Reducing pain in ED patients during lumbar puncture: the efficacy and feasibility of iontophoresis, collaborative approach.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the efficacy and feasibility of a collaborative iontophoresis procedure for dermal anesthesia prior to lumbar puncture (LP) in adult ED patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive lidocaine by iontophoresis or needle infiltration. Emergency nurses and physicians completed a collaborative LP procedure in those randomized to iontophoresis. Usual care was provided for needle infiltration subjects. Pain was assessed at 3 points using an 11-point numeric rating scale to measure pain, and provider satisfaction was recorded. RESULTS: Ninety subjects completed the protocol: infiltration group (n = 48) and iontophoresis group (n = 42). Subjects in the lidocaine infiltration group reported significantly more pain (mean, 4.1A+/-2.6) than subjects in the iontophoresis group (mean, 0.9A+/-1.6) ( t82 = 1.26, P =.000). There was no significant difference between the pain experienced during the lumbar puncture by both groups. Mean pain score during LP was 3.7 (+/-2.7) for iontophoresis compared to 3.4 (+/-2.9) for infiltration. More iontophoresis subjects (18 or 43.9%) required "rescue" lidocaine than infiltration subjects (12 or 24.5%) (chi-square 1 =3.79, P =.0515). Providers reported greater satisfaction with the collaborative procedure compared to physician administered lidocaine infiltration and anecdotally reported that iontophoretic anesthesia administration does not obscure anatomical landmarks, as needle infiltration can. Time for completion of dermal anesthesia using the iontophoretic procedure was longer than time for completion of dermal anesthesia using the lidocaine infiltration procedure (12A+/-12 min vs 2A+/-1.7 min); however, no statistically significant difference in total LP time or ED length of stay was found. NURSING IMPLICATIONS: Dermal anesthesia by lidocaine iontophoresis in patients undergoing an LP with emergency nurses and physicians working in collaboration during the procedure takes longer, but decreases the pain of administering anesthesia, increases provider satisfaction, and fosters collaborative practice in the emergency setting. Iontophoretic administration of anesthesia for LP is now an option for dermal anesthesia in our emergency department.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of iontophoresis with lidocaine for dermal anesthesia in ED pediatric patients.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of iontophoresis with 30 mA of lidocaine for dermal anesthesia in children younger than 84 months in the emergency department and the usefulness of a modified version of the Pre-verbal, Early Verbal Pediatric Pain Scale (M-PEPPS). METHODS: Three expert nurses completed the protocol for iontophoresis and inserted an intravenous catheter. Parents scored pain by using the 10-cm visual analogue scale, nurses used the M-PEPPS, and children, if able, self-reported pain during the procedure and at needle stick. RESULTS: Serum lidocaine levels were within the normal laboratory reference range. Adverse effects were minor and disappeared prior to discharge from the emergency department. Eighty-five percent of the children had M-PEPPS scores < or=6 during the iontophoresis procedure; 42% had scores of < or =6 at needle stick. Eighty-two percent of the parents marked the vas as < or =30 during the procedure; 65% indicated scores of < or =30 at needle stick. Four children self-reported "a lot of pain" at needle stick. Although low to moderate, M-PEPPS scores and parental pain ratings were significantly correlated at both points in time. DISCUSSION: Iontophoresis with lidocaine is safe for use in young children. It does not create any long-term untoward effects and is quite well tolerated. It is not clear if the higher pain scores at needle stick reflect anxiety and fear of a needle or a painful experience.