BACKGROUND:Pain is a common experience during nasoenteral catheterization. Although the procedure causes discomfort and distress to patients, procedural pain remains neglected and undertreated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of the use of 10% lidocaine spray during nasoenteral catheterization. METHOD: A randomized, triple-blind trial of 50 patients was performed. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: an intervention group (IG), in which 10% lidocaine spray combined with 2% lidocaine gel was used, and a control group (CG), in which a saline solution spray combined with 2% lidocaine gel was used. Pain and discomfort were assessed during and after nasoenteral catheterization using numerical rating scale (NRS) and the visual analogue scale (VAS), respectively. RESULTS: Intervention group participants reported lower pain scores during (0.20 ± 0.71 vs. 5.00 ± 2.84, p < .001; |d| = -0.677) and after (0.00 ± 0.00 vs. 2.80 ± 2.83, p < .001; |d| = -0.718) nasoenteral catheterization compared to the CG. CONCLUSION: Spraying 10% lidocaine spray before nasoenteral catheterization was most effective for relieving discomfort and pain, with lower pain and discomfort recorded in NRS and VAS. Topical administration of 10% lidocaine spray is therefore a suggested measure for procedural pain relief related to nasoenteral catheterization. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of 10% lidocaine spray was more effective in relieving procedural pain and discomfort during nasoenteral catheterization. Patients who received 10% lidocaine spray registered lower discomfort and pain scores than those from 2% lidocaine gel group; there were less complications among patients in the IG.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Pain is a common experience during nasoenteral catheterization. Although the procedure causes discomfort and distress to patients, procedural pain remains neglected and undertreated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of the use of 10% lidocaine spray during nasoenteral catheterization. METHOD: A randomized, triple-blind trial of 50 patients was performed. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: an intervention group (IG), in which 10% lidocaine spray combined with 2% lidocaine gel was used, and a control group (CG), in which a saline solution spray combined with 2% lidocaine gel was used. Pain and discomfort were assessed during and after nasoenteral catheterization using numerical rating scale (NRS) and the visual analogue scale (VAS), respectively. RESULTS: Intervention group participants reported lower pain scores during (0.20 ± 0.71 vs. 5.00 ± 2.84, p < .001; |d| = -0.677) and after (0.00 ± 0.00 vs. 2.80 ± 2.83, p < .001; |d| = -0.718) nasoenteral catheterization compared to the CG. CONCLUSION: Spraying 10% lidocaine spray before nasoenteral catheterization was most effective for relieving discomfort and pain, with lower pain and discomfort recorded in NRS and VAS. Topical administration of 10% lidocaine spray is therefore a suggested measure for procedural pain relief related to nasoenteral catheterization. SIGNIFICANCE: The use of 10% lidocaine spray was more effective in relieving procedural pain and discomfort during nasoenteral catheterization. Patients who received 10% lidocaine spray registered lower discomfort and pain scores than those from 2% lidocaine gel group; there were less complications among patients in the IG.