Oral sucrose for procedural pain in infants

Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures

BACKGROUND

Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in neonates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, method of administration and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain in neonates as assessed by validated composite pain scores, physiological pain indicators (heart rate, respiratory rate, saturation of peripheral oxygen in the blood, transcutaneous oxygen and carbon dioxide (gas exchange measured across the skin - TcpO2, TcpCO2), near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), electroencephalogram (EEG), or behavioural pain indicators (cry duration, proportion of time crying, proportion of time facial actions (e.g. grimace) are present), or a combination of these and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal. We performed electronic and manual literature searches in February 2016 for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 2016). We did not impose language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs in which term or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks' postmenstrual age), or both, received sucrose for procedural pain. Control interventions included no treatment, water, glucose, breast milk, breastfeeding, local anaesthetic, pacifier, positioning/containing or acupuncture.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our main outcome measures were composite pain scores (including a combination of behavioural, physiological and contextual indicators). Secondary outcomes included separate physiological and behavioural pain indicators. We reported a mean difference (MD) or weighted MD (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model for continuous outcome measures. For categorical data we used risk ratio (RR) and risk difference. We assessed heterogeneity by the I(2) test. We assessed the risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-four studies enrolling 7049 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses and for most analyses the GRADE assessments indicated low- or moderate-quality evidence. There was high-quality evidence for the beneficial effect of sucrose (24%) with non-nutritive sucking (pacifier dipped in sucrose) or 0.5 mL of sucrose orally in preterm and term infants: Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) 30 s after heel lance WMD -1.70 (95% CI -2.13 to -1.26; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity); 3 studies, n = 278); PIPP 60 s after heel lance WMD -2.14 (95% CI -3.34 to -0.94; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 studies, n = 164). There was high-quality evidence for the use of 2 mL 24% sucrose prior to venipuncture: PIPP during venipuncture WMD -2.79 (95% CI -3.76 to -1.83; I(2) = 0% (no heterogeneity; 2 groups in 1 study, n = 213); and intramuscular injections: PIPP during intramuscular injection WMD -1.05 (95% CI -1.98 to -0.12; I(2) = 0% (2 groups in 1 study, n = 232). Evidence from studies that could not be included in RevMan-analyses supported these findings. Reported adverse effects were minor and similar in the sucrose and control groups. Sucrose is not effective in reducing pain from circumcision. The effectiveness of sucrose for reducing pain/stress from other interventions such as arterial puncture, subcutaneous injection, insertion of nasogastric or orogastric tubes, bladder catherization, eye examinations and echocardiography examinations are inconclusive. Most trials indicated some benefit of sucrose use but that the evidence for other painful procedures is of lower quality as it is based on few studies of small sample sizes. The effects of sucrose on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sucrose is effective for reducing procedural pain from single events such as heel lance, venipuncture and intramuscular injection in both preterm and term infants. No serious side effects or harms have been documented with this intervention. We could not identify an optimal dose due to inconsistency in effective sucrose dosage among studies. Further investigation of repeated administration of sucrose in neonates is needed. There is some moderate-quality evidence that sucrose in combination with other non-pharmacological interventions such as non-nutritive sucking is more effective than sucrose alone, but more research of this and sucrose in combination with pharmacological interventions is needed. Sucrose use in extremely preterm, unstable, ventilated (or a combination of these) neonates needs to be addressed. Additional research is needed to determine the minimally effective dose of sucrose during a single painful procedure and the effect of repeated sucrose administration on immediate (pain intensity) and long-term (neurodevelopmental) outcomes.

Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures

BACKGROUND

Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for procedural pain relief in neonates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, effect of dose and safety of oral sucrose for relieving procedural pain in neonates.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Electronic and manual searches were performed in November 2011 for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE (1950 to November 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 2011), CINAHL (1982 to November 2011) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library). We did not impose language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs in which term, preterm, or both term and preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks' postmenstrual age) received sucrose for procedural pain. Control conditions included no treatment, water, pacifier, positioning/containing or breastfeeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Main outcome measures were physiological, behavioural, or both pain indicators with or without composite pain scores. A mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect model was reported for continuous outcome measures. Trial quality was assessed as per The Cochrane Collaboration

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies enrolling 4730 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses. When Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) scores were pooled, sucrose groups had significantly lower scores at 30 seconds (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.76; 95% CI -2.54 to - 0.97; 4 trials; 264 neonates] and 60 seconds (WMD -2.05; 95% CI -3.08 to -1.02; 3 trials' 195 neonates) post-heel lance. For retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) examinations, sucrose did not significantly reduce PIPP scores (WMD -0.65; 95% CI -1.88 to 0.59; 3 trials; 82 neonates). There were no differences in adverse effects between sucrose and control groups. Sucrose significantly reduced duration of total crying time (WMD -39 seconds; 95% CI -44 to -34; 2 trials; 88 neonates), but did not reduce duration of first cry during heel lance (WMD -9 seconds; 95% CI -20 to 2; 3 trials; 192 neonates). Oxygen saturation (%) was significantly lower in infants given sucrose during ROP examination compared to controls (WMD -2.6; 95% CI -4.9 to - 0.2; 2 trials; 62 neonates). Results of individual trials that could not be incorporated in meta-analyses supported these findings. The effects of sucrose on long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes are unknown.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sucrose is safe and effective for reducing procedural pain from single events. An optimal dose could not be identified due to inconsistency in effective sucrose dosage among studies. Further investigation on repeated administration of sucrose in neonates and the use of sucrose in combination with other non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions is needed. Sucrose use in extremely preterm, unstable, ventilated (or a combination of these) neonates needs to be addressed. Additional research is needed to determine the minimally effective dose of sucrose during a single painful procedure and the effect of repeated sucrose administration on immediate (pain intensity) and long-term (neurodevelopmental) outcomes.

Contextual factors associated with pain response of preterm infants to heel-stick procedures

BACKGROUND

Evidence indicates that medical and demographic contextual factors (cFs) impact pain responses in preterm neonates, but the existing evidence is very heterogeneous.

AIM

To explore the effect of cFs on pain responses to heel-stick procedures of preterm infants.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of data collected during a randomized controlled trial examining pain response to non-pharmacological interventions across repeated heel sticks. Five heel sticks across the first 14 days of life were videotaped. Pain response was rated with the Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates (BPSN) by four raters blinded to the heel-stick phases (baseline, heel stick, recovery). Demographic and medical cFs were extracted from medical charts. Mixed single and multiple regression analyses were performed controlling for the intervention group, site and heel-stick phase.

RESULTS

Apgar scores at 1 min were negatively associated with behavioural (p = 0.002) BPSN scores, while Apgar scores at 5 min after birth were positively associated with behavioural (p = 0.006) scores. Accumulated number of painful procedures (p = 0.002) and gender (p = 0.02) were positively associated with physiological scores while continuous positive airway pressure CPAP (p = 0.009) and mechanical ventilation (p = 0.005) were negatively associated.

CONCLUSION

Higher exposure to painful procedures, male infants and having CPAP or mechanical ventilation were cFs associated with physiological response. The only variables significantly associated with behavioural BPSN scores were Apgar scores but these relationships were inconsistent.