Efficacy of Skin-to-Skin Care versus Swaddling for Pain Control Associated with Vitamin K Administration in Full-Term Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Neonatal skin health and associated dermatological conditions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review describes recent developments in neonatal skincare management and situates these findings within the preexisting literature on neonatal dermatology.

RECENT FINDINGS

The studies included in this review expand research methods evaluating skincare management to different contexts across the world. Several studies explore the roles of emollient therapy, disinfection, and skin-to-skin contact on improving neonates' long-term health outcomes. Recent findings also assess the impact of neonatal interventions on atopic dermatitis risk later in life as well as epidemiological and microbiome variables that may predict this risk. Additionally, updates on various dermatological conditions unique to neonates are discussed in further detail.

SUMMARY

Neonatal skincare management differs in notable ways from that of other age groups. The presentation of dermatologic diseases as well as the rare conditions that affect neonates make their clinical management unique. The recent literature on neonatal dermatology can help inform clinicians regarding important considerations in treating their neonatal population.

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.

Kangaroo Care for Relieving Neonatal Pain Caused by Invasive Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Neonates develop significant pain responses during invasive procedures, and nonpharmacological interventions are better means of pain relief. An increasing number of studies have confirmed the effectiveness of kangaroo care (KC) in relieving neonatal pain caused by invasive procedures, but conclusions are inconsistent. In this study, a literature search and meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the effect of kangaroo care on relieving neonatal pain.

Methods

The works of literature related to the application of KC in neonatal invasive procedures in the databases of Pubmed, Embase, Springer Link, Ovid, CNKI, and CBM were searched, and the RCT literature from database establishment to July 2022, was selected to evaluate the risk of bias, combined with statistical pain relief outcome indicators.

Results

12 pieces of literature were finally included in this study, with a total of 1172 newborns, including 585 newborns (49.9%) using KC and 587 newborns (50.1%) using the control group method. Meta-analysis showed that an infant's heart rate during invasive procedures under KC intervention was significantly lower than that of other interventions (MD = -6.77, 95% CI (-13.03, -0.50), Z = -2.12, P=0.03), but compared to other nonpharmacological interventions, there was no clear advantage in the overall evaluation of pain reduction in infants (MD = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.80, 0.08), Z = -1.60, P=0.11).

Conclusion

The heart rate of KC intervention during invasive procedures in infants is significantly lower than that of other interventions, and it can significantly relieve pain in infants, but the effect is not more than that of oral sucrose (or glucose) or standard care. KC combined with oral sucrose may achieve a better pain relief effect in infants, but more studies are still needed to verify it.