Effectiveness of Topical Lidocaine-Prilocaine Cream for Pain Control During Femoral Artery Catheterization in Adult Patients: A Prospective Study.

Adnan I Qureshi, Muhammad A Saleem, Nishath Naseem, Emrah Aytac, Cetin Kursad Akpinar, Shawn S Wallery
{"title":"Effectiveness of Topical Lidocaine-Prilocaine Cream for Pain Control During Femoral Artery Catheterization in Adult Patients: A Prospective Study.","authors":"Adnan I Qureshi,&nbsp;Muhammad A Saleem,&nbsp;Nishath Naseem,&nbsp;Emrah Aytac,&nbsp;Cetin Kursad Akpinar,&nbsp;Shawn S Wallery","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To test the effectiveness of topical EMLA cream (lidocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%) for pain control during femoral artery catheterization for neuro-endovascular procedures in adult patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The body habitus overlying the femoral arterial pulsation was graded as: (1) pubic symphysis and iliac crest bone protuberances visualized; (2) Pubic Symphysis and Iliac Crest bone protuberances not seen but easily palpable; (3) Pubic Symphysis and Iliac Crest bone protuberances palpable with considerable difficulty; and (4) abdominal layers fold over the femoral region. The severity of pain at femoral artery catheterization was classified using a numeric rating scale score ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with excellent (score of ≤1) and failed pain control (score of ≥8).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean (±SD) and median numeric rating scale scores were 2.4 ± 2.7 and 1, respectively, in 186 patients included. The proportion of patients with excellent pain control was 49.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 42.1%-56.7%] and failed pain control was 6.9% (95% CI 4.1%-11.6%). The body habitus was graded as 1 (<i>n</i> = 31), 2 (<i>n</i> = 61), 3 (<i>n</i> = 48), and 4 (<i>n</i> = 46). In multivariate analysis, grade 4 body habitus [odds ratio (OR) 1.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.9], grade 4 ease of cannulation (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.2-2.7), and previous femoral artery catheterization (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.8-4.2) were independent predictors of failed pain control. Grade 1 ease of cannulation (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-3.1) independently predicted excellent pain control.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Topical EMLA cream as an adjunct to local lidocaine infiltration was associated with very low rates of failed pain control during femoral artery catheterization despite a relatively high rate of unfavorable body habitus.</p>","PeriodicalId":88555,"journal":{"name":"Journal of vascular and interventional neurology","volume":"10 1","pages":"60-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5999301/pdf/jvin-10-1-13.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of vascular and interventional neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To test the effectiveness of topical EMLA cream (lidocaine 2.5% and prilocaine 2.5%) for pain control during femoral artery catheterization for neuro-endovascular procedures in adult patients.

Methods: The body habitus overlying the femoral arterial pulsation was graded as: (1) pubic symphysis and iliac crest bone protuberances visualized; (2) Pubic Symphysis and Iliac Crest bone protuberances not seen but easily palpable; (3) Pubic Symphysis and Iliac Crest bone protuberances palpable with considerable difficulty; and (4) abdominal layers fold over the femoral region. The severity of pain at femoral artery catheterization was classified using a numeric rating scale score ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with excellent (score of ≤1) and failed pain control (score of ≥8).

Results: The mean (±SD) and median numeric rating scale scores were 2.4 ± 2.7 and 1, respectively, in 186 patients included. The proportion of patients with excellent pain control was 49.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 42.1%-56.7%] and failed pain control was 6.9% (95% CI 4.1%-11.6%). The body habitus was graded as 1 (n = 31), 2 (n = 61), 3 (n = 48), and 4 (n = 46). In multivariate analysis, grade 4 body habitus [odds ratio (OR) 1.8; 95% CI 1.3-2.9], grade 4 ease of cannulation (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.2-2.7), and previous femoral artery catheterization (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.8-4.2) were independent predictors of failed pain control. Grade 1 ease of cannulation (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-3.1) independently predicted excellent pain control.

Conclusion: Topical EMLA cream as an adjunct to local lidocaine infiltration was associated with very low rates of failed pain control during femoral artery catheterization despite a relatively high rate of unfavorable body habitus.

局部利多卡因-普胺乳膏对成年患者股动脉置管期间疼痛控制的有效性:一项前瞻性研究。
目的:探讨外用EMLA乳膏(2.5%利多卡因和2.5%普拉卡因)在成人神经血管内手术股动脉置管过程中控制疼痛的效果。方法:对股动脉搏动的体势进行分级:(1)耻骨联合和髂嵴骨突的显像;(2)耻骨联合及髂骨骨突未见但易触及;(3)难以触及耻骨联合和髂嵴骨突;(4)腹层在股区域上折叠。股动脉插管疼痛的严重程度采用数值评定量表评分,评分范围从0(无疼痛)到10(最严重疼痛)。主要终点为疼痛控制良好(评分≤1分)和疼痛控制失败(评分≥8分)患者的比例。结果:186例患者的平均(±SD)和中位数值评定量表得分分别为2.4±2.7和1。疼痛控制良好的患者比例为49.4%[95%可信区间(CI) 42.1% ~ 56.7%],疼痛控制不佳的患者比例为6.9% (95% CI 4.1% ~ 11.6%)。体质分为1 (n = 31)、2 (n = 61)、3 (n = 48)、4 (n = 46)。多因素分析中,4级体质[比值比(OR) 1.8;95% CI 1.3-2.9], 4级插管便便性(OR 2.1;95% CI 1.2-2.7),既往股动脉插管(OR 2.5;95% CI 1.8-4.2)是疼痛控制失败的独立预测因子。1级插管便利性(OR 1.6;95% CI 1.2-3.1)独立预测良好的疼痛控制。结论:局部EMLA乳膏作为局部利多卡因浸润的辅助,在股动脉置管过程中疼痛控制失败率非常低,尽管不良体质的发生率相对较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信