Sevoflurane vs. isoflurane: a clinical comparison in day surgery

Discharge times after ambulatory surgery are determined by postoperative complications and in particular by the presence and severity of nausea and vomiting. Sevoflurane has become a popular agent for day-case surgery despite little evidence of clear advantages over current alternatives. We compared this agent with isoflurane in day-case patients undergoing knee arthroscopy in order to quantify the incidence of complications associated with each agent. One hundred and eighty patients received a standardised anaesthetic induction with propofol and fentanyl followed by maintenance with either isoflurane or sevoflurane. Standardised postoperative analgesic and anti-emetic drugs were prescribed. Any intra-operative cardiovascular or respiratory instability was recorded. After surgery, nausea, vomiting and pain were assessed. Almost all patients made an uneventful recovery and were discharged as scheduled. There was a significantly higher incidence of complications in the sevoflurane group. These included the presence of nausea and vomiting, and cardiovascular and respiratory complications. We found nothing to commend the routine use of sevoflurane rather than isoflurane in the context of day case anaesthesia.     

The value of risks scores for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting when used to compare patient group in a randomised controlled trial

Whilst conducting a randomised controlled trial into the effects of combination anti-emetics, we endeavoured to confirm that our patient groups were matched using the predictive scoring systems for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postoperative vomiting (POV) reported in the literature. One hundred and seventy-seven female patients attending for day case gynaecological surgery were studied and their individual risks of PONV and POV were calculated using four predictive models for PONV and two predictive models for POV. The scoring systems were then evaluated to see if agreement existed between them using the method described by Bland and Altman. Bias and 95% limits of agreement were calculated for each combination. Agreement between scoring systems was poor. As the scoring systems gave widely divergent predictions, we concluded that the predictive risk for PONV or POV would be dependent upon the scoring system chosen, thus limiting their usefulness in this role.     

Control of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy: what is the evidence?

Abstract
The control of nausea and vomiting is an important problem for patients undergoing chemotherapy. With the introduction of newer agents, including 5-HT₃ antagonists, nausea and vomiting control after chemotherapy has much improved but is not always optimal. While there is an intrinsic limitation to the efficacy of anti-emetic drugs, their efficacy can be further reduced if the drugs are not used approp­riately. In some circumstances newer anti-emetics may be unnecessary and better nausea and vomiting control may be established by use of older agents. This paper summarizes current evidence regarding the optimal approach to management of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy. (Intern Med J 2002; 32: 401−407)     

How to study postoperative nausea and vomiting

Anesthesiological journals are flooded by innumerable studies of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Nevertheless, PONV remains a continuing problem with an average incidence of 20-30%. This paper should provide essential information for the design, conduct, and presentation of these studies. It should also increase comparability among future studies and help clinicians in assessing and reading the literature on PONV. First, future studies should address new and relevant questions instead of repeatedly investigating prophylactically given antiemetics whose main results are predictable (e.g. already proven by meta-analysis). Second, group comparability should be based on well-proven risk factors and a simplified risk score for predicting PONV. Endless listings of doubtful risk factors should be avoided. Third, a realistic sample size estimation should be performed, i.e. in most cases at least 100 patients per group are necessary. Fourth, nausea, vomiting and rescue medication should be recorded and reported separately with the corresponding incidences (and number of patients with these separate symptoms), and the main end-point should be PONV. The entire observation period should cover 24 h. Additional reporting of the early (0-2 h) and delayed (2-24 h) postoperative period is desirable and should consider single and cumulative incidences. Lastly, interpretation of results should take into account the study hypothesis, sources of potential bias or imprecision, and the difficulties associated with multiplicity of analysis and outcomes.     

Oral ondansetron,tropisetron or metoclopramide to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a comparison in high-risk patients undergoing thyroid or parathyroid surgery

BACKGROUND: Oral antiemetic prophylaxis may be a practical alternative to intravenous administration. Intravenous ondansetron and tropisetron prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) at least as efficiently as traditional antiemetics, droperidol and metoclopramide. We tested the hypothesis that the incidence of PONV after oral ondansetron or tropisetron prophylaxis is lower compared with metoclopramide among high-risk patients. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind study we studied 179 high-risk patients who received either ondansetron 16 mg, tropisetron 5 mg, or metoclopramide 10 mg orally 1 h before the operation. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. The incidence of PONV and the need for rescue antiemetic medication was recorded for 24 h. RESULTS: In the postanesthesia care unit, the incidence of PONV was lower after premedication with tropisetron compared with ondansetron and metoclopramide (15%, 32% and 39%, respectively). The incidence of PONV during 0-24 h was the same in each group (68%, 58% and 75% in the ondansetron, tropisetron and metoclopramide group, respectively), but the incidence of vomiting was significantly lower after ondansetron (34%) and tropisetron (22%) prophylaxis compared with metoclopramide (53%). The need for additional antiemetics was significantly lower after tropisetron prophylaxis compared with metoclopramide. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher after tropisetron than after metoclopramide. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial period, the incidence of PONV was lower after premedication with oral tropisetron than after ondansetron or metoclopramide. Considering the entire 24-h postoperative period, the incidence of PONV was the same after all three premedications, but the incidence of vomiting was lower after oral ondansetron and tropisetron than after metoclopramide.     

雷莫司琼预防妇科腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的临床研究

目的探讨预防妇科腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的效果。方法100例择期在全身麻醉下行妇科腹腔镜手术的病人,随机分为2组:A组(n=50):在手术结束前静脉注射0.9%生理盐水10mL;B组(雷莫司琼组,n=50):在手术结束前静脉给予雷莫司琼0.3mg;每位病人观察手术后12h和24h的恶心、呕吐发生率。结果术后12h和24h雷莫司琼组恶心呕吐发生率显著低于对照组(P<0.01)。结论雷莫司琼能安全、有效的预防妇科腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的发生。     

恩丹西酮联合地塞米松对腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的影响

目的观察恩丹西酮联合地塞米松对腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的影响。方法随机将100例在全麻下择期行腹腔镜手术的患者分为5组:A组,生理盐水对照组;B组,恩丹西酮组;C组,地塞米松组;D组,氟哌利多组;E组,恩丹西酮+地塞米松组。观察术后24h内病人恶心呕吐发生的情况及不良反应。结果A组恶心呕吐发生率为70%,明显高于B组(30%)、C组(30%)、D组(20%)和E组(15%),P<0.05;E组与B组和C组比较,P<0.05;与D组比较,P>0.05。但D组不良反应较多。结论恩丹西酮联合地塞米松静脉应用对降低腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的发生率有确切效果。     

地塞米松联合氟哌利多预防术后硬膜外吗啡镇痛所致恶心呕吐

目的观察地塞米松联合氟哌利多预防术后硬膜外吗啡镇痛所致恶心呕吐的效果。方法200例连续硬膜外阻滞下手术患者随机分为4组,每组50例:对照组在手术结束时静脉注射生理盐水2ml;地塞米松组在手术结束时静脉注射地塞米松10mg(2ml);氟哌利多组在镇痛药液中加入氟哌利多5mg;联合组在手术结束时静脉注射氟哌利多2.5mg(1ml)和地塞米松5mg(1ml)。术毕所有患者均行硬膜外镇痛。观察术后24h内患者镇痛效果和恶心呕吐发生率。结果对照组恶心呕吐率(22.4%),明显高于氟哌利多组(10%)、地塞米松组(12%)和联合组(10.2%),P<0.05;处理组三组组间比较恶心呕吐率无明显差异,P>0.05。结论地塞米松与氟哌利多单独或联合应用都能有效减少术后硬膜外吗啡镇痛所致恶心呕吐。     

阿扎司琼预防眼外伤手术后恶心呕吐的观察

目的观察比较阿扎司琼(azasetron)预防眼外伤手术后恶心呕吐的效果。方法眼外伤手术75例,随机分为对照组(A组)、氟哌利多(droperidol)组(B组)和阿扎司琼组(C组),每组25例。在手术结束前,A、B、C组分别静脉注射生理盐水5mL、氟哌利多5mg或阿扎司琼10mg,观察每位患者用药后恶心呕吐发生情况。结果眼外伤手术后恶心呕吐的发生大多数在术后24h内,呕吐发生率,C组小于B组(P<0.05),B组小于A组(P<0.05)。结论本研究表明阿扎司琼是一种安全有效的预防眼外伤手术后恶心呕吐的药物。     

托烷司琼用于预防神经外科术后恶心呕吐的研究

目的：观察5-HL受体拮抗剂盐酸托烷司琼与盐酸恩丹西酮预防神经外科开颅术患者术后恶心呕吐（PONV）的有效性和安全性。方法：选择神经外科行幕上开颅手术患者150例，随机分为3组：盐酸托烷司琼组、盐酸恩丹西酮组和空白对照组，每组50例。各组于手术至缝合硬膜时分别静脉滴注盐酸托烷司琼5mg，盐酸恩丹西酮4mg及注射用水。术后中、重度呕吐患者追加使用抗呕吐药物盐酸恩丹西酮。术后观察并记录以下指标：（1）恶心发生率。（2）呕吐发生率。（3）疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）。（4）镇静评分（OAA／S）。（5）平均动脉压（MAP）、心率（HR）。（6）追加使用抗呕吐药物的药名及剂量。（7）不良反应的发生情况。结果：术后2h内托烷司琼组、恩丹西酮组恶心及呕吐的发生率低于对照组（P〈0．01或P〈0．05）；但两治疗组间差别无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。恩丹西酮组术后24h内恶心的发生率较托烷司琼组呈增加趋势，但差异无统计学意义（X^2=3．326，P〉0．05）。结论：托烷司琼、恩丹西酮均可降低恶心呕吐的发生率。托烷司琼作用时限较恩丹西酮长，可能具有更好的预防效果。