The Validity of Vital Signs for Pain Assessment in Critically Ill Adults: A Narrative Review
- PMID: 36781330
- DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2023.01.004
The Validity of Vital Signs for Pain Assessment in Critically Ill Adults: A Narrative Review
Abstract
Objectives: Pain assessment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging because many patients are unable to self-report or exhibit pain-related behaviors. In such situations, vital signs (VS) through continuous monitoring are alternative cues for pain assessment. This review aimed to describe the reliability and validity of VS for ICU pain assessment.
Design: Narrative review of the literature.
Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane.
Review/analysis methods: A narrative review was conducted with a comprehensive search in four databases. Search terms included VS, pain assessment, and ICU.
Results: Out of 1,359 results, 30 studies from 17 countries were included. Heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate were most used for ICU pain assessment. Assessments were performed at rest before procedures, during nociceptive and non-nociceptive procedures, and after procedures. Increases in respiratory rate were clinically significant by more than 25% during nociceptive procedures (e.g., endotracheal suctioning, turning) compared with rest/pre-procedures in five studies. Correlations of VS with self-reported pain (reference standard measure) and behavioral pain scores (alternative measure) were absent or weak.
Conclusions: VS are not valid indicators for ICU pain assessment. Increases of respiratory rate may be a cue for the detection of pain. However, fluctuations in respiratory rate can be influenced by opioids or controlled ventilation mode. Our results dissuade the use of VS for pain assessment because of the lack of association with ICU pain reference standards. Other physiologic measures of pain in critically ill adults should be explored.
Keywords: Intensive care unit; Nociception; Pain assessment; Reliability; Validity; Vital signs.
Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest None.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical