Suppr超能文献

vapocoolant 喷雾与皮下利多卡因注射减轻静脉穿刺疼痛的比较:一项随机对照临床试验。

Vapocoolant spray vs subcutaneous lidocaine injection for reducing the pain of intravenous cannulation: a randomized, controlled, clinical trial.

机构信息

University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia.

出版信息

Br J Anaesth. 2010 Oct;105(4):519-25. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq198. Epub 2010 Aug 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy, acceptability, and safety of a topical vapocoolant alkane spray and 1% plain s.c. lidocaine in reducing pain from i.v. cannulation.

METHODS

This was a non-blinded, randomized, controlled trial, in a large emergency department. Adult patients requiring i.v. cannulation were enrolled. The vapocoolant was administered from a pressure pack, at a distance of 12 cm for 2 s, and cannulation was undertaken within 15 s. Alternatively, 1% plain lidocaine 0.2 ml was administered s.c. using a 27 G needle, and cannulation was undertaken after a minimum of 30 s. The primary outcomes were anaesthetic administration and cannulation pain (0-100 mm visual analogue scale). Convenience of anaesthetic use and patient satisfaction were measured using a five-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

One hundred and ten patients were enrolled in each group. The groups did not differ in age, gender, cannulation anxiety, cannulator experience, cannulation indication or site, or cannula size. Median anaesthetic administration pain scores were 0 and 11 mm in the vapocoolant and lidocaine groups, respectively (P<0.001). Median cannulation pain scores were 9 and 0 mm, respectively (P<0.001). Vapocoolant was associated with greater cannulation success (83.6% vs 67.3%, P=0.005), less time to administer (median 9.0 vs 84.5 s, P<0.001), and more staff convenience (median 5 vs 4, P<0.001). Median patient satisfaction was 4 in both groups. Unexpected events were rare and minor.

CONCLUSIONS

Although vapocoolant reduces cannulation pain less than lidocaine, it has a number of important advantages. Vapocoolant offers a useful alternative in the emergency department setting.

摘要

背景

我们比较了一种局部喷雾式挥发性烷烃和 1% 普通皮下利多卡因在减轻静脉穿刺疼痛方面的疗效、可接受性和安全性。

方法

这是一项在大型急诊部门进行的非盲、随机、对照试验。需要静脉穿刺的成年患者入组。将喷雾式挥发性烷烃从压力罐中以 12 厘米的距离喷雾 2 秒,在 15 秒内进行穿刺。或者,用 27 G 针皮下注射 1% 普通利多卡因 0.2 毫升,至少 30 秒后进行穿刺。主要结局是麻醉剂的使用和穿刺疼痛(0-100 毫米视觉模拟量表)。麻醉剂使用的便利性和患者满意度通过 5 分李克特量表进行测量。

结果

每组各有 110 名患者入组。两组在年龄、性别、穿刺焦虑、穿刺者经验、穿刺部位、穿刺针大小或穿刺指征方面无差异。喷雾式挥发性烷烃组的麻醉剂给药疼痛评分中位数为 0 毫米,利多卡因组为 11 毫米(P<0.001)。穿刺疼痛评分中位数分别为 9 毫米和 0 毫米(P<0.001)。喷雾式挥发性烷烃与更高的穿刺成功率相关(83.6% vs 67.3%,P=0.005),给药时间更短(中位数 9.0 秒 vs 84.5 秒,P<0.001),工作人员更方便(中位数 5 分 vs 4 分,P<0.001)。两组患者满意度中位数均为 4 分。意外事件罕见且轻微。

结论

尽管喷雾式挥发性烷烃降低穿刺疼痛的效果不如利多卡因,但它具有许多重要优势。在急诊环境下,喷雾式挥发性烷烃是一种有用的替代选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验