4.5 Review

Evidence-based clinical guidelines on analgesia and sedation in newborn infants undergoing assisted ventilation and endotracheal intubation

Journal

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
Volume 108, Issue 2, Pages 208-217

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apa.14606

Keywords

Continuous positive airway pressure; Endotracheal intubation; Guidelines; Mechanical ventilation; Neonatal pain

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim This review informed pain control guidelines for clinicians performing mechanical ventilation, nasal continuous positive airway pressure and endotracheal intubation on term and preterm newborn infants. Methods We reviewed literature published between 1986 and June 2017 on analgesia and sedation during assisted ventilation and before endotracheal intubation in newborn infants admitted to neonatal intensive care units. The subsequent guidelines were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results Our review produced five strong standard of care recommendations. One, reduce neonatal stress and use nonpharmacological analgesia during invasive ventilation. Two, favour intermittent boluses of opioids, administered after pain scores and before invasive procedures, during short expected periods of mechanical ventilation, mainly in preterm infants affected by respiratory distress syndrome. Three, do not use morphine infusion in preterm infants under 27 gestational weeks. Four, always use algometric scores to titrate analgesic drugs doses. Five, use premedication before endotracheal intubation for a more rapid, less painful, less traumatic and safer manoeuvre. We also developed 30 conditional recommendations on therapeutic options. Conclusion Our review produced 35 recommendations on standard care and therapeutic options relating to the analgesia and sedation of newborn infants during ventilation and before endotracheal intubation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available