PURPOSE: To compare the anesthetic effectiveness of 3 topical agents used for intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Randomized, triple-armed, double-blinded, prospective, single-centered trial in patients receivingintravitreal ranibizumabfor neovascular age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 0.5% tetracaine hydrochloride drops and a 4% lidocaine pledget (n = 31), 0.5% tetracaine hydrochloride drops alone (n = 31), or 4% cocaine (+ epinephrine 1/100,000) drops alone (n = 31). Patients were asked to score their pain experience using a visual analogue scale (VAS) immediately following and 15 minutes after their injection. The average of these scores was used as the primary outcome. The physician performing the procedure separately scored his perception of the patients' pain using the Wong-Baker FACES scale. RESULTS: Means of the averaged VAS pain score for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were: 19 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12-26), 21 (95% CI 13-29), and 21 (95% CI 16-27) respectively. Mean Wong-Baker pain scores for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 1.9 (95% CI 1.3-2.6), 2.1 (95% CI 1.4-2.7), and 2.3 (95% CI 1.6-3.1) respectively. There was no significant difference (P = .549) between groups for average VAS pain score. Similarly, there was no significant difference (P = .790) for the physician-perceived pain score between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinical difference in patient pain experience between the 3 anesthetic options tested. The addition of a 4% lidocaine pledget offered no clinical advantage in pain relief compared to 0.5% tetracaine or 4% cocaine (+ epinephrine 1/100,000) drops alone.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the anesthetic effectiveness of 3 topical agents used for intravitreal injections. DESIGN: Randomized, triple-armed, double-blinded, prospective, single-centered trial in patients receiving intravitreal ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. METHODS:Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 0.5% tetracaine hydrochloride drops and a 4% lidocaine pledget (n = 31), 0.5% tetracaine hydrochloride drops alone (n = 31), or 4% cocaine (+ epinephrine 1/100,000) drops alone (n = 31). Patients were asked to score their pain experience using a visual analogue scale (VAS) immediately following and 15 minutes after their injection. The average of these scores was used as the primary outcome. The physician performing the procedure separately scored his perception of the patients' pain using the Wong-Baker FACES scale. RESULTS: Means of the averaged VAS pain score for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were: 19 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12-26), 21 (95% CI 13-29), and 21 (95% CI 16-27) respectively. Mean Wong-Baker pain scores for Groups 1, 2, and 3 were 1.9 (95% CI 1.3-2.6), 2.1 (95% CI 1.4-2.7), and 2.3 (95% CI 1.6-3.1) respectively. There was no significant difference (P = .549) between groups for average VAS pain score. Similarly, there was no significant difference (P = .790) for the physician-perceived pain score between groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinical difference in patientpain experience between the 3 anesthetic options tested. The addition of a 4% lidocaine pledget offered no clinical advantage in pain relief compared to 0.5% tetracaine or 4% cocaine (+ epinephrine 1/100,000) drops alone.
Authors: Michael H Andreae; Evelyn Rhodes; Tyler Bourgoise; George M Carter; Robert S White; Debbie Indyk; Henry Sacks; Rosamond Rhodes Journal: Am J Bioeth Date: 2016 Impact factor: 11.229