A randomized controlled trial of analgesia during vaccination in adults

Massaging as a pain-relieving intervention before performing intravenous access

PURPOSE

Pain is "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience arising from actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of damage". Stimulating the skin by rubbing, stroking, massaging, or applying pressure near the injection site is pain-relieving. Needle-related procedures induce anxiety, distress, and fear in children and adults. The present study aimed to test the effectiveness of massaging the access site in reducing pain associated with intravenous access.

DESIGN

After obtaining institutional ethics committee approval, this prospective randomized single-blinded study was performed on 250 ASA I-II patients 18 to 65 years old, scheduled for elective minor general surgery under general anaesthesia.

METHODS

Patients were randomized into the Massaging Group (MG) and the Control Group (CG). A Situational Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was conducted to evaluate the anxiety levels of the patients. In addition, the skin adjacent to the intravenous access site was massaged for 15 s in circular motions with moderate intensity by the investigator's right thumb before performing the intravenous access in the MG. The CG did not receive any massage adjacent to the access site. The primary endpoint, the intensity of perceived pain, was rated on a non-graduated 10-cm Visual Analogue Score (VAS).

FINDINGS

The groups' demographic data and STAI I-II scores were similar. There was a significant difference between the VAS scores of the two groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support massaging as an effective pain-relieving technique before intravenous intervention. As massaging is a universal and non-invasive intervention that requires no advanced preparation, we recommend massaging before each intravenous cannulation to reduce pain caused by intravenous access.

The mental health profiles of pediatric organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplantation is the indicated treatment for children with end-stage organ failure. Little is known about the impact of organ transplantation on pediatric transplant recipients' mental health. Symptoms of medical procedure and generalized anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and depression may emerge, despite the successful restoration of organ function.

METHODS

We examined symptoms of anxiety, depression, trauma, and medical procedure anxiety-specifically, fear and avoidance of needles-in youth who had received a kidney, liver, or heart transplant. Parent-report on child mental health symptoms was also collected.

RESULTS

Data were obtained for 56 youth. Most children did not endorse clinically significant symptoms of depression. In contrast, 20% of parents reported symptoms of depression in their child that exceeded clinical cutoffs. Parents also reported higher levels of anxiety in their children than did the children themselves. Indeed, on average, children reported lower levels of depression and anxiety than would be expected in a general population. On a trauma measure, 22.6% of youths' scores were above clinical cutoffs, with girls scoring higher than boys. Finally, 10.9% of children stated that they attempted to avoid needles because of fear. Once again, girls reported higher needle fear scores than boys and younger patients reported experiencing higher levels of needle fear.

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and needle fear are important psychological parameters that should be considered in the evaluation of pediatric patients with solid organ transplant, as part of their routine post-transplant care.

A Randomised Controlled Trial of Ice to Reduce the Pain of Immunisation-The ICE Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

vaccine injections are a common cause of iatrogenic pain and anxiety, contributing to non-compliance with scheduled vaccinations. With injection-related pain being recognised as a barrier to vaccination uptake in both adults and children, it is important to investigate strategies to effectively reduce immunisation pain. This prospective randomised controlled trial investigated the effects of applying an ice pack on vaccine-related pain in adults.

METHODS

medical students receiving the flu vaccination were randomised to receive an ice pack (intervention) or placebo cold pack (control) at the injection site for 30 s prior to needle insertion. Immediate post-vaccination pain (VAS) and adverse reactions in the proceeding 24 h were recorded.

RESULTS

pain scores between the intervention (n = 19) and control groups (n = 16) were not statistically significant (intervention: median pain VAS = 7.00, IQR = 18; control: median pain VAS = 11, IQR = 14 (p = 0.26). There were no significant differences in the number of adverse events between the two groups (site pain p = 0.18; localised swelling (p = 0.67); bruising p = 0.09; erythema p = 0.46).

DISCUSSION

ice did not reduce vaccination-related pain compared to cold packs. COVID-19 related restrictions impacted participant recruitment, rendering the study insufficiently powered to draw conclusions about the results.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Noninvasive Analgesic Techniques for the Prevention of Pain During Facial Injections

BACKGROUND

Injections are associated with a certain amount of pain, the tolerance of which can vary between individuals. With regard to noninvasive pain control techniques in subcutaneous injections, few studies with adequate levels of evidence and design quality exist to support any specific analgesic method.

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of 3 noninvasive analgesic techniques (cold, anesthetic cream, and vibration) during subcutaneous forehead injections in 100 healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This randomized, single-blind, controlled trial comprised 100 healthy volunteers. Every patient received 4 forehead injections of 0.1 mL physiological saline through 29G needles after 1 of 3 noninvasive analgesic techniques (cold, vibration, or anesthetic cream) or control treatment was applied to each injection site. The results were evaluated through a survey that included a visual analog scale for pain measurements.

RESULTS

All analgesic methods demonstrated better pain control than the no-treatment arm (P < 0.001), of which vibration performed better than the other analgesic techniques (P < 0.015 vs cold and P < 0.015 vs anesthetic cream). No differences were observed between cold and anesthetic cream. The average amount of pain per injection in males was higher than in females (P < 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Vibration analgesia effected significantly better pain control than cold and anesthetic cream. Nevertheless, the choice of anesthetic method should be adapted to the preferences and experiences of each patient to optimize pain control in procedures that involve subcutaneous injections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Topical Refrigerant Spray for IVs: Patient/Provider Responses - Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized Study

Painful procedures are common. Patients prefer analgesia for painful procedures. Studies indicate that use of a topical refrigerant spray (TRS) prior to needlestick procedures decreases needlestick pain. TRS is easy to apply, inexpensive, has fast onset, and avoids needlestick pain and anxiety, and needlestick injury risk. Patient and health care provider (HCP) acceptance of any technique is essential before it is adopted. This study evaluated the decrease in pain with TRS and the patient and HCP satisfaction and acceptance of TRS for peripheral intravenous (PIV) placement. Adults (N = 300) randomized to placebo or TRS and HCPs (N = 300) placing PIVs answered questionnaires. Patients had significantly less pain than with prior PIVs, and were satisfied with and would use TRS in the future (P < 0.001). HCP felt that patients had significantly (P < 0.001) less pain with TRS than the placebo, and were satisfied with the TRS, and would use TRS in the future.Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01670487.

Prospective, double blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing vapocoolant spray versus placebo spray in adults undergoing intravenous cannulation

OBJECTIVES

Painful diagnostic and therapeutic procedures are common in the health care setting. Eliminating, or at least, minimizing the pain associated with various procedures should be a priority. Although there are many benefits of providing local/topical anesthesia prior to performing painful procedures, ranging from greater patient/family satisfaction to increased procedural success rates; local/topical anesthetics are frequently not used. Reasons include the need for a needlestick to administer local anesthetics such as lidocaine and the long onset for topical anesthetics. Vapocoolants eliminate the risks associated with needlesticks, avoids the tissue distortion with intradermal local anesthetics, eliminates needlestick pain, have a quick almost instantaneous onset, are easy to apply, require no skills or devices to apply, are convenient, and inexpensive. The aims of this study were to ascertain if peripheral intravenous (PIV) cannulation pain would be significantly decreased by using a vapocoolant (V) versus sterile water placebo (S) spray, as determined by a reduction of at least ≥1.8 points on numerical rating scale (NRS) after vapocoolant versus placebo spray, the side effects and incidence of side effects from a vapocoolant spray; and whether there were any long term visible skin abnormalities associated with the use of a vapocoolant spray.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial of 300 adults (ages 18-80) requiring PIV placement in a hospital ED, randomized to S (N=150) or V (N=150) prior to PIV. Efficacy outcome was the difference in PIV pain: NRS from 0 (none) to worst (10). Safety outcomes included a skin checklist for local adverse effects (i.e., redness, blanching, edema, ecchymosis, itching, changes in skin pigmentation), vital sign (VS) changes, and before/after photographs of the PIV site.

RESULTS

Patient demographics (age, gender, race), comorbidity, medications, and vital signs; and PIV procedure variables (e.g., IV needle size, location, number of IV attempts, type and experience of healthcare provider performing the IV) were not significantly different for the two groups. Median (interquartile range) PIV pain was 4 (2, 7) (S) and 2 (0, 4) (V) (P<0.001). Skin checklist revealed minimal erythema: S 0% (N=0/150), V: 2.7% (4/150), which resolved within 5min, and no blanching, skin pigmentation changes, itching, edema, or ecchymosis. Photographs at 5-10min revealed no visible skin changes in any patient (N=300), vapocoolant (N=150) or placebo groups (N=150). Complaints (N=26) were coolness/cold feeling S 8.7% (N=13), V 7.3% (N=11), coolness/numbness S 0% (N=0), V 0.7% (N=1), and burning S 0.7% (N=1), V 0 (0%). Patient acceptance of the vapocoolant spray was high: 82% (123/150) of the patients stated they would use the spray in the future, while only 40.7% (61/150) of the placebo group stated they would use the placebo spray in the future.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Vapocoolant spray significantly decreased peripheral intravenous cannulation pain in adults versus placebo spray and was well tolerated with minor adverse effects that resolved quickly. There were no significant differences in vital signs and no visible skin changes documented by photographs taken within 5-10min postspray/PIV.

Effect of topical vapocoolant spray on perioperative pain response of unweaned calves to ear tagging and ear notching

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a vapocoolant spray to provide local anaesthesia for calves during ear tagging and ear notching.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized study.

ANIMALS

Twenty Black Angus calves aged 4-16 weeks old.

METHODS

Temperature validation studies using thermocouples and a temperature data logger were conducted on dead and live tissue to determine optimal spray distance and duration to achieve tissue anaesthesia (<10 °C). A behavioural trial was conducted to assess efficacy for ear tagging and ear notching. Calves (n = 20) were randomly assigned to the vapocoolant spray (VS) or the water spray (WS) group. A 3 second spray was administered from 10 cm to both sides of the ear immediately prior to ear tagging and ear notching. A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to score behavioural response to each procedure, with responses categorized from 0 (no response) to 3 (severe).

RESULTS

Temperature and tissue validation studies indicated that a vapocoolant spray reduced dead and live tissue temperature to below nociceptive threshold levels (10 °C) for 10-16 seconds. Univariate analysis indicated that ear notching was more painful than ear tagging [odds ratio (OR) = 19.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.34-68.99, p < 0.001]. When adjusted for the multivariate model, there was a significant effect of treatment, with WS calves showing higher pain response scores than VS calves (OR = 4.08, 95% CI: 1.34-12.42, p = 0.011). Ear notching resulted in greater pain response scores than ear tagging (OR = 23.19, 95% CI: 6.18-87.05, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

and clinical relevance Vapocoolant spray induced local anaesthesia and significantly reduced the pain response to ear tagging and ear notching in calves. Ear notching is more painful than ear tagging. Cryoanaesthesia is an effective option for reducing the perioperative pain associated with these simple husbandry procedures.

Simple Psychological Interventions for Reducing Pain From Common Needle Procedures in Adults: Systematic Review of Randomized and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of simple psychological interventions for managing pain and fear in adults undergoing vaccination or related common needle procedures (ie, venipuncture/venous cannulation).

DESIGN/METHODS

Databases were searched to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Self-reported pain and fear were prioritized as critically important outcomes. Data were combined using standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

No studies involving vaccination met inclusion criteria; evidence was drawn from 8 studies of other common needle procedures (eg, venous cannulation, venipuncture) in adults. Two trials evaluating the impact of neutral signaling of the impending procedure (eg, "ready?") as compared with signaling of impending pain (eg, "sharp scratch") demonstrated lower pain when signaled about the procedure (n=199): SMD=-0.97 (95% CI, -1.26, -0.68), after removal of 1 trial where self-reported pain was significantly lower than the other 2 included trials. Two trials evaluated music distraction (n=156) and demonstrated no difference in pain: SMD=0.10 (95% CI, -0.48, 0.27), or fear: SMD=-0.25 (95% CI, -0.61, 0.10). Two trials evaluated visual distraction and demonstrated no difference in pain (n=177): SMD=-0.57 (95% CI, -1.82, 0.68), or fear (n=81): SMD=-0.05 (95% CI, -0.50, 0.40). Two trials evaluating breathing interventions found less pain in intervention groups (n=138): SMD=-0.82 (95% CI, -1.21, -0.43). The quality of evidence across all trials was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no published studies of simple psychological interventions for vaccination pain in adults. There is some evidence of a benefit from other needle procedures for breathing strategies and neutral signaling of the start of the procedure. There is no evidence for use of music or visual distraction.

Pharmacological and Combined Interventions to Reduce Vaccine Injection Pain in Children and Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy and combined interventions for reducing vaccine injection pain in individuals across the lifespan.

DESIGN/METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Self-reported pain and fear as well as observer-rated distress were critically important outcomes. Data were combined using standardized mean difference (SMD) or relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies that examined breastfeeding (which combines sweet-tasting solution, holding, and sucking), topical anesthetics, sweet-tasting solutions (sucrose, glucose), vapocoolants, oral analgesics, and combination of 2 versus 1 intervention were included. The following results report findings of analyses of critical outcomes with the largest number of participants. Compared with control, acute distress was lower for infants breastfed: (1) during vaccination (n=792): SMD -1.78 (CI, -2.35, -1.22) and (2) before vaccination (n=100): SMD -1.43 (CI, -2.14, -0.72). Compared with control/placebo, topical anesthetics showed benefit on acute distress in children (n=1424): SMD -0.91 (CI, -1.36, -0.47) and self-reported pain in adults (n=60): SMD -0.85 (CI, -1.38, -0.32). Acute and recovery distress was lower for children who received sucrose (n=2071): SMD -0.76 (CI, -1.19, -0.34) or glucose (n=818): SMD -0.69 (CI, -1.03, -0.35) compared with placebo/no treatment. Vapocoolants reduced acute pain in adults [(n=185), SMD -0.78 (CI, -1.08, -0.48)] but not children. Evidence from other needle procedures showed no benefit of acetaminophen or ibuprofen. The administration of topical anesthetics before and breastfeeding during vaccine injections showed mixed results when compared with topical anesthetics alone. There were no additive benefits of combining glucose and non-nutritive sucking (pacifier) compared with glucose or non-nutritive sucking (pacifier) alone or breastfeeding and sucrose compared with breastfeeding or sucrose alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Breastfeeding, topical anesthetics, sweet-tasting solutions, and combination of topical anesthetics and breastfeeding demonstrated evidence of benefit for reducing vaccine injection pain in infants and children. In adults, limited data demonstrate some benefit of topical anesthetics and vapocoolants.

Procedural and Physical Interventions for Vaccine Injections: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination.

DESIGN/METHODS

Databases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods.

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95% CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95% CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension.

Skin Sterility After Application of a Vapocoolant Spray Part 2

INTRODUCTION

Refrigerant sprays have been used for pain relief at the time of minor office procedures. However, their sterility remains in question. This study investigates the microbiologic effect of this vapocoolant when sprayed after 70 % isopropyl alcohol skin preparation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 50 healthy volunteers, three skin culture samples were collected: Group 1 prior to alcohol application; Group 2 after preparation with alcohol, and Group 3 after preparation with alcohol followed with vapocoolant spray. Samples were cultured in a blinded fashion and analyzed after 5 days of incubation. Gram staining was performed when cultures were positive.

RESULTS

Bacterial growth was found in 98 % of samples prior to any skin preparation. This was reduced to 54 % after alcohol use (Group 2). Spraying with the skin refrigerant further reduced bacterial growth to 46 % (Group 3). The results showed a significant reduction in the number of positive bacterial cultures following skin preparation with alcohol and when alcohol prep was followed by vapocoolant spray (p < 0.001) compared to initial cultures. No statistical difference was observed between Groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the vapocoolant spray does not compromise the sterility of the skin following alcohol prep. Both 70 % isopropyl alcohol antiseptic preparation and skin preparation followed by vapocoolant spray significantly reduce skin colonization when compared to unprepared skin (p < 0.001).

A systematic review of vapocoolants for reducing pain from venipuncture and venous cannulation in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Studies of vapocoolants for pain reduction from venipuncture have demonstrated conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to systematically review the literature regarding the analgesic effectiveness of vapocoolants in children and adults.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and Cochrane Central Register of Trials using key words: vapocoolant, pain, venipuncture, and cannulation. We included randomized or quasi-randomized studies comparing vapocoolants to placebo or no treatment. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and extracted data. Quality was assessed by consensus using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was self-reported pain using a 100-mm visual analog scale, a 0- to 10-point numerical scale, or observational scale for preverbal children. Data were pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Twelve studies including 1266 patients (509 children, 757 adults) were identified. No significant pain reduction was found in children receiving vapocoolants vs. placebo or no treatment (mean difference -10 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] -26 to 6). In adults, less pain was reported when vapocoolants were compared with no treatment: -10 mm on a 100-mm scale (95% CI -17 to -4); but not when compared to placebo (-12 mm; 95% CI -26 to 2). Pain from application of vapocoolants was greater than placebo (8 mm; 95% CI 4 to 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Vapocoolants were ineffective in children and adults when compared to placebo, and effective in adults only when compared to no treatment. The magnitude of effect was low and was offset by increased pain from application. They cannot be recommended for routine use in children or adults.

Survey of the prevalence of immunization non-compliance due to needle fears in children and adults

Needle fears are a documented barrier to immunization in children and adults. There is a paucity of data, however, regarding the prevalence of needle fears and their impact on immunization compliance. In this cross-sectional survey, a convenience sample of parents (n=883) and children (n=1024) attending a public museum in Toronto, Canada answered questions about needle fears and non-compliance with immunization due to needle fear. Altogether, 24% of parents and 63% of children reported a fear of needles. Needle fear was the primary reason for immunization non-compliance for 7% and 8% of parents and children, respectively. Interventions aimed at improving education about, and access to, analgesic interventions during immunization injections performed in childhood are recommended in order to prevent the development of needle fears and vaccine non-compliance.