Indian Journal of Palliative Care
Open access journal 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users online: 102  
     Home | About | Feedback | Login 
  Current Issue Back Issues Editorial Board Authors and Reviewers How to Subscribe Advertise with us Contact Us Analgesic Prescription  
  Navigate Here 
 Search
 
  
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
  »  Article in PDF (481 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this Article
 »  Abstract
 » Introduction
 » Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusions
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2630    
    Printed63    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded110    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 372-378

Effect of expressed breast milk versus swaddling versus oral sucrose administration on pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation: A randomized controlled trial


Department of Neonatology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Date of Web Publication6-Oct-2017

Correspondence Address:
Saumil Desai
Department of Neonatology, 10th Floor, Multi Storey Building, KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJPC.IJPC_84_17

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Objective: The objective of our study was to assess the pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation and comparing the use of expressed breast milk (EBM), sucrose, and swaddling to alleviate pain. Methods: Study design: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Inclusion Criteria: Preterm neonates on assisted ventilation. Exclusion Criteria: Major congenital anomalies and severe encephalopathy. Study Duration and Site: 6 months in level III neonatal Intensive Care Unit. In the first phase, we used premature infant pain profile (PIPP) score to assess pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation. In the second phase, the effect of EBM, swaddling, and sucrose on pain relief during suctioning in neonates on assisted ventilation was assessed. Results: There was a significant increase in pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation (preprocedure PIPP score 7.90 ± 2.50; procedural PIPP score 13.63 ± 2.57; P < 0.05). The postintervention mean procedural PIPP score was not significantly different between the EBM, swaddling, and sucrose groups (P = 0.24). Conclusions: Suctioning is painful for preterm neonates on assisted ventilation. There was no difference between EBM, swaddling, and sucrose in relieving pain associated with suctioning.


Keywords: Expressed breast milk, neonates, pain, sucrose, suctioning, swaddling


How to cite this article:
Desai S, Nanavati RN, Nathani R, Kabra N. Effect of expressed breast milk versus swaddling versus oral sucrose administration on pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation: A randomized controlled trial. Indian J Palliat Care 2017;23:372-8

How to cite this URL:
Desai S, Nanavati RN, Nathani R, Kabra N. Effect of expressed breast milk versus swaddling versus oral sucrose administration on pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation: A randomized controlled trial. Indian J Palliat Care [serial online] 2017 [cited 2020 Oct 25];23:372-8. Available from: https://www.jpalliativecare.com/text.asp?2017/23/4/372/216108



 » Introduction Top


Pain is an unpleasant sensation experienced by neonates during routine procedures carried out in the neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Hospitalized neonates experience on an average of 14 painful procedures during the first 2 weeks of life.[1] It is known that respiratory support and related procedures, such as endotracheal suctioning in neonates, provoke pain. Research has shown that preterm neonates respond intensively to pain as compared with term neonates.[1] Procedural pain in neonates can be controlled by nonpharmacological and pharmacological methods. Nonpharmacological methods used to relieve procedural pain have short-term impact and are easily tolerated.[1] Although nonpharmacologic interventions have given promising results in various routine procedures, their role in relieving the pain associated with suctioning in ventilated preterm neonates is still under scrutiny. To control procedural pain, medications such as fentanyl and morphine are being used; however, the use of drugs is not without risk and may cause symptoms such as respiratory depression, nausea, seizures, and physiological dependence.[2] These side effects may deter the clinician from using them routinely for procedural pain relief.[3] Hence, this study was conducted to compare the efficacy of various nonpharmacologic (Expressed breast milk [EBM], swaddling, and sucrose) means to relieve the procedural pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation.


 » Methods Top


Ethics

This study was carried out from March to August 2016 after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Informed consent from parents before enrollment was procured.

Study design

This study was a randomized controlled trial.

Study subjects

  • Inclusion criteria: Preterm neonates on assisted ventilation requiring suctioning
  • Exclusion criteria: Neonates with major congenital anomalies and severe encephalopathy
  • Study duration: 6 months
  • Study site: Level III NICU in a public hospital
  • Primary outcome: To compare the efficacy of EBM versus swaddling versus oral sucrose administration on alleviating the pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation
  • Secondary outcome: To compare the efficacy of EBM versus swaddling versus oral sucrose administration on alleviating the pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on invasive and noninvasive ventilation.


Methodology

We conducted the study in two phases. In the first phase of the study, we assessed whether suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation was a painful procedure. After demonstrating that suctioning was associated with pain, in the second phase of the study, we evaluated the comparative efficacy of EBM, swaddling, and sucrose in alleviating pain during suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation.

Preterm neonates on assisted ventilation requiring suctioning were enrolled for the study. Pain assessment was performed using the premature infant pain profile (PIPP) score.[4],[5] Before commencement of phase 1 of the study, all senior residents were trained to assess need for suctioning and pain evaluation using the PIPP score, in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation. All senior residents were certified for competency in the above by the senior faculty.

The components of PIPP score include gestational age, behavioral state, vital parameters (heart rate, oxygen saturation), and facial characteristics as described in [Annexure 1 [Additional file 1]]. The weight was recorded on an electronic infant weighing scale with an accuracy of ±1 g. Gestational age was calculated using the date of last menstrual period and first trimester ultrasonography. In case of discrepancy, New Ballard Score was considered definitive for gestational age assessment. The behavioral state of the neonate was assessed by observing the neonate's activity, status of eyes (open or closed), and facial movements. The heart rate and oxygen saturation were recorded using the Masimo pulse oximeter (model radical 7) with signal extraction technology. Facial characteristics were assessed using video recording (Panasonic high-definition camcorder, model HDC-HS9, Osaka, Japan) done during the procedure of suctioning. For all age groups, a total score <6 indicates minimal/no pain while a score ≥12 indicates moderate to severe pain. The suctioning was performed by two senior residents and simultaneous video recording was done by the investigator.

In the second phase of the study, the effect of EBM, swaddling, and sucrose on pain relief during suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation was assessed. A trained senior resident assessed the need to do suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation as per unit protocol. The procedure of suctioning was carried out only when needed by the neonate and no procedure was done only for the purpose of the study.

The suctioning episodes in neonates on assisted ventilation were randomized to receive either EBM (Group 1) or swaddling (Group 2) or sucrose (Group 3) by a computer-generated randomization sequence. Randomization was done in variable random blocks of three or six. Treatment allocations were inserted in sequentially numbered opaque envelopes and were sealed. Just before suctioning, a senior resident opened the sequentially numbered envelope and allocated the group. An eligible neonate requiring suctioning could be enrolled more than once and each individual suctioning episode was randomized. In Group 1, 2cc EBM was administered to the neonate 2 min before suctioning. In Group 2, the neonate was swaddled for 10–15 min before suctioning while in Group 3, 2cc sucrose was administered to the neonate for 2 min before suctioning. After demonstrating that suctioning is indeed a very painful procedure in phase 1 of the study, it was deemed ethically unacceptable to include a no-intervention control group based on the evidence that exposure of preterm infants to pain procedures without treatment is harmful. The suctioning was performed by two senior residents and simultaneous video recording using Panasonic high-definition camcorder (model HDC-HS9, Osaka, Japan) was done by the investigator.

Sample size calculations

Sample size for the first phase of the study was calculated using formula for hypothesis of one sample mean. Hypothesizing a preprocedure score of 5 and postprocedure pain score of 7 with allowable difference of 0.1 and expected variance of 0.01 (α error of 0.05 and β error of 0.10 and power of 90%), the estimated sample size was 11 episodes of suctioning.

Sample size for the second phase of the study was calculated using the simplified formula for hypothesis of three parallel sample means. The formula is 22 s2/d2 + 1. Allowable difference of 0.08 (8%) and expected variance of 0.01 (α error of 0.05 and β error of 0.20 and power of 80%), the estimated sample size is 36 episodes of suctioning in each group.

Statistical analysis

The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the total pain score as well as that of each of the indicator of the PIPP score were calculated. In the first phase of the study, PIPP score results were analyzed using two-tailed paired t-test. In the second phase of the study, baseline characteristics of enrolled neonates were compared by Chi-square test for categorical variables and unpaired t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test for continuous variables as appropriate. In the second phase of the study, procedural PIPP score and its components were compared by two-tailed unpaired t-test or Mann–Whitney U-test as appropriate. Statistical significance was accepted for values P < 0.05. All the statistical tests were performed using the Minitab (version 15, Minitab Inc, Pennsylvania State University) statistical software for Windows.


 » Results Top


In the first phase of the study, 11 episodes of suctioning done in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation were enrolled (birth weight in grams, mean ± SD, 1156.67 ± 130.43; gestational age in weeks, mean ± SD, 31.33 ± 1.28). As depicted in [Table 1], there was a significant increase in PIPP score with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation. Mean preprocedure PIPP score was 7.90 ± 2.50, and procedural mean PIPP score was 13.63 ± 2.57 (P = 0.003) as shown in [Figure 1].
Table 1: Change in various parameters during suctioning (n=11) (Phase 1)

Click here to view
Figure 1: Comparison of premature infant pain profile score before and during the suctioning procedure (Phase 1)

Click here to view


In the second phase of the study, 138 neonates were assessed for eligibility, of which twenty were excluded for various reasons as depicted in the flow diagram of the recruitment and randomization process [Figure 2]. A total of 118 eligible neonates with a total of 130 suctioning episodes were selected, with 12 neonates being enrolled for 2 suctioning episodes. Of the total 130 suctioning episodes, 108 suctioning episodes were randomized as depicted in [Figure 2]. A total of 36 episodes of suctioning were allocated to each group of EBM, swaddling, and sucrose. All the randomized suctioning episodes were analyzed without any loss to follow-up and none were excluded from the final analysis.
Figure 2: Flow diagram of the recruitment and randomization process

Click here to view


The baseline characteristics of neonates in three groups are shown in [Table 2]. As shown in [Table 3], the postintervention mean procedural PIPP score for EBM (Group 1), swaddling (Group 2), and sucrose (Group 3) were 12.88 ± 3.59, 11.47 ± 3.23, and 12.11 ± 3.87, respectively. The box plot [Figure 3] shows that there was no statistically significant difference among three groups (P = 0.24). These mean PIPP score during suctioning in all the three groups during phase 2 were lower than those observed during the first phase of the study; however, there was no difference statistically. [Table 4] depicts that these interventions were not effective for relieving pain during suctioning in mechanical ventilation with a P = 0.44, whereas they were effective for pain relief during suctioning in noninvasive ventilation (P = 0.005).
Table 2: Baseline characteristics of the neonates enrolled in the second phase of the study (Phase 2)

Click here to view
Table 3: Preprocedural and procedural premature infant pain profile score in expressed breast milk, swaddling, and sucrose group (Phase 2)

Click here to view
Figure 3: Premature infant pain profile score comparison of expressed breast milk (Group 1) versus swaddling (Group 2) versus sucrose (Group 3) preprocedure, procedural, and difference (Phase 2)

Click here to view
Table 4: Subgroup analysis: Comparative efficacy of expressed breast milk, swaddling, and sucrose for pain relief during suctioning according to the mode of ventilation

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


Our study highlights the fact that the preterm neonates on assisted ventilation experience pain even without any procedure being performed as suggested by preprocedural PIPP score of 7.90 also demonstrated by Hummel et al.[7] There was statistically significant increase in PIPP score during the suctioning procedure (13.63; P < 0.001). The PIPP scores during suctioning were suggestive of severe pain. However, the pain associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation is underestimated and neglected.[6] There is a paucity of data in literature assessing the pain during suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation.

The present study assessed the efficacy of EBM, swaddling, and sucrose on pain relief during suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation. None of these interventions were effective in relieving the pain associated with suctioning. The subgroup analysis showed efficacy of these interventions to relieve pain in neonates on noninvasive ventilation (P = −0.005); however, the same was not true for mechanical ventilation (P = −0.44). These findings should be interpreted with caution as the sample size for subgroup analysis was inadequate and the study was not powered to conclude the efficacy in subgroups.

There is enough literature to describe the efficacy of nonpharmacological means such as breastfeeding, administration of EBM, swaddling, Kangaroo Mother Care, facilitated tucking as well as pharmacological interventions such as administration of fentanyl and morphine during various procedures performed in NICU such as heel prick, intravenous cannulation, and removal of adhesives.[8],[9] Recently published studies demonstrated the effectiveness of EBM in providing pain relief during heel lancing and venipuncture.[10],[11] In a Cochrane review that assessed the impact of breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain, it was noted that neonates in the breastfeeding group had statistically significant less increase in the heart rate, reduced duration of crying during procedure compared to swaddled group, or pacifier group.[12] Swaddling as an effective nonpharmacological measure to alleviate pain during heel lancing is also well studied; however, evidence for its effectiveness as a pain-relieving measure during suctioning is lacking.[13],[14] Simonse et al. demonstrated that the efficacy of sucrose in reducing pain in neonates associated with heel lancing.[15] However, there is scarcity of data for interventions to relieve the pain associated with suctioning.[16],[17],[18] A recent study evaluated the effect of facilitated tucking on pain relief during endotracheal suctioning in preterm neonates using the PIPP score. They found that around 38% of neonates experienced pain during suctioning without the intervention while the same reduced to 8.8% with intervention.[17] The present study depicted that reduction in pain was significant in noninvasive ventilation group as compared to those on invasive ventilation.

Strengths of our study were robust randomized controlled trial design, sufficient sample size with adequate power to detect a difference if there was one, and use of PIPP score for assessment of pain.

Limitations of our study are lack of blinding of outcome measures. Additional limitations of our study were that we have only assessed short-term outcomes and the inability to blind the interventions. The lack of subgroup analysis (invasive and noninvasive) during phase 1 of the study was also a drawback.


 » Conclusions Top


This study shows that the preterm neonates on assisted ventilation experience pain even in the absence of additional interventions. This study also demonstrates that suctioning in these neonates causes moderate to severe pain. Findings from this study show that administration of EBM, sucrose, and swaddling is ineffective for pain management associated with suctioning in preterm neonates on assisted ventilation.

Future directions

The inability of pharmacologic means (e.g., morphine) and nonpharmacologic means (e.g., EBM, swaddling) to alleviate the pain associated with suctioning in ventilated preterm neonates warrants further research on the use of a combination of these means to alleviate the same.[16],[17]

There are no conflicts of interest.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
 » References Top

1.
Menon G, McIntosh N. How should we manage pain in ventilated neonates? Neonatology 2008;93:316-23. Available from: http://www. ccsenet.org/gjhs. [Glob J Health Sci 2014;6:316 23] [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 20].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Schellack N. A review of pain management in the neonate. S Afr Pharm J2011;78:10-3.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Hill S, Engle S, Jorgensen J, Kralik A, Whitman K. Effects of facilitated tucking during routine care of infants born preterm. Pediatr Phys Ther 2005;17:158-63.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Ballantyne M, Stevens B, McAllister M, Dionne K, Jack A. Validation of the premature infant pain profile in the clinical setting. Clin J Pain 1999;15:297-303.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Stevens B, Johnston C, Taddio A, Gibbins S, Yamada J. The premature infant pain profile: Evaluation 13 years after development. Clin J Pain 2010;26:813-30.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Axelin A, Salanterä S, Lehtonen L. 'Facilitated tucking by parents' in pain management of preterm infants-a randomized crossover trial. Early Hum Dev 2006;82:241-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hummel P, Puchalski M, Creech SD, Weiss MG. Clinical reliability and validity of the N-PASS: Neonatal pain, agitation and sedation scale with prolonged pain. J Perinatol 2008;28:55-60.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Bellieni CV, Buonocore G, Nenci A, Franci N, Cordelli DM, Bagnoli F. Sensorial saturation: An effective analgesic tool for heel-prick in preterm infants: A prospective randomized trial. Biol Neonate 2001;80:15-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Nanavati RN, Balan R, Kabra NS. Effect of kangaroo mother care vs. expressed breast milk administration on pain associated with removal of adhesive tape in very low birth weight neonates: A randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr 2013;50:1011-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.
Bueno M, Stevens B, de Camargo PP, Toma E, Krebs VL, Kimura AF. Breast milk and glucose for pain relief in preterm infants: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 2012;129:664-70.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Sahoo JP, Rao S, Nesargi S, Ranjit T, Ashok C, Bhat S. Expressed breast milk vs. 25% dextrose in procedural pain in neonates, a double blind randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr 2013;50:203-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Shah PS, Herbozo C, Aliwalas LL, Shah VS. Breastfeeding or breast milk for procedural pain in neonates. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD004950.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Obu HA, Chinawa JM. Neonatal analgesia: A neglected issue in the tropics. Niger Med J 2014;55:183-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
  [Full text]  
14.
Cignacco E, Hamers JP, Stoffel L, van Lingen RA, Gessler P, McDougall J, et al. The efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of procedural pain in preterm and term neonates. A systematic literature review. Eur J Pain 2007;11:139-52.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.
Simonse E, Mulder PG, van Beek RH. Analgesic effect of breast milk versus sucrose for analgesia during heel lance in late preterm infants. Pediatrics 2012;129:657-63.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Tison D, de Jonge A, Allegaert K. Pain relief in ventilated preterm infants during endotracheal suctioning: The need for an integrated approach. Swiss Med Wkly 2009;139:152.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Alinejad-Naeini M, Mohagheghi P, Peyrovi H, Mehran A. The effect of facilitated tucking during endotracheal suctioning on procedural pain in preterm neonates: A randomized controlled crossover study. Glob J Health Sci 2014;6:278-84.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Cignacco E, Hamers JP, van Lingen RA, Zimmermann LJ, Müller R, Gessler P, et al. Pain relief in ventilated preterms during endotracheal suctioning: A randomized controlled trial. Swiss Med Wkly 2008;138:635-45.  Back to cited text no. 18
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Online since 1st October '05
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow