Charlotte C Yates1, Anita J Mitchell2, Leah M Lowe3, Amy Lee4, Richard W Hall5. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Central Arkansas , Conway, AR. ; Department of Neurobiology, Center for Translational Neuroscience, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, AR. 2. Department of Nursing, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, AR. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of Central Arkansas , Conway, AR. 4. Department of Neurobiology, Center for Translational Neuroscience, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, AR. 5. Department of Neurobiology, Center for Translational Neuroscience, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, AR. ; Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, AR.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospitalized infants may undergo frequent painful procedures with inadequate pain relief. Alternative pain relief interventions are needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to determine the safety of noninvasive electrical stimulation of acupuncture points (NESAP) in neonates who were receiving routine heel sticks. DESIGN: This was a descriptive study performed to assess the safety of using a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit to deliver NESAP to neonates. SETTING/ SUBJECTS: The subjects were healthy newborn infants<3 days old before hospital discharge. INTERVENTION: The intervention was NESAP delivered via a TENS unit, administered before, during, and after heel stick. The electrodes of the TENS unit were applied at four acupuncture points. Settings were gradually increased: 6 infants received 1.0 mA, 2 Hz; the second 6 infants received 2.0 mA, 10 Hz; and the last 18 infants received 3.5 mA, 10 Hz. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: THREE MAIN MEASURES WERE USED: (1) skin assessment (2) vital signs; (3) pain scores using the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP). RESULTS: There were no significant changes in vital signs during and after NESAP. There were no changes in PIPP scores in the first 12 infants after initiation of NESAP. A slight but nonsignificant increase in PIPP scores (from 2.65 to 3.5 on a scale of 0-18) occurred in the last 18 infants. There were no adverse events during or after NESAP. CONCLUSIONS: NESAP is safe for infants with low settings on a TENS unit.
BACKGROUND: Hospitalized infants may undergo frequent painful procedures with inadequate pain relief. Alternative pain relief interventions are needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research was to determine the safety of noninvasive electrical stimulation of acupuncture points (NESAP) in neonates who were receiving routine heel sticks. DESIGN: This was a descriptive study performed to assess the safety of using a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit to deliver NESAP to neonates. SETTING/ SUBJECTS: The subjects were healthy newborn infants<3 days old before hospital discharge. INTERVENTION: The intervention was NESAP delivered via a TENS unit, administered before, during, and after heel stick. The electrodes of the TENS unit were applied at four acupuncture points. Settings were gradually increased: 6 infants received 1.0 mA, 2 Hz; the second 6 infants received 2.0 mA, 10 Hz; and the last 18 infants received 3.5 mA, 10 Hz. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: THREE MAIN MEASURES WERE USED: (1) skin assessment (2) vital signs; (3) pain scores using the Premature InfantPain Profile (PIPP). RESULTS: There were no significant changes in vital signs during and after NESAP. There were no changes in PIPP scores in the first 12 infants after initiation of NESAP. A slight but nonsignificant increase in PIPP scores (from 2.65 to 3.5 on a scale of 0-18) occurred in the last 18 infants. There were no adverse events during or after NESAP. CONCLUSIONS:NESAP is safe for infants with low settings on a TENS unit.
Entities:
Keywords:
Neonate; Noninvasive Electrical Stimulation of Acupuncture Points (NESAP); Pain
Authors: Chuansen Niu; Hongwei Hao; Jun Lu; Luming Li; Zhirong Han; Ya Tu Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2011-01-09 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Anita J Mitchell; Richard W Hall; Brenda Golianu; Charlotte Yates; David Keith Williams; Jason Chang; Kanwaljeet J S Anand Journal: Acta Paediatr Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 2.299
Authors: Stefan Kurath-Koller; Gerhard Litscher; Anna Gross; Thomas Freidl; Martin Koestenberger; Berndt Urlesberger; Wolfgang Raith Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 2.629