This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Luhmann, J.
Right arrow Articles by Kennedy, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Luhmann, J.
Right arrow Articles by Kennedy, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Therapeutics & Toxicology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 3 March 2004, pp. e217-e220

ELECTRONIC ARTICLE

A Comparison of Buffered Lidocaine Versus ELA-Max Before Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Insertions in Children

Janet Luhmann, MD*, Sarah Hurt, CCLS{ddagger}, Mario Shootman, PhD§ and Robert Kennedy, MD*

* Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, St Louis Children’s Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
§ Division of Internal Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
{ddagger} Division of Child Life Services, St Louis Children’s Hospital, St Louis, Missouri

Background. Peripheral intravenous catheter (PIV) insertion is a common, painful experience for many children in the pediatric emergency department. Although local anesthetics such as injected buffered lidocaine have been shown to be effective at reducing pain and anxiety associated with PIV insertion, they are not routinely used. ELA-Max, a topical local anesthetic, has the advantage of needle-free administration but has not been compared with buffered lidocaine for PIV insertion.

Objective. To compare the reduction of pain and anxiety during PIV insertion provided by subcutaneous buffered 1% lidocaine or topical ELA-Max in children.

Methods. A randomized trial in children 4 to 17 years old undergoing PIV insertion with 22-gauge catheters was conducted. Children received either buffered lidocaine or ELA-Max. Buffered lidocaine was administered by using 30-gauge needles to inject 0.1 to 0.2 mL subcutaneously just before PIV insertion. ELA-Max was applied to the skin and occluded with Tegaderm 30 minutes before PIV insertion. Self-reported Visual Analog Scale (VAS) questionnaires (rating on a scale of 1–10; 1 = no pain, anxiety) were completed by patients and their parents before PIV insertion to assess baseline perceptions about pain and anxiety associated with PIV insertion and immediately after PIV insertion to assess pain and anxiety associated with the experience. After PIV insertion, the nurse who inserted the PIV also completed a VAS questionnaire assessing technical difficulty and satisfaction with the local anesthesia. A blinded observer also completed a VAS questionnaire to assess pain and anxiety associated with the PIV insertion. Data were analyzed by using {chi}2 and t tests.

Results. Sixty-nine subjects were enrolled, and questionnaires were competed by all (mean age: 12.1 ± 4.5 years; 61% female). There were no differences for buffered lidocaine and ELA-Max groups in age, gender, race, prior IV experience, or baseline pain and anxiety. There were no significant differences between buffered lidocaine and ELA-Max in mean pain and anxiety after PIV insertion by patient, parent, and blinded observer ratings. Nurse ratings of technical difficulty, number of PIV-insertion attempts, and satisfaction with local anesthesia also were not significantly different for buffered lidocaine and ELA-Max groups.

Conclusions. ELA-Max provided similar pain and anxiety reduction during PIV insertion in children compared with injected buffered lidocaine. Technical difficulty and satisfaction by nurses inserting the PIV also were similar.

Key Words: ELA-Max • buffered lidocaine • IV insertion

Abbreviations: PIV, peripheral intravenous catheter • IV, intravenous catheter • VAS, Visual Analog Scales

Received for publication Jul 1, 2003; Accepted Nov 6, 2003.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
J. Pershad, S. C. Steinberg, and T. M. Waters
Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Anesthetic Agents During Peripheral Intravenous Cannulation in the Pediatric Emergency Department
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, October 1, 2008; 162(10): 952 - 961.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Evid. Based Med.Home page
Other articles noted
Evid. Based Med., September 1, 2004; 9(5): e5 - e5.
[Full Text] [PDF]