Effect of ingestion of starch and some clays on iron absorption.

Kenneth M. Talkington,Kenneth M. Talkington,Norman F. Gant,Norman F. Gant,Daniel E. Scott,Daniel E. Scott,J. A. Pritchard,J. A. Pritchard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(70)90308-X

IF: 9.8

1970-09-15

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Non-opioid analgesics for procedural pain in neonates

Emma Persad,Ana Beatriz Pizarro,Matteo Bruschettini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015179.pub2

2023-04-04

Abstract:Background: Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia. The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs. As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches. Selection criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy. Main results: We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India. NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 μg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 μg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 μg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 μg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward.
Opioids for procedural pain in neonates

Mari Kinoshita,Emma Olsson,Franciszek Borys,Matteo Bruschettini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015056.pub3

2023-06-23

Abstract:Background: Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported. Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route. Search methods: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Main results: We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously). Authors' conclusions: Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.
Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain

Rebecca R Pillai Riddell,Oana Bucsea,Ilana Shiff,Cheryl Chow,Hannah G Gennis,Shaylea Badovinac,Miranda DiLorenzo-Klas,Nicole M Racine,Sara Ahola Kohut,Diana Lisi,Kara Turcotte,Bonnie Stevens,Lindsay S Uman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006275.pub4

2023-06-14

Abstract:Background: Despite evidence of the long-term implications of unrelieved pain during infancy, it is evident that infant pain is still under-managed and unmanaged. Inadequately managed pain in infancy, a period of exponential development, can have implications across the lifespan. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic review of pain management strategies is integral to appropriate infant pain management. This is an update of a previously published review update in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2015, Issue 12) of the same title. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and adverse events of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (aged up to three years) acute pain, excluding kangaroo care, sucrose, breastfeeding/breast milk, and music. Search methods: For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE-Ovid platform, EMBASE-OVID platform, PsycINFO-OVID platform, CINAHL-EBSCO platform and trial registration websites (ClinicalTrials.gov; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) (March 2015 to October 2020). An update search was completed in July 2022, but studies identified at this point were added to 'Awaiting classification' for a future update. We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. We incorporated 76 new studies into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Participants included infants from birth to three years in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cross-over RCTs that had a no-treatment control comparison. Studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis if they compared a non-pharmacological pain management strategy to a no-treatment control group (15 different strategies). In addition, we also analysed studies when the unique effect of adding a non-pharmacological pain management strategy onto another pain management strategy could be assessed (i.e. additive effects on a sweet solution, non-nutritive sucking, or swaddling) (three strategies). The eligible control groups for these additive studies were sweet solution only, non-nutritive sucking only, or swaddling only, respectively. Finally, we qualitatively described six interventions that met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review, but not in the analysis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The outcomes assessed in the review were pain response (reactivity and regulation) and adverse events. The level of certainty in the evidence and risk of bias were based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach. We analysed the standardised mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method to determine effect sizes. MAIN RESULTS: We included total of 138 studies (11,058 participants), which includes an additional 76 new studies for this update. Of these 138 studies, we analysed 115 (9048 participants) and described 23 (2010 participants) qualitatively. We described qualitatively studies that could not be meta-analysed due to being the only studies in their category or statistical reporting issues. We report the results of the 138 included studies here. An SMD effect size of 0.2 represents a small effect, 0.5 a moderate effect, and 0.8 a large effect. The thresholds for the I2 interpretation were established as follows: not important (0% to 40%); moderate heterogeneity (30% to 60%); substantial heterogeneity (50% to 90%); considerable heterogeneity (75% to 100%). The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel sticks (63 studies) and needlestick procedures for the purposes of vaccines/vitamins (35 studies). We judged most studies to have high risk of bias (103 out of 138), with the most common methodological concerns relating to blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. Pain responses were examined during two separate pain phases: pain reactivity (within the first 30 seconds after the acutely painful stimulus) and immediate pain regulation (after the first 30 seconds following the acutely painful stimulus). We report below the strategies with the strongest evidence base for each age group. In preterm born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.03 to -0.11, moderate effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.27, moderate effect; I2 = 81%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. Facilitated tucking may also reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.58, large effect; I2 = 93%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.26, moderate effect; I2 = 87%, considerable heterogeneity); however, this is also based on very low-certainty evidence. While swaddling likely does not reduce pain reactivity in preterm neonates (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.04, no effect; I2 = 91%, considerable heterogeneity), it has been shown to possibly improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.21, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.38, large effect; I2 = 89%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born neonates, non-nutritive sucking may reduce pain reactivity (SMD -1.13, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.68, large effect; I2 = 82%, considerable heterogeneity) and improve immediate pain regulation (SMD -1.49, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.78, large effect; I2 = 92%, considerable heterogeneity), based on very low-certainty evidence. In full-term born older infants, structured parent involvement was the intervention most studied. Results showed that this intervention has little to no effect in reducing pain reactivity (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.03, no effect; I2 = 46%, moderate heterogeneity) or improving immediate pain regulation (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.21, no effect; I2 = 74%, substantial heterogeneity), based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence. Of these five interventions most studied, only two studies observed adverse events, specifically vomiting (one preterm neonate) and desaturation (one full-term neonate hospitalised in the NICU) following the non-nutritive sucking intervention. The presence of considerable heterogeneity limited our confidence in the findings for certain analyses, as did the preponderance of evidence of very low to low certainty based on GRADE judgements. Authors' conclusions: Overall, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, and swaddling may reduce pain behaviours in preterm born neonates. Non-nutritive sucking may also reduce pain behaviours in full-term neonates. No interventions based on a substantial body of evidence showed promise in reducing pain behaviours in older infants. Most analyses were based on very low- or low-certainty grades of evidence and none were based on high-certainty evidence. Therefore, the lack of confidence in the evidence would require further research before we could draw a definitive conclusion.
Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates

Prakeshkumar S Shah,Ranjit Torgalkar,Vibhuti S Shah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004950.pub4

2023-08-29

Abstract:Background: Pain in the neonate is associated with acute behavioural and physiological changes. Cumulative pain is associated with morbidities, including adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Studies have shown a reduction in changes in physiological parameters and pain score measurements following pre-emptive analgesic administration in neonates experiencing pain or stress. Non-pharmacological measures (such as holding, swaddling and breastfeeding) and pharmacological measures (such as acetaminophen, sucrose and opioids) have been used for analgesia. This is an update of a review first published in 2006 and updated in 2012. Objectives: The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk in reducing procedural pain in neonates. The secondary objective was to conduct subgroup analyses based on the type of control intervention, gestational age and the amount of supplemental breast milk given. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trial registries (ICTRP, ISRCTN and clinicaltrials.gov) in August 2022; searches were limited from 2011 forwards. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk versus no treatment/other measures in neonates. We included both term (≥ 37 completed weeks postmenstrual age) and preterm infants (< 37 completed weeks' postmenstrual age) up to a maximum of 44 weeks' postmenstrual age. The study must have reported on either physiological markers of pain or validated pain scores. Data collection and analysis: We assessed the methodological quality of the trials using the information provided in the studies and by personal communication with the authors. We extracted data on relevant outcomes, estimated the effect size and reported this as a mean difference (MD). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Main results: Of the 66 included studies, 36 evaluated breastfeeding, 29 evaluated supplemental breast milk and one study compared them against each other. The procedures conducted in the studies were: heel lance (39), venipuncture (11), intramuscular vaccination (nine), eye examination for retinopathy of prematurity (four), suctioning (four) and adhesive tape removal as procedure (one). We noted marked heterogeneity in the control interventions and pain assessment measures amongst the studies. Since many studies included multiple arms with breastfeeding/supplemental breast milk as the main comparator, we were not able to synthesise all interventions together. Individual interventions are compared to breastfeeding/supplemental breast milk and reported. The numbers of studies/participants presented with the findings are not taken from pooled analyses (as is usual in Cochrane Reviews), but are the overall totals in each comparison. Overall, the included studies were at low risk of bias except for masking of intervention and outcome assessment, where nearly one-third of studies were at high risk of bias. Breastfeeding versus control Breastfeeding may reduce the increase in heart rate compared to holding by mother, skin-to-skin contact, bottle feeding mother's milk, moderate concentration of sucrose/glucose (20% to 33%) with skin-to-skin contact (low-certainty evidence, 8 studies, 784 participants). Breastfeeding likely reduces the duration of crying compared to no intervention, lying on table, rocking, heel warming, holding by mother, skin-to-skin contact, bottle feeding mother's milk and moderate concentration of glucose (moderate-certainty evidence, 16 studies, 1866 participants). Breastfeeding may reduce percentage time crying compared to holding by mother, skin-to-skin contact, bottle feeding mother's milk, moderate concentration sucrose and moderate concentration of sucrose with skin-to-skin contact (low-certainty evidence, 4 studies, 359 participants). Breastfeeding likely reduces the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) score compared to no intervention, holding by mother, heel warming, music, EMLA cream, moderate glucose concentration, swaddling, swaddling and holding (moderate-certainty evidence, 12 studies, 1432 participants). Breastfeeding may reduce the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score compared to no intervention, holding, pacifier and moderate concentration of glucose (low-certainty evidence, 2 studies, 235 participants). Breastfeeding may reduce the Douleur Aigue Nouveau-né (DAN) score compared to positioning, holding or placebo (low-certainty evidence, 4 studies, 709 participants). In the majority of the other comparisons there was little or no difference between the breastfeeding and control group in any of the outcome measures. Supplemental breast milk versus control Supplemental breast milk may reduce the increase in heart rate compared to water or no intervention (low-certainty evidence, 5 studies, 336 participants). Supplemental breast milk likely reduces the duration of crying compared to positioning, massage or placebo (moderate-certainty evidence, 11 studies, 1283 participants). Supplemental breast milk results in little or no difference in percentage time crying compared to placebo or glycine (low-certainty evidence, 1 study, 70 participants). Supplemental breast milk results in little or no difference in NIPS score compared to no intervention, pacifier, moderate concentration of sucrose, eye drops, gentle touch and verbal comfort, and breast milk odour and verbal comfort (low-certainty evidence, 3 studies, 291 participants). Supplemental breast milk may reduce NFCS score compared to glycine (overall low-certainty evidence, 1 study, 40 participants). DAN scores were lower when compared to massage and water; no different when compared to no intervention, EMLA and moderate concentration of sucrose; and higher when compared to rocking or pacifier (low-certainty evidence, 2 studies, 224 participants). Due to the high number of comparator interventions, other measures of pain were assessed in a very small number of studies in both comparisons, rendering the evidence of low certainty. The majority of studies did not report on adverse events, considering the benign nature of the intervention. Those that reported on adverse events identified none in any participants. Subgroup analyses were not conducted due to the small number of studies. Authors' conclusions: Moderate-/low-certainty evidence suggests that breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk may reduce pain in neonates undergoing painful procedures compared to no intervention/positioning/holding or placebo or non-pharmacological interventions. Low-certainty evidence suggests that moderate concentration (20% to 33%) glucose/sucrose may lead to little or no difference in reducing pain compared to breastfeeding. The effectiveness of breast milk for painful procedures should be studied in the preterm population, as there are currently a limited number of studies that have assessed its effectiveness in this population.
Non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in ventilated neonates

Sofie Pirlotte,Katrien Beeckman,Isabel Ooms,Filip Cools

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013353.pub2

IF: 8.4

2024-01-19

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Pain, when treated inadequately, puts preterm infants at a greater risk of developing clinical and behavioural sequelae because of their immature pain system. Preterm infants in need of intensive care are repeatedly and persistently exposed to noxious stimuli, and this happens during a critical window of their brain development with peak rates of brain growth, exuberant synaptogenesis and the developmental regulation of specific receptor populations. Nearly two‐thirds of infants born at less than 29 weeks' gestation require mechanical ventilation for some duration during the newborn period. These neonates are endotracheally intubated and require repeated endotracheal suctioning. Endotracheal suctioning is identified as one of the most frequent and most painful procedures in premature infants, causing moderate to severe pain. Even with improved nursing performance and standard procedures based on neonatal needs, endotracheal suctioning remains associated with mild pain. To evaluate the benefits and harms of non‐pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in mechanically ventilated neonates. Non‐pharmacological interventions were compared to no intervention, standard care or another non‐pharmacological intervention. We conducted searches in June 2023 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and three trial registries. We searched the reference lists of related systematic reviews, and of studies selected for inclusion. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi‐RCTs and cluster‐RCTs that included term and preterm neonates who were mechanically ventilated via endotracheal tube or via tracheostomy tube and required endotracheal suctioning performed by doctors, nurses, physiotherapists or other healthcare professionals. Our main outcome measures were validated composite pain scores (including a combination of behavioural, physiological and contextual indicators). Secondary outcomes included separate physiological and behavioural pain indicators. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. For continuous outcome measures, we used a fixed‐effect model and reported mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For categorical outcomes, we reported the typical risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) and 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included eight RCTs (nine reports), which enroled 386 infants, in our review. Five of the eight studies were included in a meta‐analysis. All studies enrolled preterm neonates. Facilitated tucking versus standard care (four studies) Facilitated tucking probably reduces Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) score during endotracheal suctioning (MD −2.76, 95% CI 3.57 to 1.96; I2 = 82%; 4 studies, 148 infants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Facilitated tucking probably has little or no effect during endotracheal suctioning on: heart rate (MD −3.06 beats per minute (bpm), 95% CI −9.33 to 3.21; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 80 infants; low‐certainty evidence); oxygen saturation (MD 0.87, 95% CI −1.33 to 3.08; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 80 infants; low‐certainty evidence); or stress and defensive behaviours (SDB) (MD −1.20, 95% CI −3.47 to 1.07; 1 study, 20 infants; low‐certainty evidence). Facilitated tucking may result in a slight increase in self‐regulatory behaviours (SRB) during endotracheal suctioning (MD 0.90, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.60; 1 study, 20 infants; low‐certainty evidence). No studies reported intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH). Familiar odour versus standard care (one study) Familiar odour during endotracheal suctioning probably has little or no effect on: PIPP score (MD −0.30, 95% CI −2.15 to 1.55; 1 study, 40 infants; low‐certainty evidence); heart rate (MD −6.30 bpm, 95% CI −16.04 to 3.44; 1 study, 40 infants; low‐certainty evidence); or oxygen saturation during endotracheal suctioning (MD −0.80, 95% CI −4.82 to 3.22; 1 study, 40 infants; low‐certainty evidence). No studies reported SRB, SDB or IVH. White noise (one study) White noise during endotracheal suctioning probably has little or no effect on PIPP (MD −0.65, 95% CI −2.51 to 1.21; 1 study, 40 infants; low‐certainty evidence); heart rate (MD −1.85 bpm, 95% CI −11.46 to 7.76; 1 study, 40 infants; low‐certainty evidence); or oxygen saturation (MD 2.25, 95% CI −2.03 to 6.53; 1 study, 40 infants; low‐certainty evidence). No studies reported SRB, SDB or IVH. Facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch probably reduces PIPP score. The evidence of a single study suggests that facilitated tucking / four‐handed care / gentle human touch slightly increases self‐regulatory and approach behaviours during endotracheal suctioning. Based on a single study, familiar odour and white noise have little or no effect on an -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Ethics of trial of effect of parental touch on relieving acute procedural pain in neonates

Denise Harrison,Mariana Bueno

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tp-24-324

2024-11-29

Translational Pediatrics

Abstract:Denise Harrison 1,2 , Mariana Bueno 3 1 Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; 2 School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; 3 Lawrence Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Comment on: Hauck AGV, van der Vaart M, Adams E, et al . Effect of parental touch on relieving acute procedural pain in neonates and parental anxiety (Petal): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in the UK. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2024;8:259-69. Keywords: Neonatal; pain; equipoise; placebo; randomised controlled trial (RCT) Submitted Aug 20, 2024. Accepted for publication Nov 06, 2024. Published online Nov 26, 2024. doi: 10.21037/tp-24-324 The multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of effect of parental touch on relieving acute procedural pain in neonates recently published in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Health (1) is a perfect example of a well-designed well conducted rigorous experimental trial of a neonatal pain reduction intervention, conducted at two sites in the United Kingdom. Indeed the quality of the trial was praised in a commentary associated with the publication (2). The study was considered in line with family centred care, as parents of the newborns, of which 35% were fathers, were involved in the delivery of the intervention (stroking the leg). However, this study raises a number of considerations for the optimal standards of trial design and conduct in acute pain in newborns. Considerations include the use of what needs to be considered 'usual care' based on current best evidence and recommendations for practice and processes, the principle of equipoise (3,4), and processes of obtaining informed consent. In this trial (1), the standard of care reported was as per 'local practice guidelines', which were swaddling and non-nutritive sucking. However these interventions have been reported to be less effective on their own compared to breastfeeding (5,6), skin to skin care (7) and small volumes of sweet tasting solutions, either sucrose or glucose (8-12). These three strategies have long been recommended for needle-related procedures in newborns in national and international clinical practice guidelines and standards (13-15), and have moderate to high levels of evidence based on their respective GRADE status as reported in systematic reviews (6,7,9). These strategies should therefore be considered as standard of care/usual care in neonatal pain studies. Yet, very little information on the extensive body of literature on these strategies has been included in this published study. Specifically, none of the systematic reviews of sucrose or glucose published over the years were discussed or cited in the reference list despite the extensive evidence from hundreds of trials and multiple systematic reviews (8-12). The lack of the use of known evidence-based pain management practices as standard of care in such newborn procedural pain studies calls into question the principle of equipoise, for this study as well as neonatal pain studies being conducted and published. The principle of equipoise involves "the state of genuine uncertainty on the part of the clinical investigator regarding the comparative therapeutic merits of each arm in the trial." (page 141) (16). In fact, it has been argued that we have had too many newborn procedural pain studies for well over a decade (17-19). Over a decade ago, Pediatrics published an ethics rounds on this exact question, titled "Should an IRB Approve a Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial of Analgesia for Procedural Pain in Neonates?" (20). At that time, Bellini stated "In conclusion, this trial is to be rejected because it exposes infants to avoidable pain, a behavior that is anachronistic for modern medicine" (page 551) (20). Yet, trials continue to be conducted and published. This commentary explores the bigger picture of the use of evidence by researchers in their quest to build further evidence. Firstly, as above, the authors of this study under discussion (1) state that the practice in the participating unit is swaddling and non-nutritive sucking. However, using normal unit practices as standard of care in a trial, when there are known more effective treatments, needs to be questioned. The value of new trials compared to implementation interventions or policy interventions, always needs to be weighed up. However, usual practices should always be based on the best available evidence where feasible and possible. This lack of use of best evidence for newborns undergoing painful procedures is not new to this single publication. In fact, there has been very little change in pain management practices during painful procedures for hospitalized newborns over the last 30 years (21). Responsibility needs to be move -Abstract Truncated-

pediatrics
A new step forward with TRANSFUSION online

J. McCullough

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1537-2995.2000.40070757.x

2000-07-01

Transfusion

Abstract:
Pharmacological pain and sedation interventions for the prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants on assisted ventilation - an overview of systematic reviews

Agata Stróżyk,Themistoklis Paraskevas,Olga Romantsik,Maria Grazia Calevo,Rita Banzi,David Ley,Matteo Bruschettini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012706.pub2

2023-08-11

Abstract:Background: Germinal matrix hemorrhage and intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH) may contribute to neonatal morbidity and mortality and result in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. Appropriate pain and sedation management in ventilated preterm infants may decrease the risk of GMH-IVH; however, it might be associated with harms. Objectives: To summarize the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the effects and safety of pharmacological interventions related to pain and sedation management in order to prevent GMH-IVH in ventilated preterm infants. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library August 2022 for reviews on pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management to prevent GMH-IVH in ventilated preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation). We included Cochrane Reviews assessing the following interventions administered within the first week of life: benzodiazepines, paracetamol, opioids, ibuprofen, anesthetics, barbiturates, and antiadrenergics. Primary outcomes were any GMH-IVH (aGMH-IVH), severe IVH (sIVH), all-cause neonatal death (ACND), and major neurodevelopmental disability (MND). We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Main results: We included seven Cochrane Reviews and one Cochrane Review protocol. The reviews on clonidine and paracetamol did not include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) matching our inclusion criteria. We included 40 RCTs (3791 infants) from reviews on paracetamol for patent ductus arteriosus (3), midazolam (3), phenobarbital (9), opioids (20), and ibuprofen (5). The quality of the included reviews was high. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to very low, because of serious imprecision and study limitations. Germinal matrix hemorrhage-intraventricular hemorrhage (any grade) Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on aGMH-IVH (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 2.07; 2 RCTs, 82 infants; very low-certainty evidence); midazolam may result in little to no difference in the incidence of aGMH-IVH (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.24; 3 RCTs, 122 infants; low-certainty evidence); the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on aGMH-IVH (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 9 RCTs, 732 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids may result in little to no difference in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 7 RCTs, 469 infants; low-certainty evidence); ibuprofen likely results in little to no difference in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; 4 RCTs, 759 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to ibuprofen, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on aGMH-IVH (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.34; 1 RCT, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, morphine may result in a reduction in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87; 1 RCT, 46 infants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to diamorphine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on aGMH-IVH (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.07; 1 RCT, 88 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade 3 to 4) Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of paracetamol on sIVH (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.43 to 7.49; 2 RCTs, 82 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and of phenobarbital (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25; 9 RCTs, 732 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids may result in little to no difference in sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 6 RCTs, 1299 infants; low-certainty evidence); ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.26; 4 RCTs, 747 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies on midazolam reported this outcome. Compared to ibuprofen, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on sIVH (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 60.21; 1 RCT, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.43; 1 RCT, 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to fentanyl, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 163 infants; very low-certainty evidence). All-cause neonatal death Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on ACND (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.72; 3 RCTs, 203 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids likely result in little to no difference in ACND (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; 5 RCTs, 1189 infants; moderate-certainty evidence); the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen on ACND (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.64; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on ACND (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.16; 1 RCT, 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to diamorphine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on ACND (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 88 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Major neurodevelopmental disability Compared to placebo, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on MND at 18 to 24 months (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.29; 1 RCT, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and at five to six years (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.56; 1 RCT, 95 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies on other drugs reported this outcome. Authors' conclusions: None of the reported studies had an impact on aGMH-IVH, sIVH, ACND, or MND. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Large RCTs of rigorous methodology are needed to achieve an optimal information size to assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management for the prevention of GMH-IVH and mortality in preterm infants. Studies might compare interventions against either placebo or other drugs. Reporting of the outcome data should include the assessment of GMH-IVH and long-term neurodevelopment.
Manual Palpation versus Ultrasound to Identify the Intervertebral Space for Spinal Anesthesia in Infants

Joanne Du,Catherine Roth,Sujana Dontukurthy,Joseph D Tobias,Giorgio Veneziano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S392438

IF: 2.8319

2023-01-10

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:Joanne Du, 1 Catherine Roth, 2 Sujana Dontukurthy, 3 Joseph D Tobias, 2, 4 Giorgio Veneziano 2, 4 1 The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA; 2 Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, OH, USA; 3 Department of Anesthesiology, Valley Children's Hospital, Madera, CA, USA; 4 Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA Correspondence: Giorgio Veneziano, Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Children's Dr, Columbus, OH, 43205, USA, Tel + 1 614-722-4200, Email Purpose: Awake spinal anesthesia continues as an alternative to general anesthesia for infants. Standard clinical practice includes the manual palpation of surface landmarks to identify the desired intervertebral space for lumbar puncture (LP). The current study investigates the accuracy of manual palpation for identifying the intended intervertebral site for LP, using ultrasonography for confirmation and to determine the interspace where the conus medullaris ends. Patients and Methods: After informed parental consent, patients less than one year of age undergoing spinal anesthesia for lower abdominal, urologic, or lower extremity surgical procedures were included. Patients were held in the seated position and an attending pediatric anesthesiologist or pediatric anesthesiology fellow declared the vertebral interspace intended for needle insertion, palpated surface landmarks, and placed a mark at the site. A research anesthesiologist then determined the actual vertebral interspace of the marked site and the location of the conus medullaris using ultrasonography. The time to complete both techniques (manual palpation and ultrasonography) was recorded. Results: The study cohort included 50 infants (median age of 7 months). Sixteen vertebral interspaces (32%) were inaccurately marked. One was marked two spaces higher than intended, ten were marked one space higher than intended, and five were marked one space lower than intended. In one patient, the intended vertebral interspace for the lumbar puncture overlaid the conus medullaris . The median time required was 25 seconds (IQR 14.3, 32) for palpation and 39 seconds (IQR 29, 63.8) for ultrasonography. Conclusion: Manual palpation of surface landmarks to determine the correct interspace for LP for spinal anesthesia in infants is inaccurate. The time required to perform spinal ultrasonography in infants for determination of the optimal site for LP is brief and may be useful in ensuring accurate identification of the correct interspace and the location of the conus medullaris . Keywords: spinal anesthesia, infant, ultrasonography, palpation, lumbar puncture, conus medullaris Spinal anesthesia remains a recognized and acceptable technique as an alternative to general anesthesia for sub-umbilical and lower extremity surgical procedures in infants. Although initially used to avoid the adverse physiologic effects of general anesthesia in patients with comorbid conditions or to avoid apnea following halothane anesthesia, there has been a renewed interest in its use given the potential long-term neurocognitive impact of general anesthetic agents in this population. 1–6 Additionally, several other physiologic and postoperative benefits have been demonstrated with spinal anesthesia in infants, including avoidance of airway instrumentation, a decreased incidence of adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes, and cost savings when compared to general anesthesia. 7,8 Performance of spinal anesthesia requires lumbar puncture (LP), identification of the intrathecal space, and injection of a local anesthetic agent (0.5% bupivacaine or ropivacaine). Current clinical practice for identifying the intervertebral space for spinal anesthesia is manual palpation. The anatomical landmarks for spinal anesthesia include palpating the iliac crests and identification of the intercristal line (Tuffier's line) which bisects the L4 vertebral body or the L4-L5 intervertebral space depending on the patient's age. 9 Manual palpation may be inaccurate and high needle placement at or above the level of the conus medullaris has the potential for morbidity, including neurologic damage. 10–14 While the incidence of spinal cord injury associated with infant spinal anesthesia is unknown, the practice appears safe as evidenced by the lack complications cited by multiple pediatric regional anesthesia databases. 2,15 Despite the rarity, spinal cord injury from direct needle trauma -Abstract Truncated-

clinical neurology
Nonpharmacological Interventions to Mitigate Procedural Pain in the NICU: An Integrative Review

Rana Sutton,Gillian Lemermeyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ANC.0000000000001164

2024-08-01

Abstract:Background: Small infants experience a myriad of stimuli while in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), with many being painful or stressful experiences, although medically necessary. Purpose: To determine what is known about nonpharmacological developmental care interventions used in the NICU to mitigate procedural pain of infants born under 32 weeks gestation. Search/strategy: Five electronic databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were as follows: experimental and nonexperimental studies from all publication years with infants born at less than 32 weeks gestational age; peer-reviewed research articles studying nonpharmacological interventions such as skin-to-skin care, facilitated tucking, nonnutritive sucking, hand hugs, and swaddling; and English language articles. Our search yielded 1435 articles. After the elimination of 736 duplicates, a further 570 were deemed irrelevant based on their abstract/titles. Then, 124 full-text articles were analyzed with our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Findings: Twenty-seven studies were reviewed. Sucrose, facilitated tucking, pacifier, skin-to-skin care, and human milk appeared to lessen pain experienced during heel sticks, suctioning, nasogastric tube insertions, and echocardiograms. All nonpharmacological interventions failed to prove efficacious to adequately manage pain during retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) examinations. Implications for practice: Evidence review demonstrates that healthcare practitioners should use nonpharmacological measures to help prevent pain from day-to-day procedures in the NICU including heel sticks, nasogastric tube insertions, suctioning, echocardiograms, and subcutaneous injections. Implications for research: Future research is necessary to better understand and measure how pain is manifested by very small premature infants. Specific research on mitigating the pain of examinations for retinopathy of prematurity is also needed.
Local anaesthesia for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion

Regina-Maria Renner,Madeleine Ennis,Adrienne E McKercher,Jillian T Henderson,Alison Edelman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006712.pub3

IF: 8.4

2024-02-14

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Abortions prior to 14 weeks are among the most common outpatient surgical procedures performed on people capable of becoming pregnant. Various methods have been used to control pain; however, many people still experience pain with the procedure. To evaluate the benefits and harms of local anaesthesia given for pain control during surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation. We searched CENTRAL (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, POPLINE, and Google Scholar to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials of pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using suction aspiration. We searched the reference lists of related reviews and articles. We selected effectiveness and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials that studied local anaesthesia with common local anaesthetics and administration routes given for pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using uterine aspiration. Outcomes included intraoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. We used standard Cochrane methods. We computed mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables reporting a mean. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Thirteen studies with 1992 participants met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity of interventions, we could not pool more than two studies for any outcome. We used 13 mm improvement on a visual/verbal analogue scale to indicate a clinically meaningful difference in pain with surgical abortion (pain with dilation, aspiration, or during procedure). Based on type of pain control, we divided studies into three groups. Paracervical block (PCB) effectiveness trials A 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB reduced pain with dilation (MD −37.00, 95% CI −45.64 to −28.36), and aspiration (MD −26.00, 95% CI −33.48 to −18.52) compared to a sham PCB (1 RCT, 120 participants; high‐certainty evidence). A PCB with 14 mL of 1% chloroprocaine resulted in a slight reduction in pain with aspiration compared to a PCB with normal saline injected at two or four sites (MD −1.50, 95% CI −2.45 to −0.55; 1 RCT, 79 participants; high‐certainty evidence). PCB comparative effectiveness trials An ultracaine PCB probably results in little to no clinically meaningful difference in pain during procedure compared to topical cervical lidocaine spray (median 1 point higher, interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). A 1000 mg dose of intravenous paracetamol probably does not decrease pain as much as ultracaine PCB during procedure (median 2 points higher, IQR 1 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 46 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Various local anaesthetics in PCB comparative effectiveness trials A 10 mL buffered 2% lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a plain lidocaine PCB (MD −0.80, 95% CI −0.89 to −0.71; 1 RCT, 167 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). A buffered lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to plain lidocaine PCB (MD −0.57, 95% CI −1.01 to −0.06; 2 RCTs, 291 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Non‐PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique effectiveness trials PCB: waiting versus no waiting Waiting three to five minutes between 1% lidocaine PCB injection and dilation probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to not waiting (MD −0.70, 95% CI −1.23 to −0.17; 2 RCTs, 357 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Topical cervical analgesia Topical 10 mL 2% lignocaine gel probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to KY Jelly (MD −0.87, 95% CI −1.60 to −0.14; 1 RCT, 131 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). In participants who also received a PCB, 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain during the procedure compared to two pumps of normal saline spray (median −1 point, IQR −2 to −1; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 55 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Intravenous paracetamol 1000 mg compared to two pumps of cervical lidocaine spray probably does not results in a clinically meaningful difference in pain procedure (median 1 point, IQR −2 to 2; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Non‐PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique comparative effectiveness trials Depth of PCB The evidence suggests that a 3‐cm deep PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to a 1.5‐cm deep PCB (MD −1.00, 95% CI −1.09 to −0.91; 2 RCTs, 229 participants; low‐certainty evidence). PCB: four sites versus two sites A two‐ -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
A review and bibliometric analysis of global research on non-pharmacologic management for neonatal and infant procedural pain

Xin Chen,Ruoyu Li,Anqi Xiong,Biru Luo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000040552

IF: 1.6

2024-12-01

Medicine

Abstract:Repeated and prolonged exposure to pain can impair neurodevelopmental, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes in newborns. Effective pain management of newborns is essential, but there is no comprehensive analysis of the status of neonatal pain non-pharmacologic management research. Original publications related to the non-pharmacological management of neonatal pain were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) between 1989 and 2024. CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to extract information about countries/regions, institutions, authors, keywords, and references to identify and analyze the research hotspots and trends in this field. 1331 authors from 51 countries and 548 institutions published studies on the non-pharmacological management of neonatal pain between 1989 and 2024, with the number of publications showing an overall upward trend. Canada emerged as the leading country in terms of publication volume, with the University of Toronto and The Hospital for Sick Children identified as key research institutions. High-frequency keywords included "procedural pain," "management," "sucrose," "analgesia," and "preterm infant," resulting in 11 clusters. Keyword emergence analysis revealed that "neonatal pain," "analgesia," "oral sucrose," and "oral glucose" were research hotpots. Analysis of highly cited papers showed that the most referenced articles were published in the Clinical Journal of Pain. Researchers' interest in neonatal procedural pain has increased significantly over the past 30 years. This article can serve as a theoretical reference for future research on mild to moderate pain in neonates and infants, and it can provide ideas for exploring novel and secure pain management strategies.

medicine, general & internal
Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Methods, Such as Breastfeeding, to Mitigate Pain in NICU Infants

Zoi Koukou,Anatoli Theodoridou,Eleftheria Taousani,Angeliki Antonakou,Eleftherios Panteris,Styliani-Stella Papadopoulou,Anna Skordou,Stavros Sifakis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/children9101568

2022-10-17

Children

Abstract:Neonates do experience pain and its management is necessary in order to prevent long-term, as well as, short-term effects. The most common source of pain in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is caused by medically invasive procedures. NICU patients have to endure trauma, medical adhesive related skin injuries, heel lance, venipuncture and intramuscular injection as well as nasogastric catheterization besides surgery. A cornerstone in pain assessment is the use of scales such as COMFORT, PIPP-R, NIPS and N-PASS. This narrative review provides an up to date account of neonate pain management used in NICUs worldwide focusing on non-pharmacological methods. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have well established adverse side effects and opioids are addictive thus pharmacological methods should be avoided if possible at least for mild pain management. Non-pharmacological interventions, particularly breastfeeding and non-nutritive sucking as primary strategies for pain management in neonates are useful strategies to consider. The best non-pharmacological methods are breastfeeding followed by non-nutritive sucking coupled with sucrose sucking. Regrettably most parents used only physical methods and should be trained and involved for best results. Further research in NICU is essential as the developmental knowledge changes and neonate physiology is further uncovered together with its connection to pain.

pediatrics
Clonidine for pain in non-ventilated infants

Olga Romantsik,Maria Grazia Calevo,Elisabeth Norman,Matteo Bruschettini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013104.pub2

2020-04-09

Abstract:Background: Critically ill newborn infants undergo a variety of painful procedures or experience a variety of painful conditions during their early life in the neonatal unit. In the critically ill paediatric and neonatal population, clonidine is prescribed as an adjunct to opioids or benzodiazepines aiming to reduce the doses of these drugs that are required for analgesia or sedation, or to facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation. It has been shown that clonidine premedication might have a positive effect on postoperative pain in children. Objectives: To assess the benefit and harms of clonidine for the prevention or treatment of procedural pain; postoperative pain; or pain associated with clinical conditions in non-ventilated neonates. Search methods: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL to December 2018. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We ran an updated search from 1 January 2018 to 11 March 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web, MEDLINE via Ovid, and CINAHL via EBSCOhost. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine to placebo or no treatment, opioids, paracetamol, dexmedetomidine, or non-pharmacological pain-reducing interventions for the management of procedural pain, postoperative pain, and pain associated with clinical conditions in preterm and term newborns. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently planned to extract data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, modality of administration, and dose of clonidine) and assess the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcome considered was pain: for procedural pain, the mean values of each analgesia scale assessed during the procedure and at one to two hours after the procedure; for postoperative pain and for pain associated with clinical conditions, the mean values of each analgesia scale assessed at 30 minutes, three hours, and 12 hours after the administration of the intervention. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. Main results: Our search strategy yielded 3383 references. Two review authors independently assessed all references for inclusion. We did not find any completed studies for inclusion. We excluded three trials where clonidine was administered for spinal anaesthesia. Authors' conclusions: We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria and hence there is no evidence to recommend or refute the use of clonidine for the prevention or treatment of procedural or postoperative pain, or pain associated with clinical conditions in neonates.
Effectiveness of newborn infant parasympathetic evaluation (NIPE) index for guiding intraoperative fentanyl administration in children under 2 years: a randomized controlled trial

Darunee Sripadungkul,Sirirat Tribuddharat,Thepakorn Sathitkarnmanee,Pimprapa Muenpirom,Panaratana Ratanasuwan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18267

IF: 3.061

2024-10-08

PeerJ

Abstract:Background: Assessing pain in infants and neonates is challenging due to their inability to communicate verbally. While validated subjective tools exist, they rely on interpreting the child's behavior, leading to potential inconsistencies and underestimation of pain. Based on heart rate variability, the newborn infant parasympathetic evaluation (NIPE) index offers a more objective approach to pain assessment in children under 2 years. Although promising, research on its effectiveness during surgery under general anesthesia remains limited and inconclusive. Objective: This study compared the effectiveness of NIPE-guided fentanyl administration to traditional vital signs (heart rate and mean arterial pressure) in managing pain during surgery in children under 2 years. Methods: Seventy children undergoing head, neck, or upper extremity surgery were randomized into group N (NIPE) or group C (Control) with 35 participants in each group. Both groups received standardized anesthesia and monitoring, including NIPE. Group N received fentanyl when NIPE scores fell below 50, while group C received fentanyl upon a 20% increase in heart rate or mean arterial pressure (MAP). Postoperative pain was assessed using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) scores, alongside fentanyl consumption, sedation levels, and potential side effects. Results: Both groups exhibited similar outcomes in terms of postoperative pain scores, fentanyl consumption, sedation levels, and absence of side effects (postoperative respiratory depression or nausea and vomiting). Additionally, intraoperative NIPE scores, heart rate, and MAP were comparable between the groups. There are strong correlations between both groups in terms of NIPE scores (r = 0.735, p < 0.0001), heart rate (r = 0.630, p < 0.0001), and MAP (r = 0.846, p < 0.0001). In both group C and group N, the NIPE scores reveal strong negative correlations with heart rate (r = -0.610, p < 0.0001, and r = -0.674, p < 0.0001) and MAP (r = -0.860, p < 0.0001, and r = -0.756, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: NIPE-guided intraoperative fentanyl administration was not superior to heart rate/MAP-guided administration, as both achieved similar pain management outcomes in this study. However, NIPE may offer a more practical and precise approach, as it is an objective tool with a defined threshold. These findings suggest NIPE's promise as a valuable tool for managing pain in children under 2 years undergoing surgery. However, confirmation of its widespread effectiveness requires further research with larger, multicenter studies encompassing procedures with a broader spectrum of pain severity.
The effects of epidural/spinal opioids in labour analgesia on neonatal outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Kai Wang,Liang Cao,Qian Deng,Li-Qiang Sun,Tian-Yu Gu,Jie Song,Dun-Yi Qi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-014-0185-y

Abstract:Purpose: Epidural/spinal opioids are increasingly used to relieve parturients' pain in labour. Some studies indicate that opioids can induce side effects in neonates, such as respiratory depression and neurobehavioural changes. This meta-analysis aimed to clarify the effects of opioids in labour analgesia on neonates. Source: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE™ were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The neonatal data of Apgar scores, Neurological and Adaptive Capacity Scores (NACS), and umbilical cord pH values were extracted. Statistical analyses were carried out using Review Manager 5.2 and Stata(®) 10. Principal findings: Twenty-one trials with 2,859 participants were included in our meta-analysis. No difference in the incidence of Apgar scores < 7 was shown between the opioid and control groups at one minute (risk difference [RD] 0.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.0 to 2.0, P = 0.78; I (2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0 to 50) and at five minutes (RD -1.0%, 95% CI: -2.0 to 1.0, P = 0.31; I(2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0 to 50). No significant differences were found in the NACS at two hours (mean difference [MD] -0.35, 95% CI: -1.70 to 1.01, P = 0.62; I(2) = 0%, 95% CI: 0 to 79) and at 24 hr (MD -0.45, 95% CI: -1.36 to 0.46, P = 0.33; I(2) = 3%, 95% CI: 0 to 26). Also, no significant differences were found in umbilical cord artery pH (MD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.03, P = 0.48; I(2) = 80%, 95% CI: 46 to 92) and vein pH (MD -0.03, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.00, P = 0.08; I(2) = 77%, 95% CI: 36 to 91). No significant publication bias was found. Conclusion: The common doses of fentanyl and sufentanil used with an epidural/spinal technique in labour analgesia are safe for neonates up to 24 hr after delivery. In future studies, more attention should be paid to the long-term side effects in neonates.
Effect of non-pharmacological interventions on pain in preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Yuwei Weng,Jie Zhang,Zhifang Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-023-04488-y

2024-01-03

BMC Pediatrics

Abstract:Abstract Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological interventions for pain management in preterm infants and provide high-quality clinical evidence. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various non-pharmacological interventions for pain management in preterm infants were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to the present (updated March 2023). The primary outcome was pain score reported as standardized mean difference (SMD). The secondary outcomes were oxygen saturation and heart rate reported as the same form. Results Thirty five RCTs of 2134 preterm infants were included in the meta-analysis, involving 6 interventions: olfactory stimulation, combined oral sucrose and non-nutritive sucking (OS + NNS), facilitated tucking, auditory intervention, tactile relief, and mixed intervention. Based on moderate-quality evidence, OS + NNS (OR: 3.92, 95% CI: 1.72, 6.15, SUCRA score: 0.73), facilitated tucking (OR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.15, 3.90, SUCRA score: 0.29), auditory intervention (OR: 2.48, 95% CI: 0.91, 4.10, SUCRA score: 0.27), olfactory stimulation (OR: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.51, 3.14, SUCRA score: 0.25), and mixed intervention (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.10, 4.38, SUCRA score: 0.14) were all superior to the control group for pain relief. For oxygen saturation, facilitated tucking (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 0.66, 3.35, SUCRA score: 0.64) and auditory intervention (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.22, 2.04, SUCRA score: 0.36) were superior to the control. For heart rate, none of the comparisons between the various interventions were statistically significant. Conclusion This study showed that there are notable variations in the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological interventions in terms of pain scores and oxygen saturation. However, there was no evidence of any improvement in heart rate.

pediatrics
Systemic opioid regimens for postoperative pain in neonates

Mari Kinoshita,Israel Junior Borges do Nascimento,Lea Styrmisdóttir,Matteo Bruschettini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015016.pub2

IF: 8.4

2023-01-17

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Postoperative pain clinical management in neonates has always been a challenging medical issue. Worldwide, several systemic opioid regimens are available for pediatricians, neonatologists, and general practitioners to control pain in neonates undergoing surgical procedures. However, the most effective and safe regimen is still unknown in the current body of literature. To determine the effects of different regimens of systemic opioid analgesics in neonates submitted to surgery on all‐cause mortality, pain, and significant neurodevelopmental disability. Potentially assessed regimens might include: different doses of the same opioid, different routes of administration of the same opioid, continuous infusion versus bolus administration, or 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. Searches were conducted in June 2022 using the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], PubMed, and CINAHL. Trial registration records were identified via CENTRAL and an independent search of the ISRCTN registry. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi‐randomized, cluster‐randomized, and cross‐over controlled trials evaluating systemic opioid regimens' effects on postoperative pain in neonates (pre‐term or full‐term). We considered suitable for inclusion: I) studies evaluating different doses of the same opioid; 2) studies evaluating different routes of administration of the same opioid; 3) studies evaluating the effectiveness of continuous infusion versus bolus infusion; and 4) studies establishing an assessment of an 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. According to Cochrane methods, two investigators independently screened retrieved records, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. We stratified meta‐analysis by the type of intervention: studies evaluating the use of opioids for postoperative pain in neonates through continuous infusion versus bolus infusion and studies assessing the 'as needed' administration versus 'as scheduled' administration. We used the fixed‐effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), median, and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous data. Finally, we used the GRADEpro approach for primary outcomes to evaluate the quality of the evidence across included studies. In this review, we included seven randomized controlled clinical trials (504 infants) from 1996 to 2020. We identified no studies comparing different doses of the same opioid, or different routes. The administration of continuous opioid infusion versus bolus administration of opioids was evaluated in six studies, while one study compared 'as needed' versus 'as scheduled' administration of morphine given by parents or nurses. Overall, the effectiveness of continuous infusion of opioids over bolus infusion as measured by the visual analog scale (MD 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.23 to 0.23; 133 participants, 2 studies; I2 = 0); or using the COMFORT scale (MD ‐0.07, 95% CI ‐0.89 to 0.75; 133 participants, 2 studies; I2 = 0), remains unclear due to study designs' limitations, such as the unclear risk of attrition, reporting bias, and imprecision among reported results (very low certainty of the evidence). None of the included studies reported data on other clinically important outcomes such as all‐cause mortality rate during hospitalization, major neurodevelopmental disability, the incidence of severe retinopathy of prematurity or intraventricular hemorrhage, and cognitive‐ and educational‐related outcomes. Limited evidence is available on continuous infusion compared to intermittent boluses of systemic opioids. We are uncertain whether continuous opioid infusion reduces pain compared with intermittent opioid boluses; none of the studies reported the other primary outcomes of this review, i.e. all‐cause mortality during initial hospitalization, significant neurodevelopmental disability, or cognitive and educational outcomes among children older than five years old. Only one small study reported on morphine infusion with parent‐ or nurse‐controlled analgesia. Review Question How effective and safe are systemic opioids for reducing newborn babies' pain after surgery? Background Neonates (babies in the first four weeks after birth) may undergo surgery (operations) or surgical procedures. Like adults, babies experience pain, and this pain must be managed (reduced) after surgery. Opioids are pain‐relieving medications. Examples of opioids are codeine and morphine. Opioids work by interacting with opioid receptors in the body and reducing feelings of pain. Opioids affect the whole body system and this is why this review refers to them as systemic opioids. Opioids can be given to babies in a few ways, by different routes. One route is by using a needle injected into a vein; this is called paren -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
A randomized controlled trial of sucrose and/or pacifier as analgesia for infants receiving venipuncture in a pediatric emergency department

Sarah J Curtis,Hsing Jou,Samina Ali,Ben Vandermeer,Terry Klassen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-7-27

2007-07-18

BMC Pediatrics

Abstract:BackgroundAlthough sucrose has been accepted as an effective analgesic agent for procedural pain in neonates, previous studies are largely in the NICU population using the procedure of heel lance. This is the first report of the effect of sucrose, pacifier or the combination thereof for the procedural pain of venipuncture in infants in the pediatric emergency department population.MethodsThe study design was a double (sucrose) and single blind (pacifier), placebo-controlled randomized trial – factorial design carried out in a pediatric emergency department. The study population was infants, aged 0 – 6 months. Eighty-four patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups: a) sucrose b) sucrose & pacifier c) control d) control & pacifier. Each child received 2 ml of either 44% sucrose or sterile water, by mouth. The primary outcome measure: FLACC pain scale score change from baseline. Secondary outcome measures: crying time and heart rate change from baseline.ResultsSucrose did not significantly reduce the FLACC score, crying time or heart rate. However sub-group analysis revealed that sucrose had a much greater effect in the younger groups. Pacifier use reduced FLACC score (not statistically significant), crying times (statistically significant) but not heart rate. Subgroup analysis revealed a mean crying time difference of 76.52 seconds (p < 0.0171) (0–1 month) and 123.9 seconds (p < 0.0029) (1–3 month). For subgroup age > 3 months pacifier did not have any significant effect on crying time. Age adjusted regression analysis revealed that both sucrose and pacifier had significant effects on crying time. Crying time increased with both increasing age and increasing gestational age.ConclusionPacifiers are inexpensive, effective analgesics and are easy to use in the PED for venipuncture in infants aged 0–3 months. The benefits of sucrose alone as an analgesic require further investigation in the older infant, but sucrose does appear to provide additional benefit when used with a pacifier in this age group.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN15819627

pediatrics

Effect of ingestion of starch and some clays on iron absorption.

Non-opioid analgesics for procedural pain in neonates

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates

Non-pharmacological management of infant and young child procedural pain

Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates

Non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of pain during endotracheal suctioning in ventilated neonates

Ethics of trial of effect of parental touch on relieving acute procedural pain in neonates

A new step forward with TRANSFUSION online

Pharmacological pain and sedation interventions for the prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants on assisted ventilation - an overview of systematic reviews

Manual Palpation versus Ultrasound to Identify the Intervertebral Space for Spinal Anesthesia in Infants

Nonpharmacological Interventions to Mitigate Procedural Pain in the NICU: An Integrative Review

Local anaesthesia for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion

A review and bibliometric analysis of global research on non-pharmacologic management for neonatal and infant procedural pain

Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological Methods, Such as Breastfeeding, to Mitigate Pain in NICU Infants

Clonidine for pain in non-ventilated infants

Effectiveness of newborn infant parasympathetic evaluation (NIPE) index for guiding intraoperative fentanyl administration in children under 2 years: a randomized controlled trial

The effects of epidural/spinal opioids in labour analgesia on neonatal outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effect of non-pharmacological interventions on pain in preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Systemic opioid regimens for postoperative pain in neonates

A randomized controlled trial of sucrose and/or pacifier as analgesia for infants receiving venipuncture in a pediatric emergency department