Ariane Ballard, Christelle Khadra, Olivier Fortin, Estelle Guingo, Evelyne D Trottier, Benoit Bailey, Naveen Poonai, Sylvie Le May
{"title":"对接受针刺相关手术的儿童进行冷敷和振动治疗:非劣效性随机临床试验。","authors":"Ariane Ballard, Christelle Khadra, Olivier Fortin, Estelle Guingo, Evelyne D Trottier, Benoit Bailey, Naveen Poonai, Sylvie Le May","doi":"10.1002/pne2.12125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of a rapid, easy-to-use intervention could improve needle-related procedural pain management practices in the context of the Emergency Department (ED). As such, the Buzzy device seems to be a promising alternative to topical anesthetics. The aim of this study was to determine if a cold vibrating device was non-inferior to a topical anesthetic cream for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures in the ED. In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we enrolled children between 4 and 17 years presenting to the ED and requiring a needle-related procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to either the cold vibrating device or topical anesthetic (4% liposomal lidocaine; standard of care). The primary outcome was the mean difference (MD) in adjusted procedural pain intensity on the 0-10 Color Analogue Scale (CAS), using a non-inferiority margin of 0.70. A total of 352 participants were randomized (cold vibration device <i>n</i> = 176, topical anesthetic cream <i>n</i> = 176). Adjusted procedural pain scores' MD between groups was 0.56 (95% CI:-0.08-1.20) on the CAS, showing that the cold vibrating device was not considered non-inferior to topical anesthetic. The cold vibrating device was not considered non-inferior to the topical anesthetic cream for pain management in children during a needle-related procedure in the ED. As topical anesthetic creams require an application time of 30 min, cost approximately CAD $40.00 per tube, are underused in the ED setting, the cold vibrating device remains a promising alternative as it is a rapid, easy-to-use, and reusable device.</p>","PeriodicalId":94166,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric & neonatal pain","volume":"6 4","pages":"164-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645969/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cold and vibration for children undergoing needle-related procedures: A non-inferiority randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Ariane Ballard, Christelle Khadra, Olivier Fortin, Estelle Guingo, Evelyne D Trottier, Benoit Bailey, Naveen Poonai, Sylvie Le May\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pne2.12125\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The use of a rapid, easy-to-use intervention could improve needle-related procedural pain management practices in the context of the Emergency Department (ED). As such, the Buzzy device seems to be a promising alternative to topical anesthetics. The aim of this study was to determine if a cold vibrating device was non-inferior to a topical anesthetic cream for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures in the ED. In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we enrolled children between 4 and 17 years presenting to the ED and requiring a needle-related procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to either the cold vibrating device or topical anesthetic (4% liposomal lidocaine; standard of care). The primary outcome was the mean difference (MD) in adjusted procedural pain intensity on the 0-10 Color Analogue Scale (CAS), using a non-inferiority margin of 0.70. A total of 352 participants were randomized (cold vibration device <i>n</i> = 176, topical anesthetic cream <i>n</i> = 176). Adjusted procedural pain scores' MD between groups was 0.56 (95% CI:-0.08-1.20) on the CAS, showing that the cold vibrating device was not considered non-inferior to topical anesthetic. The cold vibrating device was not considered non-inferior to the topical anesthetic cream for pain management in children during a needle-related procedure in the ED. As topical anesthetic creams require an application time of 30 min, cost approximately CAD $40.00 per tube, are underused in the ED setting, the cold vibrating device remains a promising alternative as it is a rapid, easy-to-use, and reusable device.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Paediatric & neonatal pain\",\"volume\":\"6 4\",\"pages\":\"164-173\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645969/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Paediatric & neonatal pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pne2.12125\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric & neonatal pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pne2.12125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在急诊科(ED)中,使用快速、易用的干预措施可以改善与针刺相关的手术疼痛管理实践。因此,Buzzy 设备似乎有望成为局部麻醉剂的替代品。本研究旨在确定在急诊室接受针刺相关手术的儿童中,冷振动装置的止痛效果是否优于局部麻醉膏。在这项随机对照非劣效性试验中,我们招募了 4 到 17 岁的儿童,他们都是在急诊室接受针刺相关手术的。参与者被随机分配到冷振动装置或局部麻醉剂(4% 脂质体利多卡因;标准护理)中。主要结果是调整后的 0-10 彩色模拟量表(CAS)程序疼痛强度的平均差异(MD),非劣效差为 0.70。共有 352 名参与者接受了随机治疗(冷振动装置 n = 176,局部麻醉膏 n = 176)。调整后的手术疼痛评分在 CAS 上的组间 MD 为 0.56(95% CI:-0.08-1.20),表明冷振装置不被认为是非劣于局部麻醉剂。在急诊室进行与针刺相关的手术时,冷振仪在缓解儿童疼痛方面的效果并不优于外用麻醉膏。由于外用麻醉膏需要 30 分钟的涂抹时间,每管的价格约为 40.00 加元,在急诊室的使用率较低,而冷振装置是一种快速、易于使用且可重复使用的装置,因此仍然是一种很有前景的替代方法。
Cold and vibration for children undergoing needle-related procedures: A non-inferiority randomized clinical trial.
The use of a rapid, easy-to-use intervention could improve needle-related procedural pain management practices in the context of the Emergency Department (ED). As such, the Buzzy device seems to be a promising alternative to topical anesthetics. The aim of this study was to determine if a cold vibrating device was non-inferior to a topical anesthetic cream for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures in the ED. In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we enrolled children between 4 and 17 years presenting to the ED and requiring a needle-related procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to either the cold vibrating device or topical anesthetic (4% liposomal lidocaine; standard of care). The primary outcome was the mean difference (MD) in adjusted procedural pain intensity on the 0-10 Color Analogue Scale (CAS), using a non-inferiority margin of 0.70. A total of 352 participants were randomized (cold vibration device n = 176, topical anesthetic cream n = 176). Adjusted procedural pain scores' MD between groups was 0.56 (95% CI:-0.08-1.20) on the CAS, showing that the cold vibrating device was not considered non-inferior to topical anesthetic. The cold vibrating device was not considered non-inferior to the topical anesthetic cream for pain management in children during a needle-related procedure in the ED. As topical anesthetic creams require an application time of 30 min, cost approximately CAD $40.00 per tube, are underused in the ED setting, the cold vibrating device remains a promising alternative as it is a rapid, easy-to-use, and reusable device.