Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates

Scoping review of systematic reviews of nursing interventions in a neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery

AIM(S)

To identify, synthesise and map systematic reviews of the effectiveness of nursing interventions undertaken in a neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery.

DESIGN

This scoping review was conducted according to the JBI scoping review framework.

METHODS

Review included systematic reviews that evaluated any nurse-initiated interventions that were undertaken in an NICU or SCN setting. Studies that reported one or more positive outcomes related to the nursing interventions were only considered for this review. Each outcome for nursing interventions was rated a 'certainty (quality) of evidence' according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic reviews were sourced from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Synthesis for reviews published until February 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 428 articles were identified; following screening, 81 reviews underwent full-text screening, and 34 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Multiple nursing interventions reporting positive outcomes were identified and were grouped into seven categories. Respiratory 7/34 (20%) and Nutrition 8/34 (23%) outcomes were the most reported categories. Developmental care was the next most reported category 5/34 (15%) followed by Thermoregulation, 5/34 (15%) Jaundice 4/34 (12%), Pain 4/34 (12%) and Infection 1/34 (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review has identified nursing interventions that have a direct positive impact on neonatal outcomes. However, further applied research is needed to transfer this empirical knowledge into clinical practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Implementing up-to-date evidence on effective nursing interventions has the potential to significantly improving neonatal outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public involvement in this scoping review.

[Translating evidence: pain treatment in newborns, infants, and toddlers during needle-related procedures : German version]

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of pain in preterm, sick, and healthy newborns and infants and toddlers (up to 2 years of age) is consistently reported to be inadequate, and effective strategies are poorly implemented.

OBJECTIVES

To present existing evidence of effective pain treatment strategies during needle-related procedures and to highlight initiatives focused on translating evidence into practice.

METHODS

This Clinical Update focuses on the 2022 International Association for the Study of Pain Global Year for Translating Pain Knowledge to Practice in the specific population of newborns, infants, and toddlers. Best evidence is reviewed, and existing knowledge translation strategies and programs available to implement evidence into practice are presented.

RESULTS

Effective strategies for newborn and young infants during frequently occurring needle procedures include small volumes of sweet solutions, breastfeeding, or skin-to-skin care when feasible and culturally acceptable. In addition, strategies such as nonnutritive sucking, positioning, swaddling, gentle touch, facilitated tucking, and secure holding can be used. For toddlers, the evidence is less robust, and discerning between pain and distress is challenging. However, strategies recommended for needlerelated procedures include upright secure comfort holding by parents/caregivers, age-appropriate distraction, and topical anesthetics. Translation of effective pain management needs to involve the family, who need to be supported and empowered to comfort their child during painful procedures. Organizational, nationwide, and global initiatives aimed at improving implementation of effective pain treatments exist.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence of effective pain management strategies for newborns, infants, and toddlers, and a great deal of effort is being made to translate knowledge into action.

Comparative Efficacy of Breastfeeding or Feeding of Breast Milk on Blood Sampling Pain Relief in Full-Term Neonates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of breastfeeding or feeding of breast milk in reducing blood sampling pain in full-term neonates by comparing with other intervention measures. Methods: Related literature was searched from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which reported the effect of breastfeeding or feeding of breast milk on blood sampling pain in full-term neonates, were eligible. The primary outcome was set as pain score on scales, and the secondary outcomes as physiological and behavioral indicators. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1. Main Results: A total of 17 RCTs were included. Breastfeeding showed a stronger effectiveness in reducing blood sampling pain, compared with nonintervention, placebo, mother's holding, breast milk odor, mother's heartbeat, music therapy, skin-to-skin, and Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetics ointment. However, the efficacy of glucose or sucrose (12.5%-30% concentration) seems better than breastfeeding. When compared with other interventions, feeding of breast milk yielded different results. Its effect was only stronger than placebo (sterile water or distilled water), massage, or nonintervention. Conclusions: Breastfeeding might be effective for alleviating blood sampling pain in full-term neonates. Its effect is second only to that of glucose/sucrose. The efficacy of feeding of breast milk in reducing blood sampling pain in full-term neonates might not be guaranteed.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVES

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.

SEARCH METHODS

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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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 any of the outcomes compared to no intervention. The use of expressed breast milk or oral sucrose suggests that there is no discernible advantage of one method over the other for reducing pain during endotracheal suctioning. None of the studies reported on any of the prespecified secondary outcomes of adverse events.

Pain Assessment and Management Practices via Education & Reinforcement (PAMPER): A Quality Improvement Initiative

OBJECTIVES

To establish neonatal pain management practices as an essential developmental supportive measure at a tertiary care unit.

METHODS

This quality improvement initiative was conducted as per Point-of-Care-Quality-Improvement Model over 6 mo, followed by 2 y of sustenance phase at a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) in northern India. Infants of birth weight ≤1800 g were included and assessed for pain. Pain Assessment and Management Practices via Education and Reinforcement (PAMPER) group was created by resident doctors and nursing staff. The Premature Infant Pain Profile score was used for the assessment of pain. Limiting factors were analyzed using a fishbone diagram and interventions were done in multiple Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles.

RESULTS

At the end of interventions, 100% of procedures were assessed for pain. The mean (standard deviation) documented pain score for the first seven days was reduced from 12.8 (0.3) in the baseline phase to 7 (2.5). These interventions helped to sustain the practice in >70% of infants in the next 2 y.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-cost interventions improved the pain assessment and management policy of authors' NICU with the establishment of a standard protocol. Audits and reinforcement at regular intervals helped in its long-term sustenance.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Neonatal Pain Management Research From 2010 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Research related to neonatal pain management has received increasing attention in recent years. Effective pain management contributes to the maintenance of the healthy physical and mental growth of the newborn. To better understand this research topic, we analyzed the current state of development in this field over the past thirteen years by bibliometric analysis and provide directions for future research.

METHODS

Original articles were collected from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2022, the title and abstract clearly stating 'neonatal pain management' or its alternative search keywords. CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and the WoS analysis tool were used to analyze and present the data.

RESULTS

A total of 967 articles met the inclusion criteria. Significant growth of the number of publications increased roughly fourfold from 2010 to 2022. Overall, the United States and Canada were the highest contributors to neonatal pain management research. Weak cooperation was observed in international research (developing and developed countries) and cross-institutional cooperation. Neonatal pain-related research was the most common focus. Pain education and interventions for parents and medical personnel have also received increasing attention recently.

CONCLUSION

The current study revealed that research in terms of publications on neonatal pain management has rapidly increased for more than the past ten years. Developed countries, especially the United States and Canada, were more concerned with this topic than developing countries. More international research and cross-institutional cooperation are required to promote the development of neonatal pain medicine in the future.

Sucrose analgesia for heel-lance procedures in neonates

BACKGROUND

Sucrose has been examined for calming and pain-relieving effects in neonates for invasive procedures such as heel lance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of sucrose for relieving pain from heel lance in neonates in terms of immediate and long-term outcomes SEARCH METHODS: We searched (February 2022): CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and three trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials where term and/or preterm neonates received sucrose for heel lances. Comparison treatments included water/placebo/no intervention, non-nutritive sucking (NNS), glucose, breastfeeding, breast milk, music, acupuncture, facilitated tucking, and skin-to-skin care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We reported mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model for continuous outcome measures. We assessed heterogeneity by the I2 test. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 55 trials (6273 infants): 29 included term neonates, 22 included preterm neonates, and four included both. Heel lance was investigated in 50 trials; 15 investigated other minor painful procedures in addition to lancing. Sucrose vs control The evidence suggests that sucrose probably results in a reduction in PIPP scores compared to the control group at 30 seconds (MD -1.74 (95% CI -2.11 to -1.37); I2 = 62%; moderate-certainty evidence) and 60 seconds after lancing (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.34 to -0.94; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of sucrose on DAN scores compared to water at 30 seconds after lancing (MD -1.90, 95% CI -8.58 to 4.78; heterogeneity not applicable (N/A); very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that sucrose probably results in a reduction in NIPS scores compared to water immediately after lancing (MD -2.00, 95% CI -2.42 to -1.58; heterogeneity N/A; moderate-certainty evidence). Sucrose vs NNS The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on PIPP scores compared to NNS during the recovery period after lancing (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.50; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence) and on DAN scores at 30 seconds after lancing (MD -1.20, 95% CI -7.87 to 5.47; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence). Sucrose + NNS vs NNS The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose + NNS on PIPP scores compared to NNS during lancing (MD -4.90, 95% CI -5.73 to -4.07; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence) and during recovery after lancing (MD -3.80, 95% CI -4.47 to -3.13; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of sucrose + NNS on NFCS scores compared to water + NNS during lancing (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.27; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence). Sucrose vs glucose The evidence suggests that sucrose results in little to no difference in PIPP scores compared to glucose at 30 seconds (MD 0.26, 95% CI -0.70 to 1.22; heterogeneity not applicable; low-certainty evidence) and 60 seconds after lancing (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.75; heterogeneity N/A; low-certainty evidence). Sucrose vs breastfeeding The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on PIPP scores compared to breastfeeding at 30 seconds after lancing (MD -0.70, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.88; I2 = 94%; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on COMFORTneo scores compared to breastfeeding after lancing (MD -2.60, 95% CI -3.06 to -2.14; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence). Sucrose vs expressed breast milk The evidence suggests that sucrose may result in little to no difference in PIPP-R scores compared to expressed breast milk during (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.84; heterogeneity not applicable; low-certainty evidence) and at 30 seconds after lancing (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.71; heterogeneity N/A; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that sucrose probably may result in slightly increased PIPP-R scores compared to expressed breast milk 60 seconds after lancing (MD 1.10, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.86; heterogeneity N/A; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on DAN scores compared to expressed breast milk 30 seconds after lancing (MD -1.80, 95% CI -8.47 to 4.87; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence). Sucrose vs laser acupuncture There was no difference in PIPP-R scores between sucrose and music groups; however, data were reported as medians and IQRs. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on NIPS scores compared to laser acupuncture during lancing (MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.43 to -0.29; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence). Sucrose vs facilitated tucking The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose on total BPSN scores compared to facilitated tucking during lancing (MD -2.27, 95% CI -4.66 to 0.12; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence) and during recovery after lancing (MD -0.31, 95% CI -1.72 to 1.10; heterogeneity N/A; very low-certainty evidence). Sucrose vs skin-to-skin + water (repeated lancing) The evidence suggests that sucrose results in little to no difference in PIPP scores compared to skin-to-skin + water at 30 seconds after 1st (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.96); 2nd (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.57 to 0.45); or 3rd lancing (MD-0.15, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.96); heterogeneity N/A, low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. The evidence suggests that sucrose results in little to no difference in PIPP scores compared to skin-to-skin + water at 60 seconds after 1st (MD -0.61, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.33); 2nd (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.99 to 0.75); or 3rd lancing (MD-0.40, 95% CI -1.48 to 0.68); heterogeneity N/A, low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Minor adverse events required no intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sucrose compared to control probably results in a reduction of PIPP scores 30 and 60 seconds after single heel lances (moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sucrose compared to NNS, breastfeeding, laser acupuncture, facilitated tucking, and the effect of sucrose + NNS compared to NNS in reducing pain. Sucrose compared to glucose, expressed breast milk, and skin-to-skin care shows little to no difference in pain scores. Sucrose combined with other nonpharmacologic interventions should be used with caution, given the uncertainty of evidence.

Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates

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.

Pain Management in Children Admitted to the Emergency Room: A Narrative Review

Pain is a biopsychosocial experience characterized by sensory, physiological, cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Both acute and chronic pain can have short and long-term negative effects. Unfortunately, pain treatment is often inadequate. Guidelines and recommendations for a rational approach to pediatric pain frequently differ, and this may be one of the most important reasons for the poor attention frequently paid to pain treatment in children. This narrative review discusses the present knowledge in this regard. A literature review conducted on papers produced over the last 8 years showed that although in recent years, compared to the past, much progress has been made in the treatment of pain in the context of the pediatric emergency room, there is still a lot to do. There is a need to create guidelines that outline standardized and easy-to-follow pathways for pain recognition and management, which are also flexible enough to take into account differences in different contexts both in terms of drug availability and education of staff as well as of the different complexities of patients. It is essential to guarantee an approach to pain that is as uniform as possible among the pediatric population that limits, as much as possible, the inequalities related to ethnicity and language barriers.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates

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

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.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates

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). No studies reported any harms. 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). 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. No studies reported if any harms occurred. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia or hypotension. 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.

Neonatal pain perception, management and review of practises among medical workers in Nigeria newborn units

Background

Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. The perception of pain is variable and knowledge may not match practise.

Aims

To ascertain the knowledge, attitude and practice of neonatal pain management (NPM) among HCW in newborn units across Nigeria.

Methods

The validated questionnaire administered to consenting doctors and nurses working in various newborn units in Nigeria was utilised.

Results

There were 256 respondents from tertiary institutions 228 (89.1%) located in 31 states of Nigeria. There were 91% doctors and 8.6% nurses'. The perception of newborn pain was high (≥95%) among doctors and nurses . Up to 67.1% of the doctors and 57.1% of nurses were aware of NPM. One third (37.3%) of doctor respondents knew of NPM from friends and colleagues while half of the nurses knew from course textbooks.Pain definition was in most by sensation (94%), 50% by emotion. Most nurses were aware of the subjective report of potential tissue damage and knew the facial expressions of pain compared to doctors. Crying was equally recognised as an expression of pain. Perception of non-pharmacologic methods of NPM was highest for massaging and KMC; the knowledge of Sucrose analgesia was low. Procedural pain perception was poor and analgesia was for few procedures.

Conclusions

Perception of pain was high but did not match knowledge and practice of NPM. Formal education on NPM was lacking in the training of HCW.

[Evidence-based guideline for neonatal pain management in China (2023)]

Pain disrupts neonatal vital signs and internal environment homeostasis and affects the recovery process, and recurrent pain stimulation is one of the important risk factors for neurodevelopmental disorders and some chronic diseases. In order to standardize pain management practice in neonatal wards in China and effectively prevent and reduce the adverse effects of pain on the physical and mental development of neonates, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Diseases (Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University) convened a multidisciplinary panel to formulate the evidence-based guideline for neonatal pain management in China (2023 edition) following the principles and methods for the guideline development issued by the World Health Organization. Based on the best evidence and expert consensus, this guideline gives 26 recommendations for nine clinical issues, i.e., the classification and definition of neonatal pain, common sources of pain, pain assessment principles, pain assessment methods, analgesic principle, non-pharmaceutical analgesic methods, pharmaceutical analgesic methods, parental participation in pain management, and recording methods for pain management, so as to provide medical staff with guidance and a decision-making basis for neonatal pain assessment and analgesia management.

Evaluation and Treatment of Pain in Fetuses, Neonates and Children

The perception of pain is individual and differs between children and adults. The structures required to feel pain are developed at 24 weeks of gestation. However, pain assessment is complicated, especially in neonates, infants and preschool-age children. Clinical scales adapted to age are the most used methods for assessing and monitoring the degree of pain in children. They evaluate several behavioral and/or physiological parameters related to pain. Some monitors detect the physiological changes that occur in association with painful stimuli, but they do not yet have a clear clinical use. Multimodal analgesia is recommended for pain treatment with non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. It is necessary to establish pharmacotherapeutic protocols for analgesia adjusted to the acute or chronic, type and intensity of pain, as well as age. The most used analgesics in children are paracetamol, ibuprofen, dipyrone, opioids (morphine and fentanyl) and local anesthetics. Patient-controlled analgesia is an adequate alternative for adolescent and older children in specific situations, such as after surgery. In patients with severe or persistent pain, it is very important to consult with specific pain services.

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

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.

The Effects of Breastfeeding and Breast Milk Taste or Smell on Mitigating Painful Procedures in Newborns: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Newborns hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit are exposed to an average of 10 painful procedures per day. The pain-related experiences of babies can be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders that may affect them throughout their lives. Aim/Objective: The purpose of this study was to summarize and analyze the analgesic effects of breastfeeding alone, expressed breast milk, and breast milk smell on newborns and present stronger evidence that would guide clinical practice and future studies. Methods: We searched articles published between 2000 and 2021 on the CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Eric, and OVID databases. Nine full texts that met the inclusion criteria (Population: Newborn term or preterm babies, Intervention: Implementing breastfeeding, expressed breast milk, breast milk taste, or breast milk smell alone or in combinations in the intervention groups, Comparison: Making comparisons to the standard care of the clinic where the study was conducted, Outcomes: Including at least one pain-related criterion, Study design: Randomized-controlled trials) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The nine randomized controlled studies in total that were included in this study were carried out between 2004 and 2021 with 33-130 newborns in their samples. The total number of newborns was 720. The effects of these interventions on pain scale scores, heart rate, and oxygen saturation were also analyzed. Results: According to the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis, the breastfeeding, breast milk smell, or breast milk taste interventions had large effect sizes in terms of pain management during and after the procedures. These interventions had medium effect sizes in terms of heart rate during the procedures and large effect sizes after the procedures. In terms of oxygen saturation, they had large effect sizes during the procedures and medium effect sizes after the procedures. Conclusion: Breastfeeding and breast milk interventions are significantly effective nonpharmacological alternatives for painful procedures.

Non-Pharmacological Management for Vaccine-Related Pain in Children in the Healthcare Setting: A Scoping Review

Purpose

To examine how research was conducted on non-pharmacological management in children with vaccine-related pain in the healthcare setting, so as to provide reference for the relief of vaccine-related pain in children.

Methods

This study conducted a scoping review guided by the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed databases were searched in detail, and search strategy included the keyword “vaccine”, the keyword “pain”, and the keyword “children”. Two researchers conducted literature screening and data extraction independently, and any disagreements were resolved through team consultation.

Results

This study retrieved 1017 literatures, of which 22 were finally included, including 18 randomized controlled studies, 3 quasi-experimental studies and 1 cohort study. Non-pharmacological management measures were summarized in the study, mainly involving taste, tactile, olfactory, visual, exercise, and postural interventions and injection technique. All the above non-pharmacological management were effective in mitigating vaccine-related pain in children. The study population in the included literatures was mainly neonates and infants. Regarding the analgesic effects of taste intervention, breastfeeding was better than sweeteners, and sweeteners were better than sterile water or non-nutritive sucking. However, there was a lack of comparative studies on the analgesic effects of other non-pharmacological management.

Conclusion

There are many non-pharmacological management measures with varying analgesic effects. Diversified non-pharmacological management measures can provide more analgesic choices for children. For reducing vaccine-related pain in newborns and infants, breastfeeding is recommended first, then sweeteners, and then non-nutritious sucking. In addition to the taste intervention, the analgesic effects of other non-pharmacological management measures need further comparative studies. Moreover, medical staff can use a combination of non-pharmacological analgesic measures to maximize the analgesic effect, and medical staff should also fully consider the analgesia willingness of children and parents.

Breast milk vs 24% sucrose for procedural pain relief in preterm neonates: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the pain scores between the two groups, breast milk (BM) and 24% sucrose, in preterm neonates undergoing automated heel lance for the blood draw.

METHODS

The study is designed as a randomized, single-blinded, non-inferiority trial. Infants born between 30 1/7weeks and 36 6/7 weeks of gestation were randomly assigned to receive either 24% sucrose or expressed BM. The Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) was utilized to provide pain scores.

RESULTS

No differences were noted in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. The quantile regression estimates for PIPP-R scores during the procedure were statistically non-significant at all percentile levels of distribution (50%ile coefficient 0, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.49).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that BM is not inferior to 24% sucrose in providing analgesia during heel lance in moderate and late preterm infants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (identifier NCT04898881).

Conformity between Pacifier Design and Palate Shape in Preterm and Term Infants Considering Age-Specific Palate Size, Facial Profile and Lip Thickness

This retrospective case-control study is the first to examine the spatial conformity between pacifiers and palates in 39 preterm infants (12 females, 27 males) and 34 term infants (19 females, 15 males), taking into account the facial-soft-tissue profile and thickness. The shape of 74 available pacifiers was spatially matched to the palate, and conformity was examined using width, height, and length measurements. In summary, the size concept of pacifiers is highly variable and does not follow a growth pattern, like infant palates do. Pacifiers are too undersized in width, length, and height to physiologically fit the palate structures from 0 to 14 months of age. There are two exceptions, but only for premature palates: the palatal depth index at 9−11 months of age, which has no clinical meaning, and the nipple length at <37 weeks of age, which bears a resemblance to the maternal nipple during non-nutritive sucking. It can be concluded that the age-size concept of the studied pacifiers does not correspond to any natural growth pattern. Physiologically aligned, pacifiers do not achieve the age-specific dimensions of the palate. The effects attributed to the products on oral health in term infants cannot be supposed.

Practices of Procedural Pain Management in Neonates through Continuous Quality Improvement Measures

Objective

Although the benefits of pain control measures in neonates are well known, the actual usage was not optimal in our unit. Therefore, we implemented a quality improvement project to improve pain management practices through multiple Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles.

Method

Our project included hemodynamically stable newborns weighing ≥1300 g. We identified four common procedures: intravenous cannulation, venous sampling, heel prick, and nasogastric tube insertion. The selected pain control measures were skin-to-skin contact, breastfeeding, expressed breast milk orally, and oral sucrose. Between April 2019 and September 2019, we intervened multiple times and reassessed shortcomings. We encouraged evidence-based practices and gave solutions for shortcomings. Data were interpreted weekly to assess the compliance to pain control interventions.

Results

Minimal pain control measures (3-4%) were utilized for identified procedures before the project began. We could improve the use of pain control measures steadily and achieve the target of 80% of procedures after seven different interventions over five months. There was a retention of the effect on reassessing twice at second and fourth months of stopping further intervention once the target got achieved.

Conclusion

Quality Improvement science can identify the shortcomings and help to improve the compliance for pain control practices in neonates, as demonstrated in this neonatal unit.

Assessment and Management of Pain in Preterm Infants: A Practice Update

Infants born preterm are at a high risk for repeated pain exposure in early life. Despite valid tools to assess pain in non-verbal infants and effective interventions to reduce pain associated with medical procedures required as part of their care, many infants receive little to no pain-relieving interventions. Moreover, parents remain significantly underutilized in provision of pain-relieving interventions, despite the known benefit of their involvement. This narrative review provides an overview of the consequences of early exposure to untreated pain in preterm infants, recommendations for a standardized approach to pain assessment in preterm infants, effectiveness of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic pain-relieving interventions, and suggestions for greater active engagement of parents in the pain care for their preterm infant.

Breastmilk as a Multisensory Intervention for Relieving Pain during Newborn Screening Procedures: A Randomized Control Trial

The study aim was to explore the effects of multisensory breastmilk interventions on short-term pain of infants during newborn screening. This is a randomized controlled trial. A total of 120 newborns were recruited and assigned by randomization to one of three treatment conditions: Condition 1 = routine care (gentle touch + verbal comfort); Condition 2 = breastmilk odor + routine care; or Condition 3 = breastmilk odor + taste + routine care. Pain was scored with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS). Data were collected from video recordings at 1 min intervals over the 11 phases of heel sticks: phase 1, 5 min before heel stick without stimuli (baseline); phase 2 to phase 6 (during heel stick); and phase 7 to phase 11 (recovery). Generalized estimating equations compared differences in pain scores for newborns over phases among the three conditions. Compared with the routine care, provision of the odor and taste of breastmilk reduce NIPS scores during heel sticks (B = −4.36, SE = 0.45, p < 0.001 [phase₆]), and during recovery (B = −3.29, SE = 0.42, p < 0.001 [phase₇]). Our findings provide new data, which supports the use of multisensory interventions that include breastmilk odor and taste in combination with gentle touch and verbal comfort to relieve pain in infants undergoing newborn screening.

Use of glucose for pain management in premature neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic management of neonatal pain is essential to reduce changes in initial and subsequent development. Although glucose has been shown to be effective in relieving pain, concentrations and dosages remain to be standardised. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify the efficacy of glucose as an analgesic in preterm infants.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and Embase databases will be researched for randomised studies published until December 2021. This systematic review and meta-analysis will include studies investigating the use of glucose for pain control in premature neonates. The primary outcome will be pain relief. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract the data from original publications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data synthesis will be performed using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.2.3). We will evaluate heterogeneity based on I2 statistics. In addition, quantitative synthesis will be performed if the included studies are sufficiently homogeneous.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the research will not be required for this systematic review. The results of this study will be published in an international journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This protocol was submitted to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, number CRD42021236217).

Belgian Consensus Recommendations to Prevent Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding in the Term and Preterm Infant

Neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis is essential to prevent vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB) with a clear benefit compared to placebo. Various routes (intramuscular (IM), oral, intravenous (IV)) and dosing regimens were explored. A literature review was conducted to compare vitamin K regimens on VKDB incidence. Simultaneously, information on practices was collected from Belgian pediatric and neonatal departments. Based on the review and these practices, a consensus was developed and voted on by all co-authors and heads of pediatric departments. Today, practices vary. In line with literature, the advised prophylactic regimen is 1 or 2 mg IM vitamin K once at birth. In the case of parental refusal, healthcare providers should inform parents of the slightly inferior alternative (2 mg oral vitamin K at birth, followed by 1 or 2 mg oral weekly for 3 months when breastfed). We recommend 1 mg IM in preterm <32 weeks, and the same alternative in the case of parental refusal. When IM is perceived impossible in preterm <32 weeks, 0.5 mg IV once is recommended, with a single additional IM 1 mg dose when IV lipids are discontinued. This recommendation is a step towards harmonizing vitamin K prophylaxis in all newborns.

CO-DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION INTERVENTIONS TO SUPPORT PARENT-LED INFANT PAIN CARE: A QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTIVE STUDY PROTOCOL (Preprint)

Background

Untreated pain in infants is associated with adverse health outcomes. Despite strong evidence for accessible, effective, and low-cost parent-led pain-relieving interventions such as breastfeeding or chestfeeding and skin-to-skin contact, these interventions are not routinely used.

Objective

The objective of this study is to support the implementation of parent-led pain interventions by identifying barriers to and facilitators of parent-led, evidence-informed pain care in infants during acute procedures. In addition, this study aims to develop theory-informed, contextually relevant implementation interventions for supporting the use of parent-led pain care for infants in hospital and community contexts.

Methods

This study will consist of 2 phases that follow a systematic, theoretically informed approach guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behavior Change Wheel. In phase 1, we will use a qualitative descriptive design to explore barriers and facilitators to using parent-led pain care in infants from the perspectives of hospital and community-based clinicians, clinical leaders, and families. In phase 2, we will use the Behavior Change Wheel to design tailored implementation interventions that have evidence for effectively addressing identified barriers in collaboration with an advisory committee of administrative, clinical, and family leaders.

Results

Ethics approval for this study was obtained in December 2020. As of May 2022, a total of 15 participants have been enrolled in phase 1. The results from all phases will be reported in 2023.

Conclusions

Following the completion of this study, we will have co-designed theoretically informed implementation interventions that can be pilot-tested and experimentally applied. The findings will be used to implement parent-led interventions that improve patient safety and health outcomes for diverse families.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/33770

Vitamin K prophylaxis in newborns

We looked at existing recommendations and supporting evidence on the effectiveness of vitamin K given after birth in preventing the haemorrhagic disease of the newborn (HDN).We conducted a literature search up to the 10th of December 2019 by using key terms and manual search in selected sources. We summarized the recommendations and the strength of the recommendation when and as reported by the authors. We summarized the main findings of systematic reviews with the certainty of the evidence as reported.All newborns should receive vitamin K prophylaxis, as it has been proven that oral and intramuscular prophylactic vitamin K given after birth are effective for preventing classical HDN. There are no randomized trials looking at the efficacy of vitamin K supplement on late HDN. There are no randomized trials comparing the oral and intramuscular route of administration of prophylactic vitamin K in newborns. From older trials and surveillance data, it seems that there is no significant difference between the intramuscular and the oral regimens for preventing classical and late HDN, provided that the oral regimen is duly completed. Evidence assessing vitamin K prophylaxis in preterm infants is scarce.

New perspective for pain control in neonates: a comparative effectiveness research

OBJECTIVE

To compare sucrose 24% oral gel formulation to liquid formula and breastfeeding during a heel prick in neonates.

STUDY DESIGN

In this comparative effectiveness research 195 neonates >36 weeks' gestation were randomised to three groups, receiving during heel stick: (i) breastfeeding, (ii) sucrose 24% liquid with non-nutritive sucking and (iii) sucrose 24% gel with non-nutritive sucking. The pain was assessed through the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale.

RESULTS

All the methods analysed has shown to be effective in reducing pain. There was an increase in odds of pain following liquid sucrose compared to breastfeeding (OR = 1.60; 95% CI: 0.82-3.3; p = 0.17). A reduction of odds of pain was showed comparing sucrose to breastfeeding (OR = 0.78; 0.38-1.6; 0.48), and comparing sucrose gel to liquid formula (OR = 0.48; 0.23-0.96; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Sucrose 24% gel with non-nutritive sucking seems to be a valid alternative when breastfeeding is not possible. Further research is needed.

Chloral hydrate as a sedating agent for neurodiagnostic procedures in children

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in 2017. Paediatric neurodiagnostic investigations, including brain neuroimaging and electroencephalography (EEG), play an important role in the assessment of neurodevelopmental disorders. The use of an appropriate sedative agent is important to ensure the successful completion of the neurodiagnostic procedures, particularly in children, who are usually unable to remain still throughout the procedure.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.

State of the Art in Parent-Delivered Pain-Relieving Interventions in Neonatal Care: A Scoping Review

Introduction: Parents' active involvement during painful procedures is considered a critical first step in improving neonatal pain practices. Of the non-pharmacological approaches in use, the biopsychosocial perspective supports parent-delivered interventions, in which parents themselves mediate pain relief, consistent with modern family-integrated care. This scoping review synthesizes the available research to provide an overview of the state of the art in parent-delivered pain-relieving interventions. Methods: A scoping review was performed to achieve a broad understanding of the current level of evidence and uptake of parent-driven pain- and stress-relieving interventions in neonatal care. Results: There is a strong evidence for the efficacy of skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding, preferably in combination. These parent-delivered interventions are safe, valid, and ready for prompt introduction in infants' pain care globally. Research into parents' motivations for, and experiences of, alleviating infant pain is scarce. More research on combined parent-delivered pain alleviation, including relationship-based interventions such as the parent's musical presence, is needed to advance infant pain care. Guidelines need to be updated to include infant pain management, parent-delivered interventions, and the synergistic effects of combining these interventions and to address parent involvement in low-income and low-tech settings. Conclusions: A knowledge-to-practice gap currently remains in parent-delivered pain management for infants' procedure-related pain. This scoping review highlights the many advantages of involving parents in pain management for the benefit not only of the infant and parent but also of health care.

Neonates as intrinsically worthy recipients of pain management in neonatal intensive care

One barrier to optimal pain management in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is how the healthcare community perceives, and therefore manages, neonatal pain. In this paper, we emphasise that healthcare professionals not only have a professional obligation to care for neonates in the NICU, but that these patients are intrinsically worthy of care. We discuss the conditions that make neonates worthy recipients of pain management by highlighting how neonates are (1) vulnerable to pain and harm, and (2) completely dependent on others for pain management. We argue for a relational account of ethical decision-making in the NICU by demonstrating how an increase in vulnerability and dependence may be experienced by the healthcare community and the neonate's family. Finally, an ethical framework for decisions around neonatal pain management is proposed, focussing on surrogate decision-making and the importance of compassionate action through both a reflective and an affective empathy. As empathy can be highly motivating against pain, we propose that, in addition to educational programs that raise awareness and knowledge of neonatal pain and pain management, healthcare professionals must cultivate empathy in a collective manner, where all members of the NICU team, including parents, are compassionate decision-makers.

Non-pharmaceutical intervention and pain management situation for neonatal analgesia

Neonatal pain management is an important issue which should have great attention. More and more researches have proved that neonates can feel pain when undergoes painful procedures such as vaccination, heel stick, and so on, and it will result in short-term and long-term outcomes. So it is very important to manage neonatal pain. This article summarized some non-pharmaceutical interventions, including sucrose or glucose, non-nutritional sucking (NNS), breastfeeding, facilitated tucking (FT), kangaroo mother care (KMC), swaddling, heel warming, sensorial saturation (SS), and music therapy, which showed obvious effects for neonatal pain. In addition, this article summarized the progress of neonatal pain intervention in various countries and showed that many countries have not paid enough attention to this problem, while some countries have carried out promotion programs for neonatal pain management which give some clinical enlightenment to our country that we need to pay more attention to this problem.

Less-Invasive Surfactant Administration for Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Consensus Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Less-invasive surfactant administration (LISA) is a method of surfactant delivery to preterm infants for treating respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), which can reduce the composite risk of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia and the time on mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of studies published up to April 2021 on minimally invasive catheter surfactant delivery in preterm infants with RDS was conducted. Based on these studies, with parental feedback sought via an online questionnaire, 9 UK-based specialists in neonatal respiratory disease developed their consensus for implementing LISA. Recommendations were developed following a modified, iterative Delphi process using a questionnaire employing a 9-point Likert scale and an a priori level of agreement/disagreement.

RESULTS

Successful implementation of LISA can be achieved by training the multidisciplinary team and following locally agreed guidance. From the time of the decision to administer surfactant, LISA should take <30 min. The comfort of the baby and requirements to maintain non-invasive respiratory support are important. While many infants can be managed without requiring additional sedation/analgesia, fentanyl along with atropine may be considered. Parents should be provided with sufficient information about medication side effects and involved in treatment discussions.

CONCLUSION

LISA has the potential to improve outcomes for preterm infants with RDS and can be introduced as a safe and effective part of UK-based neonatal care with appropriate training.

Non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of substance use, both prescribed and non-prescribed, is increasing in many areas of the world. Substance use by women of childbearing age contributes to increasing rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS) is a newer term describing the subset of NAS related to opioid exposure. Non-pharmacological care is the first-line treatment for substance withdrawal in newborns. Despite the widespread use of non-pharmacological care to mitigate symptoms of NAS, there is not an established definition of, and standard for, non-pharmacological care practices in this population. Evaluation of safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological practices could provide clear guidance for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological treatment of infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal on the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment for symptom management. Comparison 1: in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal, does non-pharmacological treatment reduce the length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment? Comparison 2: in infants receiving pharmacological treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal, does concurrent non-pharmacological treatment reduce duration of pharmacological treatment, maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication, and length of hospitalization?

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2019, Issue 10); Ovid MEDLINE; and CINAHL on 11 October 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included trials comparing single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions to no non-pharmacological treatment or different single or bundled non-pharmacological interventions. We assessed non-pharmacological interventions independently and in combination based on sufficient similarity in population, intervention, and comparison groups studied. We categorized non-pharmacological interventions as: modifying environmental stimulation, feeding practices, and support of the mother-infant dyad. We presented non-randomized studies identified in the search process narratively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes in infants at risk for, or having early symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization and pharmacological treatment with one or more doses of opioid or sedative medication. Primary outcomes in infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal included length of hospitalization, length of pharmacological treatment with opioid or sedative medication, and maximum and cumulative doses of opioid medication.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six RCTs (353 infants) in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated between 1975 and 2018. We identified no RCTs in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low to low. We also identified and excluded 34 non-randomized studies published between 2005 and 2018, including 29 in which infants at risk for, or having symptoms consistent with, opioid withdrawal participated and five in which infants receiving opioid treatment for symptoms consistent with opioid withdrawal participated. We identified seven preregistered interventional clinical trials that may qualify for inclusion at review update when complete. Of the six RCTs, four studies assessed modifying environmental stimulation in the form of a mechanical rocking bed, prone positioning, non-oscillating waterbed, or a low-stimulation nursery; one study assessed feeding practices (comparing 24 kcal/oz to 20 kcal/oz formula); and one study assessed support of the maternal-infant dyad (tailored breastfeeding support). There was no evidence of a difference in length of hospitalization in the one study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation (mean difference [MD) -1 day, 95% confidence interval [CI) -2.82 to 0.82; 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and the one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (MD -8.9 days, 95% CI -19.84 to 2.04; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies of feeding practices evaluated the length of hospitalization. There was no evidence of a difference in use of pharmacological treatment in three studies of modifying environmental stimulation (typical risk ratio [RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 92 infants; low-certainty evidence), one study of feeding practices (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.33; 49 infants; very low-certainty evidence), and one study of support of the maternal-infant dyad (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Reported secondary outcomes included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, days to regain birth weight, and weight nadir. One study of support of the maternal-infant dyad reported NICU admission (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.90; 14 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study of feeding practices reported days to regain birth weight (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI 2.76 to 0.56; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). One study that assessed modifying environmental stimulation reported weight nadir (MD -0.28, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.59; 194 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and one study of feeding practices reported weight nadir (MD -0.8, 95% CI -2.24 to 0.64; 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns affects important clinical outcomes including length of hospitalization and use of pharmacological treatment based on the six included studies. The outcomes identified for this review were of very low- to low-certainty evidence. Combined analysis was limited by heterogeneity in study design and intervention definitions as well as the number of studies. Many prespecified outcomes were not reported. Although caregivers are encouraged by experts to optimize non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns prior to initiating pharmacological care, we do not have sufficient evidence to inform specific clinical practices. Larger well-designed studies are needed to determine the effect of non-pharmacological care for opioid withdrawal in newborns.

[Pediatric pain treatment and prevention for hospitalized children]

INTRODUCTION

Prevention and treatment of pain in pediatric patients compared with adults is often not only inadequate but also less often implemented the younger the children are. Children 0 to 17 years are a vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To address the prevention and treatment of acute and chronic pain in children, including pain caused by needles, with recommended analgesic starting doses.

METHODS

This Clinical Update elaborates on the 2019 IASP Global Year Against Pain in the Vulnerable "Factsheet Pain in Children: Management" and reviews best evidence and practice.

RESULTS

Multimodal analgesia may include pharmacology (eg, basic analgesics, opioids, and adjuvant analgesia), regional anesthesia, rehabilitation, psychological approaches, spirituality, and integrative modalities, which act synergistically for more effective acute pediatric pain control with fewer side effects than any single analgesic or modality. For chronic pain, an interdisciplinary rehabilitative approach, including physical therapy, psychological treatment, integrative mind-body techniques, and normalizing life, has been shown most effective. For elective needle procedures, such as blood draws, intravenous access, injections, or vaccination, overwhelming evidence now mandates that a bundle of 4 modalities to eliminate or decrease pain should be offered to every child every time: (1) topical anesthesia, eg, lidocaine 4% cream, (2) comfort positioning, eg, skin-to-skin contact for infants, not restraining children, (3) sucrose or breastfeeding for infants, and (4) age-appropriate distraction. A deferral process (Plan B) may include nitrous gas analgesia and sedation.

CONCLUSION

Failure to implement evidence-based pain prevention and treatment for children in medical facilities is now considered inadmissible and poor standard of care.

A survey of procedural pain assessment and non-pharmacologic analgesic interventions in neonates in Spanish public maternity units

OBJECTIVE

To qualify and quantify clinical practices related to pain assessment and non-pharmacologic analgesia (NPA) in newborns in Spanish public maternity hospitals STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed providers online regarding their use of pain assessment scales, NPA interventions in neonates undergoing procedures, as well parents' presence or absence during interventions.

RESULTS

The number of painful procedures and the subjective grading of pain from the responding physicians were similar in all hospitals. Only 12.5% of hospitals used pain scales. No NPA was employed in 37.7% of procedures, with less NPA used in the lower complexity hospitals for venous extraction (p < 0.001) and gastric lavage (p = 0.001). Respondents reported parents' absence during 56.1% of procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Available pain assessment scales and NPA interventions to mitigate pain are being underused. The presence of the parents during painful interventions is low despite the evidence that this may help to reduce newborns' perception of pain.

The impact of parental contact upon cortical noxious-related activity in human neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates display strong behavioural, physiological and cortical responses to tissue-damaging procedures. Parental contact can successfully regulate general behavioural and physiological reactivity of the infant, but it is not known whether it can influence noxious-related activity in the brain. Brain activity is highly dependent upon maternal presence in animal models, and therefore this could be an important contextual factor in human infant pain-related brain activity.

METHODS

Global topographic analysis was used to identify the presence and inter-group differences in noxious-related activity in three separate parental contexts. EEG was recorded during a clinically required heel lance in three age and sex-matched groups of neonates (a) while held by a parent in skin-to-skin (n = 9), (b) while held by a parent with clothing (n = 9) or (c) not held at all, but in individualized care (n = 9).

RESULTS

The lance elicited a sequence of 4-5 event-related potentials (ERPs), including the noxious ERP (nERP), which was smallest for infants held skin-to-skin and largest for infants held with clothing (p=0.016). The nERP was then followed by additional and divergent long-latency ERPs (> 750 ms post-lance), not previously described, in each of the groups, suggesting the engagement of different higher level cortical processes depending on parental contact.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show the importance of considering contextual factors in determining infant brain activity and reveal the powerful influence of parental contact upon noxious-related activity across the developing human brain.

SIGNIFICANCE

This observational study found that the way in which the neonatal brain processes a noxious stimulus is altered by the type of contact the infant has with their mother. Specifically, being held in skin-to-skin reduces the magnitude of noxious-related cortical activity. This work has also shown that different neural mechanisms are engaged depending on the mother/infant context, suggesting maternal contact can change how a baby's brain processes a noxious stimulus.

A complex interprofessional intervention to improve the management of painful procedures in neonates

During hospitalization, neonates are exposed to a stressful environment and a high number of painful procedures. If pain is not treated adequately, short‐ and long‐term complications may develop. Despite evidence about neonatal pain and available guidelines, procedural pain remains undertreated. This gap between research and practice is mostly due to limited implementation of evidence‐based knowledge and time constraints. This study describes in detail the development process of a complex interprofessional intervention to improve the management of procedural pain in neonates called NEODOL© (NEOnato DOLore). The framework of the Medical Research Council (MRC) for the development and evaluation of complex interventions was used as a methodological guide for the design of the NEODOL© intervention. The development of the intervention is based on several steps and multiple methods. To report this process, we used the Criteria for Reporting the Development of Complex Interventions in Healthcare (CReDECI 2). Additionally, we evaluated the content of the intervention using a Delphi method to obtain consensus from experts, stakeholders, and parents. The complex interprofessional intervention, NEODOL©, is developed and designed for three groups: healthcare professionals, parents, and neonates for a level IIb neonatal unit at a regional hospital in southern Switzerland. A total of 16 panelists participated in the Delphi process. At the end of the Delphi process, the panelists endorsed the NEODOL© intervention as important and feasible. Following the MRC guidelines, a multimethod process was used to develop a complex interprofessional intervention to improve the management of painful procedures in newborns. Complex interprofessional interventions need theoretical bases, careful development, and integration of stakeholders to provide a comprehensive approach. The NEODOL intervention consists of promising components and has the potential to improve the management of painful procedures and should facilitate the knowledge translation into practice.

[Expert consensus on neonatal pain assessment and analgesia management (2020 edition)]

Compared with adults, neonates tend to have stronger and more persistent biological perception of pain. They may have the memory for pain and the negative effects caused by pain may exist for a long time. Therefore, standardized pain management can reduce or prevent the adverse effect of pain on body and mind and promote the rehabilitation process. In order to further deepen the understanding of pain management and standardize the analgesic measures for neonates, the Neonatologist Branch of Chinese Medical Association and Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics have developed an expert consensus based on the clinical evidence in China and overseas and with reference to clinical experience from the following aspects: evaluation of neonatal pain and methods and techniques of pain management. It is recommended to adopt a step-by-step analgesic management for neonates. For mild pain stimulation, it is effective to relieve the pain by gentle touch and non-nutritive sucking combined with sucrose feeding. For moderate pain, selection of appropriate trocar needle and skilled puncture are important to reduce the pain, and in addition, the application of local anesthetics at the site of puncture also has a good effect. For severe pain, intravenous sedative drugs are often required, but no consistent evidence has been obtained so far.

[Expert consensus on neonatal pain assessment and analgesia management (2020 edition)]

Compared with adults, neonates tend to have stronger and more persistent biological perception of pain. They may have the memory for pain and the negative effects caused by pain may exist for a long time. Therefore, standardized pain management can reduce or prevent the adverse effect of pain on body and mind and promote the rehabilitation process. In order to further deepen the understanding of pain management and standardize the analgesic measures for neonates, the Neonatologist Branch of Chinese Medical Association and Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Contemporary Pediatrics have developed an expert consensus based on the clinical evidence in China and overseas and with reference to clinical experience from the following aspects: evaluation of neonatal pain and methods and techniques of pain management. It is recommended to adopt a step-by-step analgesic management for neonates. For mild pain stimulation, it is effective to relieve the pain by gentle touch and non-nutritive sucking combined with sucrose feeding. For moderate pain, selection of appropriate trocar needle and skilled puncture are important to reduce the pain, and in addition, the application of local anesthetics at the site of puncture also has a good effect. For severe pain, intravenous sedative drugs are often required, but no consistent evidence has been obtained so far.

Breastfeeding patterns in cohort infants at a high-risk fetal, neonatal and child referral center in Brazil: a correspondence analysis

Background

To investigate the prevalence and patterns of breastfeeding at discharge and in the first six months of life in a high-risk fetal, neonatal and child referral center.

Methods

Prospective, longitudinal study that included the following three steps: hospital admission, first visit after hospital discharge and monthly telephone interview until the sixth month of life. The total number of losses was 75 mothers (7.5%). Exposure variables were sorted into four groups: factors related to the newborn, the mother, the health service and breastfeeding. The dependent variable is breastfeeding as per categories established by the WHO. All 1200 children born or transferred to the high-risk fetal, neonatal and child referral center, within a seven-day postpartum period, from March 2017 to April 2018, were considered eligible for the study, and only 1003 were included. The follow-up period ended in October 2018. For this paper, we performed an exploratory analysis at hospital discharge in three stages, as follows: (i) frequencies of baseline characteristics, stratified by risk for newborn; (ii) a multiple correspondence analysis (MCA); and (iii) clusters for variables related to hospital practice and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF).

Results

The prevalence of EBF at hospital discharge was 65.2% (62.1–68.2) and 20.6% (16.5–25.0) in the six months of life. Out of all at-risk newborns, 45.7% were in EBF at discharge. The total inertia corresponding to the two dimensions in the MCA explained for 75.4% of the total data variability, with the identification of four groups, confirmed by the cluster analysis.

Discussion

Our results suggest that robust breastfeeding hospital policies and practices influence the establishment and maintenance of breastfeeding in both healthy and at-risk infants. It is advisable to plan and implement additional strategies to ensure that vulnerable and healthy newborns receive optimal feeding. It is necessary to devote extra effort particularly to at-risk infants who are more vulnerable to negative outcomes.

Conclusion

At-risk newborns did not exclusively breastfeed to the same extent as healthy newborns at hospital discharge. A different approach is required for at-risk neonates, who are more physically challenged and more vulnerable to problems associated with initiation and maintenance of breastfeeding.

Historical roots of pain management in infants: A bibliometric analysis using reference publication year spectroscopy

Retrospective evaluations of the historical role of previously published research are often fraught with subjective bias and misrepresentation, which leads to contested scientific claims. This paper investigates the historical roots of infant pain management using novel quantitative methods to identify the published literature and evaluate its relative importance. A bibliometric analysis named “reference publication year spectroscopy” (RPYS), was performed using the program CitedReferencesExplorer (CRExplorer) to avoid the subjectivity associated with comparative evaluations of individual research studies. Web of Science (WoS) search queries on infant‐related synonyms, pain‐related synonyms, and analgesia or anesthesia‐related synonyms were combined using the Boolean operator “AND,” to identify all publications related to pain management in infants. The RPYS analyses were based on 8697 papers in our publication set containing the citations for 86268 references. Selected cited publications were associated with peak citation years in 1951, 1954, 1957, 1965, 1987, 1990, 1997, 1999, and 2000. Subsequent analyses suggested that research on infant pain management made rapid progress during 1982‐1992. Landmark publications were defined as those belonging to the top 10% of the most frequently referenced publications for longer than 25 years. Through this analysis, we identified and ranked 24 landmark publications to illustrate the historical background and early research on infant pain management. From the first‐ever application of RPYS (an objective, reproducible approach to study the early history of any scholarly activity) to pain research, infant pain management appears rooted in the scientific rationale for neonatal pain perception, randomized trials of opioid anesthesia/analgesia, and studies describing the facial expressions and crying activity following heel‐lance procedures in newborns.

Intranasal fentanyl for pain management during screening for retinopathy of prematurity in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy of intranasal fentanyl as an adjunct for pain management during screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in preterm infants.

STUDY DESIGN

In this single center, double blinded, randomized controlled trial, preterm neonates between 30 and 34 weeks postmenstrual age received either intranasal fentanyl (2 mcg/kg) or intranasal normal saline through a mucosal atomization device 5 min prior to the first ROP-screening examination. Both the groups received standard pain relief strategies (oral sucrose, 0.5% proparacaine eye drops and physical containment). The primary outcome was premature infant pain profile-revised (PIPP-R) score during the screening.

RESULTS

A total of 111 infants were enrolled. PIPP-R score during the retinal examination was significantly lower in the fentanyl group (8.3 versus 11.5, mean difference: 3.2 (2.46-4.06), P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Intranasal fentanyl significantly reduced the pain associated with retinal examination without increasing the risk of respiratory depression. Large RCTs are required to verify the efficacy and safety of intranasal fentanyl for acute procedural pain in neonates.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTRI/2017/12/011016.

Breastfeeding as an analgesic method during vaccinations

INTRODUCTION

Infants undergo painful stings such as intradermal and intramuscular stings during vaccination. Clinical trial have showed analgesic methods to reduce the painful in both infants and kids.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

There are different types of non-pharmacological interventions which have an analgesic effect in infants during vaccinations such as: breastfeeding, cladding the infants, the skin to skin contact, the use of sweetened substance.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A review of the primary and secondary literature was carried out in the database Medline(PubMed). The bibliographic research was focused on the critical reading of the studies of the last ten years. Eight articles, including seven randomized clinical trials and one systematic review have been found. All registered studies report a reduction of the average value of the pain measured through both validated rating scales and through the measurement of the average duration of the cry during and after the vaccination in breastfeed infants. However it hasn't been demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in physiological parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

It is desirable that the literature produce further studies related to the changes of the vital parameters during the breastfeeding which allow a clear comparison between clinical trials.

Clonidine for pain in non-ventilated infants

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.

Pediatric pain treatment and prevention for hospitalized children

Introduction:

Prevention and treatment of pain in pediatric patients compared with adults is often not only inadequate but also less often implemented the younger the children are. Children 0 to 17 years are a vulnerable population.

Objectives:

To address the prevention and treatment of acute and chronic pain in children, including pain caused by needles, with recommended analgesic starting doses.

Methods:

This Clinical Update elaborates on the 2019 IASP Global Year Against Pain in the Vulnerable “Factsheet Pain in Children: Management” and reviews best evidence and practice.

Results:

Multimodal analgesia may include pharmacology (eg, basic analgesics, opioids, and adjuvant analgesia), regional anesthesia, rehabilitation, psychological approaches, spirituality, and integrative modalities, which act synergistically for more effective acute pediatric pain control with fewer side effects than any single analgesic or modality. For chronic pain, an interdisciplinary rehabilitative approach, including physical therapy, psychological treatment, integrative mind–body techniques, and normalizing life, has been shown most effective. For elective needle procedures, such as blood draws, intravenous access, injections, or vaccination, overwhelming evidence now mandates that a bundle of 4 modalities to eliminate or decrease pain should be offered to every child every time: (1) topical anesthesia, eg, lidocaine 4% cream, (2) comfort positioning, eg, skin-to-skin contact for infants, not restraining children, (3) sucrose or breastfeeding for infants, and (4) age-appropriate distraction. A deferral process (Plan B) may include nitrous gas analgesia and sedation.

Conclusion:

Failure to implement evidence-based pain prevention and treatment for children in medical facilities is now considered inadmissible and poor standard of care.

Managing pain and distress in children undergoing brief diagnostic and therapeutic procedures

Common medical procedures to assess and treat patients can cause significant pain and distress. Clinicians should have a basic approach for minimizing pain and distress in children, particularly for frequently used diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. This statement focuses on infants (excluding care provided in the NICU), children, and youth who are undergoing common, minor but painful medical procedures. Simple, evidence-based strategies for managing pain and distress are reviewed, with guidance for integrating them into clinical practice as an essential part of health care. Health professionals are encouraged to use minimally invasive approaches and, when painful procedures are unavoidable, to combine simple pain and distress-minimizing strategies to improve the patient, parent, and health care provider experience. Health administrators are encouraged to create institutional policies, improve education and access to guidelines, create child- and youth-friendly environments, ensure availability of appropriate staff, equipment and pharmacological agents, and perform quality audits to ensure pain management is optimal.

An audit of paediatric pain prevalence, intensity, and treatment at a South African tertiary hospital

INTRODUCTION

Pain in paediatric inpatients is common, underrecognised, and undertreated in resource-rich countries. Little is known about the status of paediatric pain prevention and treatment in low- and middle-income countries.

OBJECTIVES

This audit aimed to describe the prevalence and severity of pain in paediatric patients at a tertiary hospital in South Africa.

METHOD

A single-day prospective observational cross-sectional survey and medical chart review of paediatric inpatients at Grey's Hospital, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

RESULTS

Sixty-three children were included, and mean patient age was 9.7 years (SD 6.17). Most patients (87%) had pain during admission, with 29% reporting preexisting (possibly chronic) pain. At the time of the study, 25% had pain (median pain score 6/10). The worst pain reported was from needle procedures, including blood draws, injections, and venous cannulation (34%), followed by surgery (22%), acute illness/infection (18%), and other procedures (14%). Pharmacological treatments included WHO step 1 (paracetamol and ibuprofen) and step 2 (tramadol, tilidine, and morphine) analgesics. The most effective integrative interventions were distraction, swaddling, and caregiver participation. Although a pain narrative was present in the majority of charts, only 16% had documented pain intensity scores.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of pain in hospitalised children in a large South African Hospital was high and pain assessment inadequately documented. There is an urgent need for pain education and development of guidelines and protocols, to achieve better pain outcomes for children. This audit will be repeated as part of a quality-improvement initiative.

Insights on Nutrients as Analgesics in Chronic Pain

Many serious inflammatory disorders and nutrient deficiencies induce chronic pain, and anti-inflammatory diets have been applied successfully to modify the inflammatory symptoms causing chronic pain. Numerous scientific data and clinical investigations have demonstrated that long-term inflammation could lead to an inappropriate or exaggerated sensibility to pain. In addition, some Non-steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAID), which directly act on the many enzymes involved in pain and inflammation, including cyclooxygenases, are used to dampen the algesic signal to the central nervous system, reducing the responses of soft C-fibers to pain stimuli. On the other hand, there are a few reports from both health authorities and physicians, reporting that decreased transmission of pain signals can be achieved and improved, depending on the patient's dietary habit. Many nutrients, as well as a suitable level of exercise (resistance training), are the best methods for improving the total mitochondrial capacity in muscle cells, which can lead to a reduction in sensitivity to pain, particularly by lowering the inflammatory signaling to C-fibers. According to the current literature, it could be proposed that chronic pain results from the changed ratio of neuropeptides, hormones, and poor nutritional status, often related to an underlying inflammatory disorder. The current review also evaluates the effective role of nutrition-related interventions on the severity of chronic pain. This review pointed out that nutritional interventions can have a positive effect on pain experience through the indirect inhibitory effect on prostaglandin E2 and attenuation of mitochondrial dysfunction caused by ischemia/reperfusion in skeletal muscle, improving the intracellular antioxidant defense system. These data highlight the need for more nutrition studies where chronic pain is the primary outcome, using accurate interventions. To date, no nutritional recommendation for chronic pain has been officially proposed. Therefore, the goal of this article is to explore pain management and pain modulation, searching for a mode of nutrition efficient in reducing pain.