Foster Jann P, Taylor Christine, Spence Kaye
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sydney, Penrith DC, Australia.
Sydney Nursing School/Central Clinical School, Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 4;2(2):CD010331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010331.pub2.
Hospitalised newborn neonates frequently undergo painful invasive procedures that involve penetration of the skin and other tissues by a needle. One intervention that can be used prior to a needle insertion procedure is application of a topical local anaesthetic.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics such as amethocaine and EMLA in newborn term or preterm infants requiring an invasive procedure involving puncture of skin and other tissues with a needle.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase and CINAHL up to 15 May 2016; previous reviews including cross-references, abstracts, and conference proceedings. We contacted expert informants. We contacted authors directly to obtain additional data. We imposed no language restrictions.
Randomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster and cross-over randomised trials that compared the topical anaesthetics amethocaine and eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) in terms of anaesthetic efficacy and safety in newborn term or preterm infants requiring an invasive procedure involving puncture of skin and other tissues with a needle DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: From the reports of the clinical trials we extracted data regarding clinical outcomes including pain, number of infants with methaemoglobin level 5% and above, number of needle prick attempts prior to successful needle-related procedure, crying, time taken to complete the procedure, episodes of apnoea, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of oxygen desaturation, neurodevelopmental disability and other adverse events.
Eight small randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (n = 506). These studies compared either EMLA and placebo or amethocaine and placebo. No studies compared EMLA and amethocaine. We were unable to meta-analyse the outcome of pain due to differing outcome measures and methods of reporting. For EMLA, two individual studies reported a statistically significant reduction in pain compared to placebo during lumbar puncture and venepuncture. Three studies found no statistical difference between the groups during heel lancing. For amethocaine, three studies reported a statistically significant reduction in pain compared to placebo during venepuncture and one study reported a statistically significant reduction in pain compared to placebo during cannulation. One study reported no statistical difference between the two groups during intramuscular injection.One study reported no statistical difference between EMLA and the placebo group for successful venepuncture at first attempt. One study similarly reported no statistically significant difference between Amethocaine and the placebo group for successful cannulation at first attempt.Risk for local redness, swelling or blanching was significantly higher with EMLA (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.19; typical risk difference (RD) 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; n = 272; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 6, 95% CI 4 to 11; I = 92% indicating considerable heterogeneity) although not for amethocaine (typical RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.72 to 6.16; typical RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.11, n = 221). These local skin reactions for EMLA and amethocaine were reported as short-lasting. Two studies reported no methaemoglobinaemia with single application of EMLA. The quality of the evidence on outcomes assessed according to GRADE was low to moderate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, all the trials were small, and the effects of uncertain clinical significance. The evidence regarding the effectiveness or safety of the interventions studied is inadequate to support clinical recommendations. There has been no evaluation regarding any long-term effects of topical anaesthetics in newborn infants.High quality studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of topical anaesthetics such as amethocaine and EMLA for needle-related pain in newborn term or preterm infants are required. These studies should aim to determine efficacy of these topical anaesthetics and on homogenous groups of infants for gestational age. While there was no methaemoglobinaemia in the studies that reported methaemoglobin, the efficacy and safety of EMLA, especially in very preterm infants, and for repeated application, need to be further evaluated in future studies.
住院新生儿经常接受有创操作,这些操作涉及用针头穿透皮肤和其他组织。一种可在针头插入操作前使用的干预措施是涂抹局部麻醉剂。
评估阿美卡因和复方利多卡因乳膏等局部麻醉剂在需要进行涉及用针头穿刺皮肤和其他组织的有创操作的足月儿或早产儿中的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了截至2016年5月15日的Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、PubMed、Embase和CINAHL;以往的综述,包括交叉引用、摘要和会议论文集。我们联系了专家提供信息者。我们直接联系作者以获取更多数据。我们没有设置语言限制。
随机、半随机对照试验,以及整群和交叉随机试验,这些试验比较了局部麻醉剂阿美卡因和复方利多卡因乳膏(EMLA)在需要进行涉及用针头穿刺皮肤和其他组织的有创操作的足月儿或早产儿中的麻醉疗效和安全性。数据收集与分析:从临床试验报告中,我们提取了有关临床结局的数据,包括疼痛、高铁血红蛋白水平达到5%及以上的婴儿数量、在与针头相关的操作成功前的针刺尝试次数、哭闹、完成操作所需时间、呼吸暂停发作次数、心动过缓发作次数、血氧饱和度下降发作次数、神经发育障碍及其他不良事件。
八项小型随机对照试验符合纳入标准(n = 506)。这些研究比较了EMLA与安慰剂或阿美卡因与安慰剂。没有研究比较EMLA和阿美卡因。由于结局测量和报告方法不同,我们无法对疼痛结局进行Meta分析。对于EMLA,两项单独研究报告在腰椎穿刺和静脉穿刺期间与安慰剂相比疼痛有统计学显著降低。三项研究发现在足跟采血期间两组之间无统计学差异。对于阿美卡因,三项研究报告在静脉穿刺期间与安慰剂相比疼痛有统计学显著降低,一项研究报告在插管期间与安慰剂相比疼痛有统计学显著降低。一项研究报告在肌肉注射期间两组之间无统计学差异。一项研究报告EMLA与安慰剂组在首次静脉穿刺成功方面无统计学差异。一项研究同样报告阿美卡因与安慰剂组在首次插管成功方面无统计学显著差异。使用EMLA时局部发红、肿胀或变白的风险显著更高(典型风险比(RR)1.65,95%置信区间(CI)1.24至2.19;典型风险差(RD)0.17,95%CI 0.09至0.26;n = 272;导致额外有害结局的需治疗人数(NNTH)6,95%CI 4至11;I² = 92%表明存在相当大的异质性),尽管阿美卡因并非如此(典型RR 2.11,95%CI 0.72至6.16;典型RD 0.05,95%CI -0.02至0.11,n = 221)。这些EMLA和阿美卡因引起的局部皮肤反应报告为持续时间短。两项研究报告单次使用EMLA未出现高铁血红蛋白血症。根据GRADE评估的结局证据质量为低到中等。
总体而言,所有试验规模都较小,且效果的临床意义不确定。关于所研究干预措施的有效性或安全性的证据不足以支持临床推荐。尚未对局部麻醉剂在新生儿中的任何长期影响进行评估。需要高质量研究来评估阿美卡因和EMLA等局部麻醉剂对足月儿或早产儿针头相关疼痛的疗效和安全性。这些研究应旨在确定这些局部麻醉剂的疗效以及对胎龄相同的婴儿群体的疗效。虽然报告高铁血红蛋白的研究中未出现高铁血红蛋白血症,但EMLA的疗效和安全性,尤其是在极早产儿中以及重复使用时,需要在未来研究中进一步评估。