Literature DB >> 19388923

A randomized, double-blind controlled study of jet lidocaine compared to jet placebo for pain relief in children undergoing needle insertion in the emergency department.

Marc Auerbach1, Michael Tunik, Michael Mojica.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine whether pretreatment with needleless jet-delivered lidocaine decreases self-reported pain in children undergoing needle insertion in the emergency department (ED) and to explore whether pretreatment with a jet device decreases self-reported pain in children undergoing needle insertion in the ED.
METHODS: This study examined needle insertion pain in children 5-18 years of age. In the first phase of this study, children received either pretreatment with jet-delivered lidocaine (0.2 mL of buffered 1% lidocaine; n = 75) or pretreatment with jet-delivered placebo (0.2 mL of preservative-free normal saline; n = 75) 60 seconds before undergoing needle insertion. This phase of the study had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. In the second phase, an unblinded, nonconcurrent, nonintervention control group (n = 47) was examined to describe any effect of using the jet device. Patients reported pain upon administration of the jet device and at needle insertion using a 100-mm color analog scale (CAS). Patients also reported their satisfaction with this device. The physicians and nurses performing needle insertions were asked to rate their ability to visualize the vein and their satisfaction with the device.
RESULTS: The mean (+/-standard deviation [SD]) needle insertion pain score for jet lidocaine, 28 (+/-7) mm, was similar to the mean needle insertion pain score for jet placebo, 34 (+/-7) mm. The mean needle insertion pain score for both the jet lidocaine and the jet placebo groups were lower than the needle insertion pain scores for the no device group, 52 (+/-8) mm. The majority of patients receiving the jet device reported that they would request this device for future needle insertions. Providers' ratings of their ability to visualize veins and the patient cooperation were similar in all three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Jet-delivered lidocaine is no more effective than jet-delivered placebo in providing local anesthesia for needle insertion. Jet lidocaine and jet placebo may provide superior analgesia compared to no local anesthetic pretreatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19388923     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00401.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  4 in total

1.  A Randomized Clinical Trial of Jet-Injected Lidocaine to Reduce Venipuncture Pain for Young Children.

Authors:  Maren M Lunoe; Amy L Drendel; Michael N Levas; Steven J Weisman; Mahua Dasgupta; Raymond G Hoffmann; David C Brousseau
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 5.721

Review 2.  Managing pain and distress in children undergoing brief diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Authors:  Evelyne D Trottier; Marie-Joëlle Doré-Bergeron; Laurel Chauvin-Kimoff; Krista Baerg; Samina Ali
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 2.253

3.  The use of the needle-free jet injection system with buffered lidocaine device does not change intravenous placement success in children in the emergency department.

Authors:  Maren M Lunoe; Amy L Drendel; David C Brousseau
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 4.  Managing Pediatric Pain in the Emergency Department.

Authors:  Benoit Bailey; Evelyne D Trottier
Journal:  Paediatr Drugs       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 3.022

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.