Premium
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
Author(s) -
Auerbach Marc,
Tunik Michael,
Mojica Michael
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
academic emergency medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.221
H-Index - 124
eISSN - 1553-2712
pISSN - 1069-6563
DOI - 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00401.x
Subject(s) - medicine , lidocaine , placebo , anesthesia , emergency department , saline , randomized controlled trial , surgery , alternative medicine , pathology , psychiatry
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.