Suppr超能文献

预先给予与联合给予利多卡因治疗儿童鼻内给予咪达唑仑相关疼痛和不适的比较:一项随机临床试验。

Comparison of preadministered and coadministered lidocaine for treating pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration in children: A randomized clinical trial.

作者信息

O'Connell Nicole C, Woodward Hilary A, Flores-Sanchez Pamela L, McLaren Son H, Ieni Maria, McKinley Kenneth W, Shen Sripriya T, Dayan Peter S, Tsze Daniel S

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons New York New York USA.

Department of Emergency Medicine Westchester Medical Center Valhalla New York USA.

出版信息

J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020 Aug 26;1(6):1562-1570. doi: 10.1002/emp2.12227. eCollection 2020 Dec.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration can be decreased by administering lidocaine before intranasal midazolam (preadministered lidocaine) or combining lidocaine with midazolam in a single solution (coadministered lidocaine). We hypothesized coadministered lidocaine is non-inferior to preadministered lidocaine for decreasing pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration.

METHODS

Randomized, outcome assessor-blinded, noninferiority trial. Children aged 6 months to 7 years undergoing laceration repair received intranasal midazolam with preadministered or coadministered lidocaine. Pain and distress were evaluated with the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-Revised (OSBD-R) (primary outcome; non-inferiority margin 1.8 units) and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) and Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) scales and cry duration (secondary outcomes). Secondary outcomes also included adverse events, clinician and caregiver satisfaction, and pain and distress associated with intranasal lidocaine administration.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were analyzed. Mean OSBD-R scores associated with intranasal midazolam administration were 6.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5, 7.8) and 7 (95% CI 5.2, 8.9) units for preadministered and coadministered lidocaine, respectively. The difference of 0.6 (95% CI -1.7, 2.8) units represented an inconclusive non-inferiority determination. CHEOPS and FLACC scores and cry duration were similar between groups. OSBD-R, CHEOPS, and FLACC scores and cry duration associated with intranasal lidocaine administration were 3.8, 9.9, and 6 units, and 56 seconds, respectively. Clinicians considered coadministered lidocaine easier to administer.

CONCLUSION

Pain and distress associated with intranasal midazolam administration were similar when using coadministered or preadministered lidocaine, but our non-inferiority determination was inconclusive. Administration of intranasal lidocaine by itself was associated with a measurable degree of pain and distress.Keywords: intranasal, midazolam, anxiolysis, sedation, emergency department, emergency medicine, pain, distress, pediatric, lidocaine, laceration.

摘要

目的

在鼻腔内给予咪达唑仑之前给予利多卡因(预先给予利多卡因)或在单一溶液中将利多卡因与咪达唑仑联合使用(共同给予利多卡因),可降低与鼻腔内给予咪达唑仑相关的疼痛和痛苦。我们假设共同给予利多卡因在减轻与鼻腔内给予咪达唑仑相关的疼痛和痛苦方面不劣于预先给予利多卡因。

方法

随机、结果评估者盲法、非劣效性试验。年龄在6个月至7岁接受伤口缝合的儿童接受预先给予或共同给予利多卡因的鼻腔内咪达唑仑。使用修订的行为痛苦观察量表(OSBD-R)(主要结局;非劣效性界值1.8单位)、东安大略儿童医院疼痛量表(CHEOPS)、面部、腿部、活动、哭闹、安慰度(FLACC)量表和哭闹持续时间(次要结局)评估疼痛和痛苦。次要结局还包括不良事件、临床医生和护理人员的满意度,以及与鼻腔内给予利多卡因相关的疼痛和痛苦。

结果

分析了51例患者。预先给予和共同给予利多卡因时,与鼻腔内给予咪达唑仑相关的平均OSBD-R评分分别为6.4(95%置信区间[CI]5,7.8)和7(95%CI 5.2,8.9)单位。0.6(95%CI -1.7,2.8)单位的差异代表非劣效性判定不明确。两组之间的CHEOPS和FLACC评分以及哭闹持续时间相似。与鼻腔内给予利多卡因相关的OSBD-R、CHEOPS和FLACC评分以及哭闹持续时间分别为3.8、9.9和6单位以及56秒。临床医生认为共同给予利多卡因更容易给药。

结论

使用共同给予或预先给予利多卡因时,与鼻腔内给予咪达唑仑相关的疼痛和痛苦相似,但我们的非劣效性判定不明确。鼻腔内单独给予利多卡因本身会带来一定程度的疼痛和痛苦。关键词:鼻腔内、咪达唑仑、抗焦虑、镇静、急诊科、急诊医学、疼痛、痛苦、儿科、利多卡因、伤口撕裂

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2e3f/7771777/11e6d2d8e5bc/EMP2-1-1562-g001.jpg

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