Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2020
Personalized Pain Goals and Responses in Advanced Cancer Patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mercadante Sebastiano, Adile Claudio, Aielli Federica, Gaetano Lanzetta, Mistakidou Kyriaki, Maltoni Marco, Soares Luiz Guilherme, DeSantis Stefano, Ferrera Patrizia, Rosati Marta, Rossi Romina, Casuccio Alessandra
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG), the achievement of a personalized pain goal response (PPGR), and patients' global impression (PGI) in advanced cancer patients after a comprehensive pain and symptom management.
DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal.
SETTING: Acute pain relief and palliative/supportive care.
SUBJECTS: 689 advanced cancer patients.
METHODS: Measurement of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) and personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG) at admission (T0). After a week (T7) personalized pain goal response (PPGR) and patients' global impression (PGI) were evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean PPIG was 1.33 (SD 1.59). A mean decrease in pain intensity of - 2.09 was required on PPIG to perceive a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). A better improvement corresponded to a mean change of - 3.41 points, while a much better improvement corresponded to a mean of - 4.59 points. Patients perceived a MCID (little worse) with a mean increase in pain intensity of 0.25, and a worse with a mean increase of 2.33 points. Higher pain intensity at T0 and lower pain intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. 207 (30.0%) patients achieved PPGR. PPGR was associated with higher PPIG at T0 and T7, and inversely associated to pain intensity at T0 and T7, and Karnofsky level. Patients with high pain intensity at T0 achieved a favorable PGI, even when PPIG was not achieved by PPGR.
CONCLUSION: PPIG, PPGR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of pain, assisting decision-making process according to patients' expectations. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and the clinical response.
DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal.
SETTING: Acute pain relief and palliative/supportive care.
SUBJECTS: 689 advanced cancer patients.
METHODS: Measurement of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) and personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG) at admission (T0). After a week (T7) personalized pain goal response (PPGR) and patients' global impression (PGI) were evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean PPIG was 1.33 (SD 1.59). A mean decrease in pain intensity of - 2.09 was required on PPIG to perceive a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). A better improvement corresponded to a mean change of - 3.41 points, while a much better improvement corresponded to a mean of - 4.59 points. Patients perceived a MCID (little worse) with a mean increase in pain intensity of 0.25, and a worse with a mean increase of 2.33 points. Higher pain intensity at T0 and lower pain intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. 207 (30.0%) patients achieved PPGR. PPGR was associated with higher PPIG at T0 and T7, and inversely associated to pain intensity at T0 and T7, and Karnofsky level. Patients with high pain intensity at T0 achieved a favorable PGI, even when PPIG was not achieved by PPGR.
CONCLUSION: PPIG, PPGR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of pain, assisting decision-making process according to patients' expectations. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and the clinical response.