Background and Objectives: Pain is a multidimensional phenomenon with a wide range regarding the location, intensity and quality. Patients with chronic pain, in particular those suffering from mixed pain, often present a special challenge. The PainDETECT questionnaire (PD-Q) is a screening instrument designed to classify whether a patient has neuropathic pain (NP), often rated as more distressing compared to nociceptive pain. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the PD-Q score correlates with pain intensity, measured with the numeric rating scale (NRS), in chronic pain patients in an outpatient setting. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire-based study was conducted to identify the associations between the unidimensional NRS scale for pain intensity and the PD-Q score for screening of an NP component in an outpatient setting. Participants were asked to fill in the questionnaire themselves. Results: One hundred seventy-six participants completed the PD-Q questionnaire and rated pain on the NRS scale at the baseline visit. The PD-Q and NRS scores significantly correlated at the baseline visit and the 1-month follow-up visit in chronic pain patients. The identification of a neuropathic component in chronic pain may permit more targeted and effective pain management. Conclusions: The findings of our questionnaire suggest that a significant proportion of chronic pain patients had manifested features of NP at the first visit to the outpatient clinic. The PD-Q is a useful screening tool to alert clinicians of NP that may need further diagnostic evaluation or therapeutic intervention and may also help to predict treatment response. Further research is needed to investigate if a correlation is predictive of treatment response when pain therapy targets NP.

Although extracorporeal membrane ventilation offers the possibility for low-frequency ventilation, protocols commonly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) vary largely. Whether strict adherence to low-frequency ventilation offers benefit on important outcome measures is poorly understood. Background/Objectives: This pilot clinical study investigated the efficacy of low-frequency ventilation on ventilator-free days (VFDs) in patients suffering from ARDS who were treated with ECMO therapy. Methods: In this single-center randomized controlled trial, 44 (70% male) successive ARDS patients treated with ECMO (aged 56 ± 12 years, SAPS III 64 (SD ± 14)) were randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (conventional ventilation) or the treatment group (low-frequency ventilation during first 72 h on ECMO: respiratory rate 4–5/min; PEEP 14–16 cm H₂O; plateau pressure 23–25 cm H₂O, tidal volume: <4 mL/kg). The primary endpoint was VFDs at day 28 after starting ECMO treatment. The major secondary endpoint was ICU mortality, 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality. Results: Twenty-three (52%) patients were successfully weaned from ECMO and were discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU). Twelve patients in the treatment group and five patients in the control group showed more than one VFD at day 28 of ECMO treatment. VFDs were 3.0 (SD ± 5.5) days in the control group and 5.4 (SD ± 6) days in the treatment group (p = 0.117). Until day 28 of ECMO initiation, patients in the treatment group could be successfully weaned off of the ventilator more often (OR of 0.164 of 0 VFDs at day 28 after ECMO start; 95% CI 0.036–0.758; p = 0.021). ICU mortality did not differ significantly (36% in treatment group and 59% in control group; p = 0.227). Conclusions: Low-frequency ventilation is comparable to conventional protective ventilation in patients with ARDS who have been treated with ECMO. However, low-frequency ventilation may support weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation in patients suffering from ARDS and treated with ECMO therapy.

Although extracorporeal membrane ventilation offers the possibility for low frequency ventilation, protocols commonly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) vary largely. Whether strict adherence to low frequency ventilation offers benefit on important outcome measures is poorly understood. Background/Objectives: This pilot clinical study investigated the efficacy of low frequency ventilation on ventilator free days (VFDs) in patients suffering from ARDS treated with ECMO therapy. Methods: In this single-center randomized controlled trial, 44 (70% male) successive ARDS patients treated with ECMO (aged 56 ± 12 years, SAPS III 64 (SD ± 14)) were randomly assigned 1:1 to control group (conventional ventilation) or treatment group (low fre-quency ventilation during first 72 hours on ECMO: respiratory rate 4-5/min; PEEP 14-16cm H2O; plateau pressure 23-25 cm H2O, tidal volume: < 4mL/kg). The primary endpoint was VFDs at day 28 of ECMO start. The major secondary endpoint was ICU mortality, 28-day and 90-day mortality. Results Twenty-three (52%) patients could be successfully weaned from ECMO and were discharged from intensive care unit (ICU). Twelve patients in the treatment group and five patients in the control group showed more than one VFD at day 28 after ECMO. VFDs were 3.0 (SD ± 5.5) days in the control group and 5.4 (SD ± 6) days in the treatment group (P = 0.117). Until day 28 after ECMO initiation, patients in the treatment group could be more often successfully weaned from ventilator (OR of 0.164 of 0 VFDs at day 28 after ECMO start; 95% CI 0.036-0.758; P = 0.021). ICU mortality did not differ significantly (36% in treatment group and 59% in control group; P = 0.227). Conclusions: Low frequency ventilation is comparable to conventional protec-tive ventilation in patients with ARDS treated with ECMO. However, low frequency ventilation may support weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation in patients suffering from ARDS treated with ECMO therapy.