Changing the Buffer in Buffered Lidocaine.

IF 2.9 Q1 NURSING
Ann Plohal, Eric P Dutchover, Jennifer Root, Brian Kurilla, Randy Balas
{"title":"Changing the Buffer in Buffered Lidocaine.","authors":"Ann Plohal,&nbsp;Eric P Dutchover,&nbsp;Jennifer Root,&nbsp;Brian Kurilla,&nbsp;Randy Balas","doi":"10.1097/NAN.0000000000000481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Hospitalized patients require venous access for procedures, treatments, or therapies. The use of lidocaine for pain relief during central vascular access device (CVAD) insertion is a standard of practice. Lidocaine buffered with sodium bicarbonate has been shown to provide significantly more pain relief in the sensation of pain upon injection. Shortages of lidocaine with bicarbonate provided an opportunity to explore other options to provide pain relief during CVAD insertion. The PICO question for this project was: In adult patients requiring CVAD insertion, how does lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate compare with lidocaine buffered with saline in minimizing pain with lidocaine injection? This study assessed how lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate compares with lidocaine buffered with saline in minimizing pain with lidocaine injection. Sixty patients received the buffered lidocaine before having a peripherally inserted central catheter inserted. Thirty patients received lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate and 30 patients received lidocaine buffered with saline. Pain and vasoconstriction were the 2 outcomes monitored during the project. Although the trial was only 2 wk due to the urgency of the rollout, the pilot was able to offer clinicians the opportunity to compare the 2 products. The saline-buffered lidocaine provided comparable pain relief compared with the lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate. The clinicians also measured the amount of vasoconstriction caused by the 2 products with similar outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":46291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infusion Nursing","volume":"45 5","pages":"245-251"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infusion Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NAN.0000000000000481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hospitalized patients require venous access for procedures, treatments, or therapies. The use of lidocaine for pain relief during central vascular access device (CVAD) insertion is a standard of practice. Lidocaine buffered with sodium bicarbonate has been shown to provide significantly more pain relief in the sensation of pain upon injection. Shortages of lidocaine with bicarbonate provided an opportunity to explore other options to provide pain relief during CVAD insertion. The PICO question for this project was: In adult patients requiring CVAD insertion, how does lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate compare with lidocaine buffered with saline in minimizing pain with lidocaine injection? This study assessed how lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate compares with lidocaine buffered with saline in minimizing pain with lidocaine injection. Sixty patients received the buffered lidocaine before having a peripherally inserted central catheter inserted. Thirty patients received lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate and 30 patients received lidocaine buffered with saline. Pain and vasoconstriction were the 2 outcomes monitored during the project. Although the trial was only 2 wk due to the urgency of the rollout, the pilot was able to offer clinicians the opportunity to compare the 2 products. The saline-buffered lidocaine provided comparable pain relief compared with the lidocaine buffered with bicarbonate. The clinicians also measured the amount of vasoconstriction caused by the 2 products with similar outcomes.

改变缓冲利多卡因中的缓冲液。
住院病人需要静脉通道进行手术、治疗或治疗。在中心血管通路装置(CVAD)插入期间使用利多卡因缓解疼痛是一种标准做法。用碳酸氢钠缓冲的利多卡因已被证明在注射时提供明显更多的疼痛缓解。利多卡因与碳酸氢盐的短缺提供了探索其他选择以缓解CVAD插入期间疼痛的机会。这个项目的PICO问题是:在需要插入CVAD的成年患者中,用碳酸氢盐缓冲利多卡因与用生理盐水缓冲利多卡因相比,在减少利多卡因注射疼痛方面效果如何?本研究评估了用碳酸氢盐缓冲利多卡因与用生理盐水缓冲利多卡因在减少利多卡因注射疼痛方面的比较。60例患者在置入外周中心导管前接受缓冲利多卡因治疗。30例患者使用碳酸氢盐缓冲利多卡因,30例使用生理盐水缓冲利多卡因。疼痛和血管收缩是项目期间监测的两项结果。虽然由于推出的紧迫性,试验只有2周,但该试验能够为临床医生提供比较两种产品的机会。与碳酸氢盐缓冲的利多卡因相比,盐缓冲的利多卡因提供了相当的疼痛缓解。临床医生还测量了两种产品引起的血管收缩量,结果相似。
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
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
15.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Journal of Infusion Nursing, the official publication of the Infusion Nurses Society (INS), seeks to promote excellence in infusion nursing by presenting new research, clinical reviews, case studies, and professional development information relevant to the practice of infusion therapy. Articles selected for publication represent the broad scope of the infusion specialty and draw on the expertise of all healthcare providers who participate in the delivery of infusion therapy.
×
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