A comparison of Rapydan®patch and Ametop®gel for venous cannulation*

Coolsense® versus EMLA® for peripheral venous cannulation in adult volunteers: A randomised crossover trial

Peripheral venous cannulation (PVC) is a commonly performed invasive medical procedure. Topical treatments such as the eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA®, Aspen Pharmacare Australia Pty Ltd, St Leonards, NSW) attenuate the associated pain, but are limited by requiring up to one hour of application before becoming effective. The Coolsense® (Coolsense Medical Ltd., Tel Aviv, Israel) pain numbing applicator is a new device using a cryoanalgesic means to anaesthetise skin within seconds. Coolsense is being increasingly used for cannulation, but comparative studies are lacking. We recruited 64 healthy adult volunteers to this open-label two sequence, two period randomised crossover trial. Participants had two 20 gauge venous cannulae inserted, one on the dorsum of each hand. Each cannulation attempt was preceded by treatment with Coolsense or an EMLA patch containing 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine. The primary outcome was participant pain using the 0-10 numerical pain rating scale. Secondary outcomes were participant satisfaction scores on a 0-10 scale, treatment preference, and failed cannulation attempts. Participants were randomly assigned to either the Coolsense EMLA (n = 32) or EMLA Coolsense (n = 32) sequence. All participants completed the trial. The pooled mean paired difference of the numerical pain rating scale was -1.84 (95% confidence intervals -1.28 to -2.41; P < 0.001) in favour of EMLA. The pooled mean paired difference for satisfaction score was 2.26 (95% confidence intervals 1.46 to 3.07; P < 0.001) higher with EMLA. Most participants preferred EMLA over Coolsense (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference regarding failed cannulation between the two treatments (P = 0.14). Among healthy individuals undergoing elective PVC, EMLA was associated with reduced pain, increased satisfaction, and was the preferred treatment compared to Coolsense.

First do no harm: pain relief for the peripheral venous cannulation of adults, a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peripheral venous cannulation is an everyday practice in hospitals, which many adults find painful. However, anaesthesia for cannulation is usually only offered to children. Inadequate pain relief is not only unpleasant for patients but may cause anxiety about further treatment and deter patients from seeking medical care in the future. The aim of this study is to discover the most effective local anaesthetic for adult peripheral venous cannulation and to find out how the pain of local anaesthetic application compares with that of unattenuated cannulation.

METHODS

These aims are addressed through a systematic review, network meta-analysis and random-effects meta-analysis. Searching covered 12 databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1990 to August 2015. The main included study design was RCTs. The primary outcome measure is self-reported pain, measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale.

RESULTS

The systematic review found 37 includable studies, 27 of which were suitable for network meta-analysis and two for random-effects meta-analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis indicate that none of the 17 anaesthetic considered had a very high probability of being the most effective when compared to each other; 2 % lidocaine had the highest probability (44 %). When the anaesthetics were compared to no treatment, the network meta-analysis showed that again 2 % lidocaine was estimated to be the most effective (mean difference -25.42 (95 % CI -32.25, -18.57). Other members of the 'caine' family were also estimated to be more effective than no treatment as were Ametop®, EMLA® and Rapydan® patch. The meta-analysis compared the pain of anaesthetic application with the unattenuated pain of cannulation. This found that all applications of local anaesthetic were less painful than cannulation without local anaesthetic. In particular a 1 % lidocaine injection was estimated to be -12.97 (95 % CI -15.71, -10.24) points (100 mm VAS) less painful than unattenuated cannulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The pain of peripheral venous cannulation in adults can be successfully treated. The pain of application of any local anaesthetic is less than that of unattenuated cannulation. Local anaesthetic prior to cannulation should become normal practice and a marker of high quality care.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

The protocol for the larger study was registered with PROSPERO no. CRD42012002093 .

Comparative Evaluation of Volatile Anaesthetic Agents for Attenuation of Venous Cannulation Pain: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

Topical application of volatile anaesthetic agents has been found to attenuate the response to a mechanical stimulus; however, this effect of volatile anaesthetic on perception of pain during venous cannulation is not known.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of topically administered volatile anaesthetic agents for attenuating venous cannulation pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, placebo controlled and double blind study was conducted on 120 patients, aged 20-60years. They were of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) I or II physical status, of either sex, planned for elective surgeries. These patients were randomized into 4 groups, of 30 each. Equipotent doses of halothane (1ml), isoflurane (1.5ml), sevoflurane (2.7ml) and sterile water (2.5ml; Control) were topically administered on the volar surface of forearm wrapped with cotton and aluminium foil; venous cannulation was performed with 18G intravenous cannula after 30 min. These patients were assessed for the incidence and severity of pain upon venous cannulation {visual analog scale (VAS), 0-100mm; 0 = no pain and 100 = worst imaginable pain}. Data were analysed by one-way ANOVA, Chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. The p<0.05 was considered as significant.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in the incidence of venous cannulation pain was observed in the halothane (79%) group as compared to control (100%; p<0.05), isoflurane (100%; p<0.05) and sevoflurane (100%; p<0.05) groups. The severity of venous cannulation pain as assessed by median (interquartile range, Q1-Q3). VAS scores was reduced in the halothane {10 (10-20); p<0.001}, isoflurane {20 (10-30); p<0.001} and sevoflurane {20 (20-30); p<0.001} groups as compared to the control group {40 (30-40)}; VAS score in the halothane group was significantly less as compared to isoflurane (p<0.05) and sevoflurane (p<0.05) groups.

CONCLUSION

Topical application of halothane is most effective in reducing incidence and severity of venous cannulation pain; however, topical application of isoflurane and sevoflurane decreases only the severity of venous cannulation pain.

[Effects of smoking on venous cannulation pain: a randomized prospective trial]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

It has been demonstrated that smoking increases pain perception; however the effect of smoking on perception of pain during venous cannulation is not known. The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not smoking has an effect on pain perception due to peripheral venous cannulation.

METHODS

220 patients scheduled to have elective surgery were enrolled in the study and were divided into two groups (Group S and C, n=110 for each) according to their smoking habits. Numerical rating scale was introduced to the patients and then peripheral venous cannulation at the dorsum of the hand was made with a 20G intracath. Pain perception of the patients was scored by subsequent numerical rating scale questioning.

RESULTS

The demographic characteristics of the groups were identical. Numerical rating scale scores in Group S and C were 3.31±1.56 and 1.65±1.23, respectively (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Pain perception due to peripheral venous cannulation is higher in smokers. Future studies on pain treatment should consider the smoking habits of patients.

Near-infrared light to aid peripheral intravenous cannulation in children: a cluster randomised clinical trial of three devices

Intravenous cannulation can be difficult in children. Recently, new devices using near-infrared light to make blood vessels visible have become available. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of three such devices in facilitating peripheral intravenous cannulation in children. In this cluster randomised clinical trial, daily operating rooms at a tertiary childrens' hospital were randomised to the use of the VeinViewer®, AccuVein® AV300, VascuLuminator Vision® or to a control group. We included 1913 children between birth and 18 years scheduled for elective surgery. Suitable veins for cannulation were more easily visible with the VeinViewer (307/322 (95.3%)) and AccuVein (239/254 (94.1%)) devices than with VascuLuminator (229/257 (89.1%)) (p = 0.03). However, success at the first attempt was not significantly different among groups, ranging from 73.1% to 75.3% (p = 0.93). We conclude that although vein visibility is enhanced, near-infrared devices do not improve cannulation.