Metoclopramide in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled studies

Metoclopramide has been used for almost 40 yr to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We have reviewed the efficacy and safety of metoclopramide for the prevention of PONV. A systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, manufacturers' databases, hand searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to June 1998) was performed for full reports of randomized comparisons of metoclopramide with placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end-points were prevention of early PONV (within 6 h after operation), late PONV (48 h) and adverse effects. Combined data were analysed using relative benefit/risk and number- needed-to-treat/harm. In 66 studies, 3260 patients received 18 different regimens of metoclopramide, and 3006 controls received placebo or no treatment. There was no evidence of dose-responsiveness with oral, i.m., intranasal or i.v. metoclopramide in children and adults. In adults, the best documented regimen was 10 mg i.v. There was no significant anti-nausea effect. The numbers-needed-to-treat to prevent early and late vomiting were 9.1 (95% confidence intervals 5.5- 27) and 10 (6-41), respectively. In children, the best documented regimen was 0.25 mg kg-1 i.v. The number-needed-to-treat to prevent early vomiting was 5.8 (3.9-11). There was no significant late anti- vomiting effect. Minor drug-related adverse effects (sedation, dizziness, drowsiness) were not significantly associated with metoclopramide. There was one adult who experienced extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide.      

Droperidol and 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, alone or in combination, for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Droperidol and 5-HT3-receptor antagonists are among the most potent antiemetics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Combinations of these drugs have been used to increase the efficacy of antiemetic treatment. However, so far the quantitative effect of this combination has not been evaluated systematically. METHODS: Results from randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of 5-HT3-receptor antagonists or droperidol alone versus the combination of both drugs to prevent PONV were included in a meta-analysis. Studies were systematically searched using Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane-Library, and by manually screening the reference lists of matching review articles and current issues of locally available peer-reviewed anaesthesia journals. Seven papers with data on granisetron published by Fujii and co-workers were not considered. The main end point in each study was defined as occurrence of nausea, retching, or vomiting within 6 h ("early PONV") and within 48 h ("late PONV") after surgery. The relative risks (RR) and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) of the pooled data with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (given in parentheses) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies with 881 patients (adults: n=801; children (mean age: 8 yr): n=80) were included in the analysis. Droperidol was applied to 340 patients, 5-HT3-receptor antagonists to 198, and 343 were treated with a combination of both drugs. Seven out of these eight studies reported increased antiemetic efficacy of the combination group compared with the single drugs (droperidol and 5-HT3-receptor antagonists respectively). However, in none of the trials did this difference reach statistical significance. When a meta-analytic analysis based on these results was performed the combination of droperidol with a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist was not associated with a significantly increased antiemetic efficacy. In 12 to 13 patients a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist has to be added to droperidol prophylaxis to prevent one additional patient from PONV who would have had suffered from PONV when treated with droperidol alone (RR "early PONV": 1.52 (0.95-2.44); RR "late PONV": 1.24 (0.89-1.74)). Similar results were obtained when the antiemetic effect of adding droperidol to a prophylaxis with 5-HT3-receptor antagonists was analysed. In this case 10 to 12 patients have to be treated with the 5-HT3-droperidol combination instead of with a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist alone to prevent one additional patient from PONV (RR "early PONV": 1.55 (0.68-3.52); RR "late PONV": 1.29 (0.77-2.17)). There were no reports of an increased incidence of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The data on the combination of droperidol with 5-HT3-receptor antagonists suggest that there is a trend towards increased efficacy of the combination therapy compared to the single drugs. However, so far there are insufficient data to recommend this combination treatment for prophylaxis.     

Small-dose droperidol effectively reduces nausea in a general surgical adult patient population

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study, we (1) determined whether 0.625 mg of IV droperidol given 30 min before emergence from general anesthesia reduces the incidence of immediate and delayed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in a general surgical adult patient population, and (2) compared the efficacy of droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine for the rescue treatment of PONV. One hundred fifty adult patients receiving general anesthesia for >2 h received either droperidol (0.625 mg IV) or a placebo before emergence. Patients requiring treatment for PONV in the postanesthesia care unit were randomized to receive either droperidol (0.625 mg IV), ondansetron (4 mg IV), or promethazine (12. 5 mg IV). Droperidol effectively prevented PONV (6.8% in droperidol-treated patients versus 40.8% in placebo-treated patients, P: < 0.001). Droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine were equally effective in treating established PONV, without significant differences in side effects or time to postanesthesia care unit discharge. Implications: Droperidol 0.625 mg IV before emergence from general anesthesia effectively reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the general surgical population. Our randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study demonstrated a reduction in PONV from 41% to 7%. Droperidol is a safe and inexpensive alternative to ondansetron. Droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine are also equally effective in treating PONV in the postanesthesia care unit.     

The use of nonpharmacologic techniques to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis.

We assessed the efficacy of nonpharmacologic techniques to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) by systematic review. These studies included acupuncture, electroacupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupoint stimulation, and acupressure. Of the 24 randomized trials retrieved by a search of articles indexed on the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1980-1997), 19 were eligible for meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were the incidence of nausea, vomiting, or both 0-6 h (early efficacy) or 0-48 h (late efficacy) after surgery. The pooled relative risk (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. In children, no benefit was found. Some results in adults were significant. Nonpharmacologic techniques were similar to antiemetics in preventing early vomiting (RR = 0.89 [95% confidence interval 0.47-1.67]; NNT = 63 [10-infinity]) and late vomiting (RR = 0.80 [0.35-1.81]; NNT = 25 [5-infinity]) in adults. Nonpharmacologic techniques were better than placebo at preventing early nausea (RR = 0.34 [0.20-0.58]; NNT = 4 [3-6]) and early vomiting in adults (RR = 0.47 [0.34-0.64]; NNT = 5 [4-8]). Nonpharmacologic techniques were similar to placebo in preventing late vomiting in adults (RR = 0.81 [0.46-1.42]; NNT = 14 [6-infinity]). Using nonpharmacologic techniques, 20%-25% of adults will not have early PONV compared with placebo. It may be an alternative to receiving no treatment or first-line antiemetics. IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review showed that nonpharmacologic techniques were equivalent to commonly used antiemetic drugs in preventing vomiting after surgery. Nonpharmacologic techniques were more effective than placebo in preventing nausea and vomiting within 6 h of surgery in adults, but there was no benefit in children.     

Efficacy and adverse effects of prophylactic antiemetics during patient-controlled analgesia therapy: a quantitative systematic review.

Nausea and vomiting are frequent adverse effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids. To identify the optimal prophylactic antiemetic intervention in this setting, we performed a systematic search for randomized trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, reference lists, hand-searching, no language restriction) published up to May 1998 that compared prophylactic antiemetic interventions with placebo or no treatment in the postoperative PCA-setting with opioids. Fourteen placebo-controlled trials (1117 patients) with different regimens of droperidol, ondansetron, hyoscine TTS, tropisetron, metoclopramide, propofol, and promethazine were analyzed. One PCA was with tramadol, all others were with morphine. At 24 h, the cumulative incidence of nausea and vomiting without antiemetics was approximately 50%. Droperidol 0.017-0.17 mg/mg of morphine (0.5-11 mg/d droperidol) was statistically significantly more effective than placebo without evidence of dose-responsiveness; the number needed to treat to prevent nausea compared with placebo was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8-5.2), and that to prevent vomiting was 3.1 (2.3-4.8). Compared with placebo, the incidence of minor adverse effects with droperidol was increased with doses >4 mg/d. IMPLICATIONS: Of 100 patients treated with droperidol added in a patient-controlled analgesia pump with morphine, 30 who would have vomited or been nauseated had they not received droperidol will not suffer these effects. There is no evidence of dose-responsiveness for efficacy with droperidol, but the risk of adverse effects is dose-dependent. There is a lack of evidence for other antiemetics.     

Prophylactic use of droperidol for postoperative nausea and vomiting following gynecological laparoscopic surgery under total intravenous anesthesia

BACKGROUND: Propofol and droperidol decrease the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We investigated the incidence of PONV after total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol alone versus combined use of droperidol and propofol. METHODS: Eighty three patients, who had undergone laparoscopic gynecologic surgery with TIVA using propofol and fentanyl, were retrospectively evaluated whether droperidol had affected the incidence of early (up to six hours postoperatively) and late (6-24 hours postoperatively) PONV. Group D (46 patients) received droperidol intravenously at the end of surgery. Group N (37 patients) received no droperidol. RESULTS: The incidences of early nausea were 27% in Group N and 4% in Group D (P<0.01). The incidences of early vomiting were 0% in Group N and 8% in Group D. The incidences of late nausea were 14% in Group N and 13% in Group D. The incidences of late vomiting were 3% in Group N and 7% in Group D. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol was useful in reducing the incidence of early nausea and vomiting after total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and fentanyl in the patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.     

Prevention of nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing breast surgery: A comparison with granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo

Background : Breast surgery is associated with a relatively high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide for preventing PONV after breast surgery.
Methods : In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 120 female patients received granisetron 40μg.kg^-1, droperidol 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg or placebo (saline) (n=30 for each) intravenously immediately before the induction of anaesthesia. A standard general anaesthetic technique was employed throughout. Postoperatively, during the first 24 h after anaesthesia, the incidence of PONV and adverse events was recorded.
Results : The incidence of PONV was 17% with granisetron, 37% with droperidol, 43% with metoclopramide and 50% with placebo ( P <0.05; overall Fisher's exact probability test). The incidence of adverse events was not different among the groups.
Conclusion : Granisetron is highly effective for reducing the incidence of PONV in female patients undergoing breast surgery. Droperidol and metoclopramide are ineffective in this population.     

Efficacy, Dose-Response, and Safety of Ondansetron in Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Quantitative Systematic Review of Randomized Placebo-controlled Trials

Objective: The authors reviewed efficacy and safety data for ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Methods: Systematically searched, randomized, controlled trials (obtained through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, manufacturer's database, manual searching of journals, and article reference lists) were analyzed. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (within 6 h after surgery) and late PONV (within 48 h) and adverse effects. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat were calculated. The number-needed-to-treat indicated how many patients had to be exposed to ondansetron to prevent PONV in one of them who would have vomited or been nauseated had he or she received placebo.

Results: Fifty-three trials were found that had data from 7,177 patients receiving 24 different ondansetron regimens and from 5,712 controls receiving placebo or no treatment. Average early and late PONV incidences without ondansetron were 40% and 60%, respectively. There was a dose response for oral and intravenous ondansetron. Best number-needed-to-treat to prevent PONV with the best documented regimens was between 5 and 6. This was achieved with an intravenous dose of 8 mg and an oral dose of 16 mg. Antivomiting efficacy was consistently better than antinausea efficacy. Efficacy in children was poorly documented. Ondansetron significantly increased the risk for elevated liver enzymes (number-needed-to-harm was 31) and headache (number-needed-to-harm was 36).     

The effectiveness of low dose droperidol in controlling nausea and vomiting during epidural anesthesia for cesarean section

The antiemetic efficacy of 0.5 mg of droperidol was evaluated in 128 term parturients undergoing elective and non-urgent cesarean section with epidural anesthesia. Following delivery, parturients received intravenously either 0.5 mg of droperidol or normal saline in a double-blinded fashion. Droperidol decreased nausea after delivery from 41 to 13% (P=0.001). There was no significant decrease in the incidence of vomiting. Analysis of the data using logistic regression analysis showed that increasing age (P = 0.002), hypotension after delivery (P = 0.040), and vomiting prior to delivery (P = 0.017) were associated with increased nausea after delivery. No extrapyramidal symptoms or significant changes in pulse rate or blood pressure were associated with droperidol administration. We conclude that 0.5 mg of intravenous droperidol decreases nausea in term parturients undergoing non-urgent cesarean section with epidural anesthesia without producing unwanted side-effects.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after neurosurgery (infratentorial and supratentorial surgery)

OBJECTIVE: To perform a synthesis regarding postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after neurosurgery. DATA EXTRACTION: A Medline search was performed to identify publications about frequency, risk factors, prevention and treatment of PONV in adults and children, after neurosurgery. DATA SYNTHESIS: After neurosurgery, the estimated frequency of nausea is around 50% and around 39% for vomiting. After neurosurgery; PONV risk factors are female sex and infratentorial surgery. Children older than two years are at higher risk for PONV. To reduce baseline risk factors, it is recommended to use propofol for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, to avoid nitrous oxide and to use hydration (20 ml/kg of crystalloids before induction). For PONV prophylaxis, ondansetron and droperidol may be given, using one drug for a moderate risk patient and both drugs for a high-risk patient. Droperidol should not be used in children as a first choice therapy because of an increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Dexamethasone has not been evaluated after neurosurgery. Metoclopramide has no clinically relevant effect for PONV. Especially in neurosurgery, after occurrence of PONV, it is recommended to rule out a possible triggering factor that should need specific treatment. A global management of PONV is proposed, based on the administration of the same drugs given at half the doses used for prophylaxis.     

Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia in ambulatory surgery: prophylactic nalbuphine versus nalbuphine plus droperidol

Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) is a safe, effective, and efficient anesthetic for ambulatory surgery. Unfortunately, it has a frequent incidence of pruritus and a substantial incidence of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine is effective in treating or preventing pruritus after intrathecal or epidural morphine but may or may not have a beneficial effect on nausea and vomiting. Droperidol has demonstrated antiemetic efficacy with neuraxial opiates. In this study, we examined the prophylactic use of nalbuphine alone compared with nalbuphine with droperidol after SAB(MLF). One-hundred-twenty-four patients having outpatient knee arthroscopy under SAB(MLF) with 20 mg of lidocaine 0.5% and 20 micro g of fentanyl were randomized to receive IV at the end of surgery either 4 mg of nalbuphine (Group N) or droperidol 0.625 mg plus nalbuphine 4 mg (Group ND). The incidences of early (before discharge) and late onset nausea were, respectively, 18% versus 5% and 32% versus 13%. The postoperative incidences of pruritus were 61% versus 40%, whereas 19% of patients in Group N compared with 2% of patients in Group ND requested treatment for this. Group ND had lower pain scores and had a longer delay until first use of analgesic. There were no differences in average times to discharge. The only side effect of the medications was an increased drowsiness in Group ND. In conclusion, as prophylactic medication for use in conjunction with SAB(MLF), the addition of droperidol 0.625 mg to nalbuphine 4 mg was superior to nalbuphine alone. The combination provided for reduced postoperative nausea, pruritus, and pain-benefits that persisted after discharge home. The combination also avoided isolated cases of extreme delay in discharge. IMPLICATIONS: Droperidol in combination with nalbuphine enhances analgesia and is more effective than nalbuphine alone in preventing pruritus, nausea, and vomiting after minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia.     

Dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review

The role of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is unclear. We reviewed efficacy and safety data of dexamethasone for prevention of PONV. A systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, hand searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to April 1999) was done for full reports of randomized comparisons of dexamethasone with other antiemetics or placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (0 to 6 h postoperatively), late PONV (0 to 24 h), and adverse effects. Data from 1,946 patients from 17 trials were analyzed: 598 received dexamethasone; 582 received ondansetron, granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide, or perphenazine; 423 received a placebo; and 343 received a combination of dexamethasone with ondansetron or granisetron. With placebo, the incidence of early and late PONV was 35% and 50%, respectively. Sixteen different regimens of dexamethasone were tested, most frequently, 8 or 10 mg IV in adults, and 1 or 1.5 mg/kg IV in children. With these doses, the number needed to treat to prevent early and late vomiting compared with placebo in adults and children was 7.1 (95% CI 4.5 to 18), and 3.8 (2.9 to 5), respectively. In adults, the number needed to treat to prevent late nausea was 4.3 (2.3 to 26). The combination of dexamethasone with ondansetron or granisetron further decreased the risk of PONV; the number needed to treat to prevent late nausea and vomiting with the combined regimen compared with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists alone was 7.7 (4.8 to 19) and 7.8 (4.1 to 66), respectively. There was a lack of data from comparisons with other antiemetics for sensible conclusions. There were no reports on dexamethasone-related adverse effects. IMPLICATIONS: When there is a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a single prophylactic dose of dexamethasone is antiemetic compared with placebo, without evidence of any clinically relevant toxicity in otherwise healthy patients. Late efficacy seems to be most pronounced. It is very likely that the best prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting currently available is achieved by combining dexamethasone with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Optimal doses of this combination need to be identified.     

Nausea and vomiting after prostaglandins in day case termination of pregnancy The efficacy of low dose droperidol

The antiemetic effects of low dose droperidol (0.25 and 0.5 mg) and a placebo were compared in patients who had received prostaglandin for day case termination of pregnancy. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was high. Low dose droperidol significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting without any delay in immediate recovery or discharge home (p less than 0.05). Droperidol 0.25 mg was equally effective as an antiemetic, as 0.5 mg.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting with special reference to risk factors and prevention in laparoscopic surgery

The current incidence, risk factors and prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were prospectively evaluated in 1703 inpatients. The objectives of the study were: 1) to create a predictive model based on patient characteristics in order to enable the estimation of the risk for PONV, 2) to ascertain the antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic intravenous ondansetron in comparison with droperidol and placebo against PONV following laparoscopic surgery, and 3) to evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness of combining ondansetron with a low dose of droperidol in high-risk inpatients. The incidence of nausea and vomiting after common surgical procedures was high. In the recovery room, the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 18% and 5%, respectively, and over the whole 24-h observation period the respective figures were 52% and 25%. The most significant predictive factors associated with an increased risk for the symptoms were female sex, a previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a history of motion sickness, a longer duration of surgery and non-smoking. Based on these five items, a risk score predicting nausea and vomiting was constructed with a moderately good discriminating power, as judged from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Intravenous ondansetron 4 mg was ineffective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A higher dose of prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg effectively reduced the incidence and alleviated the intensity of PONV in women scheduled to have laparoscopy for gynaecological and general surgical procedures, as compared with placebo. The antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg and droperidol 1.25 mg was similar as for overall nausea during the 24-h observation period, but ondansetron seemed to be slightly more efficacious in preventing vomiting. Both ondansetron and droperidol were well-tolerated with only minor side-effects. In a high-risk, female, inpatient laparoscopic population, with a mean estimated risk of 65% for PONV, prophylactically administered ondansetron 8 mg in combination with either a 0.75 mg or 1.25 mg dose of droperidol reduced the incidence of post-operative nausea to 35% and that of vomiting to 15% during the first 24 h after surgery. Of these drug combinations, the smaller dose of droperidol resulted in less postoperative sedation than the higher dose; both combinations being otherwise equally well-tolerated without serious adverse events. These results indicate that postoperative nausea and vomiting can, to some extent, be predicted by a few patient characteristics, and in laparoscopic surgery - which is associated with an increased risk for PONV - the incidence can be reduced with either a single dose of ondansetron or droperidol or a combination of these drugs.     

The prophylactic effect of dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing thyroidectomy: a comparison of droperidol with saline.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prophylactic effect of dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing thyroidectomy. Droperidol and saline served as controls. One hundred twenty women (n = 40 in each of three groups) undergoing thyroidectomy under general anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Immediately before the induction of anesthesia, Group 1 received IV dexamethasone 10 mg, whereas Groups 2 and 3 received IV droperidol 1.25 mg and saline, respectively. We found that both dexamethasone and droperidol significantly decreased the total incidence of PONV compared with saline, with an incidence of 32%, 35%, and 76%, respectively (P<0.01; Group 1 versus Group 3, Group 2 versus Group 3). Patients who received droperidol, however, reported a higher intensity of sore throat and a more frequent incidence of restlessness than those who received dexamethasone. We conclude that, although both dexamethasone and droperidol are effective as prophylactic antiemetics in women undergoing thyroidectomy, droperidol produces more side effects. IMPLICATIONS: We compared the prophylactic administration of dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting with droperidol and saline in women undergoing thyroidectomy. Both dexamethasone and droperidol significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, but droperidol produced more side effects, which suggests that dexamethasone is a useful treatment in these patients.     

COMPARISON OF THE USE OF DOMPERIDONE, DROPERIDOL AND METOCLOPRAMIDE IN THE PREVENTION OF NAUSEA AND VOMITING FOLLOWING MAJOR GYNAECOLOGICAL SURGERY

Domperidone 20 mg, droperidol 2.5 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg andplacebo (saline) were given i.v. 10 min before the end of anaesthesia,to 200 women undergoing major gynaecological surgery, and theincidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting following a standardanaesthetic technique was assessed. Droperidol was significantlymore effective than domperidone, metoclopramide or placebo inreducing emetic sequelae. There were no significant differencesbetween the groups in the incidence of extrapyramidal effectsand postoperative sedation. Patients given droperidol requiredless postoperative analgesia than those given domperidone ormetoclopramide. It was concluded that, of the drugs studied,droperidol alone was effective in protecting against nauseaand vomiting after major gynaecological surgery.     

Droperidol and dimenhydrinate alone or in combination for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting after nasal surgery in male patients

Droperidol and dimenhydrinate are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Droperidol, especially, has been studied extensively, but there are no studies on the combination of both drugs for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting. One hundred and forty male hospitalized patients undergoing nasal surgery were randomized to receive one of four anti-emetic regimes: placebo, dimenhydrinate (1 mg kg-1), droperidol (15 micrograms kg-1), or the combination of both drugs (droperidol 15 micrograms kg-1 + dimenhydrinate 1 mg kg-1) administered after induction of anaesthesia. Patients in the dimenhydrinate-group and the combination-group received a second dose of dimenhydrinate 6 h after the first administration to mitigate the short half-life of the drug. For general anaesthesia a standardized technique, including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2, vecuronium, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil, was used. Post-operative analgesia and anti-emetic rescue medication were standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional anti-emetics were recorded for 24 h. The main endpoint of this study was the number of patients who were completely free of post-operative nausea and vomiting (Fisher's Exact Test). Furthermore, the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting was analysed using a standardized scoring algorithm. The incidence of patients completely free of post-operative nausea and vomiting was 62.9% in the placebo-group, 77.1% in the dimenhydrinate-group (P = 0.21), and 82.9% in the droperidol-group (P = 0.07). This increased to 94.3% in the combination-group (P = 0.0015). In all three treatment groups the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting was reduced significantly compared with placebo treatment (P = 0.0003). The incidence of side effects was similar in the four groups. Dimenhydrinate was ineffective in reducing the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting and droperidol only reduced the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting. However, the combination of both drugs significantly reduces the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting when compared with placebo treatment.     

Prophylactic antiemetics for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: droperidol, metoclopramide, and droperidol plus metoclopramide

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most significant problems in laparoscopic surgery. The antiemetic effects of metoclopramide and droperidol used alone or in combination for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) were assessed in this prospective, double blind, placebo controlled randomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 140 patients, ASA physical status I or II, were included in the study. Patients were randomized to one of the following groups: 1, placebo; 2, metoclopramide 10 mg after the induction of anesthesia and placebo at 12 h postoperatively; 3, droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg at 12 h postoperatively; and 4, droperidol 1.25 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg at 12 h postoperatively. Patients were observed for 24 hours for PONV, pain, need for rescue analgesics, and adverse events. RESULTS: Data were analyzed using the Student's t-test and chi-square test, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. The mean incidence of PONV was 54% with placebo, 42% with metoclopramide, 14% with two doses of droperidol alone, and 11% with a combination of metoclopramide plus droperidol. The patients receiving a combination of metoclopramide and droperidol had a significantly lower rate of PONV than those administered metoclopramide alone (P < 0.05) or placebo (P < 0.001). Those receiving two-dose droperidol alone also had a significantly lower incidence of PONV compared with metoclopramide (P < 0.05) and placebo (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the metoclopramide and placebo groups. Sedation was significantly greater in patients administered droperidol 12 h postoperatively. CONCLUSION: The combination of metoclopramide and droperidol, and two-dose droperidol alone, were found to significantly decrease the incidence of PONV after LC, whereas metoclopramide alone proved inefficient.     

COMPARISON OF THE USE OF DOMPERIDONE, DROPERIDOL AND METOCLOPRAMIDE IN THE PREVENTION OF NAUSEA AND VOMITING FOLLOWING GYNAECOLOGICAL SURGERY IN DAY CASES

The efficacy of domperidone 20 mg, droperidol 2.5 mg, metoclopramide10 mg or placebo (saline) administered i.v. before inductionof anaesthesia, was studied in 199 women undergoing gynaecologicalsurgery as day cases. Following a standardized general anaesthetictechnique, droperidol or metoclopramide significantly reducedthe incidence of nausea and vomiting; domperidone decreasedthe incidence of postoperative nausea alone. The occurrenceof extrapyramidal reactions was similar in all groups. Patientstreated with antiemetics were no more sedated than those givenplacebo. Those receiving droperidol complained of significantlyless postoperative pain than those who had received domperidoneor metoclopramide.     

Prevention of nausea and vomiting with granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Nausea and vomiting during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section are distressing to the patient. This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in parturients undergoing caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.
Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 120 patients received granisetron 3 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg or placebo (saline) ( n =30 of each) i. v. immediately after clamping of the foetal umbilical cord. Nausea, vomiting and safety assessments were performed during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Results: The incidence of intraoperative, post-delivery nausea and vomiting was 13%, 17%, 20% and 63% after administration of granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo, respectively; the corresponding incidence during 0–3 h after surgery was 7%, 27%, 27% and 43%; the corresponding incidence during 3–24 h after surgery was 7%, 20%, 23% and 37% ( P <0.05; overall Fisher's exact probability test). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any of the groups.
Conclusion: Granisetron is highly effective for preventing nausea and vomiting during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Droperidol and metoclopramide are effective for the prevention of intraoperative, post-delivery emesis, but are ineffective for the reduction of the incidence of postoperative emesis.