Treatment of neonatal pain without a gold standard: the case for caregiving interventions and sucrose administration

Cortical hemodynamic activity and pain perception during insertion of feeding tubes in preterm neonates: a randomized controlled cross-over trial

OBJECTIVE

The present study evaluated the pain perception in preterm neonates during insertion of orogastric (OG) vs. nasogastric (NG) tube by measuring the cerebral regional oxygen saturation (crSO2) and premature infant pain profile-revised (PIPP-R) score.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled cross-over trial.

RESULTS

Fifty infants of mean (SD) gestational age of 31.54(2) and 31.64(2.2) weeks, birth weight of 1362(354) and 1507(365) grams were randomized into OG/NG (n = 25) and NG/OG (n = 25) sequences. Mean post-menstrual age at assessment was 33(2.8) and 33(1.5) weeks, and the difference between two interventions was 1.08(0.5) and 1.12(0.5) days in OG-NG and NG-OG, respectively. Mean crSO2(%) during insertion was significantly lower with NG compared to OG route. Mean PIPP-R score, heart rate variability, time to normalize crSO2, and the duration of cry were also significantly higher with NG insertion.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to OG, NG route of feeding tube insertion was associated with higher fluctuations in crSO2 and higher PIPP-R scores.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY OF INDIA (CTRI) REGISTRATION NO

CTRI/2020/03/023728.

Prospective clinical audit of chloral hydrate administration practices in a neonatal unit

AIM

Chloral hydrate is generally considered a safe and effective single dosing procedural sedative for neonates in the clinical setting. However, its safety profile as a repetitive dosing maintenance sedative is largely unknown. This study aimed to document current administration practices of chloral hydrate in the Neonatal Unit, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, over a 6-month period.

METHODS

Patients who had been prescribed chloral hydrate during the specified audit period were recruited into the study and prospectively followed for a period of 28 days, or until they were discharged from the unit. Demographic data were collected on recruitment, and daily documentation of chloral hydrate administration was recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 238 doses of chloral hydrate were administered to a cohort of 32 patients during the study period. The majority of the audited doses (84%) were ordered as repeating doses. Doses were more likely to be given at night than during the day, and the median dosage for repetitive dosing was found to be above the study site's recommended dosing range. Pre-dose and/or post-dose assessment of distress/agitation accompanied dosage approximately half of the time. The audit did not reveal any recognisable pattern of sedation maintenance or weaning process for patients who received multiple doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Health-care professionals caring for hospitalised infants should be made aware of the potential risks of chloral hydrate as a repetitive dosing sedative, and of the importance of systematically evaluating the appropriateness and effectiveness of utilising such pharmacological intervention for managing and treating distress.

Pain intervention for infant lumbar puncture in the emergency department: physician practice and beliefs

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to characterize physician beliefs and practice of analgesia and anesthesia use for infant lumbar puncture (LP) in the emergency department (ED) and to determine if provider training type, experience, and beliefs are associated with reported pain intervention use.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed to ED faculty and pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) fellows at five Midwestern hospitals. Questions consisted of categorical, yes/no, descriptive, and incremental responses. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics with confidence intervals (CIs) and odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

A total of 156 of 164 surveys (95%) distributed were completed and analyzed. Training background of respondents was 52% emergency medicine (EM), 30% PEM, and 18% pediatrics. Across training types, there was no difference in the belief that pain treatment was worthwhile (overall 78%) or in the likelihood of using at least one pain intervention. Pharmacologic pain interventions (sucrose, injectable lidocaine, and topical anesthetic) were used in the majority of LPs by 20, 29, and 27% of respondents, respectively. Nonpharmacologic pain intervention (pacifier/nonnutritive sucking) was used in the majority of LPs by 67% of respondents. Many respondents indicated that they never used sucrose (53%), lidocaine (41%), or anesthetic cream (49%). Physicians who thought pain treatment was worthwhile were more likely to use both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic pain interventions than those who did not (93% vs. 53%, OR = 10.98, 95% CI = 4.16 to 29.00). The number of LPs performed or supervised per year was not associated with pain intervention use. Other than pacifiers, injectable lidocaine was the most frequently reported pain intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Provider beliefs regarding infant pain are associated with variation in anesthesia and analgesia use during infant LP in the ED. Although the majority of physicians hold the belief that pain intervention is worthwhile in this patient group, self-reported pharmacologic interventions to reduce pain associated with infant LP are used regularly by less than one-third. Strategies targeting physician beliefs on infant pain should be developed to improve pain intervention use in the ED for infant LPs.