Baxter Amy L, Cohen Lindsey L, McElvery Heather L, Lawson Mona Louise, von Baeyer Carl L
Pediatric Emergency Medicine Associates, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Dec;27(12):1151-6. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e318237ace4.
A randomized controlled trial compared a reusable device combining cold and vibration to standard care for pediatric venous access pain relief.
Pediatric emergency department patients received either the cold vibration device placed 5 to 10 cm proximally throughout venipuncture or standard care control (primarily vapocoolant spray). Block randomization of patients with or without lidocaine cream already in place ensured equal allocation in both intervention groups. Pain was measured via self- and parent-report using the 0- to 10-point Faces Pain Scale-Revised and with coded videotaped observed behaviors. Venipuncture success, use of distraction, and access times were also assessed.
Eighty-one 4- to 18-year-olds were randomized to the device (n = 41) or standard care (n = 40) (median age, 10.09 years; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 8.91-10.89). Median patient-reported pain scores with the device were lower than with standard care (-2; 95% CI, -4 to 0), as were parent-assessed pain scores (-2; 95% CI, -4 to -2). Observed distress behaviors were more common with standard care (2; 95% CI, 1-3) than with the device (1; 95% CI, 0-2). Venipuncture success was more likely with the device (odds ratio, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.03-9.02). There were no device refusals.
The combination of cold and vibration decreased venipuncture pain significantly more than standard care without compromising procedural success. A device incorporating these elements could overcome the common barriers to needle procedure pain control.
一项随机对照试验比较了一种结合冷疗和振动的可重复使用设备与标准护理措施在缓解小儿静脉穿刺疼痛方面的效果。
儿科急诊科患者在整个静脉穿刺过程中,要么在穿刺点近端5至10厘米处使用冷振动设备,要么接受标准护理对照(主要是挥发性冷却剂喷雾)。对已使用或未使用利多卡因乳膏的患者进行区组随机分组,以确保两个干预组的分配均衡。通过使用0至10分的面部疼痛量表修订版,由患者本人和家长报告疼痛情况,并对编码的录像观察行为进行评估。还评估了静脉穿刺成功率、分心措施的使用情况和穿刺时间。
81名4至18岁的儿童被随机分为使用该设备组(n = 41)或标准护理组(n = 40)(中位年龄为10.09岁;95%置信区间[95%CI],8.91 - 10.89)。患者报告的使用该设备时的疼痛评分中位数低于标准护理组(-2;95%CI,-4至0),家长评估的疼痛评分也是如此(-2;95%CI,-4至-2)。观察到的痛苦行为在标准护理组(2;95%CI,1 - 3)比使用该设备组(1;95%CI,0 - 2)更常见。使用该设备时静脉穿刺成功的可能性更大(优势比,3.05;95%CI,1.03 - 9.02)。没有患者拒绝使用该设备。
冷疗和振动相结合在不影响操作成功率的情况下,比标准护理更能显著减轻静脉穿刺疼痛。包含这些元素的设备可以克服针头操作疼痛控制中的常见障碍。