Dataset Information

The effect of vapocoolant spray on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Established noninvasive pharmacologic means of alleviating pain and anxiety in children undergoing intravenous cannulation are time-consuming, and thus impractical for routine use in the emergency department. Vapocoolant sprays provide transient skin anesthesia within seconds of application. We compared the effect of a new vapocoolant spray to placebo on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children.In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, which we conducted between June 1 and Sept. 12, 2006, 80 children aged 6-12 years received either vapocoolant spray or placebo before cannulation. Children rated their pain using a 100-mm colour visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes included success rate on first attempt at cannulation and pain ratings by the children's parents, nurses and child life specialists.We found a modest but significant reduction in pain with the use of vapocoolant spray (mean difference 19 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6-32 mm; p < 0.01). Cannulation on first attempt was more often successful with the use of vapocoolant spray (85.0%) than with placebo (62.5%) (mean difference 22.5%, 95% CI 3.2%-39.9%; p = 0.03). The number needed to treat to prevent 1 cannulation failure was 5 (95% CI 3-32). Parents (p = 0.04), nurses (p = 0.01) and child life specialists (p < 0.01) considered the children's pain to be reduced with the use of vapocoolant spray.The vapocoolant spray in our study quickly and effectively reduced pain due to intravenous cannulation in children and improved the success rate of cannulation. It is an important option to reduce childhood procedural pain in emergency situations, especially when time precludes traditional interventions. (http://ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT00130650.).

SUBMITTER: Farion KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3267474 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of vapocoolant spray on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children: a randomized controlled trial.

Farion Ken J KJ Splinter Karen L KL Newhook Kym K Gaboury Isabelle I Splinter William M WM

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20080701 1

<h4>Background</h4>Established noninvasive pharmacologic means of alleviating pain and anxiety in children undergoing intravenous cannulation are time-consuming, and thus impractical for routine use in the emergency department. Vapocoolant sprays provide transient skin anesthesia within seconds of application. We compared the effect of a new vapocoolant spray to placebo on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children.<h4>Methods</h4>In this double-blind randomized controlled trial, which we c ...[more]

PMID: 18591524

Similar Datasets

Project description:Intravenous lidocaine, a potent local anesthetic with analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, has been shown to be an effective adjunct that reduces intra- and postoperative opioid consumption and facilitates pain management in adults. While it shows promise for use in the pediatric population, limited evidence is available.ObjectivesTo determine if general anesthesia with intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion versus general anesthesia without intravenous lidocaine infusion in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy decreased opioid requirements intra- and postoperatively.DesignA single-center parallel single-masked randomized controlled study. A computer-generated blocked randomization list was used to allocate participants. The study was conducted between March 2019 and January 2020.SettingPediatric teaching hospital in Poland.ParticipantsSeventy-four patients aged between 18?months and 18?years undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Seventy-one patients fulfilled the study requirements.InterventionIntravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5?mg/kg over 5?min before induction of anesthesia followed by lidocaine infusion at 1.5?mg/kg/h intraoperatively. The infusion was discontinued before the patients' transfer to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).Primary outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was total nalbuphine requirement in milligrams during the first 24?h after surgery.Secondary outcome measuresThe secondary outcome measures were intraoperative fentanyl consumption, intraoperative sevoflurane consumption, time to the first rescue analgesic request, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first 24?h after surgery, frequency of side effects of lidocaine.ResultsChildren (n?=?74) aged 5-17 randomly allocated to receive intraoperative lidocaine infusion (n?=?37) or no intervention (n?=?37). Seventy-one were included in the analysis (35 in the study group and 36 in the control group). There was no difference in the cumulative dose of nalbuphine in the first 24?h after removal of the endotracheal tube between groups [median of 0.1061 (IQR: 0.0962-0.2222) mg/kg in the lidocaine group, compared to the control group median of 0.1325 (IQR: 0.0899-0.22020) mg/kg, p?=?0.63]. Intraoperative fentanyl consumption was lower in the lidocaine group [median of 5.091 (IQR: 4.848-5.714) ?g/kg] than in the control group [median of 5.969 (IQR: 5.000-6.748), p?=?0.03]. Taking into account the additional doses administered based on clinical indications, the reduction in the requirement for fentanyl in the lidocaine group was even greater [median of 0.0 (IQR: 0.0-0.952) vs 0.99 (IQR: 0.0-1.809) ?g/kg, p?=?0.01]. No difference was observed in the sevoflurane consumption between the two groups [median of 32.5?ml (IQR 25.0-43.0) in the lidocaine group vs median of 35.0?ml (IQR: 23.5-46.0) in the control group, p?=?0.56]. The time to first analgesic request in the lidocaine group was prolonged [median of 55 (IQR: 40-110) min in the lidocaine group vs median of 40.5 (IQR: 28-65) min in the control group, p?=?0.05]. There was no difference in the frequency of PONV between the two groups (48.57% in the lidocaine group vs 61.11% in the control group, p?=?0.29). No lidocaine related incidence of anaphylaxis, systemic toxicity, circulatory disturbances or neurological impairment was reported, during anesthesia or postoperative period.ConclusionsIntraoperative systemic lidocaine administration reduced the intraoperative requirement for opioids in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. This effect was time limited, and hence did not affect opioid consumption in the first 24?h following discontinuation of lidocaine infusion.Trial registrationNCT03886896 .

Project description:Many women experience pain during hysterosalpingogram (HSG). This prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study assessed whether the use of benzocaine spray during HSG is associated with reduced pain as compared with placebo. Thirty women presenting for HSG were enrolled and randomized to either benzocaine or saline spray. Treatment groups were similar in age, race, parity, pre-procedure oral analgesic use and history of dysmenorrhoea and/or chronic pelvic pain. Median change in pain score from baseline to procedure was 50.6mm (-7.4 to 98.8mm) in the benzocaine group and 70.4mm (19.8 to 100mm) in the placebo group. There was no difference between groups after adjusting for history of dysmenorrhoea. There was no difference in resolution of pain in benzocaine versus placebo groups at 5 min post procedure--median pain score difference -11.1 (-90.1 to 18.5) versus -37.0 (-100 to 1.2)--or at 30 min post procedure. Satisfaction scores did not differ by treatment and did not correlate with pain score during the procedure (rho=0.005). The use of benzocaine spray does not significantly improve pain relief during HSG nor does it hasten resolution of pain post HSG. Of interest, patient satisfaction was not correlated with pain. Many women experience pain during hysterosalpingogram (HSG), which is a test used to evaluate the uterine cavity and fallopian tube. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess whether the use of benzocaine spray during HSG is associated with reduced pain as compared with placebo. Thirty women presenting for HSG were enrolled and randomized to either benzocaine or saline spray. Treatment groups were similar in age, race, previous pregnancies, pre-procedure oral analgesic use and history of dysmenorrhoea (painful periods) and/or chronic pelvic pain. There was no difference in pain scores or resolution of pain between the two groups. Satisfaction scores did not differ by treatment group and did not correlate with the pain score during the procedure. We conclude that the use of benzocaine spray does not significantly improve pain relief during HSG nor does it hasten resolution of pain post HSG. Of interest, patient satisfaction was not correlated with pain.

Project description:ObjectiveIntranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting.MethodsWe randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 "none" to 10 "worst pain"). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group).ResultsAt T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (<pain relief) mean change in the IVH group. Finally, assuming all subjects in the IVH group had maximum pain at T0 and that T0 pain for the INF group remained unchanged from randomization, the lower bound of the 90% CL for mean pain decrease in the INF group extended 1.37 points below (<pain relief) mean decrease in the IVH group. Time (minutes) from randomization until T0 was longer for the IVH (Median 23, IQR 12) versus INF (Median 15, IQR 11) group (P<0.001).ConclusionsTwo of three analyses supported non-inferiority of INF versus IVH, while one analysis was inconclusive. Compared to IVH, INF had the advantage of shorter time to administration.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02459964.

Project description:We assessed the feasibility and potential efficacy of a virtual reality (VR) environment using a dome screen as a distraction method in young children during intravenous (IV) placement in the pediatric emergency department. This randomized controlled pilot study enrolled children aged 2 to 6 years who underwent IV placement into either the intervention group or the control group. Children in the intervention group experienced VR using a dome screen during IV placement. The child's pain intensity was measured using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scale at four time points of IV placement: immediately after arrival to the blood collection room (base); immediately after the child laid down on the bed (preparation); when the tourniquet was applied (tourniquet); and the moment at which the needle penetrated the skin (venipuncture). The guardian's satisfaction and rating of the child's distress were assessed using a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire. We recruited 19 children (9 in the intervention group and 10 in the control group). Five children in the control group were excluded from the analysis because of missing video recordings (n = 3), failed first attempt at IV placement (n = 1), and the child's refusal to lie on the bed during the procedure (n = 1). No side effects of VR were reported during the study period. Although the average FLACC scale score at each time point (preparation, tourniquet, venipuncture) was lower in the intervention group than the control group, the difference was not statistically significant (2.3, interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0-3.0; vs. 3.3, IQR: 2.7-6.7, P = 0.255). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in the guardian's satisfaction and anxiety or his/her rating of the child's pain and anxiety. The guardians and emergency medical technicians reported satisfaction with the use of VR with a dome screen and considered it a useful distraction during the procedure. VR using a dome screen is a feasible distraction method for young children during IV placement. A larger clinical trial with further development of the VR environment and study process is required to adequately evaluate the efficacy of VR using a dome screen.

Project description:Postoperative pain after major open gynecologic surgeries requires appropriate pain management.This study aimed at comparing perioperative patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) after gynecologic oncology surgeries.In this clinical trial study, 90 patients with American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II scheduled for gynecologic oncologic surgeries were randomly allocated to two groups (45 patients each group) to receive: patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl (PCEA group), or patient controlled intravenous analgesia (IV PCA group) with fentanyl, pethidine and ondansetron. Postoperative pain was assessed over 48 hours using the visual analog scale (VAS). The frequency of rescue analgesia was recorded. Occurrence of any concomitant events such as nausea, vomiting, ileus, purities, sedation and respiratory complications were recorded postoperatively.There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data including; age, weight, ASA physical status, duration of surgery, intraoperative bleeding, and the amount of blood transfusion (P > 0.05), between the two studied groups. Severity of postoperative pain was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05); however, after first patient mobilization, pain was significantly lower in the epidural group than the IV group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of complications such as nausea, vomiting, purities or ileus (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of sedation was significantly higher in the IV group (P < 0.001). Respiratory depression was higher in the IV group than the epidural group; this difference, however, was not significant (P = 0.11). In the epidural group, only 10 patients (22.2%) had mild and transient lower extremities parenthesis.Both intravenous and epidural analgesic techniques with combination of analgesics provide proper postoperative pain control after major gynecologic cancer surgeries without any significant complications. Regarding lower sedative and respiratory depressant effects of epidural analgesia, it seems that this method is a safer technique for postoperative pain relief in these patients.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative pain control can be challenging in patients undergoing hepatectomy. A previous retrospective study on hepatobiliary/ pancreatic surgeries showed better postoperative pain control in patients who received propofol TIVA. The aim of this study was to determine the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA for hepatectomy. This clinical study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03597997).MethodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anaesthesia. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status of I-III scheduled for elective hepatectomy were recruited. Ninety patients were randomly allocated to receive either propofol TIVA (TIVA group) or inhalational anaesthesia with sevoflurane (SEVO group). Perioperative anaesthetic/analgesic management was the same for both groups. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, quality of recovery, patient satisfaction and adverse effects were evaluated during the acute postoperative period and at 3 and 6 months after surgery.ResultsNo significant differences were found for acute postoperative pain scores (both at rest and during coughing) and postoperative morphine consumption between TIVA and SEVO groups. Patients given TIVA had lower pain scores with coughing at 3 months after surgery (p = 0.014, and FDR < 0.1). TIVA group was associated with better quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 3 (p = 0.038, and FDR < 0.1), less nausea (p = 0.011, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 2; p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3) and constipation (p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3).ConclusionPropofol TIVA did not improve acute postoperative pain control compared to inhalational anaesthesia in patients who underwent hepatectomy. Our results do not support the use of propofol TIVA for reducing acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy.

Dataset Information

The effect of vapocoolant spray on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

The effect of vapocoolant spray on pain due to intravenous cannulation in children: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets