吸入一氧化二氮治疗儿童和青少年疼痛:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0
Naveen Poonai, Christopher Creene, Ariel Dobrowlanski, Rishika Geda, Lisa Hartling, Samina Ali, Maala Bhatt, Evelyne D Trottier, Vikram Sabhaney, Katie O'Hearn, Rini Jain, Martin H Osmond
{"title":"吸入一氧化二氮治疗儿童和青少年疼痛:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Naveen Poonai,&nbsp;Christopher Creene,&nbsp;Ariel Dobrowlanski,&nbsp;Rishika Geda,&nbsp;Lisa Hartling,&nbsp;Samina Ali,&nbsp;Maala Bhatt,&nbsp;Evelyne D Trottier,&nbsp;Vikram Sabhaney,&nbsp;Katie O'Hearn,&nbsp;Rini Jain,&nbsp;Martin H Osmond","doi":"10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for N<sub>2</sub>O for distress and pain in children.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We included trials of N<sub>2</sub>O in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of \"neutral\" (p ≥ 0.05), \"favorable,\" or \"unfavorable\" (p < 0.05, supporting N<sub>2</sub>O or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% N<sub>2</sub>O (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and 50% N<sub>2</sub>O plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I<sup>2</sup> = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% N<sub>2</sub>O was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I<sup>2</sup> = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, N<sub>2</sub>O was \"favorable\" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but \"neutral\" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), N<sub>2</sub>O was \"neutral\" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), N<sub>2</sub>O was \"favorable\" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), N<sub>2</sub>O was \"neutral\" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), N<sub>2</sub>O plus EMLA was \"favorable\" versus N<sub>2</sub>O and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of N<sub>2</sub>O included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with N<sub>2</sub>O alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus N<sub>2</sub>O plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and N<sub>2</sub>O plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is sufficient evidence to recommend N<sub>2</sub>O plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.</p>","PeriodicalId":55286,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 6","pages":"508-528"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inhaled nitrous oxide for painful procedures in children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Naveen Poonai,&nbsp;Christopher Creene,&nbsp;Ariel Dobrowlanski,&nbsp;Rishika Geda,&nbsp;Lisa Hartling,&nbsp;Samina Ali,&nbsp;Maala Bhatt,&nbsp;Evelyne D Trottier,&nbsp;Vikram Sabhaney,&nbsp;Katie O'Hearn,&nbsp;Rini Jain,&nbsp;Martin H Osmond\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for N<sub>2</sub>O for distress and pain in children.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We included trials of N<sub>2</sub>O in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of \\\"neutral\\\" (p ≥ 0.05), \\\"favorable,\\\" or \\\"unfavorable\\\" (p < 0.05, supporting N<sub>2</sub>O or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% N<sub>2</sub>O (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and 50% N<sub>2</sub>O plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I<sup>2</sup> = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% N<sub>2</sub>O was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I<sup>2</sup> = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, N<sub>2</sub>O was \\\"favorable\\\" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but \\\"neutral\\\" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), N<sub>2</sub>O was \\\"neutral\\\" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), N<sub>2</sub>O was \\\"favorable\\\" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), N<sub>2</sub>O was \\\"neutral\\\" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), N<sub>2</sub>O plus EMLA was \\\"favorable\\\" versus N<sub>2</sub>O and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of N<sub>2</sub>O included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with N<sub>2</sub>O alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus N<sub>2</sub>O plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and N<sub>2</sub>O plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is sufficient evidence to recommend N<sub>2</sub>O plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 6\",\"pages\":\"508-528\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是综合N2O治疗儿童苦恼和疼痛的适应症证据。研究设计:我们纳入了0-21岁参与者的N2O试验,这些参与者报告了急诊科手术的痛苦或痛苦。主要结果是程序性痛苦。在无法进行荟萃分析的情况下,我们使用Tricco等人的分类:“中性”(p≥0.05)、“有利”或“不利”(分别为p 20或比较者)。我们使用Cochrane协作的偏倚风险工具和分级推荐评估、发展和评价系统分别评估偏倚风险和证据质量。结果:我们纳入了30项试验。静脉注射期间疼痛使用视觉模拟量表(0-100 mm), 70% N2O (δ:-16.5;95%CI:-28.6 ~ -4.4;p = 0.008;三个试验;I2 = 0%)和50% N2O加共晶局部麻醉剂(EMLA)混合物(δ:-1.2;95%CI:-2.1 ~ -0.3;p = 0.007;两个试验;I2 = 43%)优于EMLA。50% N2O不优于EMLA (δ:-0.4;95%CI:-1.2 ~ 0.3;p = 0.26;两个试验;i2 = 15%)。对于撕裂伤修复期间的窘迫和疼痛,N2O与SC利多卡因、氧和口服咪达唑仑相比“有利”,但与IV氯胺酮相比“中性”(5项试验)。对于骨折复位期间的窘迫和疼痛(三个试验),N2O与IM哌嗪加异丙嗪、区域麻醉和IV氯胺酮加咪达唑仑相比是“中性的”。对于腰椎穿刺时的窘迫和疼痛(一项试验),N2O比氧气“有利”。对于导尿期间的窘迫和疼痛(一项试验),N2O与口服咪达唑仑相比是“中性的”。对于肌肉注射期间的疼痛(一项试验),N2O加EMLA比N2O和EMLA单独“有利”。N2O的常见不良反应包括恶心(4.4%)、躁动(3.7%)和呕吐(3.6%)。与N2O联合咪达唑仑(48/52(92.3%))和N2O联合芬太尼(123/201(61.2%))相比,N2O单独使用的不良反应发生率(278/1147(24.2%))较低。结论:有足够的证据推荐N2O加表面麻醉剂用于静脉插入和伤口修复。与其他镇静剂合用时,副作用更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Inhaled nitrous oxide for painful procedures in children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for N2O for distress and pain in children.

Study design: We included trials of N2O in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," or "unfavorable" (p < 0.05, supporting N2O or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.

Results: We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% N2O (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I2 = 0%) and 50% N2O plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I2 = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% N2O was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I2 = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, N2O was "favorable" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but "neutral" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), N2O was "neutral" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), N2O was "favorable" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), N2O was "neutral" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), N2O plus EMLA was "favorable" versus N2O and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of N2O included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with N2O alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus N2O plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and N2O plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).

Conclusions: There is sufficient evidence to recommend N2O plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
171
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CJEM is a peer-reviewed journal owned by CAEP. CJEM is published every 2 months (January, March, May, July, September and November). CJEM presents articles of interest to emergency care providers in rural, urban or academic settings. Publishing services are provided by the Canadian Medical Association.
期刊最新文献
Just the facts: diagnosing and managing trigeminal neuralgia in the emergency department Letter to the editor: further opportunities for rapid HIV testing. Just the facts: management of thrombolytic complications in acute stroke care in the emergency department Anti-inflammatories as adjunct treatment for cellulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Replacing the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment—Alcohol revised with the modified Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale for alcohol withdrawal to support management of alcohol withdrawal symptoms: potential impact on length of stay and complications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1