Published online February 1, 2008
PEDIATRICS Vol. 121 No. 2 February 2008, pp. e327-e334 (doi:10.1542/10.1542/peds.2006-3719)
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Hatfield, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Polomano, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hatfield, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Polomano, R. C.
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?

ARTICLE

Analgesic Properties of Oral Sucrose During Routine Immunizations at 2 and 4 Months of Age

Linda A. Hatfield, PhD, CNNPa, Maryellen E. Gusic, MDb, Anne-Marie Dyer, MSc and Rosemary C. Polomano, PhD, RN, FAANd

a Pennsylvania State University School of Nursing, College of Health and Human Development, University Park, Pennsylvania
b Division of General Pediatrics, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine
c Division of Biostatistics, Public Health Sciences, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania
d Biobehavioral Research Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the analgesic properties of oral sucrose during routine immunizations in infants at 2 and 4 months of age.

PATIENTS AND METHODS. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted at a pediatric ambulatory care clinic. One-hundred healthy term infants scheduled to receive routine immunizations were recruited, randomly stratified into 2- or 4-month study groups, and further randomly assigned to receive 24% oral sucrose and pacifier or the sterile water control solution. The study preparations were administered 2 minutes before the combined diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, inactivated polio vaccine, and hepatitis B vaccine. Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine was administered 3 minutes after the combined injection, followed by the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 2 minutes after the H influenzae type b injection. The University of Wisconsin Children's Hospital Pain Scale measured serial acute pain responses for the treatment and control groups at baseline and 2, 5, 7, and 9 minutes after solution administration. Repeated-measures analysis of variance examined between-group differences and within-subject variability of treatment effect on overall pain scores.

RESULTS. Two- and 4-month-old infants receiving oral sucrose (n = 38) displayed reductions in pain scores 2 minutes after solution administration compared with 2- and 4-month-old infants in the placebo group (n = 45). Between-group comparisons for the oral sucrose and placebo groups showed lower pain responses at 5, 7, and 9 minutes after solution administration. The oral sucrose and placebo groups demonstrated their highest mean pain score at 7 minutes, with a mean pain score of 3.8 and 4.8, respectively. At 9 minutes, the placebo group had a mean pain score of 2.91 whereas the mean pain score for the oral sucrose group returned to near baseline, reflecting a 78.5% difference in mean pain score (oral sucrose – placebo) relative to the placebo mean.

CONCLUSIONS. Oral sucrose is an effective, easy-to-administer, short-acting analgesic for use during routine immunizations.

Key Words: immunizations • infant • pain • sucrose

Abbreviations: RCT—randomized, controlled trial • NNS—nonnutritive sucking • UWCH—University of Wisconsin Children's Hospital • CI—confidence interval • NNT—number needed to treat

The 2006 immunization schedule requires that infants and toddlers receive as many as 24 injections in the first 2 years of life and as many as 5 injections at a single visit.1 Despite proven benefits of immunization, some parents are reluctant to have their children immunized according to the recommended schedule.2 Reluctance to adhere with the recommended immunization schedule may be partially explained by parental perception that their children endure a substantial amount of pain during routine immunizations: almost twice the amount they hypothesize an adult undergoing a similar injection would experience.3 In a telephone survey conducted on a nationally representative sample of 1600 parents, 25% expressed concerns over the number of immunization injections that their child received during infancy.4 In addition, Woodin et al5 found that when a child received multiple injections at a single visit, the primary concern of both physicians and parents was pain.

Infants possess the anatomic and functional capacity for mounting responses to noxious stimuli before birth.6–10 Although the long-term consequences of pain and stress in human infants are unknown, evidence from animal trials propose that the pain and stress suffered early in life permanently alter the central nervous system.11–14 Long-term effects of unmanaged pain in human infants have been shown to include permanent impairment of elements of cognitive development, including learning, memory, and behavior,15 and increased somatization in childhood.16 The plasticity of the developing brain and the changes that occur in response to painful stimuli17 also contribute to altered perceptions of pain later in life.18,19 Early painful experiences affect children's future response to analgesia. Weisman et al20 found that inadequate analgesia in young children during initial procedures diminished the effects of adequate analgesia during subsequent procedures.

The American Pediatric Society, the Canadian Paediatric Society, and the American Pain Society21,22 recommend the use of sucrose for minor painful procedures in neonates. Sucrose has been examined for its effectiveness in calming distressed term newborns23 and for its analgesic properties in term and preterm infants for pain associated with venipuncture and heel lance.24 Although the analgesic properties of various amounts and concentrations of oral sucrose for procedure-related pain have been tested, the optimal dose of oral sucrose has not been established. Summaries of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that a single dose of 0.05 to 2.00 mL of 12% to 50% sucrose delivered by nonnutritive sucking (NNS) via a pacifier for ~2 minutes before a painful event is safe25 and effective in decreasing physiologic (eg, heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation)24,26 and behavioral pain indicators (eg, crying, facial expression, and motor activity),24,27 and in reducing overall composite pain scale scores among hospitalized neonates at 32 to 40 weeks of gestation.24

For healthy infants beyond the neonatal period, immunization is the most common office procedure. Analgesics for this routine intervention must be effective, safe, practical, and easy to use. Currently, pain associated with immunization is managed by acetaminophen,28 ibuprofen,28 or topical anesthetics,29–36 but these treatments may not provide the best relief or are not always practical for use on a routine basis. Few studies have examined the analgesic properties of sucrose beyond the neonatal period. In published studies, variations in the volume and concentration of oral sucrose have limited efforts to establish effective dosing parameters in infants and young children.24 Moreover, the lack of universally accepted criteria for quantifying analgesic responses in infants has led to considerable differences in interpreting findings from studies evaluating the efficacy of oral sucrose. Previous studies have measured proportion, percentage, or duration of crying as indicators of pain.37–41 Research on cry in preterm and term infants has delineated certain properties of cry, such as pitch, intensity, melody, and harmonics, as indicators of pain,42–45 but these characteristics have not been adequately studied in trials of oral sucrose. Although cry duration is of some value in determining stress responses, it alone does not necessarily confirm or refute the presence of pain in infants.43,46,47 Recent evidence suggests that multivariable instruments that include physiologic, behavioral, and contextual indicators yield composite pain scores that are more predictive and valid measures of pain in infants.44,48 To date, few studies have incorporated such measures for evaluating the efficacy of oral sucrose.

We conducted an RCT to evaluate the analgesic properties of oral sucrose during routine immunization in infants at 2 and 4 months of age. Our primary outcome, acute behavioral pain response, was quantified by using a previously validated composite pain scale for preverbal and nonverbal children.49


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Study Design
A prospective, repeated measures, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial examined the analgesic efficacy of oral sucrose during routine immunizations. Institutional review board approval was obtained for the duration of the study (HY03-315).

Sample-Size Calculation
Sample size was calculated on the basis of the numbers of subjects exposed to each treatment condition to yield sufficient statistical power capable of detecting a 20% reduction in the primary outcome, the UWCH pain level scores, between the sucrose intervention groups and placebo control subjects. Institutional review board approval allowed provisions for oversampling (estimated at 20%) to account for participant attrition, disenrollment, or incomplete data sets. The adjusted sample size of 100 infants was equally divided among the 2 treatment and age groups.

Sample and Randomization Assignment
A convenience sample of 100 eligible infants was identified from a consecutive series of patients who visited the university-affiliated ambulatory pediatric clinic for routine immunizations at 2 and 4 months of age. Healthy, developmentally appropriate infants born at 37 to 42 weeks' gestation, with birth weight >2.5 kg, and who presented without evidence of recent illness were recruited for the study. Infants were excluded if they had been fed 30 minutes before immunization, been given acetaminophen the day of the immunizations, had been introduced to solid food, or were not acclimated to a pacifier. Random assignment was determined using a computer-generated random-numbers table. Infants were assigned by progressive random assignment to the stratified 2- or 4-month group and then further randomly assigned into the placebo control (sterile water) or oral sucrose group (Fig 1). Infants participated in the study at 1 point, at either their 2- or 4-month scheduled appointment.


Figure 1
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 1 Randomization table.

 
Study Procedures
The vaccines used in this study included those vaccines used routinely in this practice site: a combined diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B, and polio vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline (Research Triangle Park, NC), a Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine from Aventis Pasteur (Swiftwater, PA), and a heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine from Wyeth (Philadelphia, PA). A 1-inch, 25-gauge disposable needle was used for all of the infants.

All of the study personnel, except for the research assistant who prepared the study solutions, were blinded to the treatment conditions and assignment throughout the duration of the study. Only the statisticians and data monitoring committee had access to the unblinded data, but none had any contact with study participants. The oral sucrose solution consisted of a 24% disaccharide solution manufactured by Children's Medical Ventures (Norwell, MA). A weight-based dose of sucrose (0.6 mL/kg) was calculated using the average birth weight of a term infant (3.4 kg). This dose is consistent with the 2-mL dose of oral sucrose for term infants recommended by the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews.24 The placebo control solution was the same weight-based volume of sterile water. Both solutions were clear, nonodorous, similar in physical characteristics (texture), and indistinguishable. NNS was provided in this study with a pacifier introduced into the infant's mouth without the presentation of breast milk or formula. NNS was encouraged by gentle rhythmic stimulation of the pacifier by the parent or clinic nurse.

Infants participating in the study were not swaddled, cuddled, restrained, or constrained during the administration of the oral sucrose or placebo or during the data collection period. Infants sat supported in their parent's lap facing the clinic nurse. Parents were asked to hold the infants' hands midline to their body to prevent injury to the child. A very small percentage of parents did not wish to support their infants during the immunizations and placed their infants in a supine position on the examining table. Infants randomly assigned to both the oral sucrose NNS group and placebo control NNS group received the study preparation via a syringe onto the surface of the tongue followed immediately by the insertion of a pacifier into the mouth. The pacifier was held in place by the parent or the clinic nurse 2 minutes before, during, and 7 minutes after the initial immunization.

Once all of the immunizations were administered and pain assessments recorded, the study was completed, and no additional study care or monitoring was required. A follow-up telephone interview with the parent or primary caregiver was offered to all of the participants within 24 hours of the office visit to address any subsequent questions or concerns regarding the study.

Primary Outcome
The primary study outcome, acute behavioral pain response, was assessed by using the University of Wisconsin Children's Hospital (UWCH) Pain Scale (Fig 2). 49 This instrument consists of 5 measurement domains, cry, facial expression, behavioral, body movement, and sleep, which have been shown to be reliable and valid indicators of responses to pain. Acceptable psychometric properties are reported for the tool, which include internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's {alpha}) of .93 (182 observations) and interrater reliability of r = .92 (58 observations). Cronbach's {alpha} for all categories excluding sleep is .87 (154 observations). Correlations of .86 for vocal, .81 for facial, .82 for body movement, .78 for behavioral, and .68 for sleep are reported for the scale with Wong-Baker Faces Scale criterion validity (r = .62; n = 68) and construct validity demonstrated by statistically significant reductions in scores after administration of pain medications during procedures. Each category in the tool was scored numerically along a 6-point ordinal scale from 0 denoting the absence of any response to 5 reflecting the highest degree of the response. The mean value for the 5 indicators provides an overall composite score for the level of observed behavioral pain, with higher scores representing greater pain.


Figure 2
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 2 UWCH pain scale for preverbal and nonverbal children (sleep excluded).

 
The principal investigator, who was experienced in the use of the UWCH Pain Scale ratings and blind to the treatment conditions, obtained the 5 behavioral pain response scores for each study participant. Baseline pain levels were assessed within 5 minutes before administration of the oral sucrose or placebo solutions. Two minutes after administering the study solutions, the combined diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis, inactivated polio vaccine, and hepatitis B vaccines were administered, and a second pain assessment was performed. Exactly 3 minutes after the combined injection, the H influenzae type b vaccine was administered, and the third pain assessment was obtained. Two minutes after this injection, the final injection, pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, was administered and a fourth pain assessment recorded. The fifth and final pain observation occurred 2 minutes after the last pneumococcal conjugate vaccine injection. Infants were dropped from the study if crying was evident before the study intervention, because this limited the delivery of the solution. Infants were also not enrolled if parents withdrew their consent at any time during the study.

Statistical Analyses
Statistical analyses of the behavioral pain response data were conducted by using SAS 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). Demographic and other baseline variables were compared between treatment groups to assess the similarity of the groups. Reliability and validity measures were examined for the UWCH Pain Scale in the context of the study outcomes, and the distribution of UWCH scores is reported. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was performed to determine the effects of treatment, age group, and time on pain responses. Unless otherwise noted, P values were adjusted using the Tukey-Kramer procedure for multiple comparisons. A significance criterion of .01 was used for all of the statistical tests.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
During the study period (March 2004 to April 2005), 100 eligible infants were consented and enrolled in the study. Data from 83 infants (oral sucrose: n = 38; placebo: n = 45) were analyzed. No statistically significant differences were found between groups with respect to gender (P = .71), gestation age (P = .91), birth weight (P = .85), and type of delivery (P = .33; Table 1). Data from 17 infants were not included in the analysis for the following reasons: infant moved before appointment (n = 1), infant was inconsolable after physical examination (n = 7), parent fed infant before study solution administration (n = 1), mother was on maintenance methadone (n = 1), infant exhibited sympathy crying when sibling received immunization (n = 1), infant refused solution (n = 3), infant choked and refused the solution (n = 1, self-resolved within 10 seconds), mother did not want to wake child to receive solution (n = 1), and infant received immunizations before study solution was administered (n = 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1 Study Characteristics

 
Efficacy of sucrose in mediating pain responses after vaccination was assessed and measured using the UWCH Pain Scale. Within each treatment, contrasts were constructed to test for differences in pain response between the 2- and 4-month age groups at 0, 2, 5, 7, and 9 minutes posttreatment administration. Even without adjusting for multiple comparisons, none of these contrasts were found to be statistically significant. Because these contrasts were not significant, additional contrasts were constructed, combining age groups within treatment, to test for differences in pain response among sucrose and sterile water at 2, 5, 7, and 9 minutes after treatment administration. These results were all statistically significant, with P values, adjusted for multiple comparisons, of <.01.

Mean pain response for sucrose and sterile water, difference in pain response for sucrose and sterile water, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and associated P values for baseline and 2, 5, 7, and 9 minutes after treatment administration are shown in Table 2. The mean difference in pain scores between the sucrose and sterile water at baseline was –0.02 (P = .926), at 2 minutes was –1.83 (P < .0001), at 5 minutes was –1.34 (P < .001), at 7 minutes was –1.01 (P < .01), and at 9 minutes was –2.16 (P < .001). At 9 minutes, the group receiving sucrose had mean behavioral pain response scores that were significantly lower (P < .001) and had returned closer to baseline than the control group's scores. The time at which the mean behavioral response exceeded a moderate amount (a score of 2–3 on the UWCH Pain Scale) also differed significantly between the 2 groups. In the group receiving sucrose, the behavioral pain response score exceeded 2 (mean: 2.96) at 5 minutes (after the second of 3 injections). In the group receiving sterile water, the behavioral pain response score (mean: 3.02) exceeded 3 at 2 minutes (after the first of 3 injections; Fig 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2 Treatment Intervention Means and 95% CIs

 

Figure 3
View larger version (6K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		FIGURE 3 Behavioral pain response scores over time (mean ± SE) for 2-month-old (A) and 4-month-old (B) infants.

 
Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's {alpha}) measures were obtained for the UWCH Pain Scale for each of the 5 time points from baseline to 9 minutes. At baseline, Cronbach's {alpha} was r = .992 (n = 92) and ranged from .911 to .988 for the other 4 time periods (2–9 minutes). Additional analysis examined the duration of behavioral responses over time (Table 2).


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 
Administration of 2 mL of a 24% oral sucrose solution 2 minutes before routine immunizations is effective in decreasing maximum immunization pain and shortens the time before returning to a near normal state in infants at 2 and 4 months of age. The heightened behavioral pain responses observed in infants receiving sterile water reflect greater pain intensity compared with the infants who received sucrose. Both groups reached a maximum pain response immediately after the last immunization (at 7 minutes), of 3.8 and 4.8, respectively. The group receiving sucrose returned to near normal 2 minutes later at 0.59, whereas the placebo group remained at 2.91 (after 9 minutes), reflecting a 78.5% difference in mean pain score relative to sterile-water mean pain score. Effect size, measured as the standardized difference between 2 means,50 for each treatment point ranged from –0.025 to –2.191 for the 5 time periods from baseline to 9 minutes (Table 2). The efficacy of this intervention persisted for ≥9 minutes after administration.

Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) analysis provides additional support for the use of oral sucrose before immunization in infants. Within the concept of NNT analysis, values of 4 and 2 are favorable values for determining the effectiveness of this intervention. The NNT with 0.6 mL/kg of 24% sucrose to achieve a behavioral pain score of 0 or 1 at 2 minutes after sucrose administration is 4 (NNT = 1/[0.605 – 0.311] = 3.40). The NNT to observe a behavioral pain score of 0 or 1 at 9 minutes after the administration of sucrose is 2 (NNT = 1/[0.842 – 0.333] = 1.96). Thus, pediatric health care providers would need to treat only a small number of infants to document the efficacy of oral sucrose in reducing pain associated with immunization.

Our sample size of 17 to 25 in each group is within the range of other RCTs that also detected favorable treatment differences between sucrose and placebo using similar outcomes. Haouari et al51 showed a 50% reduction in crying time with heel sticks using 25% sucrose (volume 2 mL) with 15 subjects in each of 3 treatment groups exposed to graded concentrations of sucrose and a placebo group. Blass et al52 had fewer subjects, 10 in each group, testing the efficacy of sucrose by different methods of delivery, syringe versus pacifier. Reis et al41 enrolled 15 to 16 subjects in multiple groups comparing the effects of sucrose with immunization.

The uniform dosing used for all of the study infants is a strength of this study. In previous research, the volume and concentration of sucrose varied from study to study. A weight/volume dose of study solution was administered to all of the infants participating in the study, and this dose of oral sucrose significantly reduced the behavioral pain responses of both 2- and 4-month-old infants.

A composite pain scale is considered the most valid and predictive measure of pain in infants.44,48 Although previous studies37–41 measured proportion, percentage, or duration of cry as indicators of pain, our study used a multivariate pain scale (UWCH) that includes physiologic, behavioral, and contextual indices to assess behavioral pain response. High internal consistency reliability was demonstrated for the UWCH Pain Scale using data from 92 participants with a total of 460 pain rating observations, a much larger number compared with the 74 subjects and 182 observations reported in the original work on this pain measure.49

Parents have shown a strong desire to want to hold infants at the time of administration of injections.41 Although there are limited data regarding factors affecting infant responses to pain during immunization, 1 RCT demonstrated no differences in crying duration, facial expressions, and pain levels whether infants were positioned supine or held by a parent.53 The study design controlled for nonnociceptive fiber stimulation by requesting that parents support their infants in their laps facing the clinic nurse or lay their child supine on the examining table. Parents were discouraged from swaddling, cuddling, or restraining their infants during data collection, because these activities could activate nerve fibers that carry nonnociceptive information and decrease or inhibit nociceptive transmission. Although gender and age have not been found to be significant predictors of pain response, parents have exhibited more coping-promoting gestures, such as talking with female infants.54

Although necessary to quantify the duration of sucrose analgesia, the practice of extending routine immunizations over several minutes is not common place and limits the ability to generalize our findings. Many ambulatory pediatric clinics administer multiple immunizations serially without significant time in between vaccinations or provide them simultaneously during a single visit. In all 4 of the treatment groups, the behavioral pain response scores increased with each immunization. Additional research should determine whether the concentration and weight/volume dose of sucrose administered independent of other interventions are adequate to balance the pain intensity of 3 serial or multiple simultaneous immunizations.


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 
Efforts to minimize pain associated with immunizations in the first few months of life have implications for promoting parental adherence to immunization schedules and thereby preventing a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases. Recent data suggest that exposure to repeated or severe pain in early life can subsequently affect the development of the central nervous system11–14 and may ultimately have long-lasting effects on neurologic function and behaviors.18 This challenges clinicians to identify strategies to reduce pain associated with this important and common procedure.

The ideal preprocedural analgesic for minor invasive procedures would be a cost-effective, inexpensive, short-acting agent with few associated risks.55 The analgesic should be easy to implement and require no additional training for the provider or additional monitoring of the infant. This study observed that a weight-based volume dose calculation of 0.6 mL/kg of a 24 g/1000 mL (24%) sucrose solution administered as a preprocedural analgesic before routine immunizations significantly reduced pain scores after each of the 3 immunizations. Although sucrose did not eliminate pain at any point in time, other pain reduction or comforting measures (acetaminophen, distraction, holding, feeding, etc) used in conjunction with sucrose administration could provide additional comfort for infants.21

Sucrose is inexpensive, short acting, nonsedating, easily administered, noninvasive, and commercially available. Administration of sucrose does not require additional training and does not expose the infant to risks greater than those associated with breast or bottle feeding. The rapid onset and the absence of long-term effects of the analgesia facilitate its use for pain prevention during common procedures in ambulatory practice sites and in hospital settings.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by American Nurses Foundation grant 2003051. Dr Hatfield is an Aventis Pasteur American Nurses Foundation Scholar and recipient of the 2003 American Nurses Foundation grant.

We thank David Mauger, PhD (Public Health Sciences, Penn State University College of Medicine), for assistance in preparing the randomization table and Denise Drago, MD (Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine), for assistance in recruitment and data collection. We also acknowledge the contributions of the physicians, nurses, and medical charts assistants at University Pediatric Associates at Pennsylvania State Children's Hospital and the parents who gave their consent for this study.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Accepted Jul 19, 2007.

Address correspondence to Linda A. Hatfield, PhD, CNNP, Pennsylvania State University School of Nursing, College of Health and Human Development, 307B HHD East, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: lal153{at}psu.edu

This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT00150189).

The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 CONCLUSIONS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Infectious Diseases. Recommended childhood immunization schedule: United States, 2006. Pediatrics. 2006;117 (1):239 –240[Free Full Text]
  2. Jacobson RM, Swan A, Adegbenro A, et al. Making vaccines more acceptable-methods to prevent and minimize pain and other common adverse events associated with vaccines. Vaccine. 2001;19(17–19) :2418 –2427
  3. Pillai Riddell R, Badali MA, Craig KD. Parental judgments of infant pain: Importance of perceived cognitive abilities, behavioral cues and contextual cues. Pain Res Manag. 2004;9 (2):73 –80[Medline]
  4. Gellin BG, Maibach EW, Marcuse EK. Do parents understand immunizations? A national telephone survey. Pediatrics. 2000;106 (5):1097 –1102[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Woodin KA, Rodewald LE, Humiston SG, Carges MS, Schaffer SJ, Szilagyi PG. Physician and parent opinions: are children becoming pincushions from immunizations? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149 (8):845 –849[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Anand KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(21) :1321 –1329
  7. Fitzgerald M. The development of descending brainstem control of spinal cord sensory processing. In: Hanson M, ed. Foetal and Neonatal Brainstem: Development and Clinical Issues. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 1991:127–136
  8. Andrews K, Fitzgerald M. The cutaneous withdrawal reflex in human neonates: sensitization, receptive fields and effects of contra lateral stimulation. Pain. 1994;56 (1):95 –101[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  9. Anand KJS, Carr D. The neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and neurochemistry of pain, stress and analgesia in newborns and children. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1989;36 (4):795 –822[Web of Science][Medline]
  10. Coskun V, Anand KJS. Development of Supraspinal pain processing. In: Anand KJS, McGrath PJ, eds. Pain in Neonates. 2nd ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science; 2000:23–54
  11. Fitzgerald M, Shaw A, McIntosh N. Postnatal development of the cutaneous flexor reflex: Comparative study of preterm infants and newborn rat pups. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1988;30 (4):520 –526[Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Anand KJ, Coskun V, Thrivikraman KV, Nemeroff CB, Plotsky PM. Long-term behavioral effects of repetitive pain in neonatal rat pups. Physiol Behav. 1999;66 (4):627 –637[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Anand KJS, Scalzo FM. Can adverse neonatal experiences alter brain development and subsequent behavior? Biol Neonate. 2000;77 (2):69 –82[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  14. Fitzgerald M, Shortland P. The effect of neonatal peripheral nerve section on the somatodendritic growth of sensory projection cells in the rat spinal cord. Brain Res. 1988;470 (1):129 –136[Medline]
  15. Bhutta AT, Cleves MA, Casey PH, Cradock MM, Anand KJS. Cognitive and behavioral outcomes of school-aged children who were born preterm: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2002;288 (6):728 –737[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Grunau RV, Whitfield MF, Petrie JH, Fryer EL. Early pain experience, child and family factors, as precursors of somatization: a prospective study of extremely premature and fullterm children. Pain. 1994;56 (3):353 –359[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  17. Bhutta AT, Anand KJS. Vulnerability of the developing brain. Neuronal mechanisms. Clin Perinatol. 2002;29 (3):357 –372[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  18. Grunau RV. Early pain in preterm infants: a model of long-term effects. Clin Perinatol. 2002;29 (3):373 –394, vii–viii[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  19. Grunau RV, Holsti L, Peters JW. Long-term consequences of pain in human neonates. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006;11 (4):268 –275[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  20. Weisman SJ, Bernstein B, Schechter NL. Consequences of inadequate analgesia during painful procedures in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998;152 (2):147 –149[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn and Section on Surgery, Canadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Committee; Batton DG, Barrington KJ, Wallman C. Prevention and management of pain in the neonate: an update [published correction appears in Pediatrics. 2007;119(2):425]. Pediatrics. 2006;118 (5):2231 –2241[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health; Task Force on Pain in Infants, Children, and Adolescents. The assessment and management of acute pain in infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatrics. 2001;108 (3):793 –797[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Barr RG, Quek VSH, Cousineau D, Oberlander TF, Brian J, Young S. Effects of intraoral sucrose on crying, mouthing, and hand-mouth contact in newborn and six week old infants. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1994;36 (7):608 –618[Web of Science][Medline]
  24. Stevens B, Yamada J, Ohlsson A. Sucrose for analgesia in newborn infants undergoing painful procedures [update of Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2001]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.2004 (4):CD001069
  25. Gibbins S, Stevens B, Hodnett E, Pinelli J, Ohlsson A, Darlington G. Efficacy and safety of sucrose for procedural pain relief in preterm and term neonates. Nurs Res. 2002;51 (6):375 –382[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  26. Fernandez M, Blass EM, Hernandez-Reif M, Field T, Diego M, Sanders C. Sucrose attenuates a negative electroencephalographic response to an aversive stimulus for newborns. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2003;24 (4):261 –266[Web of Science][Medline]
  27. Blass EM, Smith BA. Differential effects of sucrose, fructose, glucose and lactose on crying in 1 to 3 day-old human infants: qualitative and quantitative considerations. Dev Psychol. 1992;28 (5):804 –810[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  28. Jackson LA, Dunstan M, Starkovich P, et al. Prophylaxis with acetaminophen or ibuprofen for prevention of local reactions to the fifth diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-acellular pertussis vaccination: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2006;117 (3):620 –625[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Lindh V, Wiklund U, Blomquist HK, Hakansson S. EMLA cream and oral glucose for immunization pain in 3-month-old infants. Pain. 2003;104(1–2) :381 –388
  30. Giudice EL, Campbell JD. Needle-free vaccine delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2006;58 (1):68 –89[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  31. Bramson J, Dayball K, Evelegh C, Wan YH, Page D, Smith A. Enabling topical immunization via microporation: a novel method for pain-free and needle-free delivery of adenovirus-based vaccines. Gene Ther. 2003;10 (3):251 –260[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Halperin BA, Halperin SA, McGrath P, Smith B, Houston T. Use of lidocaine-prilocaine patch to decrease intramuscular injection pain does not adversely affect the antibody response to diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-inactivated poliovirus-Haemophilus influenzae type b conjugate and hepatitis B vaccines in infants from birth to six months of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21 (5):399 –405[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  33. Halperin SA, McGrath P, Smith B, Houston T. Lidocaine-prilocaine patch decreases the pain associated with the subcutaneous administration of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine but does not adversely affect the antibody response. J Pediatr. 2000;136 (6):789 –794[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  34. Cassidy KL, Reid GJ, McGrath PJ, Smith DJ, Brown TL, Finley GA. A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the EMLA patch for the reduction of pain associated with intramuscular injection in four to six-year-old children. Acta Paediatr. 2001;90(11) :1329 –1336
  35. Clark LM, Manworren RC. Immunizations: Could they hurt less? J Pediatr Health Care. 2001;15 (6):322 –323[Medline]
  36. Cohen LL, Blount RL, Cohen RJ, Schaen ER, Zaff JF. Comparative study of distraction versus topical anesthesia for pediatric pain management during immunizations. Health Psychol. 1999;18 (6):591 –598[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  37. Allen KD, White DD, Walburn JN. Sucrose as an analgesic agent for infants during immunization injections. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150 (3):270 –274[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Barr RG, Young SN, Wright JH, et al. "Sucrose analgesia" and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunizations at 2 and 4 months. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1995;16 (4):220 –225[Web of Science][Medline]
  39. Ramenghi LA, Webb AV, Shevlin PM, Green M, Evans DJ, Levene MI. Intra-oral administration of sweet-tasting substances and infants' crying response to immunization: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Biol Neonate. 2002;81 (3):163 –169[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  40. Lewindon PJ, Harkness L, Lewindon N. Randomised controlled trial of sucrose by mouth for the relief of infant crying after immunisation. Arch Dis Child. 1998;78 (5):453 –456[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Reis EC, Roth EK, Syphan JL, Tarbell SE, Holubkov R. Effective pain reduction for multiple immunization injections in young infants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157(11) :1115 –1120
  42. Michelsson K, Jarvenpaa AL, Rinne A. Sound spectrographic analysis of pain cry in preterm infants. Early Hum Dev. 1983;8 (2):141 –149[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  43. Green JA, Gustafson GE, McGhie AC. Changes in infants' cries as a function of time in a cry bout. Child Dev. 1998;69 (2):271 –279[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  44. Bellieni CV, Sisto R, Cordelli DM, Buonocore G. Cry features reflect pain intensity in term newborns: an alarm threshold. Pediatr Res. 2004;55 (1):142 –146[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  45. Runefors P, Arnbjonsson E. A sound spectrogram analysis of children's crying after painful stimuli during the first year of life. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2005;57 (2):90 –95[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  46. Porter FL, Miller RH, Marshall RE. Neonatal pain cries: effect of circumcision on acoustic features and perceived urgency. Child Dev. 1986;57 (3):790 –802[Web of Science][Medline]
  47. Gustafson GE, Harris KL. Women's responses to young infants' cries. Dev Psychol. 1990;26 (1):144 –152[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  48. Johnston CC, Sherrard A, Stevens B, Franck L, Stremler R, Jack A. Do cry features reflect pain intensity in preterm neonates? A preliminary study. Biol Neonate. 1999;76 (2):120 –124[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  49. Soetenga D, Frank J, Pellino TA, Hayes JS. Assessment of the validity and reliability of the University of Wisconsin Children's Hospital Pain Scale for Preverbal and Nonverbal Children. Pediatr Nurs. 1999;25 (6):670 –676[Medline]
  50. McCartney K, Rosenthal R. Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Dev. 2000;71 (1):173 –180[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  51. Haouari N, Wood C, Griffith G, Levene M. The analgesics effect of sucrose in full term infants: a randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 1995;310 :498 –500
  52. Blass EM, Shah A. Pain-reducing properties of sucrose in human newborns. Chem Senses. 1995;20 (1):29 –35[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Ipp M, Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ben David S, Stevens B, Koren G. Effects of age, gender and holding on pain response during infant immunization. Can J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;11 (1):e2 –e7[Medline]
  54. Piira T, Champion GD, Bustos T, Donnelly N, Lui K. Factors associated with infant pain response following an immunization injection. Early Hum Dev. 2007;83 (5):319–326
  55. Masters-Harte LD, Abdel-Rahman SM. Sucrose analgesia for minor procedures in newborn infants. Ann Pharmacother. 2001;35(7–8) :947 –952
PEDIATRICS (ISSN 1098-4275). ©2008 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

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
M. Ipp, P. C. Parkin, N. Lear, M. Goldbach, and A. Taddio
Order of Vaccine Injection and Infant Pain Response
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, May 1, 2009; 163(5): 469 - 472.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JWatch PediatricsHome page
Controlling the Pain of Immunizations in Infants
Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, February 13, 2008; 2008(213): 3 - 3.
[Full Text]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Hatfield, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Polomano, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hatfield, L. A.
Right arrow Articles by Polomano, R. C.
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?