Detailed Information

Cited 14 time in webofscience Cited 15 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Comparison of the effects of lidocaine pre-administration and local warming of the intravenous access site on propofol injection pain: Randomized, double-blind controlled trial

Authors
Jeong, MeejeongYoon, Haesang
Issue Date
Sep-2016
Publisher
PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
Keywords
Lidocaine; Local hyperthermia; Noticeptive pain; Pain management; Propofol
Citation
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, v.61, pp.209 - 218
Journal Title
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES
Volume
61
Start Page
209
End Page
218
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/gachon/handle/2020.sw.gachon/7945
DOI
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.06.012
ISSN
0020-7489
Abstract
Background: Lidocaine reduces pain that occurs upon the intravenous injection of propofol. But, there are few non-pharmacological nursing interventions to reduce propofol injection pain. Objective: To compare the effects of lidocaine pre-administration and local warming of the intravenous access site on propofol injection pain. Design: Prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Setting: The 555 bed, non-teaching National Cancer Center in Kyunggido, South Korea. Participants: A total of 96 patients who underwent thyroidectomy under total intravenous general anesthesia with propofol were randomly allocated to the control, lidocaine pre administration (LA) or local warming (LW) group. Methods: All three groups received 2% propofol with an effect-site target at 3 pg/mL for induction dose. The control group received 2% propofol with no intervention. The lidocaine pre-administration group received 2% propofol 30 s after 1% lidocaine 30 mg. The local warming group received 2% propofol after warming of the intravenous access site for 1 min using 43 degrees C forced air. Propofol injection pain was assessed by four-point verbal categorial scoring (VCS), numerical rating scale (NRS) and surgical pleth index (SPI). Results: Pain VCS of the LA group (mean SD, 1.11 +/- 0.45) was significantly reduced (U=-3.92, p < .001) compared to the control group (mean SD, 1.71 +/- 0.74). Pain VCS of the LW group (mean SD, 0.76 +/- 0.44) was significantly reduced (U =-5.17, p < .001) compared to the control group (mean SD, 1.71 +/- 0.74). Pain VCS of the LW group was significantly reduced compared to the LA group (U=-3.33, p =.001]. Pain NRS of the LA group (mean SD, 431 +/- 2.32) was significantly reduced (mean difference, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.63-3.00; p =.003) compared to the control group (mean SD, 6.13 +/- 2.39). Pain NRS of the LW group (mean SD, 3.06 +/- 2.37) was significantly reduced (mean difference, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.63-4.51; p <.009) compared to the control group. There were significant differences in pain NRS between the LA group and the LW group (mean difference, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.09-2.42; p =.035). SPI of the LA group (mean SD, 64.1 +/- 16.3) was significantly reduced (mean difference control versus LA, 836; 95% CI, 1.64-15.1; p =.016) compared to the control group (mean SD, 72.5 9.56). SPI of the LW group (mean SD, 55.0 +/- 16.2) was significantly reduced (mean difference control versus LW, 17.4; 95% CI, 10.8-24.0; p <.001) compared to the control group. There was a significant difference in SPI between the LA group and LW group (mean difference, 9.06; 95% CI, 1.02-17.1; p =.028). Conclusion: Local warming of the intravenous access site by 43 degrees C forced air for 1 min is slightly more effective in reducing propofol injection pain compared to lidocaine pre administration. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
ETC > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE