Article

Co-bedding as a Comfort measure For Twins undergoing painful procedures (CComForT Trial)

Women's and Newborn Health Program, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
BMC Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 1.92). 12/2009; 9. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-76
Source: DOAJ

ABSTRACT Abstract

Background

Co-bedding, a developmental care strategy, is the practice of caring for diaper clad twins in one incubator (versus separating and caring for each infant in separate incubators), thus creating the opportunity for skin-to-skin contact and touch between the twins. In studies of mothers and their infants, maternal skin-to-skin contact has been shown to decrease procedural pain response according to both behavioral and physiological indicators in very preterm neonates. It is uncertain if this comfort is derived solely from maternal presence or from stabilization of regulatory processes from direct skin contact. The intent of this study is to compare the comfort effect of co-bedding (between twin infants who are co-bedding and those who are not) on infant pain response and physiologic stability during a tissue breaking procedure (heelstick).

Methods/Design

Medically stable preterm twin infants admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit will be randomly assigned to a co-bedding group or a standard care group. Pain response will be measured by physiological and videotaped facial reaction using the Premature Infant Pain Profile scale (PIPP). Recovery from the tissue breaking procedure will be determined by the length of time for heart rate and oxygen saturation to return to baseline. Sixty four sets of twins (n = 128) will be recruited into the study. Analysis and inference will be based on the intention-to-treat principle.

Discussion

If twin contact while co-bedding is determined to have a comforting effect for painful procedures, then changes in current neonatal care practices to include co-bedding may be an inexpensive, non invasive method to help maintain physiologic stability and decrease the long term psychological impact of procedural pain in this high risk population. Knowledge obtained from this study will also add to existing theoretical models with respect to the exact mechanism of comfort through touch.

Trial registration

NCT00917631

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Marsha, M., ML. Lynn Campbell-Yeo, Jun 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
194 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Infant acute pain and distress is commonplace. Infancy is a period of exponential development. Unrelieved pain and distress can have implications across the lifespan. To assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for infant and child (up to three years) acute pain, excluding breastmilk, sucrose, and music. Analyses accounted for infant age (preterm, neonate, older) and pain response (pain reactivity, pain-related regulation). We searched CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2011), EMBASE (1980 to April 2011), PsycINFO (1967 to April 2011), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982 to 2011), Dissertation Abstracts International (1980 to 2011) and www.clinicaltrials.gov. We also searched reference lists and contacted researchers via electronic list-serves. Participants included infants from birth to three years. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT cross-overs that had a no-treatment control comparison were eligible for inclusion in the analyses. We examined studies that met all inclusion criteria except for study design (e.g. had an active control) to qualitatively contextualize results. We refined search strategies with three Cochrane-affiliated librarians. At least two review authors extracted and rated 51 articles. Study quality ratings were based on a scale by Yates and colleagues. We analyzed the standardized mean difference (SMD) using the generic inverse variance method. We also provided qualitative descriptions of 20 relevant but excluded studies. Fifty-one studies, with 3396 participants, were analyzed. The most commonly studied acute procedures were heel-sticks (29 studies) and needles (n = 10 studies). The largest SMD for treatment improvement over control conditions on pain reactivity were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.42; 95% CI -0.68 to -0.15; neonate: SMD -1.45, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.57), kangaroo care (preterm: SMD -1.12, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.21), and swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.97; 95% CI -1.63 to -0.31). For immediate pain-related regulation, the largest SMDs were: non-nutritive sucking-related interventions (preterm: SMD -0.38; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.17; neonate: SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.25), kangaroo care (SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.50 to -0.03), swaddling/facilitated tucking (preterm: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.14 to -0.36), and rocking/holding (neonate: SMD -0.75; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.30). The presence of significant heterogeneity limited our confidence in the lack of findings for certain analyses. There is evidence that different non-pharmacological interventions can be used with preterms, neonates, and older infants to significantly manage pain behaviors associated with acutely painful procedures.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2011; 7(10):CD006275. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006275.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Physiologic stability is a omnipresent concept in the scientific literature. However, there is a limited number of conceptual definition of this concept in the literature. A concept analysis about physiologic stability is a way to set the theoric basis of this multidimensional concept. Mutilidimension illutrated by the multiples utilisations of the concept in a various way. In this meaning, the identification of the attributes, the antecedents and the consequences of the physiologic stability concept conduct to the elaboration of a conceptual definition for the concept. The aim of this scientific contribution is also to develop a reflexion about the utilisation of the concept physiologic stability without defining it at first.
    Recherche en soins infirmiers 03/2011; DOI:10.1111/jan.12391
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the increased birth rate of twins during the recent decades and improved prognosis of preterm infants, there is a need to explore measures that could optimise their growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes. It has been postulated that co-bedding simulates the twins' intrauterine experiences in which co-regulatory behaviours between the twins are observed. These behaviours are proposed to benefit the twins by reducing their stress, which may promote growth and development. However, uncertainties exist on the benefit-risk profile of co-bedding in practice. We aimed to assess the effects of co-bedding on growth, and other clinically relevant physiological and neurodevelopmental outcomes for stable preterm twins. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (hosted by EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our shortlisted articles using keywords and MesH headings, up to July 2012. We included randomised controlled trials with randomisation either at the level of each twin pair and/or at the level of neonatal unit. We excluded cross-over studies. We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We contacted the authors of the included studies if important information was missing from their published papers. We expressed our results using risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) where appropriate with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We adjusted the unit of analysis from individual infants to twin pairs by averaging the measurement for each twin pair (continuous outcome) or by counting the outcome as positive if any of the twins developed the outcome (dichotomous outcome). Five studies met the inclusion criteria; however, data were only available for analysis in four studies. Four of the five included studies were small and had significant limitations in design. As each study reported the outcomes differently, data for most of the outcomes were effectively contributed by a single study. There were no differences between co-bedded twins and twins that received separate care in the rate of weight gain (MD 0.20 grams/kg/day, 95% CI: -1.60 to 2.00), apnoea, bradycardia and desaturation (A/B/D) episodes (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.18 to 4.05; 1 study), length of hospital stay (MD -4.90 days, 95% CI: -35.23 to 25.43) and infection rates (typical RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.30 to 2.31; 3 studies). There were also no differences in parental perceptions of care. Co-bedded twins appeared to spend more time crying, but they also seemed to spend more time in quiet sleep. There was low or very low quality of evidence across all the outcomes. There was insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of co-bedding stable preterm twins to make any recommendation in practice. There is a need for future studies that are adequately powered to detect clinically important differences in growth and neurodevelopment. Such studies should also assess harms including infections and medication errors, and caregiver satisfaction.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 12(12):CD008313. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD008313.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor