Anesthetic efficacy of eutectic prilocaine-lidocaine cream in pediatric oncology patients undergoing lumbar puncture

Comparison of 2% lidocaine infiltration and eutectic mixture of local anesthetics cream application before spinal needle insertion for pain reduction and assessment of maternal satisfaction levels in women undergoing cesarean section at a tertiary care se

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare two analgesic pretreatment techniques for assessing pain reduction before spinal needle insertion and the subsequent patient satisfaction levels in pregnant female patients undergoing cesarean sections.

METHODS

Sixty pregnant female patients scheduled for elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned to two groups. The Lidocaine group received local skin infiltration with 2% lidocaine pretreatment before spinal needle introducer insertion, whereas the eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) group received EMLA (lidocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%) cream pretreatment for at least 30 min before spinal needle introducer insertion. Subjective and objective pain scores, procedure duration, number of attempts, maternal satisfaction, and decisions regarding future numbing procedures and regional anesthesia were assessed.

RESULTS

The demographic characteristics of the patients were similar between groups. The mean visual analogue scale pain score was significantly lower in the EMLA group compared to the lidocaine group (P < 0.05). Additionally, the objective pain score was significantly lower in the EMLA group (P < 0.05). The duration of spinal block placement was significantly longer in the lidocaine group than in the EMLA group (P < 0.05). The number of attempts to perform the spinal block placement was similar in both groups. However, women in the EMLA group expressed greater overall satisfaction than those in the lidocaine group (76.7% vs. 20.0%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Analgesic pretreatment with EMLA cream is superior to local skin infiltration with lidocaine in pregnant patients undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Comparison of EMLA Cream versus Lidocaine Injection for Lumbar Puncture Pain Control in Pediatric Oncology Patients

Background  Subcutaneous lidocaine injection and topical EMLA cream are both used to control lumbar puncture (LP) pain; however, local analgesia usage is not standardized. Methods  We conducted a prospective, single-blinded, randomized-controlled crossover trial comparing the two modalities in reducing LP pain. Pediatric patients requiring serial LPs were randomly assigned to receive EMLA cream or lidocaine injection prior to LP. On the subsequent LP, analgesia was defaulted to the other agent. Pain was assessed using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale pre-procedure: 30 to 60 minutes post-LP, and 24 hours post-procedure. Results  Ten patients were included in the analysis (median age: 5.5 years). Pain ratings at 1 and 24 hours post-LP did not differ between the two strategies ( p  = 0.79). No adverse local reactions were reported for either agent. Conclusion  Accordingly, both lidocaine and EMLA cream provided effective LP pain control.

Reducing pain and distress related to needle procedures in children with cancer: A clinical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

Children with cancer often undergo long treatment trajectories involving repeated needle procedures that potentially cause pain and distress. As part of a comprehensive effort to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to address pain prevention and management in children with cancer, we aimed to provide recommendations on the pharmacological and psychological management of procedure-related pain and distress.

METHODS

Of the international inter-disciplinary CPG development panel (44 individuals), two working groups including 13 healthcare professionals focused on procedural pain and distress. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used, including the use of systematic literature reviews to inform recommendations and the use of evidence to decision frameworks. At an in-person meeting in February 2018, the guideline panel discussed these frameworks and formulated recommendations which were then discussed with a patient-parent panel consisting of 4 survivors and 5 parents.

RESULTS

The systematic reviews led to the inclusion of 48 randomised controlled trials (total number of participants = 2271). Quality of evidence supporting the recommendations ranged from very low to moderate. Strong recommendations were made for the use of topical anesthetics in all needle procedures, for offering deep sedation (DS)/general anesthesia (GA) to all children undergoing lumbar puncture, for the use of DS/ GA in major procedures in children of all ages, for the use of hypnosis in all needle procedures and for the use of active distraction in all needle procedures.

CONCLUSION

In this CPG, an evidence-based approach to manage procedure-related pain and distress in children with cancer is presented. As children with cancer often undergo repeated needle procedures during treatment, prevention and alleviation of procedure-related pain and distress is of the utmost importance to increase quality of life in these children and their families.

Eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine versus 1% lidocaine injection for lumbar punctures in pediatric oncology patients

BACKGROUND

The role of local analgesics for lumbar punctures (LPs) in pediatric oncology patients has not been specifically studied.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) cream to 1% lidocaine injection for LPs.

METHOD

This was a retrospective observational study of all patients receiving either EMLA cream (EMLA group) or 1% lidocaine subcutaneous injection (lidocaine group) in addition to fentanyl and propofol for LPs over 18 months. Demographics, vital parameters, procedural and recovery times, propofol and fentanyl doses, and adverse events were studied.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety LPs in 49 children were studied: 148 in the EMLA group and 142 in the lidocaine group. There was no difference in demographics or preprocedural parameters between the two groups. LPs in the EMLA group were completed in a shorter time (7.5 minutes [CI 7.0-8.1] vs 9.4 minutes [CI 8.9-9.9]) with a faster recovery time (38.7 minutes [CI 36.9-40.9] vs 43.9 minutes. [CI 41.9-45.9]) as compared with the lidocaine group (P < 0.001). The EMLA group required less maintenance doses (0.54 mg/kg [CI 0.47-0.62] vs 1.14 mg/kg [CI 1.06-1.21]) and total doses (2.58 mg/kg [CI 2.42-2.75] vs 3.12 mg/kg [CI 2.95-3.29]) of propofol as compared with the lidocaine group (P < 0.0001). Adverse events in the EMLA group were less (19% vs 41%) as compared with the lidocaine group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of EMLA cream for procedural sedation for LPs in pediatric oncology patients significantly improves pain management in comparison with 1% lidocaine injection.

Reducing pain in children with cancer: Methodology for the development of a clinical practice guideline

Although pain is one of the most prevalent and bothersome symptoms children with cancer experience, evidence-based guidance regarding assessment and management is lacking. With 44 international, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and nine patient representatives, we aimed to develop a clinical practice guideline (following GRADE methodology), addressing assessment and pharmacological, psychological, and physical management of tumor-, treatment-, and procedure-related pain in children with cancer. In this paper, we present our thorough methodology for this development, including the challenges we faced and how we approached these. This lays the foundation for our clinical practice guideline, for which there is a high clinical demand.

Does Topical Anesthetic Reduce Pain During Intraosseous Pin Removal in Children? A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of topical liposomal lidocaine in reducing the pain perceived by children undergoing percutaneous intraosseous pin (PP) removal in the outpatient orthopaedic clinic.

METHODS

A triple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial comparing topical liposomal lidocaine to a placebo was conducted at the Stollery Children's Hospital between September 2008 and February 2011. Subjects undergoing the removal of PP in the orthopaedic outpatient clinic between ages 3 and 16 years were recruited. A computer-generated variable-block randomization scheme was used to determine each subject's group assignment. Pain was recorded just before randomization and immediately after the procedure using the Oucher Scale (for subjects) and a 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (for parents and an observing orthopaedic technician). In a subset of individuals, follow-up telephone calls were made 24 hours postprocedure to inquire about any adverse event from the use of the topical liposomal lidocaine. Data were analyzed using the Student t test.

RESULTS

Of a total of 296 recruited subjects, complete data were available on 281 subjects (140 intervention and 141 control). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regards to baseline characteristics, including preprocedure pain scores. Although postprocedure pain scores demonstrated an increase in pain in both groups (2.3 points in the treatment group and 2.0 points in the placebo group), no statistically significant difference was seen in postprocedure pain scores between groups (P=0.81). No adverse events were observed or reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Topically applied liposomal lidocaine was not effective in reducing pain during this procedure, compared with a placebo. However, this study demonstrates that PP removal is a painful procedure in children. Given the large volume of patients who undergo this procedure and the long-term consequences of experiencing painful procedures in childhood, it is important to find safe and fast-acting methods to decrease procedural pain associated with PP removal.

The effectiveness of hypnosis for reducing procedure-related pain in children and adolescents: a comprehensive methodological review

A comprehensive, methodologically informed review of studies of the effectiveness of hypnosis for reducing procedure-related pain in children and adolescents is provided. To be included in the review, studies were required to use a between-subjects or mixed model design in which hypnosis was compared with a control condition or an alternative intervention in reducing the procedure-related pain of patients younger than age 19. An exhaustive search identified 13 studies satisfying these criteria. Hypnosis was consistently found to be more effective than control conditions in alleviating discomfort associated with bone marrow aspirations, lumbar punctures, voiding cystourethograms, the Nuss procedure, and post-surgical pain. Furthermore, hypnosis was as at least as effective as distraction. Three hypnotic interventions met criteria as a possibly efficacious empirically supported therapy for reducing post-surgical or lumbar puncture pain. Several other hypnotic interventions would have achieved the status of a possibly efficacious therapy had studies used a treatment manual.

Pain management practices for lumbar punctures: are we consistent?

In most pediatric oncology centers across Canada, it is now standard practice for children to be sedated for lumbar punctures (LPs). Although the use of sedation for LPs is well established in the pediatric oncology population, its use in other hospital units is not well documented. A patient record audit was completed to understand the types of pain management strategies used for LPs performed throughout a pediatric hospital. Fifty-nine patients aged between 3 days and 17 years underwent a total of 67 LPs. Pain management strategies varied among the different patient service units. Oncology patients were consistently sedated for an LP, whereas patients in the emergency department were less likely to be given any type of sedation. Recommendations are aimed at providing consistent best practice pain management for LPs throughout the hospital.

Pediatric and emergency medicine residents' attitudes and practices for analgesia and sedation during lumbar puncture in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

Analgesia and sedation for painful procedures in children are safe and effective, yet our experience is that pain management during lumbar puncture is suboptimal. We aim to document factors that influence residents' decisions to use analgesia and sedation during lumbar puncture and to compare pediatric and emergency medicine residents' practices.

METHODS

A survey was developed and sent to pediatric and emergency medicine residents from across Canada that inquired about clinical practices, learning experiences, current use of analgesia and sedation for lumbar puncture, and their clinical reasoning for using or abstaining from using analgesia and sedation. The Student's t and chi2 tests were used to compare the 2 resident groups.

RESULTS

Of the 374 residents to whom the survey was sent, 245 completed the survey. Pediatric residents reported performing lumbar punctures with no local anesthetic much more frequently. Pediatric residents used EMLA (AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) more frequently and injectable lidocaine less frequently. Pediatric residents used sedation for lumbar puncture at least once, more frequently than emergency medicine residents, and used mostly benzodiazepines. Both groups used ketamine at a similar rate. Pediatric residents reported that they witnessed adverse events of sedation more frequently. Although pediatric residents were responsible for teaching trainees the lumbar-puncture procedure significantly more frequently, they reported less educational opportunities during residency themselves and that they were less likely to recommend the use of local anesthetic during lumbar puncture when teaching the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Several significant differences exist between the pediatric residents and emergency medicine residents we surveyed. Pediatric residents were using less injectable local anesthesia for lumbar puncture in children and more sedation for the procedure and have had notably less training in the use of sedation. Pediatric residents have more teaching responsibilities than their emergency medicine residents colleagues and are inconsistently recommending the use of local anesthetics for lumbar puncture.

Randomized clinical trial of local anesthetic versus a combination of local anesthetic with self-hypnosis in the management of pediatric procedure-related pain

A prospective controlled trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of an analgesic cream (eutectic mixture of local anesthetics, or EMLA) with a combination of EMLA with hypnosis in the relief of lumbar puncture-induced pain and anxiety in 45 pediatric cancer patients (age 6-16 years). The study also explored whether young patients can be taught and can use hypnosis independently as well as whether the therapeutic benefit depends on hypnotizability. Patients were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: local anesthetic, local anesthetic plus hypnosis, and local anesthetic plus attention. Results confirmed that patients in the local anesthetic plus hypnosis group reported less anticipatory anxiety and less procedure-related pain and anxiety and that they were rated as demonstrating less behavioral distress during the procedure. The level of hypnotizability was significantly associated with the magnitude of treatment benefit, and this benefit was maintained when patients used hypnosis independently.

Painful procedures in children with cancer: comparison of moderate sedation and general anesthesia for lumbar puncture and bone marrow aspiration

BACKGROUND

The study was conducted to compare moderate sedation (MS) with general anesthesia (GA) in the management of frequently performed lumbar puncture or bone marrow aspiration (BMA) during the treatment of childhood cancer.

PROCEDURE

The MS (14 patients for 30 procedures) was managed by non-anesthesiologists (combined nitrous oxide-midazolam +/- non-pharmacological techniques). The GA was managed by anesthesiologists (17 patients for 30 procedures). A neutral observer recorded side effects, use of sedative antagonists, recovery time, oncologist's evaluation, procedure behaviors check list (PBCL); subjective perceptions during the procedure with a questionnaire administered to children (>6 years) and their parents; drugs costs and professional resources. P-values <0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

We had two inadequate sedations in MS (6.6%) versus 0 in GA. We had no significant differences in side effects (7.10% MS vs. 8.6% in GA), use of antagonists (2.90% GA vs. 0 MS), PBCL, oncologist evaluation and questionnaire data or drugs costs. We observed significant differences in recovery times (MS, mean 43 +/- SD min vs. GA, mean 117 +/- SD min) and professional resources costs. The effects of non-pharmacological techniques on anxiety were perceived very positively by both children and parents (on 0-4 scale, mean scores 3.57 for the children; 3.53 for the parents).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that MS compared favorably to GA with respect to both safety and efficacy. When performed by non-anesthesiologists, MS may be associated with better compliance and cost-effectiveness as it relies on the contribution of non-pharmacological techniques.

Reducing pain in ED patients during lumbar puncture: the efficacy and feasibility of iontophoresis, collaborative approach

INTRODUCTION

This study examined the efficacy and feasibility of a collaborative iontophoresis procedure for dermal anesthesia prior to lumbar puncture (LP) in adult ED patients.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive lidocaine by iontophoresis or needle infiltration. Emergency nurses and physicians completed a collaborative LP procedure in those randomized to iontophoresis. Usual care was provided for needle infiltration subjects. Pain was assessed at 3 points using an 11-point numeric rating scale to measure pain, and provider satisfaction was recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety subjects completed the protocol: infiltration group (n = 48) and iontophoresis group (n = 42). Subjects in the lidocaine infiltration group reported significantly more pain (mean, 4.1A+/-2.6) than subjects in the iontophoresis group (mean, 0.9A+/-1.6) ( t82 = 1.26, P =.000). There was no significant difference between the pain experienced during the lumbar puncture by both groups. Mean pain score during LP was 3.7 (+/-2.7) for iontophoresis compared to 3.4 (+/-2.9) for infiltration. More iontophoresis subjects (18 or 43.9%) required "rescue" lidocaine than infiltration subjects (12 or 24.5%) (chi-square 1 =3.79, P =.0515). Providers reported greater satisfaction with the collaborative procedure compared to physician administered lidocaine infiltration and anecdotally reported that iontophoretic anesthesia administration does not obscure anatomical landmarks, as needle infiltration can. Time for completion of dermal anesthesia using the iontophoretic procedure was longer than time for completion of dermal anesthesia using the lidocaine infiltration procedure (12A+/-12 min vs 2A+/-1.7 min); however, no statistically significant difference in total LP time or ED length of stay was found.

NURSING IMPLICATIONS

Dermal anesthesia by lidocaine iontophoresis in patients undergoing an LP with emergency nurses and physicians working in collaboration during the procedure takes longer, but decreases the pain of administering anesthesia, increases provider satisfaction, and fosters collaborative practice in the emergency setting. Iontophoretic administration of anesthesia for LP is now an option for dermal anesthesia in our emergency department.

Painful procedures in pediatric cancer. A comparison of interventions

Different interventions (i.e., cognitive-behavioral, pharmacological) and their combination were examined and compared to assist pediatric patients with cancer to manage distress during painful procedures. Findings revealed that cognitive protocols are effective in relieving procedural distress for a significant number of children. Pharmacological therapies were found to be relatively safe and effective when carefully administered and monitored by medical personnel. Data from combined cognitive therapies and pharmacological interventions, particularly those more recent pharmacological interventions, reveal generally mixed results, with both types of interventions yielding distinct benefits and disadvantages. Recommendations are made for future studies that match interventions to specific characteristics of the children for whom they are intended, as well as additional studies that combine pharmacological approaches together with cognitive techniques.

Pharmacological management of pain and anxiety during emergency procedures in children

Painful procedures are frequently required during treatment of children in the emergency department and are very stressful for the children, their parents and healthcare providers. Pharmacological methods to safely provide almost painless local anaesthesia, analgesia and anxiolysis have been increasingly studied in children. With knowledge of these methods, and patience, the emergency care provider can greatly reduce the distress often associated with emergency care of children. Topical local anaesthetics such as LET [lidocaine (lignocaine), epinephrine (adrenaline), tetracaine] or buffered lidocaine injected through the wound with fine needles can almost painlessly anaesthetise lacerations for suturing. Topical creams such as lidocaine/ prilocaine (EMLA) or tetracaine, iontophoresed lidocaine, or buffered lidocaine subcutaneously injected with fine needles can make intravenous catheter placement virtually 'painless'. When anxiety is significant, and mild to moderate analgesia/ anxiolysis/amnesia is needed, nitrous oxide can be administered if the proper delivery devices are available. Alternatively, when intensely painful fracture reduction, burn debridement, or abscess drainage is necessary, well tolerated and effective deep sedation can be achieved with careful use of midazolam and either ketamine or fentanyl.

Invasive procedures carried out in conscious children: contrast between North American and European paediatric oncology centres

AIM

To define practice in managing repeated invasive procedures in selected paediatric oncology centres in North America and Europe, especially the United Kingdom; to define and contrast concerns that shape policy making, and to contrast practice, particularly regarding procedures performed on conscious patients.

METHODS

Postal survey: 118 centres of the Pediatric Oncology Group and the United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group received questionnaires.

RESULTS

68 questionnaires (58%) were returned (52 from North America, 12 from Europe). For all procedures, North American centres tended to use less effective techniques than European, especially for bone marrow procedures. Many North American centres reported performing these on conscious patients on at least three quarters (25%) or half (30%) the occasions. In contrast, corresponding figures for the European centres were 6% and 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Many bone marrow procedures are still carried out in the conscious patient despite the safety and effectiveness of modern anaesthetic and deep sedation techniques. There appears to be a greater reluctance to offer these to patients in North American centres than in European ones. This may reflect a misperception that the risks of adverse effects are high. Several non-pharmacological techniques are used, but they remain uncommon.

The "ouchless emergency department". Getting closer: advances in decreasing distress during painful procedures in the emergency department

Painful and frightening injuries and illnesses are frequent reasons for children to seek care in an emergency department. Painful therapeutic procedures are often a necessary part of emergency care and are very distressful for the children, their parents, and healthcare providers. Inadequately relieved pain and distress have acute and long-term consequences, yet methods for pain and anxiety reduction during frightening minor and major procedures are often not used because of lack of detailed knowledge of techniques and fear of adverse effects. This article reviews psychologic and pharmacologic means of safe and effective reduction of anxiety and pain during emergency department procedures.

Use of eutectic mixture of local anesthetics in children

The Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetics (EMLA) is a topical application, which has proved to be a useful medication for providing pain relief among children. It is an emulsion containing a 1:1 mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine. The high concentration of the uncharged anesthetic base in the microdroplets of the emulsion ensure effective skin penetration. In the pediatric population EMLA has been shown to be efficacious when it is used prior to venipuncture, cannulation, lumbar puncture, laser treatment of port wine stains, curettage of molluscum contagiosum or vaccination. For several of these indications, the efficacy has been documented by double blind controlled trials, that have used objective and quasi-objective scales for assessing pain relief. The dose of EMLA is between 0.5 to 1 gram, and the cream should be applied half to one hour prior to the procedure. Local side effects are very mild, and the only systemic side effect of importance is the risk of methemoglobinemia in young infants. The literature has conflicting reports about the safety of EMLA in neonates.