Search

Background The heel stick is the method of choice in most neonatal units for capillary blood sampling, and it represents the most common event among all painful procedures performed on newborns. The type and design of heel stick device and the clinical procedure to collect a blood sample may have an impact on newborn pain response as well. Objective To compare the pain response and efficiency of different automated devices for capillary blood collection in newborns. Design Randomized clinical trial. Setting Postnatal ward of a tertiary-care university hospital in Italy. Participants Newborn infants at gestational age ≥34 weeks undergoing the metabolic screening test after the 49th hour of life. Methods A total of 762 neonates were recruited and randomized into 6 groups (127 babies in each group) assigned to 6 different capillary blood collection devices (Ames Minilet™ Lancet; Cardinal Health Gentleheel ® ; Natus Medical NeatNick™; BD Quikheel™ Lancet; Vitrex Steriheel ® Baby Lancet; Accriva Diagnostics Tenderfoot ® ). Main outcome measures The following data were collected and assessed for each of the 6 groups evaluated: a) number of heel sticks, b) pain score according to the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) and c) need to squeeze the heel. Results The Ames Minilet™ Lancet device was found to perform by far the worst compared to the five device underexamination: it required the highest number of sticks (mean = 3.91; 95% CI: 3.46–4.36), evoked the most intense pain (mean = 3.98; 95% CI: 3.77–4.20), and most frequently necessitated squeezing the heel (92.9%; 95% CI: 86.9–96.3). The five devices under examination appeared to be similar in terms of the number of sticks required, but differed slightly in NIPS score and in need to squeeze the heel. Conclusion The Accriva Diagnostics Tenderfoot ® device demonstrated the greatest efficiency for blood sampling and evoked the least pain. With this device, the metabolic screening test could be performed with a single skin incision in the large majority of infants (98.4%), heel squeezing was limited to only 6.3% of infants, and the NIPS score turns out to be lower than other devices in our study (1.22; 95% CI 1.05–1.39). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Chronic neonatal pain can lead to long-term adverse effects on the immature brain. EDIN scale for prolonged pain might not be fully suitable for premature infants. We aimed to test a modified EDIN scale, adding postmenstrual age (PMA) as a sixth item (EDIN6). Methods. In a two-phase prospective study, pain was assessed in all neonates admitted in our NICU. In T1 EDIN was applied; in T2 EDIN6 with additional scores of 2, 1, and 0, respectively, for 25–32, 33–37, and >37 weeks PCA was tested. Scores > 6 suggested pain. The nursing staff was given a questionnaire to evaluate EDIN and EDIN6. Results. A total of 15960 pain assessments were recorded (8693 in T1; 7267 in T2). With EDIN6, cumulative detection of pain almost tripled (117/7267 versus 52/8693, p=0.001). Main differences were found among less mature categories (50/1472 versus 17/1734, p=0.001 in PCA 25–32; 26/2606 versus 10/4335, p=0.001 in PMA 33–37; 41/3189 versus 25/2624, p=0.26 in PMA > 37). Adequacy of pain assessment in lower PMA was judged “medium-high” in 13,4% of nurses in T1 and 71,4% in T2. Conclusions. EDIN6 may allow improved evaluation of pain in preterm infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]