Virtual reality hypnosis for needle-related procedural pain and fear management in children: a non-inferiority randomized trial.

Needle-related procedures can cause pain and fear in children and may lead to avoidance of future medical care. The aim of this study is to investigate whether virtual reality hypnosis (VRH) is non-inferior to medical hypnosis (MH) by a trained healthcare provider in reducing pain in children. This non-inferiority randomized trial was conducted at a teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Children aged 6 to 18 years were randomized to treatment with VRH or MH. The primary outcome was self-reported pain, using the Wong-Baker FACES Scale (WBFS) with the non-inferiority margin defined as a difference of 1.5 points. Secondary outcomes included observer-reported pain (Numeric Rating Scale), fear (scored by children and observers with the Children's Fear Scale), blood pressure, heart rate, treatment satisfaction, and adverse effects. We randomized 138 children to VRH or MH treatment and included 114 children in the analyses (VRH n = 60, MH n = 54). We found non-inferiority for VRH compared to MH on patient-reported pain (mean difference = - 0.17, 95%CI - 1.01;0.66). Secondary outcomes were comparable between VRH and MH groups. Both treatments scored high on patient satisfaction (VRH median = 9.0, MH median = 10.0, p = 0.512). CONCLUSION: VRH may be an effective and safe treatment option besides MH for reducing patient-reported pain in children during a needle-related procedure. VRH was non-inferior to MH in patient-reported fear and both treatments were comparable in terms of patient-reported fear, observer-reported pain and fear, physical distress, and patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ICTRP https://trialsearch.who.int/ , trial ID NL9385; date registered: 03/04/2021. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Medical hypnosis is effective in reducing procedural distress in children during needle-related procedures. • Virtual reality (VR) is an audiovisual electronic device that guides users into an immersive three-dimensional environment. WHAT IS NEW: • This study shows that VR hypnosis is non-inferior to medical hypnosis in reducing pain and fear in children undergoing a needle-related procedure. • Both VR hypnosis and medical hypnosis were appreciated highly by children to distract them during needle-related procedures.

Tocolysis with nifedipine versus atosiban and perinatal outcome: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, nifedipine and atosiban are the two most commonly used tocolytic agents for the treatment of threatened preterm birth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nifedipine and atosiban in an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA). METHODS: We investigated the occurrence of adverse neonatal outcomes in women with threatened preterm birth by performing an IPDMA, and sought to identify possible subgroups in which one treatment may be preferred. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for trials comparing nifedipine and atosiban for treatment of threatened preterm birth between 240/7 and 340/7 weeks' gestational age. Primary outcome was a composite of perinatal mortality and neonatal morbidities including respiratory distress syndrome, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leucomalacia, necrotising enterocolitis, and sepsis. Secondary outcomes included NICU admission, prolongation of pregnancy and GA at delivery. For studies that did not have the original databases available, metadata was used. This led to a two-stage meta-analysis that combined individual participant data with aggregate metadata. RESULTS: We detected four studies (N = 791 women), of which two provided individual participant data (N = 650 women). The composite neonatal outcome occurred in 58/364 (16%) after nifedipine versus 69/359 (19%) after atosiban (OR 0.76, 95%CI 0.47-1.23). Perinatal death occurred in 14/392 (3.6%) after nifedipine versus 7/380 (1.8%) after atosiban (OR 2.0, 95%CI 0.80-5.1). Nifedipine results in longer prolongation of pregnancy, with a 18 days to delivery compared with 10 days for atosiban (HR 0.83 (96% CI 0.69-0.99)). NICU admission occurred less often after nifedipine (46%) than after atosiban (59%), (OR 0.32, 95%CI 0.14-0.75). The sensitivity analysis revealed no difference in prolongation of pregnancy for 48 hours (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.73-1.4) or 7 days (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.85-5.8) between nifedipine and atosiban. There was a non-significant higher neonatal mortality in the nifedipine-exposed group (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60-3.4). CONCLUSIONS: In this IPDMA, we found no differences in composite outcome between nifedipine and atosiban in the treatment of threatened preterm birth. However, the non-significant higher mortality after administering nifedipine warrants further investigation of the use of nifedipine as a tocolytic drug. STUDY REGISTRATION: We conducted this study according to a prospectively prepared protocol, registered with PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under CRD42016024244.