| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 27
| Issue : 4 | Page : 346-350 |
|
|
Comparing the effect of two methods of using ear protective device on pain intensity in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized clinical trial
Fatemeh Bastani1, Narges Kheirollahi2
1 Student in Critical Care Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 PhD Student in Gerontology, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Correspondence Address:
Narges Kheirollahi
Hezar Jerib Street, Isfahan
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ijnmr.Ijnmr_220_20
|
|
|
Background: Severe pain is the most prevalent complication after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG). The aim of this study is to compare the impact of two methods using ear protective devices on pain intensity in patients undergoing CABG. Materials and Methods: The present randomized clinical trial was conducted between October 2019 and February 2020. The participants included 84 patients undergoing CABG, who were randomly divided into two intervention groups (A, B) and a control group. On the first night after the heart surgery, ear protective devices were used for the patients in group A during the evening and night sleep, while they were used in group B only during the night sleep. A demographic questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were the data collection tools used in this study. Data were analyzed using Chi-square test, paired t-test, and one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Results: Before the intervention, the mean (SD) of pain intensity in the two intervention groups (A, B) and the control group was 6.46 (1.71), 6.32 (1.36), and 6.54 (1.45), respectively, and there was no significant difference between the groups (F2,81 = 0.14; p = 0.86). However, after the intervention, the mean (SD) of pain intensity in the two intervention groups (A, B) and the control group was 3.39 (1.87), 4.46 (1.55), and 6.39 (1.54), respectively, which showed a significant difference (F2,81 = 23.37; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of ear protective device is recommended as a non-invasive and accessible way of reducing pain intensity in patients after CABG.
|
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
