Comparing the Analgesic Effects of 4 Nonpharmacologic Interventions on Term Newborns Undergoing Heel Lance: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of combining oral glucose solutions with supportive positions on pain during heel puncture blood sampling in premature infants: A randomized quadruple-blinded experimental study

PURPOSE

The trial aimed to assess the impact on pain scores of the administration of oral glucose solutions at different concentrations and in combination with supportive positions during heel puncture procedures.

DESIGN & METHODS

This trial was structured as a quadruple-blinded experimental study conducted at a single center - a Level II and IVa NICU between June 2022-2023. Included in the study were 128 premature infants born with a gestational age of between 33 and 36 weeks and a postnatal age of <7 days. For the heel puncture procedures, four distinct interventions were employed, each involving supportive positions and oral solutions. All interventions were recorded on video for analysis, and data were collected using the "Infant Information and Observation Form" and "Neonatal Pain, Agitation and Sedation Scale (N-PASS)". The N-PASS was rated by two independent nurses. The data were analyzed with the two-way repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni tests.

RESULTS

The descriptive and clinical characteristics were similar in all groups (p > 0.05). The pain scores, physiological variables and total crying times of the premature infants differed significantly depending on the interventional groups and times, and the interaction between the groups and times (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining glucose solutions with supportive positions led to a reduction in pain scores, a decrease in total crying time when compared to the use of supportive positions alone.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Combining an oral 20% glucose solution with supportive positions can be recommended to reduce pain during unplanned heel puncture procedures in the absence of a parent in the unit.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical practice guideline for kangaroo mother care in preterm and low birth weight infants

Kangaroo mother care has reduced mortality and morbidity in preterm and low birth weight infants and has many benefits, such as promoting breastfeeding. Based on the current evidence in China and international, we developed a clinical practice guideline for kangaroo mother care in preterm and low birth weight infants using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation and proposed 34 recommendations for 20 key questions. Our goal is to promote the appropriate implementation of kangaroo mother care in clinical practice.

Effect of Non-nutritive Sucking during Heel-stick Procedure in Pain Management of Term Infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of non-nutritive sucking for analgesia in term infants undergoing heel-stick procedures.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies based on the PICO framework were included in the study. Review articles, commentary, pilot, and non-English articles were excluded. Databases, such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane, were searched until January 31st, 2021, using the keywords "Pain management", 'Non-nutritive sucking", and "Heel stick". All studies were reviewed and retrieved by two authors independently using a standardized form according to the inclusion criteria, and any disagreements were examined by a third scholar. Quality assessment was evaluated by using the ROB-2 tool. Data were analyzed using Stata version 12.0 software, and a random-effects model was used for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 5,629 articles were retrieved from all databases, and after the screening, finally, 6 relevant articles were included in the analysis. The tools used to control pain in infants in the articles included PIPP, NFCS, NIPS, and NPASS. The results showed that the pain scores were significantly lower in the NNS group compared to the control group (MD, -1.05; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.57) and NNS had a significant effect on oxygen saturation (O2 Sat) increasing in newborns compared to the control group, but no significant reduction in the heart rate (HR) between two groups was observed.

CONCLUSION

NNS effectively provides analgesia in full-term neonates undergoing heel-stick procedures; however, its effects on the long-term outcomes of infants are unclear. The results showed that NNS was effective in improving heel-stick pain in infants.