Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on February 20, 2008
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008 100(4):521-524; doi:10.1093/bja/aen003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/4/521    most recent
aen003v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Arendts, G.
Right arrow Articles by Fry, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Arendts, G.
Right arrow Articles by Fry, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Topical anaesthesia and intravenous cannulation success in paediatric patients: a randomized double-blind trial

G. Arendts*, M. Stevens and M. Fry

Department of Emergency Medicine, St George Hospital, Kogarah NSW 2217, Australia

* Corresponding author. E-mail: glenn.arendts{at}sesiahs.health.nsw.gov.au

Background: It is not known whether the choice of topical anaesthetic influences the likelihood of successful i.v. cannulation in the paediatric population. The null hypothesis of this study was that no difference exists in the initial success rate of cannulation between two commonly used topical anaesthetics.

Methods: A randomized double-blind trial conducted on patients between the age of 12 months and 12 yr presenting to a tertiary hospital emergency department. Patients requiring cannulation were randomized to either 4% amethocaine gel (AnGEL) or 5% lidocaine and prilocaine in a 1:1 emulsion (EMLA). The primary endpoint was success of initial attempt at i.v. cannulation.

Results: One hundred and seventy-seven patients were analysed of 203 enrolled. The success rate of AnGEL (73/97, 75%) and EMLA (59/80, 74%) did not significantly differ ({chi}21 0.05, P=0.82).

Conclusions: No difference exists in the cannulation success rates between the two anaesthetics. The choice of topical anaesthetic in paediatric cannulation should be based on other factors such as cost, time to anaesthesia, efficacy of the agent, and adverse effect profile.

Keywords: anaesthetics local, EMLA; anaesthetics local, tetracaine; veins, cannulation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Emerg. Med. J.Home page
C Newbury and D W Herd
Amethocaine versus EMLA for successful intravenous cannulation in a children's emergency department: a randomised controlled study
Emerg. Med. J., July 1, 2009; 26(7): 487 - 491.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.