Literature DB >> 23188095

Evaluation of experimental pain tests to predict labour pain and epidural analgesic consumption.

B Carvalho1, M Zheng, L Aiono-Le Tagaloa.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether experimental pain tests (EPTs) using heat, pressure, and i.v. cannulation before induction of labour reliably predict epidural analgesic use and pain intensity during labour.
METHODS: Fifty healthy women with singleton, term pregnancies admitted for scheduled induction of labour comprised the study population for this prospective case-controlled study. Heat and pressure threshold, tolerance, and suprathreshold VAS pain ratings were determined using a Medoc thermal sensory analyser and Somedic pressure algometer, respectively, after admission before induction of labour. Verbal pain scores (VPS 0-10) were determined during peripheral 18 G i.v. placement. Response outcomes included time to epidural request, pain at epidural, labour pain [area under the curve (AUC) and worse score], and epidural local anaesthetic use. Bivariate analysis followed by forward-backward multiple regression modelling was performed to determine relationships between EPTs and labour pain response measures.
RESULTS: Heat tolerance was significantly correlated with worst labour pain (r=0.33, P=0.025) and pain with i.v. cannulation was correlated with time to epidural request (r=0.33, P=0.025). Multiple linear regression analysis found that labour pain AUC could be predicted with suprathreshold heat VAS, heat tolerance, and pressure tolerance (R(2)=0.26; P=0.007). There were strong correlations among the various pre-labour QSTs.
CONCLUSIONS: Pre-labour EPTs were not very reliable at predicting the labour pain experience. Consistent with postoperative studies, suprathreshold and tolerance tests appear more useful than the threshold for predicting labour pain responses. Pain rating during i.v. cannulation (an easy, rapid, point-of-care test) showed some utility as an EPT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23188095     DOI: 10.1093/bja/aes423

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   9.166


  7 in total

1.  Laboratory personnel gender and cold pressor apparatus affect subjective pain reports.

Authors:  Jacob M Vigil; Lauren N Rowell; Joe Alcock; Randy Maestes
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 3.037

2.  Exposure to virtual social stimuli modulates subjective pain reports.

Authors:  Jacob M Vigil; Daniel Torres; Alexander Wolff; Katy Hughes
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 3.037

3.  Sex Differences in Interleukin-6 Responses Over Time Following Laboratory Pain Testing Among Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Chung Jung Mun; Janelle E Letzen; Sabrina Nance; Michael T Smith; Harpal S Khanuja; Robert S Sterling; Mark C Bicket; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Robert N Jamison; Robert R Edwards; Claudia M Campbell
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 5.820

4.  Application of preoperative assessment of pain induced by venous cannulation in predicting postoperative pain in patients under laparoscopic nephrectomy: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Fei Peng; Yanshuang Li; Yanqiu Ai; Jianjun Yang; Yanping Wang
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2020-04-18       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  Predicting post-operative pain: Still a long way to go!

Authors:  Anjan Trikha; Preet Mohinder Singh
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-10

6.  Validation of simple and inexpensive algometry using sphygmomanometer cuff and neuromuscular junction monitor with standardized laboratory algometer.

Authors:  Padmaja Durga; Sreedhar Reddy Wudaru; Sunil Kumar Reddy Khambam; Shobha Jagadish Chandra; Gopinath Ramachandran
Journal:  J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

7.  Human Labor Pain Is Influenced by the Voltage-Gated Potassium Channel KV6.4 Subunit.

Authors:  Michael C Lee; Michael S Nahorski; James R F Hockley; Van B Lu; Gillian Ison; Luke A Pattison; Gerard Callejo; Kaitlin Stouffer; Emily Fletcher; Christopher Brown; Ichrak Drissi; Daniel Wheeler; Patrik Ernfors; David Menon; Frank Reimann; Ewan St John Smith; C Geoffrey Woods
Journal:  Cell Rep       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 9.423

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.