-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Dental Care; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29990391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006487.pub2 -
CJEM Jun 2023The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children.
STUDY DESIGN
We included trials of NO in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," or "unfavorable" (p < 0.05, supporting NO or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% NO (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I = 0%) and 50% NO plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% NO was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, NO was "favorable" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but "neutral" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), NO was "neutral" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), NO was "favorable" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), NO was "neutral" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), NO plus EMLA was "favorable" versus NO and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of NO included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with NO alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus NO plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and NO plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).
CONCLUSIONS
There is sufficient evidence to recommend NO plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Nitrous Oxide; Midazolam; Ketamine; Lacerations; Pain; Anesthetics, Local; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Oxygen
PubMed: 37171705
DOI: 10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jun 2022Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different interventions in postoperative CRBD. The present review was performed to assess the efficacy of these interventions.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of different drugs for the prevention of postoperative CRBD. This review evaluated the incidence and severity of CRBD after different interventions at 0, 1, 2, and 6 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
Forty-five studies including 31 different drugs were analyzed. Eleven drugs were investigated in more than two RCTs, of which dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and pudendal nerve block (PNB) generally showed significantly higher efficacy than controls postoperatively. Solifenacin only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 0 h, and intravenous lidocaine only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 6 h. There were insufficient trials to draw conclusions regarding atropine, butylscopolamine, chlorpheniramine, clonidine, darifenacin, diphenhydramine, glycopyrrolate, intravesical bupivacaine, ketamine-haloperidol, pethidine-haloperidol, ketorolac, lidocaine-prilocaine cream, magnesium, hyoscine n-butyl bromide, oxycodone, paracetamol, parecoxib, trospium, resiniferatoxin, or amikacin. However, all but pethidine-haloperidol and chlorpheniramine showed some efficacy at various time points compared with controls.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and PNB are effective in preventing postoperative CRBD. Considering the efficacy and adverse effects of all drugs, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin were ranked best.
Topics: Chlorpheniramine; Dexmedetomidine; Gabapentin; Haloperidol; Humans; Ketamine; Lidocaine; Meperidine; Nefopam; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin; Tolterodine Tartrate; Tramadol; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Catheters
PubMed: 35218404
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-021-03251-5 -
Human Fertility (Cambridge, England) Dec 2023We systematically investigated the efficacy and safety of EMLA (5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream) versus placebo for pain relief among infertile patients undergoing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We systematically investigated the efficacy and safety of EMLA (5% lidocaine-prilocaine cream) versus placebo for pain relief among infertile patients undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG). We screened four databases from inception until 25 November 2020. We included only randomised placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and assessed their risk of bias. The main efficacy outcomes included safety and pain scores during the different stages of HSG. The pooled outcomes were summarised as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Three RCTs were included, comprising 258 patients (131 and 127 patients received EMLA and placebo, respectively). All RCTs revealed an overall low risk of bias. EMLA significantly reduced pain perception during cervical instrumentation of tenaculum and cannula ( = -1.53, 95% CI [-2.59, -0.47], = 0.005) and at 24 h after completion of HSG ( = -1.30, 95% CI [-2.57, -0.03], = 0.04). Despite EMLA decreased pain perception during the other procedural stages of HSG, the differences were not statistically significant compared with placebo. EMLA was safe and free of local and systemic adverse reactions. This meta-analysis advocates that topical application of 5% EMLA cream is safe and correlates with decreased pain perception during HSG, particularly during the cervical instrumentation step and at 24 h after HSG completion.
Topics: Female; Humans; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Hysterosalpingography; Infertility; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35220865
DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2022.2040748 -
Cureus Nov 2022Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure,... (Review)
Review
Efficacy of Emla (Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics) and Let (Lidocaine, Epinephrine, Tetracaine) for Topical Use in Wound Management for Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure, which may result in one of the most unpleasant and painful childhood experiences. The pain can be minimized through topical anesthesia, such as a combination of lidocaine, epinephrine, and tetracaine (LET) and a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA). The current study was carried out to demonstrate the efficacy of EMLA and LET in pediatric wound management. A thorough literature search was carried out without any time limitation on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant studies from these databases and their references were scoured for additional studies. Study quality appraisal and data analysis were conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). The literature search yielded 1651 articles of which only eight were eligible for inclusion in the present study. A meta-analysis of results from 3 studies showed that LET had a significant pain reduction than the control interventions (SMD: -0.46; 95% CI: -0.69, -0.23: p<0.0001). However, the pooled effect size of data from 3 studies showed EMLA had an insignificant difference with the control interventions (SMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.82, -0.24: p = 0.13). Similarly, no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions was reported in either EMLA (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 0.67, 7.93; p = 0.18) or LET (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.15, 6.50; p = 0.99) Our study suggests that the topical application of EMLA and LET effectively offers pain-free wound management among pediatric patients. However, the interventions are subject to adverse reactions that should be considered when managing the wounds.
PubMed: 36523723
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31447 -
Central European Journal of Urology 2019The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and harms of periprostatic block compared with other interventions in patients with clinically suspected... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness and harms of periprostatic block compared with other interventions in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer who underwent transrectal biopsy to diminish pain.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We included only clinical trials which involved male adults older than 18 years-old suspected of having prostate cancer. The intervention performed was a periprostatic block and the comparators were topical anesthetics, sedatives, placebo/no intervention or combined therapies. The primary outcome was perianal or perineal pain and serious adverse effects (SAE). Literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL and non-published literature from inception to March 2019. We performed a network meta-analysis in R.
RESULTS
We included 43 studies in the meta-analysis. Thirteen studies compared periprostatic block vs. placebo/no intervention (the most frequent). Most of the studies had an unclear risk of bias for selection, performance and detection bias and low risk for attrition, reporting and other bias. Periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine + prilocaine) vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) showed an RR -0.9 (95%CI - 1.9 to 0.074); intrarectal gel (lidocaine) vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) had a RR 0.77 (95%CI 0.14 to 1.4); placebo/no intervention vs. periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine+prilocaine) RR 3 (95%CI 1.9 to 4); intrarectal gel (lidocaine) versus periprostatic block (lidocaine) + intrarectal gel (lidocaine + prilocaine) RR 1.7 (95%CI 0.64 to 2.7).
CONCLUSIONS
The blockage of the periprostatic plexus in the performance of a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy, alone or in combination with intrarectal analgesia or sedation, is an effective method to reduce pain.
PubMed: 31482018
DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1874 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Sep 2022Although local anesthetics have been extensively studied, limited evidence is available regarding the optimal solution for maximizing patient comfort in minor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although local anesthetics have been extensively studied, limited evidence is available regarding the optimal solution for maximizing patient comfort in minor oculoplastic procedures.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the optimal anesthetic solution for local infiltration in minor oculoplastic surgeries to maximize patient comfort.
METHODS
This systematic review with network meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted to understand the efficacy of different local anesthetics in combination to maximize patient comfort. The study was designed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The population comprised patients receiving local infiltration anesthesia in minor oculoplastic surgeries. Various anesthetics with adjuvants were compared with respect to injection pain, operative bleeding, and complications. Random-effects model was performed. The primary outcome of injection pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) or a preference question (which intervention was the least painful). Other outcomes were operative bleeding and complications, which were evaluated with a similar preference question.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 521 patients (917 eyes) were included. The network meta-analysis revealed that "bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine" led to a significant decrease in injection pain (preference question) compared to "prilocaine with felypressin" and "lidocaine with epinephrine," whereas no significant differences were detected in the analysis of injection pain measured using the VAS.
CONCLUSIONS
"Bicarbonate-buffered lidocaine with epinephrine" may be the optimal anesthetic solution for local infiltration in minor oculoplastic surgeries due to reduced injection pain, operative bleeding, and postoperative swelling. However, this should be interpreted cautiously as the confidence in the evidence was very low.
THE CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021260332 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Bicarbonates; Double-Blind Method; Epinephrine; Felypressin; Lidocaine; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain; Patient Comfort; Prilocaine
PubMed: 35961926
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2022.06.058 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Mar 2020Perineal trauma is a common problem that may affect women during vaginal delivery; this trauma can be either spontaneous (tear) or intentional (episiotomy). When repair... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Lidocaine-prilocaine cream versus local infiltration anesthesia in pain relief during repair of perineal trauma after vaginal delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Perineal trauma is a common problem that may affect women during vaginal delivery; this trauma can be either spontaneous (tear) or intentional (episiotomy). When repair of perineal trauma is required, adequate analgesics must be obtained. Topical products as lidocaine-prilocaine (EMLA) cream is one of the suggested methods, but still there is lack of evidence with regard to its efficacy and safety. The aim of this review is to assess the evidence of utilizing EMLA cream in comparison to local perineal infiltration anesthesia for pain control during perineal repair after vaginal delivery. Medline, Embase, Dynamed Plus, ScienceDirect, TRIP database, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched electronically from January 2006 to May 2018 for studies investigating the effect of lidocaine-prilocaine cream in relieving pain during repair of perineal trauma. All randomized controlled trials assessing effect of lidocaine-prilocaine cream versus local infiltration anesthesia in relieving pain during repair of perineal trauma were considered for this meta-analysis. Fifteen studies were identified of which four studies deemed eligible for this review. Quality and risk of bias assessment was performed for all studies. Two researchers independently extracted the data from the individual articles and entered into RevMan software. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed by the Higgins chi-square and (I) statistics. When heterogeneity was significant, a random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Otherwise, the fixed effect meta-analysis was used when there was no significant heterogeneity. Pooled analysis of result in "pain score" was insignificant between the two groups (WMD -1.11; 95% CI (-2.55 to 0.33); = .13). Furthermore, the use of additional analgesia showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (WMD 1.34; 95% CI (0.66-2.71), = .42). Regarding patient satisfaction, an overall analysis of three studies showed significant results favoring EMLA cream group users (WMD 4.65; 95% CI (1.96-11.03), = .0005). The pooled analysis of the outcome "duration of repair" showed the significantly shorter duration of repair in EMLA cream users ( = 92) than local infiltration anesthesia ( = 95) (1.72 min; 95% CI (-2.76 to -0.67), = .001). This meta-analysis suggests that topical lidocaine-prilocaine cream gives comparable results in reducing pain during perineal repair after vaginal delivery.
Topics: Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Obstetric Labor Complications; Ointments; Perineum; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30107755
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1512576 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Sep 2015Cannulation of children is often required for administration of intravenous fluids and medications, but can cause pain and anxiety. Amethocaine and a eutectic mixture of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Does topical Amethocaine cream increase first-time successful cannulation in children compared with a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) cream? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Cannulation of children is often required for administration of intravenous fluids and medications, but can cause pain and anxiety. Amethocaine and a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) cream are two of the most commonly used local anaesthetic creams.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the evidence for the superiority of Amethocaine cream compared with EMLA cream in facilitating successful first-time cannulation in children.
METHOD
A systematic search was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2014. Studies examining cannulation, undertaken with children and providing data about first-time cannulation success rates were considered for inclusion. Three randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Data extraction was undertaken independently by the two authors using predefined data fields.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis was based on a random effects model. Low statistical heterogeneity was observed. Amethocaine cream increased the likelihood of successful first-time cannulation (RR 1.046, CI 0.975 to 1.122), although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.211).
CONCLUSIONS
Amethocaine cream does not appear to significantly facilitate successful first-time cannulation. Lack of precision and design weaknesses of the included studies hinder the formation of a strong recommendation for either cream.
IMPLICATIONS
Based on the evidence reviewed here and considering analgesic properties and cost-savings associated with both creams, a weak recommendation can be issued in favour of Amethocaine cream for cannulation in children based on high-quality evidence but where the treatment choice will depend on other factors including cost and provider preference.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anesthetics, Local; Catheterization; Child; Humans; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Prilocaine; Tetracaine
PubMed: 25351196
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2014-204066 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Preterm or ill neonates may undergo 1 to 21 heel punctures or venepunctures a day. These punctures are likely to be painful. Heel punctures comprise 61% to 87% and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Preterm or ill neonates may undergo 1 to 21 heel punctures or venepunctures a day. These punctures are likely to be painful. Heel punctures comprise 61% to 87% and venepunctures comprise 8% to 13% of the invasive procedures performed on ill infants. Analgesics are rarely given specifically for blood sampling procedures, but 5% to 19% of infants receive analgesia for other indications.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions to reduce pain-related distress and morbidity during venepuncture in preterm or term babies aged under 12 months in a neonatal unit? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 20 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: oral sweet solutions; pacifiers; and topical anaesthetics (lidocaine-prilocaine cream, tetracaine).
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Blood Specimen Collection; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant; Pain; Pain Measurement; Phlebotomy; Punctures; Tetracaine
PubMed: 21463539
DOI: No ID Found