Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35452458›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2022

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 and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02703090 (Assessing the Cortical Response to Noxious and Auditory Stimuli Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy in Subjects Under General Anesthesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02703090 nacompletednot on this map

Assessing the Cortical Response to Noxious and Auditory Stimuli Using Near Infrared Spectroscopy in Subjects Under General Anesthesia

TypeinterventionalSponsorBoston Children's HospitalRan2016 to 2020Enrolled44ConditionsAnesthesia, PainArmsRemifentanil, Normal saline
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Barriers and facilitators for participation in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in cancer research: a feasibility and acceptability analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Keerthana Deepti KarunakaranThe Center for Pain and the Brain, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6448-9341
Barry D KussmanDivision of Cardiac Anesthesia, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3024-5792
Ke PengThe Center for Pain and the Brain, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1732-0492
Lino BecerraThe Center for Pain and the Brain, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Robert LabadieThe Center for Pain and the Brain, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Rachel BernierDivision of Cardiac Anesthesia, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Delany BerryThe Center for Pain and the Brain, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6556-2800
Stephen GreenThe Center for Pain and the Brain, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
David ZurakowskiDivision of Biostatistics, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3610-6942
Mark E AlexanderDepartment of Cardiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7540-3504
David BorsookThe Center for Pain and the Brain, Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Boston Children's Hospital · US

Funding

Objective Pain Measures in Awake Sedated, Anesthetized Individuals with NIRSR01GM104986 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI BOAS, DAVID A, BORSOOK, DAVID · 2013 to 2016
$2.1M
Perioperative Measures of Nociception using NIRSR01GM122405 · NIGMS · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI KUSSMAN, BARRY DAVID · 2017 to 2020
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM104986NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM122405
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCatheter 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

findingsWe 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.

conclusionsWe 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02703090.

Indexed as

NociceptionOxyhemoglobinsAdolescentAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthesia, GeneralArrhythmias, CardiacBrainChildFemaleHumansMalePainRemifentanilAnalgesics, OpioidOxyhemoglobinsRemifentanil

Identifiers

PMID35452458
PMCPMC9075662
OpenAlexW4224213808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.