• Int J Nurs Stud · Jul 2013

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Effects of combined use of non-nutritive sucking, oral sucrose, and facilitated tucking on infant behavioural states across heel-stick procedures: a prospective, randomised controlled trial.

    • Jen-Jiuan Liaw, Luke Yang, Chuen-Ming Lee, Hueng-Chuen Fan, Yue-Cune Chang, and Li-Ping Cheng.
    • School of Nursing, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. jiuan@mail.ndmctsgh.edu.tw
    • Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Jul 1;50(7):883-94.

    BackgroundPain and stress agitate preterm infants, interrupting their sleep. Frequent high arousal states may affect infants' brain development and illness recovery. Preserving infants' sleep and relieving their pain during painful procedures are both important for their health.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of different combinations of non-nutritive sucking (sucking), oral sucrose, and facilitated tucking (tucking) with routine care on infants' sleep-wake states before, during, and after heel-stick procedures.DesignProspective, randomised controlled trial.SettingLevel III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Taipei.MethodA convenience sample of 110 infants (gestational age 26.4-37 weeks) needing heel sticks were randomly assigned to five combinations of non-pharmacological treatments: sucking-oral sucrose-tucking; sucking-oral sucrose; oral sucrose-tucking; sucking-tucking; and routine care. Infant states, measured by a state-coding scheme, included quiet sleep, active sleep, transition, quiet awake, active awake, and fussing or crying. All states were recorded at 1-min intervals during four phases: baseline, intervention, heel-stick procedures, and recovery.ResultsInfants receiving sucking-oral sucrose-tucking or sucking-oral sucrose experienced 52.8% (p=0.023) and 42.6% (p=0.063) more quiet-sleep occurrences than those receiving routine care after adjusting for phase, baseline states, non-treatment sucking during baseline and recovery, positioning, and infants' characteristics. Infants receiving oral sucrose-tucking, sucking-oral sucrose, sucking-oral sucrose-tucking, and sucking-tucking experienced 77.3% (p<0.001), 72.1% (p=0.008), 51.5% (p=0.017), and 33.0% (p=0.105) fewer occurrences of fussing or crying, respectively, than those receiving routine care after adjusting for related factors.ConclusionsThe four treatment combinations differentially reduced infants' high arousal across heel-stick procedures. The combined use of oral sucrose-tucking, sucking-oral sucrose, and sucking-oral sucrose-tucking more effectively reduced occurrences of infant fussing or crying than routine care. Treatment combinations of sucking-oral sucrose-tucking and sucking-oral sucrose also better facilitated infants' sleep than routine care. To preserve infants' sleep, clinicians should use combinations of non-nutritive sucking, oral sucrose, and facilitated tucking to reduce agitation during painful procedures.Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…