STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and cost of @entity3303 cutaneous anesthesia by two jet injectors to routine needle infiltration for @entity158 relief of intravenous (i.v.) catheterization, hypothesizing that jet injection of @entity3303 is less painful than its needle infiltration. DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, controlled trial. SETTING: University hospital outpatient surgical unit. @entity1 : 75 surgical @entity1 ASA I and II. INTERVENTIONS: Three groups of 25 @entity1 each were given intradermal @entity3303 anesthesia via conventional 25-gauge needle/syringe; by MedEJet or Biojector jet injector prior to IV catheterization with an 18-gauge Jelco catheter. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Visual analogue @entity158 scores (VAS) (0 = no @entity158 , 10 = intolerable @entity158 ) and subjective @entity158 intensity scores (PIS) (0 = not painful, 4 = intolerable @entity158 ) at @entity3303 application and at i.v. catheterization, were recorded. Cost assessment of each method was made. At local anesthetic application, no @entity158 by proportion of VAS = 0 with MedEJet: 25/25 (confidence interval [CI]: 0.868, 0.999) and Biojector: 24/25 (CI 0.804, 0.991) was noted, but-22 of 25 @entity1 experienced @entity158 with needle administration: (with VAS = 0; 3/25 [CI: 0.044, 0.302]) (posterior probability [PP] > 0.999). The corresponding VAS scores (means +/- SD) were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.04 +/- 0.20, and 2.4 +/- 2.23 (p < 0.001). No @entity158 by proportion of PIS = 0 with MedEJet: 25/25 (CI: 0.868, 0.999 and Biojector: 23/25 (0.749, 0.976) was noted, but @entity158 in 20/25 was felt with the needle: 5/25 (CI: 0.090, 0.394) (PP > 0.999). The corresponding PIS scores were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.16 +/- 0.55, and 1.24 +/- 1.00 (p < 0.001). At i.v. catheterization, no @entity158 by proportion of VAS = 0 with MedEJet: 22/25 (CI: 0.698, 0.956) or Biojector: 21/25 (CI: 0.651, 0.934) was noted; but @entity158 in 19/25 with needle administration was experienced: 6/25 (CI: 0.116, 0.436) (PP > 0.999). The corresponding scores were 0.12 +/- 0.33, 0.44 +/- 0.20, and 1.64 +/- 1.50 (p < 0.001). No @entity158 by proportion of PIS = 0 with MedEJet: 24/25 (CI: 0.804, 0.991) or Biojector: 24/25 (CI: 0.804, 0.991) was noted, but @entity158 was apparent in 12/25 with needle administration: 13/25 (CI: 0.334, 0.701) (PP > 0.999). The corresponding scores were 0.00 +/- 0.00, 0.00 +/- 0.00, and 0.76 +/- 0.88 (p < 0.001). Cost per application: MedEJet =  0.13; needle/syringe =  0.50; Biojector =  0.94. CONCLUSIONS: Almost completely painless i.v. catheterization was carried out by jet injection of @entity3303 , but needle infiltration produced discomfort or @entity158 and did not significantly reduce discomfort or @entity158 at the i.v. needle insertion.

Painless intravenous catheterization by intradermal jet injection of XXXX : a randomized trial.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients', 'PARTICIPANTS'] @entity3303 :: ('MESH:D008012', 'Chemical') :: ['lidocaine'] @entity158 :: ('MESH:D010146', 'Disease') :: ['pain']
@entity3303 :: (MESH:D008012,Chemical) :: ['lidocaine']
