[Analgesia with saccharose during heel capillary prick. A randomized study in 37 newborns of over 33 weeks of amenorrhea]

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.

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.

Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures

BACKGROUND

Administration of oral sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking is frequently used as a 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 STRATEGY

The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Collaborative Review Group were used.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in which term and/or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days corrected for postmenstrual age) received sucrose for procedural pain. Control conditions included water, pacifier, positioning/containing or breastfeeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The main outcome measures were physiological and/or behavioural pain indicators and/or composite pain scores. A weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effects model was reported for continuous outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies enrolling 3,496 infants were included. Results from only a few studies could be combined in meta-analyses. Sucrose significantly reduced duration of total crying time (seconds) [WMD -39.26 (95% CI -44.29, -34.24), 88 neonates], but did not reduce duration of first cry (seconds) during heel lance [WMD -8.99 (95% CI -20.07, 2.10), 192 neonates]. No significant differences were found for percent change in heart rate from baseline at one minute [WMD 0.90 (95% CI -5.81, 7.61), 86 neonates] and three minutes [WMD -6.20 (95% CI -15.27, 2.88), 86 neonates] post-heel lance, or for mean heart rate at three minutes post-heel lance [WMD -0.98 (95% CI -8.29, 6.32), 154 neonates]. Oxygen saturation (%) was significantly lower in infants given sucrose during ROP examination compared to controls [WMD -2.58 (95% CI -4.94, - 0.23), 62 neonates]. Infants given sucrose post-heel lance had significantly lower PIPP scores at 30 seconds [WMD -1.64 (95% CI -2.47, - 0.81), 220 neonates] and 60 seconds [WMD -2.05 (95% CI -3.08, -1.02), 195 neonates]. For ROP exams, sucrose did not significantly reduce PIPP scores [WMD -0.65 (95% CI -1.88, 0.59), 82 neonates]. There were no differences in adverse effects between sucrose and control groups.

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 (e.g. behavioural, physical) and pharmacologic interventions is needed. Sucrose use in extremely low birth-weight and unstable and/or ventilated neonates needs to be addressed.

Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures

BACKGROUND

Management of pain for neonates is less than optimal. The administration of sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking (pacifiers) has been the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for relief of procedural pain in neonates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain as assessed by validated individual pain indicators and composite pain scores.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Standard methods as per the Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. A MEDLINE search was carried out for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1966 - March 2004, EMBASE from 1980-2004 and search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004). Key words and (MeSH) terms included infant/newborn, pain, analgesia and sucrose. Language restrictions were not imposed. Bibliographies, personal files, the most recent relevant neonatal and pain journals and recent major pediatric pain conference proceedings were searched manually. Unpublished studies, or studies reported only as abstracts, were not included. Additional information from published studies was obtained.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs in which term and/or preterm neonates (postnatal age maximum of 28 days after reaching 40 weeks corrected gestational age) received sucrose via oral syringe, NG-tube, dropper or pacifier for procedural pain from heel lance or venepuncture. In the control group, water, pacifier or positioning/containing were used. Studies in which the painful stimulus was circumcision were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed according to the methods of the Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. Quality measures included blinding of randomization, blinding of intervention, completeness of follow up and blinding of outcome measurement. Data were abstracted and independently checked for accuracy by the three investigators.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The statistical package (RevMan 4.2) of the Cochrane Collaboration was used. For meta-analysis, a weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effects model was reported for continuous outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies were identified for possible inclusion in this review. Seven studies reported only as abstracts, and sixteen additional studies were excluded, leaving 21 studies (1,616 infants) included in this review. Sucrose in a wide variety of dosages was generally found to decrease physiologic (heart rate) and behavioural (the mean percent time crying, total cry duration, duration of first cry, and facial action) pain indicators and composite pain scores in neonates undergoing heel stick or venepuncture. When pain scores (Premature Infant Pain Profiles) were pooled across 3 studies (Gibbins 2001; Johnston 1999a; Stevens 1999), they were significantly reduced in infants who were given sucrose (dose range 0.012 g to 0.12 g) compared to the control group, [WMD -1.64 (95% CI -2.47,- 0.81); p = 0.0001] at 30 seconds and [WMD -2.05, (95% CI -3.08, -1.02); p = 0.00010] at 60 seconds after heel lance. When results for change in heart rate were pooled for two studies (Haouari 1995, Isik 2000), there were no significant differences between changes in heart rate for infants given sucrose (dose range 0.5 g to 0.6 g) compared to the control group, [WMD 0.90 (95% CI -5.81, 7.61); p = 0.8] at one minute and [WMD -6.20 (95% CI -15.27, 2.88); p = 0.18] at three minutes after heel lance.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Sucrose is safe and effective for reducing procedural pain from single painful events (heel lance, venepuncture). There was inconsistency in the dose of sucrose that was effective (dose range of 0.012 g to 0.12 g), and therefore an optimal dose to be used in preterm and/or term infants could not be identified. The use of repeated administrations of sucrose in neonates needs to be investigated as does the use of sucrose in combination with other behavioural (e.g., facilitated tucking, kangaroo care) and pharmacologic (e.g., morphine, fentanyl) interventions. Use of sucrose in neonates who are of very low birth weight, unstable and/or ventilated also needs to be addressed.

[Multicentric study on neonatal medical pain management in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais]

The aim of this study was to describe pain management for newborn infants in neonatal intensive care units and neonatal units in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to the 52 physicians practising in the six neonatal intensive care units and six neonatal units. The questions were in reference to pain assessment, treatment and prevention.

RESULTS

Forty questionnaires were completed (77%). Eleven units proclaimed an interest in neonatal pain management. The tool for assessing pain was the EDIN scale (Echelle Douleur Inconfort Nouveau-né, neonatal pain and discomfort scale). Analgesic treatment was administered in 100% of cases for the insertion of chest tube, in 92% of cases for the insertion of percutaneous central catheter in a ventilated newborn infant and in 91% of cases for necrotizing enterocolitis requiring a mechanical ventilation. Prescribed analgesic drugs were propacetamol, nalbuphin or fentanyl; a sedation by midazolam or diazepam was occasionally associated. Emla cream was used before lumbar puncture in 80% of cases in the neonatal intensive care units and in 92% of cases in the neonatal units. Three neonatal intensive care units and four neonatal units administered a sucrose solution for blood samples.

CONCLUSION

At the time of study, the interest in the pain of the physicians working in neonatal intensive care units and neonatal units was inadequate to guarantee an optimum management of pain in newborn infants. Physicians' approach remained heterogeneous.

Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures

BACKGROUND

Management of pain for neonates is less than optimal. The administration of sucrose with and without non-nutritive sucking (pacifiers) has been the most frequently studied non-pharmacological intervention for relief of procedural pain in neonates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, effect of dose, and safety of sucrose for relieving procedural pain as assessed by physiologic and/or behavioural indicators.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Standard methods as per the Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. A MEDLINE search was carried out for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 1966 - November 1, 1997; EMBASE from 1993-1997; Reference Update search on November 11, 1997 and search of the Cochrane Library Issue 4 on November 11, 1997. Key words and (MeSH) terms included, infant/newborn, pain, analgesia and sucrose. Personal files, bibliographies, the most recent relevant neonatal and pain journals and conference proceedings were searched manually. Unpublished studies were not included. Language restrictions were not imposed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs in which term and/or preterm neonates undergoing heel lance, venepuncture or intramuscular injection (immunization) received sucrose or water/placebo or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was assessed according to the methods of the Neonatal Collaborative Review Group. Quality measures included; blinding of randomization, blinding of intervention, completeness of follow up and blinding of outcome measurement. Data were abstracted and independently checked for accuracy by the two investigators. The inconsistency in outcome measures and differences in the statistical reporting of results made meta-analysis impossible. We were not able to identify two studies in which the same physiologic and/or behavioral outcomes following a noxious stimulus (heel-lance, venepuncture, intramuscular injection) were measured and reported in an identical fashion using means and standard deviations (or standard errors). The results are therefore reported for each accepted study separately.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in this systematic review. Five studies were excluded; three RCTs were excluded as in these trials the number of infants randomized to treatment vs. placebo groups were not reported; one study was not an RCT, and in one RCT the neonates did not undergo a painful procedure. Ten RCTs were included in this review. Sucrose in a wide range of dosages was generally found to decrease univariate physiologic (heart rate) and behavioural (the mean percent time crying, total cry duration, duration of first cry, and facial action) pain indicators and multivariate [Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)] pain outcomes in neonates undergoing heelstick or venepuncture. An optimal dose of sucrose to reduce pain associated with procedures in preterm and term neonates could not be identified through this systematic review.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Sucrose reduces physiologic and/or behavioral indicators of stress/pain in neonates following procedural pain stimuli (heel lance, venepuncture, immunization). There was inconsistency in the dose of sucrose that was effective and an optimal dose to be used in preterm and/or term infants could not be identified. Considerations for future research are to describe the painful procedure and intervention in detail, to use appropriate sample size to show a statistically significant reduction in pain, to use a multidimensional conceptualization of pain, to select outcome measures that are reliable and valid pain indicators and to account for the variation in the infant's response and context in which the pain is experienced. The use of repeated administrations of sucrose in neonates needs to be investigated. Use of sucrose in neonates that are very low birth weight, unstable and/or ventilated also needs to be addressed. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)