Randomised controlled trial showed that neonates received better pain relief from a higher dose of sucrose during venepuncture

Effect of non-pharmacological interventions on pain in preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological interventions for pain management in preterm infants and provide high-quality clinical evidence.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various non-pharmacological interventions for pain management in preterm infants were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to the present (updated March 2023). The primary outcome was pain score reported as standardized mean difference (SMD). The secondary outcomes were oxygen saturation and heart rate reported as the same form.

RESULTS

Thirty five RCTs of 2134 preterm infants were included in the meta-analysis, involving 6 interventions: olfactory stimulation, combined oral sucrose and non-nutritive sucking (OS + NNS), facilitated tucking, auditory intervention, tactile relief, and mixed intervention. Based on moderate-quality evidence, OS + NNS (OR: 3.92, 95% CI: 1.72, 6.15, SUCRA score: 0.73), facilitated tucking (OR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.15, 3.90, SUCRA score: 0.29), auditory intervention (OR: 2.48, 95% CI: 0.91, 4.10, SUCRA score: 0.27), olfactory stimulation (OR: 1.80, 95% CI: 0.51, 3.14, SUCRA score: 0.25), and mixed intervention (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.10, 4.38, SUCRA score: 0.14) were all superior to the control group for pain relief. For oxygen saturation, facilitated tucking (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 0.66, 3.35, SUCRA score: 0.64) and auditory intervention (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.22, 2.04, SUCRA score: 0.36) were superior to the control. For heart rate, none of the comparisons between the various interventions were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that there are notable variations in the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological interventions in terms of pain scores and oxygen saturation. However, there was no evidence of any improvement in heart rate.

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.

2022 Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines on Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation, Neuromuscular Blockade, and Delirium in Critically Ill Pediatric Patients With Consideration of the ICU Environment and Early Mobility

RATIONALE

A guideline that both evaluates current practice and provides recommendations to address sedation, pain, and delirium management with regard for neuromuscular blockade and withdrawal is not currently available.

OBJECTIVE

To develop comprehensive clinical practice guidelines for critically ill infants and children, with specific attention to seven domains of care including pain, sedation/agitation, iatrogenic withdrawal, neuromuscular blockade, delirium, PICU environment, and early mobility.

DESIGN

The Society of Critical Care Medicine Pediatric Pain, Agitation, Neuromuscular Blockade, and Delirium in critically ill pediatric patients with consideration of the PICU Environment and Early Mobility Guideline Taskforce was comprised of 29 national experts who collaborated from 2009 to 2021 via teleconference and/or e-mail at least monthly for planning, literature review, and guideline development, revision, and approval. The full taskforce gathered annually in-person during the Society of Critical Care Medicine Congress for progress reports and further strategizing with the final face-to-face meeting occurring in February 2020. Throughout this process, the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures Manual for Guidelines development was adhered to.

METHODS

Taskforce content experts separated into subgroups addressing pain/analgesia, sedation, tolerance/iatrogenic withdrawal, neuromuscular blockade, delirium, PICU environment (family presence and sleep hygiene), and early mobility. Subgroups created descriptive and actionable Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. An experienced medical information specialist developed search strategies to identify relevant literature between January 1990 and January 2020. Subgroups reviewed literature, determined quality of evidence, and formulated recommendations classified as "strong" with "we recommend" or "conditional" with "we suggest." Good practice statements were used when indirect evidence supported benefit with no or minimal risk. Evidence gaps were noted. Initial recommendations were reviewed by each subgroup and revised as deemed necessary prior to being disseminated for voting by the full taskforce. Individuals who had an overt or potential conflict of interest abstained from relevant votes. Expert opinion alone was not used in substitution for a lack of evidence.

RESULTS

The Pediatric Pain, Agitation, Neuromuscular Blockade, and Delirium in critically ill pediatric patients with consideration of the PICU Environment and Early Mobility taskforce issued 44 recommendations (14 strong and 30 conditional) and five good practice statements.

CONCLUSIONS

The current guidelines represent a comprehensive list of practical clinical recommendations for the assessment, prevention, and management of key aspects for the comprehensive critical care of infants and children. Main areas of focus included 1) need for the routine monitoring of pain, agitation, withdrawal, and delirium using validated tools, 2) enhanced use of protocolized sedation and analgesia, and 3) recognition of the importance of nonpharmacologic interventions for enhancing patient comfort and comprehensive care provision.

Repeating a dose of sucrose for heel prick procedure in preterms is not effective in reducing pain: a randomised controlled trial

Oral sucrose is included in almost all recommendations for treatment of pain in newborns, but evidence if multiple doses might be more effective than a single standard dose is lacking. We designed a single-centre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. We enrolled preterm infants needing the heel prick procedure. Each enrolled infant was randomised to receive a single standard dose of sucrose 2 min before or a double dose of sucrose 2 min before, and 30 s after heel prick. Primary outcome was the efficacy of the two interventions tested by the premature infant pain profile-PIPP scale obtained at 30 s, 60 s, and 120 s after heel prick. Secondary outcome was the evaluation of the concordance between the PIPP scale and other pain scores more feasible in clinical practice. Seventy-two infants were randomised. No difference in pain perception as measured by the PIPP scale was found between the groups: median PIPP values 4.0(IQR 3.0-4.0) vs 3.0(IQR 3.0-4.0) at baseline; 6.0(IQR 5.0-10.0) vs 6.0(IQR 4.0-8.5) at 30 s; 6.0(IQR 4.0-7.0) vs 5.0(IQR 4.0-8.5) at 60 s and 5.0(IQR 4.0-7.0) vs 5.0(IQR 4.0-7.5) at 2 min, in the experimental and standard treatment groups, respectively (p = 0.9020). There was no correlation between PIPP scores and other pain scales.Conclusion: We do not recommend doubling the dose during heel prick.What is Known:• Oral sucrose is included in almost all international position papers and recommendations for the treatment of mild to moderate pain in newborns, associated with non-nutritive sucking and facilitated tucking• Premature infant pain profile (PIPP) scale is the gold standard for evaluation of pain in preterms but it is difficult to use in clinical practiceWhat is New:• Repeating a dose of 24% sucrose is not effective in reducing pain during the recovery phase of a skin breaking procedure• Other pain scales, easier to use in clinical practice, are not comparable with PIPP for the evaluation of procedural pain in preterms.

Analgesic effect of non-nutritive sucking in term neonates: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Newborns commonly experience pain due to a variety of reasons. Non-nutritive sucking (NNS) is thought to be an effective non-pharmacological method of pain-relief. However, the significant heterogeneity in some systematic reviews limited the certainty of the findings about NNS. Hence, this study was aimed at evaluating the analgesic effect and safety of NNS in healthy term neonates during the heel prick test, using the Neonatal Pain Agitation and Sedation Scale (N-PASS).

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 42 term infants were included: 22 infants in the intervention group (receiving NNS) and 20 infants in the control group (not receiving NNS). In the intervention group, neonates were given a silicone pacifier 120 s before, during, and 120 s after the heel puncture, while neonates in the control group received routine care. Pain-related outcomes were assessed using the N-PASS at 30s, 60s, 90s, and 120s after the heel prick. Any adverse events during the procedure were noted. The Spearman correlation coefficients between the pain scores on the N-PASS and two other scales (NFCS and NIPS) were calculated at all four moments of evaluation.

RESULTS

The mean N-PASS pain scores at 30s, 60s, 90s, and 120s after heel prick were significantly lower in the NNS group than in the control group: 4.73 ± 2.78 vs. 7.90 ± 1.52 (p = 0.0002); 3.64 ± 3.06 vs. 5.55 ± 2.95 (p = 0.052); 2.59 ± 3.08 vs. 5.25 ± 3.51 (p = 0.011); and 2.05 ± 2.94 vs. 4.90 ± 3.99 (p = 0.013), respectively. No adverse events were detected in either group. Our findings revealed a strong positive correlation between the pain scores on the N-PASS and two other scales (NFCS and NIPS), which was statistically significant (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

NNS is considered a safe and effective pain-relief method during the heel prick procedure in term neonates, demonstrated using the N-PASS. These findings were correlated with the pain evaluation by NFCS and NIPS.

Oral dextrose reduced procedural pain without altering cellular ATP metabolism in preterm neonates: a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of 30% oral dextrose on biochemical markers of pain, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) degradation, and oxidative stress in preterm neonates experiencing a clinically required heel lance.

STUDY DESIGN

Utilizing a prospective study design, preterm neonates that met study criteria (n = 169) were randomized to receive either (1) 30% oral dextrose, (2) facilitated tucking, or (3) 30% oral dextrose and facilitated tucking 2 min before heel lance. Plasma markers of ATP degradation (hypoxanthine, uric acid) and oxidative stress (allantoin) were measured before and after the heel lance. Pain was measured using the premature infant pain profile-revised (PIPP-R).

RESULTS

Oral dextrose, administered alone or with facilitated tucking, did not alter plasma markers of ATP utilization and oxidative stress.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of 30% oral dextrose, given before a clinically required heel lance, decreased signs of pain without increasing ATP utilization and oxidative stress in premature neonates.

Comparison of two different doses of sucrose in pain relief

BACKGROUND

Procedural pain is one of the most significant problems in neonates, especially in premature babies. Harmless and effective pain relief modalities in newborns should thus be applied. Although sucrose is the most commonly used agent, the most effective dose and concentration of sucrose is not clear. In this study, we compared the efficacy of two different doses of sucrose during venepuncture in neonates.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. The study was conducted during venous sampling. Oral 24% sucrose (Tool sweet^™ Natus Medical, San Carlos, CA, USA) was given by sterile syringe onto the anterior part of the tongue. Group 1 (n = 65) received 0.2 mL/kg 24% sucrose and group 2 (n = 64) received 0.5 mL/kg 24% sucrose. The Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates (BPSN) was used to assess the pain scores before, during and after the procedure.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-nine premature infants were enrolled in the study, consisting of 67 girls (51.9%) and 62 boys (48.1%) aged 1-24 days (mean age, 8.34 ± 6.25 days). There was no significant difference in BPSN score between the groups (P > 0.05). There was also no statistically significant difference in BPSN subscale scores between the groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-four percent sucrose 0.2 mL/kg may be the minimum effective dose to relieve pain during venepuncture procedures in premature babies.