Intranasal Fentanyl for Procedural Analgesia in Preterm Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite the availability of evidence-based analgesic strategies, neonatal pain management continues to be suboptimal. Intranasal (IN) fentanyl is an alternative pharmacotherapy for procedural pain in neonatal units. The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IN fentanyl for procedural pain in preterm infants. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted in infants who received IN fentanyl between May 2019 and December 2020 at an academic neonatal intensive care unit. Main outcome measures were pain responses, physiological parameters before and up to 60 min after IN fentanyl administration, and adverse events. Paired t -test and analysis of variance were used to compare pain scores and physiological parameters, respectively. Results Thirteen infants received IN fentanyl on 22 occasions. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) gestational age and birthweight were 27 (25, 27.6) weeks and 850 (530, 1,030) grams, while median (IQR) post-menstrual age and weight were 30.9 (28.9, 32.9) weeks and 1,280 (945, 1,623) grams at the time of IN fentanyl administration. IN fentanyl was most used for lumbar puncture (55%) followed by insertion of epicutaneo-caval catheters (27%). There was a difference between the mean pre- and post-procedure Premature Infant Pain Profile scores of 1.3 (95% CI = 0.07, 2.5; p = 0.04). Physiological parameters did not differ before and up to 60 min post IN fentanyl administration ( p > 0.05). Two adverse events (one apnea and one desaturation) were noted. Conclusion In our limited experience, IN fentanyl appears to be an alternative pharmacotherapy for procedural pain management in the absence of intravenous access in preterm infants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".