Development and validation of the ABC pain scale for healthy full-term babies

Dexmedetomidine for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are drugs currently used for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly being used in children and infants despite not being licenced for analgesia in this group.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increasing use of dexmedetomidine, there is insufficient evidence supporting its routine use for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, data on dexmedetomidine safety are scarce, and there are no data available on its long-term effects. Future studies should address the efficacy, safety, and long-term effects of dexmedetomidine as a single drug therapy for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants.

Positioning for lumbar puncture in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Lumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt; total number of lumbar puncture attempts; and episodes of bradycardia. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies with 1476 participants. Compared to sitting position: lateral decubitus position probably results in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05; I2 = 47% and 46% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts as specified in this review. Lateral decubitus position likely increases episodes of bradycardia (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.76; RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 33; I2 = not applicable and 69% for RR and RD, respectively; 3 studies, 1279 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and oxygen desaturation (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.08; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; NNTH = 17; I2 = not applicable and 96% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, moderate-certainty evidence). Lateral decubitus position results in little to no difference in time to perform the lumbar puncture compared to sitting position (I2 = not applicable; 2 studies; 1102 infants; high-certainty evidence; in one of the study median and IQR to report time to perform the lumbar puncture were 8 (5-13) and 8 (5-12) in the lateral and sitting position, respectively, I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 1082 infants; in the other study: mean difference 2.00, 95% CI -4.98 to 8.98; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 20 infants). Lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in the number of episodes of apnea during the procedure (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; I2 = not applicable and 0% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 197 infants, low-certainty evidence). No studies reported apnea defined as number of infants with one or more episodes during the procedure. Compared to prone position: lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 5; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 171 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts or episodes of apnea. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a non-validated pain scale. None of the studies comparing lateral decubitus versus prone position reported the other critical outcomes of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to sitting position, lateral decubitus position probably results in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. None of the included studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts as specified in this review. Furthermore, infants in a sitting position likely experience less episodes of bradycardia and oxygen desaturation than in the lateral decubitus, and there may be little to no difference in episodes of apnea. Lateral decubitus position results in little to no difference in time to perform the lumbar puncture compared to sitting position. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a pain scale that was not included in our prespecified tools for pain assessment due to its high risk of bias. Most study participants were term newborns, thereby limiting the applicability of these results to preterm babies. When compared to prone position, lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. Only one study reported on this comparison and did not evaluate adverse effects. Further research exploring harms and benefits and the effect on patients' pain experience of different positions during lumbar puncture using validated pain scoring tool may increase the level of confidence in our conclusions.

Positioning for lumbar puncture in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Lumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt; total number of lumbar puncture attempts; and episodes of bradycardia. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies with 1476 participants. Compared to sitting position: lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; I2 = 70% and 72% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts. Lateral decubitus position likely increases episodes of bradycardia (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.76; RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 33; I2 = not applicable and 69% for RR and RD, respectively; 3 studies, 1279 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and oxygen desaturation (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.08; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; NNTH = 17; I2 = not applicable and 96% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of lateral decubitus position on time to perform the lumbar puncture (MD 2.00, 95% CI -4.98 to 8.98; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 20 infants, very low-certainty evidence). Lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in the number of episodes of apnea during the procedure (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; I2 = not applicable and 0% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 197 infants, low-certainty evidence). No studies reported apnea defined as number of infants with one or more episodes during the procedure. Compared to prone position: lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD -0.21, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 5; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 171 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts or episodes of apnea. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a non-validated pain scale. None of the studies comparing lateral decubitus versus prone position reported the other critical outcomes of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to sitting position, lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. None of the included studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts. Furthermore, infants in a lateral decubitus position likely experience more episodes of bradycardia and oxygen desaturation, and there may be little to no difference in episodes of apnea. The evidence is very uncertain regarding time to perform lumbar puncture. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a pain scale that was not included in our prespecified tools for pain assessment due to its high risk of bias. Most study participants were term newborns, thereby limiting the applicability of these results to preterm babies. When compared to prone position, lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. Only one study reported on this comparison and did not evaluate adverse effects. Further research exploring harms and benefits and the effect on patients' pain experience of different positions during lumbar puncture using validated pain scoring tool may increase the level of confidence in our conclusions.

Pharmacological interventions for the management of pain and discomfort during lumbar puncture in newborn infants

BACKGROUND

Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an assistant using a strict aseptic technique; it is important to monitor the infant during all the steps of the procedure. Without adequate analgesia, LP can cause considerable pain and discomfort. As newborns have increased sensitivity to pain, it is crucial to adequately manage the procedural pain of LP in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trial registries in December 2022. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing drugs used for pain management, sedation, or both, during LP. We considered the following drugs suitable for inclusion. • Topical anesthetics (e.g. eutectic mixture of local anesthetics [EMLA], lidocaine) • Opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl) • Alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine) • N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (e.g. ketamine) • Other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol) • Sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our main outcomes were successful LP on first attempt, total number of LP attempts, episodes of bradycardia, pain assessed with validated scales, episodes of desaturation, number of episodes of apnea, and number of infants with one or more episodes of apnea. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) that enrolled 206 newborns. One study included only term infants. All studies assessed topical treatment versus placebo or no intervention. The topical anesthetics were lidocaine 4%, lidocaine 1%, and EMLA. We identified no completed studies on opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, other analgesics, sedatives, or head-to-head comparisons (drug A versus drug B). Based on very low-certainty evidence from one quasi-RCT of 100 LPs in 76 infants, we are unsure if topical anesthetics (lidocaine), compared to no anesthesia, has an effect on the following outcomes. • Successful LP on first attempt (first-attempts success in 48% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 42% of LPs in the control group) • Number of attempts per LP (mean 1.9 attempts, [standard error of the mean 0.2] in the lidocaine group, and mean 2.1 attempts [standard error of the mean 2.1] in the control group) • Episodes of bradycardia (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 4% of LPs in the control group) • Episodes of desaturation (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 8% of LPs in the control group) • Occurrence of apnea (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.79; risk difference [RD] 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08). Topical anesthetics compared to placebo may reduce pain assessed with the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score (SMD -1.00 standard deviation (SD), 95% CI -1.47 to -0.53; I² = 98%; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies in this comparison reported total number of episodes of apnea. We identified three ongoing studies, which will assess the effects of EMLA, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Three studies are awaiting classification.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical anesthetics (lidocaine) compared to no anesthesia on successful lumbar puncture on first attempt, the number of attempts per lumbar puncture, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and occurrence of apnea. Compared to placebo, topical anesthetics (lidocaine or EMLA) may reduce pain assessed with the NFCS score. One ongoing study will assess the effects of systemic treatment.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.

Opioids for procedural pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. No studies reported if any harms occurred. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia or hypotension. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.

Non-opioid analgesics for procedural pain in neonates

BACKGROUND

Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia.  The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs.  As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India.  NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision.  The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 μg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 μg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 μg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 μg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward.

Pharmacological interventions for the management of pain and discomfort during lumbar puncture in newborn infants

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

To assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non‐pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions.

Assessment and Management of Pain in Preterm Infants: A Practice Update

Infants born preterm are at a high risk for repeated pain exposure in early life. Despite valid tools to assess pain in non-verbal infants and effective interventions to reduce pain associated with medical procedures required as part of their care, many infants receive little to no pain-relieving interventions. Moreover, parents remain significantly underutilized in provision of pain-relieving interventions, despite the known benefit of their involvement. This narrative review provides an overview of the consequences of early exposure to untreated pain in preterm infants, recommendations for a standardized approach to pain assessment in preterm infants, effectiveness of non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic pain-relieving interventions, and suggestions for greater active engagement of parents in the pain care for their preterm infant.

Role of OPRM1, clinical and anthropometric variants in neonatal pain reduction

An increased awareness on neonatal pain-associated complications has led to the development of pain scales adequate to assess the level of pain experienced by newborns such as the ABC score. A commonly used analgesic procedure is to administer a 33% oral dextrose solution to newborns prior to the painful intervention. Although this procedure is very successful, not in all subjects it reaches complete efficacy. A possible explanation for the different response to the treatment could be genetic variability. We have investigated the genetic variability of the OPRM1 gene in 1077 newborns in relation to non-pharmacologic pain relief treatment. We observed that the procedure was successful in 966 individuals and there was no association between the genotypes and the analgesic efficacy when comparing individuals that had an ABC score = 0 and ABC score >0. However, considering only the individuals with ABC score>0, we found that the homozygous carriers of the G allele of the missense variant SNP rs1799971 (A118G) showed an interesting association with higher ABC score. We also observed that individuals fed with formula milk were more likely to not respond to the analgesic treatment compared to those that had been breastfed.

Clonidine for pain in non-ventilated infants

BACKGROUND

Critically ill newborn infants undergo a variety of painful procedures or experience a variety of painful conditions during their early life in the neonatal unit. In the critically ill paediatric and neonatal population, clonidine is prescribed as an adjunct to opioids or benzodiazepines aiming to reduce the doses of these drugs that are required for analgesia or sedation, or to facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation. It has been shown that clonidine premedication might have a positive effect on postoperative pain in children.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefit and harms of clonidine for the prevention or treatment of procedural pain; postoperative pain; or pain associated with clinical conditions in non-ventilated neonates.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the CENTRAL, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL to December 2018. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. We ran an updated search from 1 January 2018 to 11 March 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web, MEDLINE via Ovid, and CINAHL via EBSCOhost.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine to placebo or no treatment, opioids, paracetamol, dexmedetomidine, or non-pharmacological pain-reducing interventions for the management of procedural pain, postoperative pain, and pain associated with clinical conditions in preterm and term newborns.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently planned to extract data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, modality of administration, and dose of clonidine) and assess the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcome considered was pain: for procedural pain, the mean values of each analgesia scale assessed during the procedure and at one to two hours after the procedure; for postoperative pain and for pain associated with clinical conditions, the mean values of each analgesia scale assessed at 30 minutes, three hours, and 12 hours after the administration of the intervention. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 3383 references. Two review authors independently assessed all references for inclusion. We did not find any completed studies for inclusion. We excluded three trials where clonidine was administered for spinal anaesthesia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any studies that met our inclusion criteria and hence there is no evidence to recommend or refute the use of clonidine for the prevention or treatment of procedural or postoperative pain, or pain associated with clinical conditions in neonates.

Clonidine for sedation and analgesia for neonates receiving mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Although routine administration of pharmacologic sedation or analgesia during mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates is not recommended, its use in clinical practice remains common. Alpha-2 agonists, mainly clonidine and dexmedetomidine, are used as adjunctive (or alternative) sedative agents alongside opioids and benzodiazepines. Clonidine has not been systematically assessed for use in neonatal sedation during ventilation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether clonidine administered to term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation reduces morbidity and mortality rates. To compare the intervention versus placebo, no treatment, and dexmedetomidine; and to assess the safety of clonidine infusion for potential harms.To perform subgroup analyses according to gestational age; birth weight; administration method (infusion or bolus therapy); dose, duration, and route of clonidine administration; and pharmacologic sedation as a co-intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 10, 2017), Embase (1980 to January 10, 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 10, 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine versus placebo, no treatment, or dexmedetomidine administered to term and preterm newborns receiving mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, duration of respiratory support, sedation scale, duration of hospital stay) and assessed risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). This review considered primary outcomes of all-cause neonatal death, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation in days.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial, which included 112 infants, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Term newborn infants on mechanical ventilation with the need for continuous analgesia and sedation with fentanyl and midazolam were eligible for enrollment during the first 96 hours of ventilation. Study authors administered clonidine 1 μg/kg/h or placebo on day 4 after intubation.We found no differences between the two groups in all-cause death during hospitalization (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 3.98). The quality of the evidence supporting these findings is low owing to imprecision of the estimates (one study; few events). The median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation was 7.1 days (5.7 to 9.1 days) in the clonidine group and 5.8 days (4.9 to 7.9 days) in the placebo group, respectively (P = 0.070). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of duration of stay in the intensive care unit. Sedation scale values (COMFORT) and analgesia scores (Hartwig) during the first 72 hours of infusion of study medication were lower in the clonidine group than in the placebo group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, evidence is insufficient to show the efficacy and safety of clonidine for sedation and analgesia in term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.

Oxidative Stress as a Physiological Pain Response in Full-Term Newborns

This research paper aims to investigate if oxidative stress biomarkers increase after a painful procedure in term newborns and if nonpharmacological approaches, or sex, influence pain degree, and the subsequent OS. 83 healthy term newborns were enrolled to receive 10% oral glucose or sensorial saturation (SS) for analgesia during heel prick (HP). The ABC scale was used to score the pain. Advanced oxidation protein products (AOPP) and total hydroperoxides (TH) as biomarkers of OS were measured at the beginning (early-sample) and at the end (late-sample) of HP. The early-sample/late-sample ratio for AOPP and TH was used to evaluate the increase in OS biomarkers after HP. Higher levels of both AOPP and TH ratio were observed in high degree pain (4–6) compared with low degree pain score (0–3) (AOPP: p = 0.049; TH: p = 0.001). Newborns receiving SS showed a significantly lower pain score (p = 0.000) and AOPP ratio levels (p = 0.021) than those without. Males showed higher TH levels at the end of HP (p = 0.005) compared to females. The current study demonstrates that a relationship between pain degree and OS exists in healthy full-term newborns. The amount of OS is gender related, being higher in males. SS reduces pain score together with pain-related OS in the newborns.

[Pain assessment scales in newborns: integrative review]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze studies on methods used to assess pain in newborns.

DATA SOURCES

Integrative review study of articles published from 2001 to 2012, carried out in the following databases: Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and Cochrane. The sample consisted of 13 articles with level of evidence 5.

DATA SYNTHESIS

29 pain assessment scales in newborns, including 13 one-dimensional and 16 multidimensional, that assess acute and prolonged pain in preterm and full-term infants were available in scientific publications.

CONCLUSION

Based on the characteristics of scales, one cannot choose a single one as the most appropriate scale, as this choice will depend on gestational age, type of painful stimulus and the environment in which the infant is inserted. It is suggested the use of multidimensional or one-dimensional scales; however, they must be reliable and validated.

A systematic review and meta-analyses of nonsucrose sweet solutions for pain relief in neonates

BACKGROUND

Sucrose has been demonstrated to provide analgesia for minor painful procedures in infants. However, results of trials investigating other sweet solutions for neonatal pain relief have not yet been synthesized.

OBJECTIVE

To establish the efficacy of nonsucrose sweet-tasting solutions for pain relief during painful procedures in neonates.

METHOD

The present article is a systematic review and meta-analyses of the literature. Standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Collaborative Review Group were used. Literature searches were reviewed for randomized controlled trials investigating the use of sweet solutions, except sucrose, for procedural pain management in neonates. Outcomes assessed included validated pain measures and behavioural and physiological indicators.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies (3785 neonates) were included, 35 of which investigated glucose. Heel lancing was performed in 21⁄38 studies and venipuncture in 11⁄38 studies. A 3.6-point reduction in Premature Infant Pain Profile scores during heel lances was observed in studies comparing 20% to 30% glucose with no intervention (two studies, 124 neonates; mean difference -3.6 [95% CI -4.6 to -2.6]; P<0.001; I2=54%). A significant reduction in the incidence of cry after venipuncture for infants receiving 25% to 30% glucose versus water or no intervention was observed (three studies, 130 infants; risk difference -0.18 [95% CI -0.31 to -0.05]; P=0.008, number needed to treat = 6 [95% CI 3 to 20]; I2=63%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review and meta-analyses demonstrate that glucose reduces pain scores and crying during single heel lances and venipunctures. Results indicate that 20% to 30% glucose solutions have analgesic effects and can be recommended as an alternative to sucrose for procedural pain reduction in healthy term and preterm neonates.

Pain assessment in human fetus and infants

In humans, painful stimuli can arrive to the brain at 20-22 weeks of gestation. Therefore several researchers have devoted their efforts to study fetal analgesia during prenatal surgery, and during painful procedures in premature babies. Aim of this paper is to gather from scientific literature the available data on the signals that the human fetus and newborns produce, and that can be interpreted as signals of pain. Several signs can be interpreted as signals of pain. We will describe them in the text. In infants, these signs can be combined to create specific and sensible pain assessment tools, called pain scales, used to rate the level of pain.

Neonatal pain analyzer: development and validation

We developed a pain analyzer (ABC analyzer) to perform automatic acoustic analysis of neonatal crying and to provide an objective estimate of neonatal pain. The ABC analyzer uses a validated pain scale (ABC scale) based on three acoustic parameters: pitch frequency, normalized RMS amplitude, and presence of a characteristic frequency- and amplitude-modulated crying feature, defined as "siren cry". Here we assessed the reliability of the analyzer. We enrolled 57 healthy neonates. Each baby was recorded with a video camera during heel prick. Pain intensity was evaluated using a validated scale [Douleur Aigue du Nouveau-Né (DAN) scale] and the analyzer and the two scores were compared. We found a statistically significant concordance between the DAN score and ABC analyzer score (p < 0.0001). The ABC analyser is a novel approach to cry analysis that should now have its properties carefully evaluated in a series of studies, just as is necessary in the development of any other pain measurement tool.