Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire in Dutch Healthy Volunteers

Contains fulltext : 221714.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

The added value of bedside examination and screening QST to improve neuropathic pain identification in patients with chronic pain

Background: The assessment of a neuropathic pain component (NePC) to establish the neurological criteria required to comply with the clinical description is based on history taking, clinical examination, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) and includes bedside examination (BSE). The objective of this study was to assess the potential association between the clinically diagnosed presence or absence of an NePC, BSE, and the Nijmegen-Aalborg screening QST (NASQ) paradigm in patients with chronic (>= 3 months) low back and leg pain or with neck shoulder arm pain or in patients with chronic pain due to suspected peripheral nerve damage. Methods: A total of 291 patients participated in the study. Pain (absence or presence of neuropathic pain) was assessed independently by two physicians and compared with BSE (measurements of touch [finger, brush], heat, cold, pricking [safety pin, von Frey hair], and vibration). The NASQ paradigm (pressure algometry, electrical pain thresholds, and conditioned pain modulation) was assessed in 58 patients to generate new insights. Results: BSE revealed a low association of differences between patients with either absent or present NePC: heat, cold, and pricking sensations with a von Frey hair were statistically significantly less common in patients with present NePC. NASQ did not reveal any differences between patients with and without an NePC. Conclusion: Currently, a standardized BSE appears to be more useful than the NASQ paradigm when distinguishing between patients with and without an NePC

Sublingual sufentanil for postoperative pain relief: First clinical experiences

Background: The sublingual sufentanil tablet system (SSTS) is a novel hand-held patientcontrolled analgesia device developed for treatment of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. Here we present the first results of its clinical use. Methods: Adult patients undergoing major surgery in five hospitals in the Netherlands received the SSTS for postoperative pain relief as part of multimodal pain management that further included paracetamol and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The following variables were collected: postoperative pain scores using the 11-point numerical rating score (NRS) at rest, number of tablets used, occurrence of nausea, and patient satisfaction scores. Results: We included 280 patients in the study; the majority underwent laparoscopic abdominal (49%) or orthopedic (knee replacement) surgery (34%). The median NRS was 3.5 (interquartile range 2.3–4.0) on the day of surgery, 3.3 (2.3–4.0) on the first postoperative day, and 2.8 (2.0–4.0) on the second postoperative day; pain scores did not differ between surgery types. Mean number of tablets used was 19 (range 0–86). Nausea occurred in 34% of patients, more often in women (45% vs 19%). Overall satisfaction was high in 73% of patients. Satisfaction was correlated with pain relief (p < 0.001) and inversely correlated with occurrence of nausea (p=0.01). Discussion: In this data set obtained under real-life conditions we show that the SSTS effectively managed postoperative pain in abdominal and orthopedic surgeries. Future studies should determine patient populations that benefit most from the SSTS, assess the added values versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, and determine the pharmacoeconomics of the system

Investigating the validity of the DN4 in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain

Neuropathic pain is clinically described as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Dutch version of the DN4, in a cross-sectional multicentre design, as a screening tool for detecting a neuropathic pain component in a large consecutive, not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome, population of patients with chronic pain. Patients’ pain was classified by two independent (pain-)physicians as the gold standard. The analysis was initially performed on the outcomes of those patients (n = 228 out of 291) in whom both physicians agreed in their pain classification. Compared to the gold standard the DN4 had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 76%. The DN4-symptoms (seven interview items) solely resulted in a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 67%. For the DN4-signs (three examination items) it was respectively 75% and 75%. In conclusion, because it seems that the DN4 helps to identify a neuropathic pain component in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain in a moderate way, a comprehensive (physical-) examination by the physician is still obligate

Avoiding Catch-22:Validating the PainDETECT in a in a population of patients with chronic pain

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain is defined as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system and is a major therapeutic challenge. Several screening tools have been developed to help physicians detect patients with neuropathic pain. These have typically been validated in populations pre-stratified for neuropathic pain, leading to a so called "Catch-22 situation:" "a problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule". The validity of screening tools needs to be proven in patients with pain who were not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome: neuropathic pain or non-neuropathic pain. This study aims to assess the validity of the Dutch PainDETECT (PainDETECT-Dlv) in a large population of patients with chronic pain. METHODS: A cross-sectional multicentre design was used to assess PainDETECT-Dlv validity. Included where patients with low back pain radiating into the leg(s), patients with neck-shoulder-arm pain and patients with pain due to a suspected peripheral nerve damage. Patients' pain was classified as having a neuropathic pain component (yes/no) by two experienced physicians ("gold standard"). Physician opinion based on the Grading System was a secondary comparison. RESULTS: In total, 291 patients were included. Primary analysis was done on patients where both physicians agreed upon the pain classification (n = 228). Compared to the physician's classification, PainDETECT-Dlv had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 55%, versus the Grading System it achieved 74 and 46%. CONCLUSION: Despite its internal consistency and test-retest reliability the PainDETECT-Dlv is not an effective screening tool for a neuropathic pain component in a population of patients with chronic pain because of its moderate sensitivity and low specificity. Moreover, the indiscriminate use of the PainDETECT-Dlv as a surrogate for clinical assessment should be avoided in daily clinical practice as well as in (clinical-) research. Catch-22 situations in the validation of screening tools can be prevented by not pre-stratifying the patients on basis of the target outcome before inclusion in a validation study for screening instruments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered prospectively in the Dutch National Trial Register: NTR 3030

GW25-e0848 The effects of anticoagulant therapy on coagulant state and platelet function following transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect

BACKGROUND: Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) was introduced in the early 1990s by Tsubokawa and his group for patients diagnosed with drug-resistant, central neuropathic pain. Inconsistencies concerning the details of this therapy and its outcomes and poor methodology of most clinical essays divide the neuromodulation society worldwide into "believers" and "nonbelievers." A European expert meeting was organized in Brussels, Belgium by the Benelux Neuromodulation Society in order to develop uniform MCS protocols in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative courses. METHODS: An expert meeting was organized, and a questionnaire was sent out to all the invited participants before this expert meeting. An extensive literature research was conducted in order to enrich the results. RESULTS: Topics that were addressed during the expert meeting were 1) inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2) targeting and methods of stimulation, 3) effects of MCS, and 4) results from the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial commonalities but also important methodologic divergencies emerged from the discussion of MCS experts from 7 European Centers. From this meeting and questionnaire, all participants concluded that there is a need for more homogenous standardized protocols for MCS regarding patient selection, implantation procedure, stimulation parameters, and follow-up-course

Varying (preferred) levels of involvement in treatment decision-making in the intensive care unit before and during the COVID-19 pandemic:a mixed-methods study among relatives

BackgroundIn the intensive care unit (ICU) relatives play a crucial role as surrogate decision-makers, since most patients cannot communicate due to their illness and treatment. Their level of involvement in decision-making can affect their psychological well-being. During the COVID-19 pandemic, relatives' involvement probably changed. We aim to investigate relatives' involvement in decision-making in the ICU before and during the pandemic and their experiences and preferences in this regard.MethodsA mixed-methods study among relatives of ICU patients admitted to an ICU before or during the COVID-19 pandemic. Relatives in six ICUs completed a questionnaire (n = 329), including two items on decision-making. These were analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses. Subsequently, relatives (n = 24) were interviewed about their experiences and preferences regarding decision-making. Thematic analysis was used for analysing the qualitative data.ResultsNearly 55% of the relatives indicated they were at least occasionally asked to be involved in important treatment decisions and of these relatives 97.1% reported to have had enough time to discuss questions and concerns when important decisions were to be made. During the first COVID-19 wave relatives were significantly less likely to be involved in decision-making compared to relatives from pre-COVID-19. The interviews showed that involvement varied from being informed about an already made decision to deliberation about the best treatment option. Preferences for involvement also varied, with some relatives preferring no involvement due to a perceived lack of expertise and others preferring an active role as the patient's advocate. Discussing a patient's quality of life was appreciated by relatives, and according to relatives healthcare professionals also found this valuable. In some cases the preferred and actual involvement was in discordance, preferring either a larger or a smaller role.ConclusionsAs treatment alignment with a patient's values and preferences and accordance between preferred and actual involvement in decision-making is very important, we suggest that the treatment decision-making process should start with discussions about a patient's quality of life, followed by tailoring the process to relatives' preferences as much as possible. Healthcare professionals should be aware of relatives' heterogeneous and possibly changing preferences regarding the decision-making process

Investigating the validity of the DN4 in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain

Neuropathic pain is clinically described as pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Dutch version of the DN4, in a cross-sectional multicentre design, as a screening tool for detecting a neuropathic pain component in a large consecutive, not pre-stratified on basis of the target outcome, population of patients with chronic pain. Patients' pain was classified by two independent (pain-)physicians as the gold standard. The analysis was initially performed on the outcomes of those patients (n = 228 out of 291) in whom both physicians agreed in their pain classification. Compared to the gold standard the DN4 had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 76%. The DN4-symptoms (seven interview items) solely resulted in a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 67%. For the DN4-signs (three examination items) it was respectively 75% and 75%. In conclusion, because it seems that the DN4 helps to identify a neuropathic pain component in a consecutive population of patients with chronic pain in a moderate way, a comprehensive (physical-) examination by the physician is still obligate

Intravenous Lidocaine for Refractory Pain in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Chronic Pancreatitis:A Multicenter Prospective Nonrandomized Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION:Refractory pain is a major clinical problem in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and chronic pancreatitis (CP). New, effective therapies to reduce pain are urgently needed. Intravenous lidocaine is used in clinical practice in patients with PDAC and CP, but its efficacy has not been studied prospectively.METHODS:Multicenter prospective nonrandomized pilot study included patients with moderate or severe pain (Numeric Rating Scale ≥ 4) associated with PDAC or CP in 5 Dutch centers. An intravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg was followed by continuous infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/hr. The dose was raised every 15 minutes until treatment response (up to a maximum 2 mg/kg/hr) and consecutively administered for 2 hours. Primary outcome was the mean difference in pain severity, preinfusion, and the first day after (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] scale 1-10). A BPI decrease ≥1.3 points was considered clinically relevant.RESULTS:Overall, 30 patients were included, 19 with PDAC (63%) and 11 with CP (37%). The mean difference in BPI at day 1 was 1.1 (SD ± 1.3) points for patients with PDAC and 0.5 (SD ± 1.7) for patients with CP. A clinically relevant decrease in BPI on day 1 was reported in 9 of 29 patients (31%), and this response lasted up to 1 month. No serious complications were reported, and only 3 minor complications (vertigo, nausea, and tingling of mouth). Treatment with lidocaine did not impact quality of life.DISCUSSION:Intravenous lidocaine in patients with painful PDAC and CP did not show an overall clinically relevant reduction of pain. However, this pilot study shows that the treatment is feasible in this patient group and had a positive effect in a third of patients which lasted up to a month with only minor side effects. To prove or exclude the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine, the study should be performed in a study with a greater sample size and less heterogeneous patient group.</p