Slow versus fast subcutaneous heparin injections for prevention of bruising and site pain intensity.

BACKGROUND: Heparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. Several studies have been carried out to determine if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given; however, the results of these studies have differed, and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the second update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). We also looked at haematoma at the injection site. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 June 2020. We undertook reference checking of included studies to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data via Covidence software and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes of interest were pain intensity at injection site and size and incidence of bruising. The secondary outcomes of interest were size and incidence of haematoma at injection site. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one new study for this update, resulting in a total of five included studies with 503 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Given the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and caregivers (personnel) in any of the included studies. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds, and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies. Four studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection; meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in site pain intensity immediately after slow injection when compared to fast injection (MD -1.52, 95% CI -3.56 to 0.53; 140 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of three studies indicated that site pain intensity may be slightly reduced 48 hours after the slow heparin injection compared to fast injection (MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.51; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Five studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours, and two studies assessed bruise size at 60 hours. Meta-analysis showed there may be a reduction in bruise size 48 hours (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.02; 503 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.06; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. There was no evidence of a difference in bruise size 72 hours after slow injection compared to fast injection (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.06; 140 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Three studies evaluated incidence of bruising and showed there may be a reduction in bruise incidence 48 hours (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60; 444 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. None of the included studies measured size or incidence of haematoma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Administering medication safely and enhancing patient comfort are the main aims of clinical nurses. In this review, we identified five RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity, bruise size and incidence. We found that pain may be slightly reduced 48 hours after slow injection. Similarly, there may be a reduction in bruise size and incidence after slow injection compared to fast injection 48 and 60 hours postinjection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. Accordingly, new trials with a more robust design, more participants, and a focus on different injection speeds will be useful in strengthening the certainty of the available evidence.

A Monoclonal Antibody for Malaria Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Additional interventions are needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by malaria. METHODS: We conducted a two-part, phase 1 clinical trial to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of CIS43LS, an antimalarial monoclonal antibody with an extended half-life, and its efficacy against infection with Plasmodium falciparum. Part A of the trial assessed the safety, initial side-effect profile, and pharmacokinetics of CIS43LS in healthy adults who had never had malaria. Participants received CIS43LS subcutaneously or intravenously at one of three escalating dose levels. A subgroup of participants from Part A continued to Part B, and some received a second CIS43LS infusion. Additional participants were enrolled in Part B and received CIS43LS intravenously. To assess the protective efficacy of CIS43LS, some participants underwent controlled human malaria infection in which they were exposed to mosquitoes carrying P. falciparum sporozoites 4 to 36 weeks after administration of CIS43LS. RESULTS: A total of 25 participants received CIS43LS at a dose of 5 mg per kilogram of body weight, 20 mg per kilogram, or 40 mg per kilogram, and 4 of the 25 participants received a second dose (20 mg per kilogram regardless of initial dose). No safety concerns were identified. We observed dose-dependent increases in CIS43LS serum concentrations, with a half-life of 56 days. None of the 9 participants who received CIS43LS, as compared with 5 of 6 control participants who did not receive CIS43LS, had parasitemia according to polymerase-chain-reaction testing through 21 days after controlled human malaria infection. Two participants who received 40 mg per kilogram of CIS43LS and underwent controlled human malaria infection approximately 36 weeks later had no parasitemia, with serum concentrations of CIS43LS of 46 and 57 µg per milliliter at the time of controlled human malaria infection. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults who had never had malaria infection or vaccination, administration of the long-acting monoclonal antibody CIS43LS prevented malaria after controlled infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; VRC 612 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04206332.).

Why we should be avoiding periorificial mimetic muscles when injecting tissue fillers.

BACKGROUND: Tissue fillers are generally safe and well tolerated by patients. However, complications do occur and may be very severe, such as intravascular injection (with occasional residual tissue loss, visual and neurological sequelae) and late nodularity and swelling. Methods to lessen the likelihood of complications have been the subject of much recent literature. Depth of injection has been identified as a key safety consideration. PATIENTS/METHODS: The role of injection of facial filler into the muscular layer of the face is explored in this article. Literature was explored using available search facilities to study the role of injections in or around this layer in the production of significant adverse reactions. RESULTS: A body of literature seems to suggest that injection into mimetic musculature of the face especially the musculature in the periorbital and perioral regions is prone to adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of agents into the perioral and periorbital mimetic muscular layer may produce, product clumping, displacement, and tendency to late nodularity and swelling. It also risks intravascular injection as compared to injection of other layers of the face. Injection into the mimetic muscles especially the sphincteric muscles should be avoided to minimize the risk of complications.