Brain-based measures of nociception during general anesthesia with remifentanil: A randomized controlled trial

Keerthana Deepti Karunakaran, Barry D Kussman, Ke Peng, Lino Becerra, Robert Labadie, Rachel Bernier, Delany Berry, Stephen Green, David Zurakowski, Mark E Alexander, David Borsook, Keerthana Deepti Karunakaran, Barry D Kussman, Ke Peng, Lino Becerra, Robert Labadie, Rachel Bernier, Delany Berry, Stephen Green, David Zurakowski, Mark E Alexander, David Borsook

Abstract

Background: Catheter radiofrequency (RF) ablation for cardiac arrhythmias is a painful procedure. Prior work using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) in patients under general anesthesia has indicated that ablation results in activity in pain-related cortical regions, presumably due to inadequate blockade of afferent nociceptors originating within the cardiac system. Having an objective brain-based measure for nociception and analgesia may in the future allow for enhanced analgesic control during surgical procedures. Hence, the primary aim of this study is to demonstrate that the administration of remifentanil, an opioid widely used during surgery, can attenuate the fNIRS cortical responses to cardiac ablation.

Methods and findings: We investigated the effects of continuous remifentanil on cortical hemodynamics during cardiac ablation under anesthesia. In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo (PL)-controlled trial, we examined 32 pediatric patients (mean age of 15.8 years,16 females) undergoing catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias at the Cardiology Department of Boston Children's Hospital from October 2016 to March 2020; 9 received 0.9% NaCl, 12 received low-dose (LD) remifentanil (0.25 mcg/kg/min), and 11 received high-dose (HD) remifentanil (0.5 mcg/kg/min). The hemodynamic changes of primary somatosensory and prefrontal cortices were recorded during surgery using a continuous wave fNIRS system. The primary outcome measures were the changes in oxyhemoglobin concentration (NadirHbO, i.e., lowest oxyhemoglobin concentration and PeakHbO, i.e., peak change and area under the curve) of medial frontopolar cortex (mFPC), lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) and primary somatosensory cortex (S1) to ablation in PL versus remifentanil groups. Secondary measures included the fNIRS response to an auditory control condition. The data analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Remifentanil group (dosage subgroups combined) was compared with PL, and a post hoc analysis was performed to identify dose effects. There were no adverse events. The groups were comparable in age, sex, and number of ablations. Results comparing remifentanil versus PL show that PL group exhibit greater NadirHbO in inferior mFPC (mean difference (MD) = 1.229, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.334, 2.124, p < 0.001) and superior mFPC (MD = 1.206, 95% CI = 0.303, 2.109, p = 0.001) and greater PeakHbO in inferior mFPC (MD = -1.138, 95% CI = -2.062, -0.214, p = 0.002) and superior mFPC (MD = -0.999, 95% CI = -1.961, -0.036, p = 0.008) in response to ablation. S1 activation from ablation was greatest in PL, then LD, and HD groups, but failed to reach significance, whereas lPFC activation to ablation was similar in all groups. Ablation versus auditory stimuli resulted in higher PeakHbO in inferior mFPC (MD = 0.053, 95% CI = 0.004, 0.101, p = 0.004) and superior mFPC (MD = 0.052, 95% CI = 0.013, 0.091, p < 0.001) and higher NadirHbO in posterior superior S1 (Pos. SS1; MD = -0.342, 95% CI = -0.680, -0.004, p = 0.007) during ablation of all patients. Remifentanil group had smaller NadirHbO in inferior mFPC (MD = 0.098, 95% CI = 0.009, 0.130, p = 0.003) and superior mFPC (MD = 0.096, 95% CI = 0.008, 0.116, p = 0.003) and smaller PeakHbO in superior mFPC (MD = -0.092, 95% CI = -0.680, -0.004, p = 0.007) during both the stimuli. Study limitations were small sample size, motion from surgery, indirect measure of nociception, and shallow penetration depth of fNIRS only allowing access to superficial cortical layers.

Conclusions: We observed cortical activity related to nociception during cardiac ablation under general anesthesia with remifentanil. It highlights the potential of fNIRS to provide an objective pain measure in unconscious patients, where cortical-based measures may be more accurate than current evaluation methods. Future research may expand on this application to produce a real-time indication of pain that will aid clinicians in providing immediate and adequate pain treatment.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02703090.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. CONSORT participant flow diagram.
Fig 1. CONSORT participant flow diagram.
CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.
Fig 2. fNIRS optode layout and study…
Fig 2. fNIRS optode layout and study paradigm.
(A) Brain map of customized optode placement where red represent optical sources (sources A to I), blue represent long-separation detectors (detectors 1 to 12, placed 3 cm from the source), and yellow represent the short-separation detectors (0.8 cm from the source). A long-separation detector and source pair form a channel and are represented by the black lines connecting the sources (in red) and detectors (in blue). A short-separation detector (in yellow) and source (in red) pair are called the short-separation channel and measure the extracerebral hemodynamic changes. (B) Brain map of 24 channel locations (green, orange, and yellow) and the cortical ROI. (C) A resting state and an audio run, each lasting for 200 seconds, were collected before the induction of anesthesia. IV infusion of the test drug (either PL, LD remifentanil, or HD remifentanil) was started at the same time as intraoperative fNIRS data collection. The time, number, and duration of ablations varied between patients and was determined by the cardiologist. Time stamps of each ablation was noted in the fNIRS data. An audio run was collected at least once starting 45 minutes after the initiation of the infusion and fNIRS data collection. fNIRS, functional near-infrared spectroscopy; HD, high-dose; IV, intravenous; LD, low-dose; ROI, region of interest.
Fig 3. Group-averaged hemodynamic response to ablation…
Fig 3. Group-averaged hemodynamic response to ablation in the 6 ROIs.
(A) Remifentanil (HD + LD = black) and PL (blue) groups. (B) Remifentanil subgroups (HD = black; LD = red) and PL (blue) group. The dotted black line indicates the start of ablation. The shaded region represents the standard error of mean. Ant. SS1, anterior superior somatosensory cortex; HD, high-dose; Inf. lPFC, inferior lateral prefrontal cortex; Inf. mFPC, inferior medial frontopolar cortex; LD, low-dose; PL, placebo; Pos. SS1, posterior superior somatosensory cortex; ROI, region of interest; Sup. lPFC, superior lateral prefrontal cortex; Sup. mPFC, superior medial frontopolar cortex.
Fig 4. Group-level hemodynamic measures of activation…
Fig 4. Group-level hemodynamic measures of activation to ablation in PL and 2 subgroups of remifentanil.
(A) PeakHbO concentration. (B) Nadir of ΔHbO concentration. (C) AUC. The plot on the right describes the measures calculated from a standard hemodynamic response. ** indicates significant effects between PL and remifentanil using 2-sample t tests at FDR-corrected p < 0.05. The FDR-p threshold = 0.008. * indicates significant effects using 2-sample t tests at uncorrected p < 0.05. Error bars represent the standard error of mean. Ant. SS1, anterior superior somatosensory cortex; AUC, area under the ΔHbO curve; FDR, false discovery rate; Inf. lPFC, inferior lateral prefrontal cortex; Inf. mFPC, inferior medial frontopolar cortex; PeakHbO, Peak ΔHbO; PL, placebo; Pos. SS1, posterior superior somatosensory cortex; Sup. lPFC, superior lateral prefrontal cortex; Sup. mPFC, superior medial frontopolar cortex.
Fig 5. Sex-related effects in response to…
Fig 5. Sex-related effects in response to ablation in male versus female patients under general anesthesia.
(A) PeakHbO concentration. (B) Nadir of ΔHbO concentration. (C) AUC. * indicates significant effects between male and female patients using 2-sample t tests at uncorrected p < 0.05. Error bars represent the standard error of mean. Ant. SS1, anterior superior somatosensory cortex; AUC, area under the ΔHbO curve; Inf. lPFC, inferior lateral prefrontal cortex; Inf. mFPC, inferior medial frontopolar cortex; PeakHbO, Peak ΔHbO; Pos. SS1, posterior superior somatosensory cortex; Sup. lPFC, superior lateral prefrontal cortex; Sup. mPFC, superior medial frontopolar cortex.
Fig 6. Hemodynamic response to painful versus…
Fig 6. Hemodynamic response to painful versus auditory stimuli under general anesthesia.
(A) Block-averaged hemodynamic response to pain/ablation (blue) and auditory (green) stimuli in the 2 groups for the 6 regions of the interest. Shaded areas represent the standard error of mean. (B) PeakHbO concentration when compared to baseline, following painful versus auditory stimuli in the 6 ROIs classified based on drug group. Mixed ANOVA revealed significant effects at FDR-corrected p < 0.05 (FDR-p threshold = 0.007). (C) Nadir of ΔHbO concentration following painful versus auditory stimuli in the 6 ROIs classified based on drug group. Mixed ANOVA revealed significant effects at FDR-corrected p < 0.05 (FDR-p threshold = 0.007). ptask indicates the p-value for mean effect of task (pain versus audio); pgroup indicates the p-value for mean effect of drug group (PL versus remifentanil); and pgroup × task indicates the p-value for interaction effect of task and drug group (Pain versus Audio in PL and remifentanil). ** indicates significant effects at FDR-corrected p < 0.05. Error bars indicate the standard error of mean. ANOVA, analysis of variance; Ant. SS1, anterior superior somatosensory cortex; FDR, false discovery rate; Inf. lPFC, inferior lateral prefrontal cortex; Inf. mFPC, inferior medial frontopolar cortex; PeakHbO, Peak ΔHbO; Pos. SS1, posterior superior somatosensory cortex; ROI, region of interest; Sup. lPFC, superior lateral prefrontal cortex; Sup. mPFC, superior medial frontopolar cortex.

References

    1. Akeju O, Brown EN. Neural oscillations demonstrate that general anesthesia and sedative states are neurophysiologically distinct from sleep. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2017;44:178–85. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2017.04.011
    1. Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. 2006;367(9522):1618–25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68700-X
    1. Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain. 2011;152(3 Suppl):S2–15. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.030
    1. Brown EN, Pavone KJ, Naranjo M. Multimodal General Anesthesia: Theory and Practice. Anesth Analg. 2018;127(5):1246–58. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003668
    1. Liang X, Liu R, Chen C, Ji F, Li T. Opioid System Modulates the Immune Function: A Review. Transl Perioper Pain Med. 2016;1(1):5–13.
    1. Stein C, Kuchler S. Non-analgesic effects of opioids: peripheral opioid effects on inflammation and wound healing. Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18(37):6053–69. doi: 10.2174/138161212803582513
    1. Kanjhan R. Opioids and pain. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1995;22(6–7):397–403. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1681.1995.tb02029.x
    1. Fornasari D. Pain mechanisms in patients with chronic pain. Clin Drug Investig. 2012;32(Suppl 1):45–52.
    1. Damien J, Colloca L, Bellei-Rodriguez CE, Marchand S. Pain Modulation: From Conditioned Pain Modulation to Placebo and Nocebo Effects in Experimental and Clinical Pain. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;139:255–96. doi: 10.1016/bs.irn.2018.07.024
    1. Brown EN, Lydic R, Schiff ND. General anesthesia, sleep, and coma. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2638–50. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0808281
    1. Mastronardi P, Dellacasa P. Observational study on the use of remifentanil in general anesthesia. Drug utilisation research. Minerva Anestesiol. 2004;70(7–8):605–16.
    1. Hah JM, Bateman BT, Ratliff J, Curtin C, Sun E. Chronic Opioid Use After Surgery: Implications for Perioperative Management in the Face of the Opioid Epidemic. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(5):1733–40. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002458
    1. Liu SS, Strodtbeck WM, Richman JM, Wu CL. A comparison of regional versus general anesthesia for ambulatory anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg. 2005;101(6):1634–42. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000180829.70036.4F
    1. Richman JM, Liu SS, Courpas G, Wong R, Rowlingson AJ, McGready J, et al.. Does continuous peripheral nerve block provide superior pain control to opioids? A meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(1):248–57. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000181289.09675.7D
    1. Becerra L, Aasted CM, Boas DA, George E, Yucel MA, Kussman BD, et al.. Brain measures of nociception using near-infrared spectroscopy in patients undergoing routine screening colonoscopy. Pain. 2016;157(4):840–8. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000446
    1. Kotlyar BI, Timofeeva NO. State of the brain as a systemic neurophysiological mechanism of the conditioned reflex. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 1989;19(1):1–6. doi: 10.1007/BF01148403
    1. Peng K, Yucel MA, Steele SC, Bittner EA, Aasted CM, Hoeft MA, et al.. Morphine Attenuates fNIRS Signal Associated With Painful Stimuli in the Medial Frontopolar Cortex (medial BA 10). Front Hum Neurosci. 2018;12:394. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00394
    1. Kussman BD, Aasted CM, Yucel MA, Steele SC, Alexander ME, Boas DA, et al.. Capturing Pain in the Cortex during General Anesthesia: Near Infrared Spectroscopy Measures in Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation of Arrhythmias. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):e0158975. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158975
    1. Scott LJ, Perry CM. Remifentanil: a review of its use during the induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia. Drugs. 2005;65(13):1793–823. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200565130-00007
    1. Yucel MA, Aasted CM, Petkov MP, Borsook D, Boas DA, Becerra L. Specificity of hemodynamic brain responses to painful stimuli: a functional near-infrared spectroscopy study. Sci Rep. 2015;5:9469. doi: 10.1038/srep09469
    1. Peng K, Steele SC, Becerra L, Borsook D. Brodmann area 10: Collating, integrating and high level processing of nociception and pain. Prog Neurobiol. 2018;161:1–22. doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.11.004
    1. Araldi D, Khomula EV, Ferrari LF, Levine JD. Fentanyl Induces Rapid Onset Hyperalgesic Priming: Type I at Peripheral and Type II at Central Nociceptor Terminals. J Neurosci. 2018;38(9):2226–45. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3476-17.2018
    1. Hogan D, Baker AL, Moron JA, Carlton SM. Systemic morphine treatment induces changes in firing patterns and responses of nociceptive afferent fibers in mouse glabrous skin. Pain. 2013;154(11):2297–309. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.05.033
    1. Rajan R, Dubaj V, Reser DH, Rosa MG. Auditory cortex of the marmoset monkey—complex responses to tones and vocalizations under opiate anaesthesia in core and belt areas. Eur J Neurosci. 2013;37(6):924–41. doi: 10.1111/ejn.12092
    1. Oroei M, Peyvandi AA, Mokhtarinejad F. Opioid Drugs and Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Addict Health. 2018;10(1):64–6. doi: 10.22122/ahj.v10i1.560
    1. Plourde G, Belin P, Chartrand D, Fiset P, Backman SB, Xie G, et al.. Cortical processing of complex auditory stimuli during alterations of consciousness with the general anesthetic propofol. Anesthesiology. 2006;104(3):448–57. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200603000-00011
    1. Kerssens C, Hamann S, Peltier S, Hu XP, Byas-Smith MG, Sebel PS. Attenuated brain response to auditory word stimulation with sevoflurane: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study in humans. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(1):11–9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200507000-00006
    1. Brigadoi S, Cooper RJ. How short is short? Optimum source-detector distance for short-separation channels in functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Neurophotonics. 2015;2(2):025005. doi: 10.1117/1.NPh.2.2.025005
    1. Molavi B, Dumont GA. Wavelet-based motion artifact removal for functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Physiol Meas. 2012;33(2):259–70. doi: 10.1088/0967-3334/33/2/259
    1. Brigadoi S, Ceccherini L, Cutini S, Scarpa F, Scatturin P, Selb J, et al.. Motion artifacts in functional near-infrared spectroscopy: a comparison of motion correction techniques applied to real cognitive data. Neuroimage. 2014;85. PubMed PMID: Pt 1:181–91. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.082
    1. Huppert TJ, Diamond SG, Franceschini MA, Boas DA. HomER: a review of time-series analysis methods for near-infrared spectroscopy of the brain. Appl Optics. 2009;48(10):D280–98. doi: 10.1364/ao.48.00d280
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J R Stat Soc B Methodol. 1995;57(1):289–300.
    1. Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. False Discovery Rate–Adjusted Multiple Confidence Intervals for Selected Parameters. J Am Stat Assoc. 2005;100(469):71–81.
    1. Mogil JS. Qualitative sex differences in pain processing: emerging evidence of a biased literature. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2020;21(7):353–65. doi: 10.1038/s41583-020-0310-6
    1. Chen YH, Lin H, Xie CL, Zhang XT, Li YG. Efficacy comparison between cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation for patients with cavotricuspid valve isthmus dependent atrial flutter: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:10910. doi: 10.1038/srep10910
    1. Bravo L, Atienza F, Eidelman G, Avila P, Pelliza M, Castellanos E, et al.. Safety and efficacy of cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation of septal accessory pathways: systematic review of the literature and meta-analyses. Europace. 2018;20(8):1334–42. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux269
    1. Hanninen M, Yeung-Lai-Wah N, Massel D, Gula LJ, Skanes AC, Yee R, et al.. Cryoablation versus RF ablation for AVNRT: A meta-analysis and systematic review. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013;24(12):1354–60. doi: 10.1111/jce.12247
    1. Norgaard MW, Pedersen PU, Bjerrum M. Understanding how patients use visualization during ablation of atrial fibrillation in reducing their experience of pain, anxiety, consumption of pain medication and procedure length: Integrating quantitative and qualitative results. Appl Nurs Res. 2018;39:229–40. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2017.11.026
    1. Karunakaran KD, Peng K, Berry D, Green S, Labadie R, Kussman B, et al.. NIRS measures in pain and analgesia: Fundamentals, features, and function. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;120:335–53. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.10.023
    1. Aryana A, Heist EK, D’Avila A, Holmvang G, Chevalier J, Ruskin JN, et al.. Pain and anatomical locations of radiofrequency ablation as predictors of esophageal temperature rise during pulmonary vein isolation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008;19(1):32–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.00975.x
    1. Alaeddini J, Wood MA, Parvez B, Pathak V, Wong KA, Ellenbogen KA. Site localization and characterization of pain during radiofrequency ablation of the pulmonary veins. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2007;30(10):1210–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00842.x
    1. Bode K, Breithardt OA, Kreuzhuber M, Mende M, Sommer P, Richter S, et al.. Patient discomfort following catheter ablation and rhythm device surgery. Europace. 2015;17(7):1129–35. doi: 10.1093/europace/euu325
    1. Foreman RD, Garrett KM, Blair RW. Mechanisms of cardiac pain. Compr Physiol. 2015;5(2):929–60. doi: 10.1002/cphy.c140032
    1. Rosen SD, Camici PG. The brain-heart axis in the perception of cardiac pain: the elusive link between ischaemia and pain. Ann Med. 2000;32(5):350–64. doi: 10.3109/07853890008995938
    1. Premkumar LS, Raisinghani M. Nociceptors in cardiovascular functions: complex interplay as a result of cyclooxygenase inhibition. Mol Pain. 2006;2:26. doi: 10.1186/1744-8069-2-26
    1. Beers R, Camporesi E. Remifentanil update: clinical science and utility. CNS Drugs. 2004;18(15):1085–104. doi: 10.2165/00023210-200418150-00004
    1. Pathan H, Williams J. Basic opioid pharmacology: an update. Br J Pain. 2012;6(1):11–6. doi: 10.1177/2049463712438493
    1. Rabiner EA, Beaver J, Makwana A, Searle G, Long C, Nathan PJ, et al.. Pharmacological differentiation of opioid receptor antagonists by molecular and functional imaging of target occupancy and food reward-related brain activation in humans. Mol Psychiatry. 2011;16(8):826–35, 785. doi: 10.1038/mp.2011.29
    1. Martin M, Hurley RA, Taber KH. Is opiate addiction associated with longstanding neurobiological changes? J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2007;19(3):242–8. doi: 10.1176/jnp.2007.19.3.242
    1. Wise RG, Williams P, Tracey I. Using fMRI to quantify the time dependence of remifentanil analgesia in the human brain. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004;29(3):626–35. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1300364
    1. Wise RG, Rogers R, Painter D, Bantick S, Ploghaus A, Williams P, et al.. Combining fMRI with a pharmacokinetic model to determine which brain areas activated by painful stimulation are specifically modulated by remifentanil. Neuroimage. 2002;16(4):999–1014. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2002.1146
    1. Peng YZ, Li XX, Wang YW. Effects of Parecoxib and Fentanyl on nociception-induced cortical activity. Mol Pain. 2010;6:3. doi: 10.1186/1744-8069-6-3
    1. Kibaly C, Xu C, Cahill CM, Evans CJ, Law PY. Non-nociceptive roles of opioids in the CNS: opioids’ effects on neurogenesis, learning, memory and affect. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2019;20(1):5–18. doi: 10.1038/s41583-018-0092-2
    1. Feld J, Hoffman WE, Paisansathan C, Park H, Ananda RC. Autonomic activity during dexmedetomidine or fentanyl infusion with desflurane anesthesia. J Clin Anesth. 2007;19(1):30–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2006.05.019
    1. Pattinson KT, Wise RG. Imaging the Respiratory Effects of Opioids in the Human Brain. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;903:145–56. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-7678-9_10
    1. Pattinson KT, Rogers R, Mayhew SD, Tracey I, Wise RG. Pharmacological FMRI: measuring opioid effects on the BOLD response to hypercapnia. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2007;27(2):414–23. doi: 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600347
    1. Kiyatkin EA. Respiratory depression and brain hypoxia induced by opioid drugs: Morphine, oxycodone, heroin, and fentanyl. Neuropharmacology. 2019;151:219–26. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2019.02.008
    1. Oertel BG, Preibisch C, Wallenhorst T, Hummel T, Geisslinger G, Lanfermann H, et al.. Differential opioid action on sensory and affective cerebral pain processing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83(4):577–88. doi: 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100441
    1. Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC, Rahim-Williams B, Riley JL 3rd. Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. J Pain. 2009;10(5):447–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2008.12.001
    1. Fillingim RB. Sex differences in analgesic responses: evidence from experimental pain models. Eur J Anaesthesiol Suppl. 2002;26:16–24. doi: 10.1097/00003643-200219261-00004
    1. Goffaux P, Michaud K, Gaudreau J, Chalaye P, Rainville P, Marchand S. Sex differences in perceived pain are affected by an anxious brain. Pain. 2011;152(9):2065–73. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.05.002
    1. Kano M, Farmer AD, Aziz Q, Giampietro VP, Brammer MJ, Williams SC, et al.. Sex differences in brain response to anticipated and experienced visceral pain in healthy subjects. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2013;304(8):G687–99. doi: 10.1152/ajpgi.00385.2012
    1. Popovich C, Dockstader C, Cheyne D, Tannock R. Sex differences in sensorimotor mu rhythms during selective attentional processing. Neuropsychologia. 2010;48(14):4102–10. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.10.016
    1. Supp GG, Higgen FL, Hipp JF, Engel AK, Siegel M. Mid-Latency Auditory Evoked Potentials Differentially Predict Sedation and Drug Level Under Opioid and Hypnotic Agents. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:1427. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01427
    1. Anderson TA. Intraoperative Analgesia-Nociception Monitors: Where We Are and Where We Want To Be. Anesth Analg. 2020;130(5):1261–3. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004473
    1. Funcke S, Pinnschmidt HO, Wesseler S, Brinkmann C, Beyer B, Jazbutyte V, et al.. Guiding Opioid Administration by 3 Different Analgesia Nociception Monitoring Indices During General Anesthesia Alters Intraoperative Sufentanil Consumption and Stress Hormone Release: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. Anesth Analg. 2020;130(5):1264–73. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004388
    1. Peng K, Deepti Karunakaran K, Lee A, Gomez-Morad A, Labadie R, Mizrahi-Arnaud A, et al.. Rhythmic Change of Cortical Hemodynamic Signals Associated with Ongoing Nociception in Awake and Anesthetized Individuals: An Exploratory Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy Study. Anesthesiology. 2021;135(5):877–92. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003986
    1. Juhl GI, Jensen TS, Norholt SE, Svensson P. Central sensitization phenomena after third molar surgery: a quantitative sensory testing study. Eur J Pain. 2008;12(1):116–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2007.04.002
    1. Borsook D, Kussman BD, George E, Becerra LR, Burke DW. Surgically induced neuropathic pain: understanding the perioperative process. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):403–12. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182701a7b
    1. Eriksson M, Campbell-Yeo M. Assessment of pain in newborn infants. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;24(4):101003. doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2019.04.003
    1. Weiser TG, Haynes AB, Molina G, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, et al.. Size and distribution of the global volume of surgery in 2012. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(3):201–9F. doi: 10.2471/BLT.15.159293
    1. Hall MJ, Schwartzman A, Zhang J, Liu X. Ambulatory Surgery Data From Hospitals and Ambulatory Surgery Centers: United States, 2010. Natl Health Stat Rep. 2017;102:1–15.
    1. Bischoff P, Rundshagen I. Awareness under general anesthesia. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(1–2):1–7. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0001
    1. Radovanovic D, Radovanovic Z. Awareness during general anaesthesia—implications of explicit intraoperative recall. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2011;15(9):1085–9.
    1. Brummett CM, Waljee JF, Goesling J, Moser S, Lin P, Englesbe MJ, et al.. New Persistent Opioid Use After Minor and Major Surgical Procedures in US Adults. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(6):e170504. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0504
    1. Clarke H, Soneji N, Ko DT, Yun L, Wijeysundera DN. Rates and risk factors for prolonged opioid use after major surgery: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2014;348:g1251. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1251
    1. Humble SR, Dalton AJ, Li L. A systematic review of therapeutic interventions to reduce acute and chronic post-surgical pain after amputation, thoracotomy or mastectomy. Eur J Pain. 2015;19(4):451–65. doi: 10.1002/ejp.567
    1. Schnabel A, Pogatzki-Zahn E. Predictors of chronic pain following surgery. What do we know? Schmerz. 2010;24(5):517–31. PubMed PMID: quiz 32–3. doi: 10.1007/s00482-010-0932-0
    1. Bruce J, Quinlan J. Chronic Post Surgical Pain. Rev Pain. 2011;5(3):23–9. doi: 10.1177/204946371100500306
    1. Guertin JR, Page MG, Tarride JE, Talbot D, Watt-Watson J, Choiniere M. Just how much does it cost? A cost study of chronic pain following cardiac surgery. J Pain Res. 2018;11:2741–59. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S175090
    1. Clarke H, Poon M, Weinrib A, Katznelson R, Wentlandt K, Katz J. Preventive analgesia and novel strategies for the prevention of chronic post-surgical pain. Drugs. 2015;75(4):339–51. doi: 10.1007/s40265-015-0365-2

Source: PubMed

Подписаться