Comfort-Focused Assessment and Patient-Reported Experience After Regional versus General Anaesthesia: Post Hoc Analysis of a Cluster-Randomised Trial.

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative pain management typically relies on numerical (NRS) or analogue rating scales. However, exclusive focus on nociception may overlook broader aspects of patient experience, especially under regional anaesthesia (RA). This post hoc analysis of the COMFORT trial (NCT05234216) examined whether replacing the NRS with a comfort-focused scale affects patient-reported experience, opioid use, and related outcomes.

METHODS

We analysed data from a cluster-randomised trial in 29 French centres. Adults undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery managed in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were included. The intervention (comfort scale) and comparator (pain NRS) were applied in the PACU. Patient-reported experience was measured with the EVAN-G/LR scales, self-completed on the ward/day-care unit ≥4 h postoperatively. Participants were divided into RA and general anaesthesia subgroups.

RESULTS

Of 885 randomised patients, 786 had evaluable EVAN data. After regional anaesthesia (RA; n = 305), comfort‑focused assessment was associated with higher EVAN Pain (median 88 [IQR 75-94] vs. 75 [69-88]; p = 0.034), Waiting (100 [75-100] vs. 75 [50-100]; p = 0.012), and Global Index (81 [72-91] vs. 77 [68-90]; p = 0.044). After general anaesthesia (GA; n = 481), EVAN scores were similar between groups. Nefopam use was lower with the comfort approach in RA (7% vs. 18%; p = 0.005). Antiemetic use was lower with the comfort approach in GA.

CONCLUSION

Replacing the NRS with a comfort-focused approach did not improve global patient experience after surgery. In patients receiving regional anaesthesia, however, using a comfort scale was associated with better patient-reported experience in the EVAN "Pain" dimension, while no benefit was observed after general anaesthesia.