Preventive effect of a vapocoolant spray on propofol-induced pain: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study

Moon, Young Eun; Lee, Michael Y.; Kim, Dong Hyun

doi:10.1007/s00540-017-2386-3

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fossum et al (2016) has reported that vapocoolant spray is more effective compared with aerosol spray before venous catheterization for health care workers. Moon et al (2017) has shown that vapocoolant spray had an effect on propofol-induced pain similar to the anesthetic effects of topical lidocaine. In addition, Collado-Mesa et al (2015) has shown that vapocoolant spray prior to intradermal anesthetic injection in patients undergoing breast biopsy prompted decreased procedural pain and prevented negative experiences during intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In addition, cold sensations transmitted via delta cold-specific fibers exert central gating on pain sensation transmitted via C fibers (Moon, Kim, & Choi, 2013). Because the pain relevant effect of vapocoolant spray became known, this approach has been used in immunization in children and adults, venous cannulation, and other medical interventions with needles (Cohen et al, 2009; Collado-Mesa et al, 2015; Fossum et al, 2016; Mace, 2016; Moon, Lee, & Kim, 2017). Fossum et al (2016) has reported that vapocoolant spray is more effective compared with aerosol spray before venous catheterization for health care workers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Administration of ice is thought to have positive effects on ecchymosis and hematoma due to its physiological effects. The local physiological effect of ice is shown to decrease hemorrhage and blood flow by vasoconstriction and to decrease edema by decreasing metabolism, histamine discharge, and inflammatory processes (Amaniyan et al, 2016; Kucukguclu & Okumus, 2010; Moon et al, 2017). Moreover, it is a fact that cold achieves clotting by increasing the viscosity of blood and decreasing hemorrhage by contracting capillary surfaces (Guyton & Hall, 2005; Perry, 2010; Zaybak & Khorshid, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Vapocoolant Spray Prior to SC LMWH Injection: An Experimental Study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of vapocoolant spray administration prior to subcutaneous (SC) low molecular weight heparin injection on local ecchymosis, hematoma, and pain. This randomized controlled study was carried out on 64 patients (n = 128 injections) in an orthopedics and traumatology clinic. After randomization, vapocoolant spray and then heparin injection was applied on one arm. The second necessary dose of heparin was applied to his or her other arm as a placebo by a water spray. Then, the pain of the patients was assessed. After 2 days, ecchymosis and hematoma were evaluated. Significant lower pain scores were determined in applications in which the vapocoolant spray was used. There was no statically significant difference between the mean diameter values of ecchymosis in both arm groups. There was no hematoma on the injection site after injections. However, this method did not create any significant reductive effect on ecchymosis. Nurses are advised to take advantage of vapocoolant spray effects prior to SC heparin injection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Vapocoolant Spray Prior to SC LMWH Injection: An Experimental Study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to previous studies, 37 to 82.3% of patients experienced injection pain during propofol administration (23)(24)(25). Intravenous lidocaine could alleviate propofol-related injection pain (24), but was associated with metallic taste which negatively affected patients' satisfaction (26). Injection pain of propofol was determined by many factors, including the site of injection, size of vein, speed of injection, propofol concentration in the aqueous phase, and the buffering effect of blood (27).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation in outpatient gynecological procedures: a phase III multicenter randomized trial

Xu,

Yang,

Zeng

et al. 2024

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveCiprofol (also known as cipepofol and HSK3486), is a compound similar to propofol in chemical structure and hypnotic effect. Herein we evaluated the efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation in outpatient gynecological procedures.MethodsThis phase III multicenter randomized trial with a non-inferiority design was conducted in nine tertiary hospitals. We enrolled 135 women aged 18–65 years who were scheduled for ambulatory gynecological procedures. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ciprofol (0.4 mg/kg for induction and 0.2 mg/kg for maintenance) or propofol (2.0 mg/kg for induction and 1.0 mg/kg for maintenance) sedation in a 2:1 ratio. Patients and investigators for data collection and outcome assessment were blinded to study group assignments. The primary outcome was the success rate of sedation, defined as completion of procedure without remedial anesthetics. The non-inferiority margin was set at −8%. Secondary outcomes included time to successful induction, time to full awake, time to meet discharge criteria, and satisfaction with sedation assessed by patients and doctors. We also monitored occurrence of adverse events and injection pain.ResultsA total of 135 patients were enrolled; 134 patients (90 patients received ciprofol sedation and 44 patients propofol sedation) were included in final intention-to-treat analysis. The success rates were both 100% in the two groups (rate difference, 0.0%; 95% CI, −4.1 to 8.0%), i.e., ciprofol was non-inferior to propofol. When compared with propofol sedation, patients given ciprofol required more time to reach successful induction (median difference [MD], 2 s; 95% CI, 1 to 7; p < 0.001), and required more time to reach full awake (MD, 2.3 min; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.1; p < 0.001) and discharge criteria (MD, 2.3 min; 95% CI, 1.5 to 3.2; p < 0.001). Fewer patients in the ciprofol group were dissatisfied with sedation (relative risk, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.77; p = 0.024). Patients given ciprofol sedation had lower incidences of treat-emergent adverse events (34.4% [31/90] vs. 79.5% [35/44]; p < 0.001) and injection pain (6.7% [6/90] vs. 61.4% [27/44]; p < 0.001).ConclusionCiprofol for sedation in ambulatory gynecological procedures was non-inferior to propofol, with less adverse events and injection pain.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04958746.

show abstract

“…The results of Moon et al’s study investigating the effectiveness of cooling spray and lidocaine injection in propofol injection pain showed that both groups receiving cooling and lidocaine sprays experienced less pain than the control group; however, there was no significant difference between the two groups of lidocaine and cooling sprays in terms of pain score [ 38 ]. A study by Mace showed that a cooling spray was more successful in reducing venous needle insertion pain than a placebo [ 28 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooling spray or lidocaine spray and needle insertion pain in hemodialysis patients: an open-label cross-over randomized clinical trial

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The needle insertion pain to perform hemodialysis is the main challenge and a common problem that requires pain management techniques for patients’ comfort. Aim This study aimed to compare the effects of cooling and lidocaine sprays on needle insertion pain in hemodialysis patients. Methods In this randomized cross-over clinical trial study, the hemodialysis patients were selected through convenience sampling according to inclusion criteria and randomly assigned to three intervention groups using the block randomization method. Each patient received three interventions in a cross-over design: Cooling spray or 10% lidocaine spray or placebo spray. There was a 2-week wash-out time between each intervention. The pain score was measured four times for each patient by the Numerical Rating Scale. Results Forty-one hemodialysis patients were included. The results showed a significant interaction between time and group (p < 0.05), so only observations of time 1 with adjustment for baseline values were used to evaluate the effect of the intervention. Patients receiving cooling spray reported 2.29 less pain score on average compared to placebo (B=-2.29, 95% CI: -4.17 to -0.43; p < 0.05); Also, patients receiving cooling spray reported a 1.61 lower pain score than those receiving lidocaine spray, but this difference was not statistically significant (95% CI: -0.26 to 3.48; p > 0.05). Conclusion The cooling spray was effective in reducing the needle insertion pain. Although it was impossible to compare the pain scores at different times and following different interventions, the present study results can help supplement the existing knowledge regarding cooling and lidocaine sprays.

show abstract

Preventive effect of a vapocoolant spray on propofol-induced pain: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study

Cited by 7 publications

References 23 publications

Effects of Vapocoolant Spray Prior to SC LMWH Injection: An Experimental Study

Effects of Vapocoolant Spray Prior to SC LMWH Injection: An Experimental Study

Efficacy and safety of ciprofol for sedation in outpatient gynecological procedures: a phase III multicenter randomized trial

Cooling spray or lidocaine spray and needle insertion pain in hemodialysis patients: an open-label cross-over randomized clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About