Mandy L Kohli1, Reza Vali2, Afsaneh Amirabadi1, Caroline A Frankfurter3, Ardavan Nateghi1, Eman Marie1, Amer Shammas1. 1. Nuclear Medicine Division, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 2nd Floor Burton Wing, Room 2101, 555 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada. 2. Nuclear Medicine Division, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 2nd Floor Burton Wing, Room 2101, 555 University Ave., Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada. reza.vali@sickkids.ca. 3. School of Nursing, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In paediatric nuclear medicine, the majority of the scans require intravenous (IV) access to deliver the radiotracers. Children and parents often cite procedural pain as the most distressing part of their child's hospitalization. In our department, various pain management strategies including physical and psychological distraction methods and pharmacological intervention have been implemented to reduce procedural pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare different pain reduction strategies used in our paediatric nuclear medicine department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 196 children (114 female) were reviewed retrospectively (median age: 8 months; interquartile range [IQR]: 33.1). Children were categorized into five groups: (1) Maxilene (topical liposomal lidocaine; n=50), (2) Pain Ease (vapocoolant; n=69), (3) oral sucrose (n=48), (4) Maxilene and Pain Ease combined (n=10), and (5) no pharmacological/adjuvant intervention (n=19). Physical and psychological distraction were used in all patients. Therefore, Group 5 only received physical and psychological strategies. Physical methods included supportive positioning, deep breathing, temperature considerations, massage pressure or vibration and neonatal development strategies (e.g., non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, swaddling, rocking). Psychological strategies included education, distraction with movies, books or storytelling, and relaxation techniques. The pain perceived by the children after the IV access was compared in these five groups. Two types of pain assessment were used in this study: self-reporting pain scale and behavioural observational pain rating scale. Pain was reported on a scale of 1 to 10. The average pain score was also compared between patients who had one or two attempts for IV access and those who had more than two attempts. RESULTS: The average pain score was 2.8 (mean±standard error [SE]=0.4) in Maxilene, 2.1 (SE=0.3) in Pain Ease, 2.7 (SE=0.3) in sucrose, 1.6 (SE=0.5) in combined Maxilene and Pain Ease and 3.4 (SE=0.6) in "no pharmacology/adjuvant" groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the four pharmacology groups of Maxilene, Pain Ease, sucrose and no pharmacology/adjuvant intervention group. However, the pain score was significantly reduced in patients who received both Maxilene and Pain Ease combined compared with the patients who didn't have any pharmacological/adjuvant intervention (P=0.041). The average pain was 2.2 (SE=0.1) with one attempt at IV access, 3.0 (SE=0.5) with two attempts and 5.1 (SE=0.9) with three attempts. CONCLUSION: A combination of two pharmacological/adjuvant interventions may be more effective in reducing procedural pain compared with a single intervention. A comprehensive pain management program should consider all available interventions - pharmacological, adjuvant, physical and psychological. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate if a combination of two or more methods of pharmacological and adjuvant interventions are more effective to reduce procedural pain compared with only one method.
BACKGROUND: In paediatric nuclear medicine, the majority of the scans require intravenous (IV) access to deliver the radiotracers. Children and parents often cite procedural pain as the most distressing part of their child's hospitalization. In our department, various pain management strategies including physical and psychological distraction methods and pharmacological intervention have been implemented to reduce procedural pain. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare different pain reduction strategies used in our paediatric nuclear medicine department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of 196 children (114 female) were reviewed retrospectively (median age: 8 months; interquartile range [IQR]: 33.1). Children were categorized into five groups: (1) Maxilene (topical liposomal lidocaine; n=50), (2) Pain Ease (vapocoolant; n=69), (3) oral sucrose (n=48), (4) Maxilene and Pain Ease combined (n=10), and (5) no pharmacological/adjuvant intervention (n=19). Physical and psychological distraction were used in all patients. Therefore, Group 5 only received physical and psychological strategies. Physical methods included supportive positioning, deep breathing, temperature considerations, massage pressure or vibration and neonatal development strategies (e.g., non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, swaddling, rocking). Psychological strategies included education, distraction with movies, books or storytelling, and relaxation techniques. The pain perceived by the children after the IV access was compared in these five groups. Two types of pain assessment were used in this study: self-reporting pain scale and behavioural observational pain rating scale. Pain was reported on a scale of 1 to 10. The average pain score was also compared between patients who had one or two attempts for IV access and those who had more than two attempts. RESULTS: The average pain score was 2.8 (mean±standard error [SE]=0.4) in Maxilene, 2.1 (SE=0.3) in Pain Ease, 2.7 (SE=0.3) in sucrose, 1.6 (SE=0.5) in combined Maxilene and Pain Ease and 3.4 (SE=0.6) in "no pharmacology/adjuvant" groups. There was no statistically significant difference between the four pharmacology groups of Maxilene, Pain Ease, sucrose and no pharmacology/adjuvant intervention group. However, the pain score was significantly reduced in patients who received both Maxilene and Pain Ease combined compared with the patients who didn't have any pharmacological/adjuvant intervention (P=0.041). The average pain was 2.2 (SE=0.1) with one attempt at IV access, 3.0 (SE=0.5) with two attempts and 5.1 (SE=0.9) with three attempts. CONCLUSION: A combination of two pharmacological/adjuvant interventions may be more effective in reducing procedural pain compared with a single intervention. A comprehensive pain management program should consider all available interventions - pharmacological, adjuvant, physical and psychological. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to evaluate if a combination of two or more methods of pharmacological and adjuvant interventions are more effective to reduce procedural pain compared with only one method.
Authors: Lindsay S Uman; Christine T Chambers; Patrick J McGrath; Stephen Kisely; Debora Matthews; Kelly Hayton Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2009-12-04
Authors: R G Barr; S N Young; J H Wright; K L Cassidy; L Hendricks; Y Bedard; J Yaremko; D Leduc; S Treherne Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 2.225
Authors: Reza Vali; Adam Alessio; Rene Balza; Lise Borgwardt; Zvi Bar-Sever; Michael Czachowski; Nina Jehanno; Lars Kurch; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Marguerite Parisi; Arnoldo Piccardo; Victor Seghers; Barry L Shulkin; Pietro Zucchetta; Ruth Lim Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 11.082