Non-nutritive sucking and facilitated tucking relieve preterm infant pain during heel-stick procedures: A prospective, randomised controlled crossover trial

详细信息	查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

• 作者：Jen-Jiuan Liaw^a ; ^{jiuan@mail.ndmctsgh.edu.tw} ; Luke Yang^b ; Kai-Wei Katherine Wang^c ; Chin-Mi Chen^a ; Yue-Cune Chang^d ; Ti Yin^e
• 关键词：Infant behaviour ; Facilitated tucking ; Non-nutritive sucking ; Pain ; Preterm infants
• 刊名：International Journal of Nursing Studies
• 出版年：2012
• 期刊代码：134_00207489
• 类别：med
• 出版时间：March, 2012
• 卷：49
• 期：3
• 页码：300-309
• 文件大小：355 K

摘要

Background

Preterm infants鈥?repeated exposure to painful procedures may contribute to negative consequences. Thus, improving preterm infants鈥?neurodevelopmental outcomes requires prioritising their pain management.

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of two non-pharmacological pain-relief strategies (non-nutritive sucking and facilitated tucking) with routine care on preterm infants鈥?pain, behavioural, and physiological responses before, during, and after heel-stick procedures.

Design

Prospective, randomised controlled crossover trial.

Setting

Level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Taipei.

Method

Thirty-four preterm infants (gestational age 29-37 weeks) needing three procedural heel sticks were recruited by convenience sampling and randomly assigned to a sequence of three treatments (two pain-relief interventions and the control condition): (1) routine care, non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, (2) non-nutritive sucking, facilitated tucking, routine care, and (3) facilitated tucking, routine care, non-nutritive sucking. Each treatment condition was performed on a different day to avoid any carry-over effect. Pain was measured by the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP), infant behaviour by a behavioural coding scheme, and physiological signals by electrocardiogram monitors. All data were collected 3 min without stimuli (baseline), during heel-stick procedures, and recovery.

Results

Infants receiving non-nutritive sucking and facilitated tucking had significantly lower mean (standard deviation) pain scores during heel-stick procedures (6.39 [3.35] and 7.15 [3.88], respectively) than those receiving routine care (9.52 [4.95]). Infants receiving non-nutritive sucking and facilitated tucking had significantly lower odds ratios (0.39, p = 0.011 and 0.34, p = 0.005, respectively) for pain (PIPP score 鈮?#xA0;6) than infants receiving routine care after adjusting for time, baseline pain scores, and infants鈥?characteristics. Similarly, infants receiving non-nutritive sucking and facilitated tucking had significantly lower odds ratios (0.23, p < 0.001 and 0.28, p = 0.03, respectively) for moderate-to-severe pain (PIPP score 鈮?#xA0;12) than infants receiving routine care. Infants receiving facilitated tucking had lower frequency ratios for stress-related behaviours, abnormal heart rates, and decreased oxygen saturation than infants receiving routine care.

Conclusions

Both non-nutritive sucking and facilitated tucking effectively reduced pain scores more than routine care during heel-stick procedures. Non-nutritive sucking reduced PIPP pain scores more effectively than facilitated tucking. However, facilitated tucking showed broader effects not only on relieving pain, but also on enhancing infants鈥?physiological and behavioural stability during heel-stick procedures.