult ICU patients, the BPS and the CPOT were found to be the most valid and reliable. The present study [1] is the first to compare psychometric properties of these two pain scales in addition to the NVPS, at rest and during noxious (for example, turning and endotracheal suctioning) and non-noxious (for example, simple repositioning) procedures. Both the BPS and the CPOT showed the strongest psychometric properties in both intubated and non-intubated patients in comparison with the NVPS. These findings add arguments to the recommendations for the use of these two pain scales [2].What are the next steps in relation to pain assessment in the ICU? First, there is a clear need to better evaluate the impact of pain assessment and management on patient outcomes. Few studies have shown that evaluating pain was associated with positive outcomes such as a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay and reduced adverse events [9-11]. Whether better management in the ICU may lead to reducing long-term negative consequences such as chronic pain and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder remains largely unknown. Second, there is a need for valid physiologic measures of pain, especially in ICU patients too sedated or paralyzed in whom behavioral responses cannot be observed. The use of pupillary reflex dilation has shown some promising findings [12-14]. Meanwhile, the best alternative measure to assess pain in non-verbal patients remains the use of behavioral scales.Assessing pain in non-communicative ICU patients is challenging. The BPS and the CPOT have shown the strongest psychometric properties for this purpose. These scales should be incorporated into pain management protocols to target the desired levels of analgesia in order to optimize inter-professional practices and to achieve better patient outcomes.     

What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain?

Despite widespread use of the 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) of pain intensity, relatively little is known about the meaning of decreases in pain intensity assessed by means of this scale to patients. We aimed to establish the meaning to patients of declines in pain intensity and percent pain reduction. Upon arrival to the postanesthesia care unit, postsurgical patients rated their baseline pain intensity on both a 0-10 NRS and on a 4-point verbal scale. Patients whose NRS was higher than 4/10 received intravenous opioids until their pain intensity declined to 4/10 or lower. During opioid titration, patients were asked every 10 min to rate pain intensity on a NRS and to indicate the degree of pain improvement on a 5-point Likert scale from 'no improvement' to 'complete pain relief'. Seven hundred adult patients were enrolled. For patients with moderate pain, a decrease of 1.3 units (20% reduction) corresponded to 'minimal' improvement, a decrease of 2.4 (35% reduction) to 'much' improvement, a decrease of 3.5 units (45% reduction) corresponded to 'very much' improvement. For patients with severe pain, the decrease in NRS pain score and the percentage of pain relief had to be larger to obtain similar degrees of pain relief. The change in pain intensity that is meaningful to patients increases as the severity of their baseline pain increases. The present findings are applicable in the clinical setting and research arena to assess treatment efficacy.     

Does midazolam enhance pain control in prehospital management of traumatic severe pain?

Purpose

Midazolam comedication with morphine is a routine practice in pre and postoperative patients but has not been evaluated in prehospital setting. We aimed to evaluate the comedication effect of midazolam in the prehospital traumatic adults.

Methods

A prehospital prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intravenous morphine 0.10 mg/kg and midazolam 0.04 mg/kg vs morphine 0.10 mg/kg and placebo. Pain assessment was done using a validated numeric rating scale (NRS). The primary end point was to achieve an efficient analgesic effect (NRS ≤ 3) 20 minutes after the baseline. The secondary end points were treatment safety, total morphine dose required until obtaining NRS ≤ 3, and efficient analgesic effect 30 minutes after the baseline.

Findings

Ninety-one patients were randomized into midazolam (n = 41) and placebo (n = 50) groups. No significant difference in proportion of patients with a pain score ≤ 3 was observed between midazolam (43.6%) and placebo (45.7%) after 20 minutes (P = .849).Secondary end points were similar in regard with proportion of patients with a pain score ≤ 3 at T30, the side effects and adverse events except for drowsiness in midazolam vs placebo, 43.6% vs 6.5% (P < .001). No significant difference in total morphine dose was observed, that is, midazolam (14.09 mg ± 6.64) vs placebo (15.53 mg ± 6.27) (P = .315).

Conclusions

According to our study, midazolam does not enhance pain control as an adjunctive to morphine regimen in the management of trauma-induced pain in prehospital setting. However, such midazolam use seems to be associated with an increase in drowsiness.     

Orofacial pain: just another chronic pain? Results from a population-based survey

Features of somatisation have been shown to predict the onset of widespread body pain. This study aims to determine to what extent persons with orofacial pain syndromes share these features and to what extent they are uniquely related to oral mechanical factors. We have conducted a population-based cross-sectional survey in the South-East Cheshire area of the United Kingdom involving 2504 individuals aged 18-65 years. All participants completed a postal questionnaire which enquired about the occurrence of both orofacial pain and widespread body pain. It also enquired about potential risk factors for one or both conditions. In total, 473 subjects (23%) reported orofacial pain only, 123 (6%) widespread pain only, while 85 (4%) reported both. The number reporting both was significantly higher than would be expected if the symptoms were independent (P<0.001). Several oral mechanical factors were significantly associated with both orofacial pain and widespread body pain (grinding teeth, clicking jaw, missing teeth), while two (facial trauma, locking jaw) were specifically related to orofacial pain. Both pain syndromes were associated equally with high levels of psychological distress, indicators of somatisation and maladaptive response to illness. These results suggest that orofacial pain syndromes may commonly be a manifestation of the process of somatisation and the excess reporting of some local mechanical factors amongst persons with these symptoms, may not be uniquely associated with pain in the orofacial region.     

Is pain what the patient says it is? Interpreting an account of pain

This article discusses the integrated approaches to pain that have developed within the pain medicine movement and the hospice and palliative care movement. Such approaches blend biomedical, social, emotional and spiritual aspects of the pain experience. However, patients and healthcare staff may hold different beliefs about pain, such as patients having a medical understanding about pain while healthcare practitioners may use concepts such as 'total pain' or 'psychological pain'. Some of the problems related to interpreting an account of pain are discussed and suggestions are made for developing pain assessment, education and research.