Search

Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging tool to reduce pain and anxiety during procedures. Although VR's clinical benefits are reported, biometric data quantifying VR's effect on pain tolerance is lacking. We used time-lapse, subjective, and biometric data to evaluate VR's effect on modulating pain.Randomized, controlled crossover within-subject clinical trial.This study was conducted in the Chariot Lab at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and outdoors at Stanford University School of Medicine.156 healthy volunteers were included.Participants underwent pain-inducing ice immersions while connected to biometric sensors. Participants were randomized to immerse their dominant or non-dominant hand with VR or control (no VR) for one immersion, and then crossed-over to the other hand for the second immersion. We instructed participants to submerge their hand until they reached their pain tolerance or until four minutes elapsed.Outcomes included ice immersion duration, perceived pain scores, and skin conductance response density (SCRD), a marker of sympathetic arousal. We used survival analysis and mixed effects models to compare measurements with and without VR.153 participants were included in the analysis. Participants with VR were 64% less likely to remove their hands from the ice bath throughout the immersion's duration compared to control (P 0.001). Participants with VR reported significantly lower pain scores after controlling for dominant hand treatment assignment, VR vs. no VR treatment order, and gender (P 0.001). SCRD increased as time progressed for both VR and control groups (P = 0.047 combined), with no significant mean group differences.Participants with VR were more likely to survive the 4-min ice bath challenge longer and with lower levels of pain perception, supporting VR's effectiveness as a distraction tool during painful procedures. We observed no differences in sympathetic response when comparing VR to no VR.

HRAD± was developed to quickly evaluate pediatric preprocedural affect and cooperativity during mask induction of anesthesia and peripheral intravenous (PIV) placement. HRAD± represents: Happy, Relaxed, Anxious, Distressed, with a yes/no answer to cooperativity. The primary aim of this study was to compare HRAD± to previously published scales.We conducted an observational study.Videos of pediatric patients were collected in the perioperative environment.Twenty-four children, twenty-one pediatric anesthesiologists and twenty pediatric perioperative providers were included.To assess the reliability of HRAD±, standard patient videos were created. Children underwent mask induction or PIV placement, and these interventions were video recorded. Mask induction and PIV placement videos were rated by pediatric anesthesiologists and perioperative non-physician providers respectively using HRAD±.Two trained researchers provided the modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale (mYPAS), Observation Scale of Behavioral Distress (OSBD), and Induction Compliance Checklist (ICC) scores, and we calculated correlations to HRAD±, inter-rater reliability, and intra-rater reliability.HRAD± scores strongly correlated with mYPAS (r = 0.846, p 0.0001) and OSBD scores (r = 0.723, p 0.0001). Cooperativity scores correlated strongly with ICC scores in the mask induction group (r = -0.715, p 0.0001) and in the PIV group (r = -0.869, p 0.0001). HRAD± inter-rater reliability for mask induction was 0.414 (p 0.0001) and for PIV assessment was 0.378 (p 0.0001). Inter-rater reliability for cooperativity on mask induction was 0.797 (p 0.0001) and PIV assessment was 0.683 (p 0.0001). Intra-rater reliability for mask induction was 0.675 and PIV assessments was 0.678. Intra-rater reliability for cooperativity for mask induction was 0.894 and for PIV assessments was 0.765.HRAD± is an efficient and reliable scale that serves as a practical alternative for measuring pediatric affect during mask induction and PIV placement. The results demonstrate strong correlation with commonly utilized yet more complex affect scales.

Background Vascular access is a minor procedure that is associated with reported pain and fear in pediatric patients, often resulting in procedural incompliance. Virtual reality has been shown to be effective in adult populations for reducing pain and anxiety in various medical settings, although large studies are lacking in pediatrics. Aims The primary aim was to determine whether pain would be reduced in pediatric patients using virtual reality undergoing vascular access. The four secondary aims measured patient fear, procedural compliance, satisfaction, and adverse events. Methods A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was completed at a pediatric hospital, enrolling children 7-18 years old undergoing vascular access in a variety of clinical settings, randomized to virtual reality or standard of care. Pain scores were measured using a numeric pain faces scale. The secondary outcomes of patient fear, procedural compliance, satisfaction, and adverse events were measured with the Child Fear Scale, modified Induction Compliance Checklist, and satisfaction surveys, respectively. Chi-squared, t tests, and regression models were used to analyze the results. Results The analysis included 106 patients in the virtual reality group and 114 in the control. There were no significant differences in postprocedure pain (VR group estimated 0.11 points lower, 95% confidence interval: 0.50 points lower to 0.28 points greater, P = .59), postprocedure fear (VR group estimated 0.05 points lower, 95% confidence interval: 0.23 points lower to 0.13 points greater), or compliance (adjusted odds ratio 2.31, 95% confidence interval: 0.96-5.56). Children in the virtual reality group were satisfied with the intervention. There were no adverse events. Conclusion This study demonstrates no reduction in pain while using Virtual reality (VR) across a heterogeneous pediatric inpatient population undergoing vascular access.

Introduction Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging tool for anxiety and fear reduction in pediatric patients. VR use is facilitated by Certified Child Life Specialists (CCLS) at pediatric hospitals. The primary aim of this study was to retrospectively review the safety of VR by analyzing adverse events after the utilization of VR under CCLS supervision. Secondary objectives were to characterize the efficacy of VR in enhancing patient cooperation, describe the integration of VR into Child Life services, and identify interventions that accompanied VR. Methods The Stanford Chariot Program developed VR applications, customized VR interfaces, and patient head straps, and distributed these to CCLS. Chart review analyzed VR utilization through CCLS patient notes. Inclusion criteria were all patients ages 6 to 18-years-old who received a Child Life intervention. Results From June 2017 to July 2018, 31 CCLS saw 8,098 patients, 3,696 of which met age criteria with pre- and post-intervention cooperation data. Two hundred thirteen patients received VR with an accompanying intervention, while 34 patients received only VR. Adverse events were rare, and included increased anxiety (3.8%, n=8), dizziness (0.5%, n=1), and nausea (0.5%, n=1). Patients were more likely to be cooperative after receiving VR (99.5%, n=212) compared to pre-intervention (96.7%, n=206, p=0.041). VR use was most common in the perioperative setting (60%, n=128), followed by outpatient clinics (15%, n=32). Conclusion VR is safe in pediatric patients with appropriate hardware, software, and patient selection. Side effects were rare and self-limited. VR appears to be associated with improvements in cooperation.