Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ondansetron,tropisetron, granisetron and metoclopramide in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized,double-blind comparison with placebo

Purpose

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a distressing adverse effect of general anaesthesia. The aim of the current study was to compare the antiemetic activity of different 5-hydroxytryptamine₃ receptor antagonists with that of metoclopramide and placebo.

Methods

In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study we have compared the antiemetic activity of the prophylactic administration of ondansetron 4 mg, tropisetron 5 mg and granisetron 3 mg with that of metoclopramide 10 mg and placebo in 132 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. All study drugs and placebo were given as a short iv infusion ten minutes before the induction of anaesthesia. Perioperative anaesthetic care was standardized in all patients. Nausea and vomiting were assessed by direct questioning of the patient at 1, 4, 9, 12, 18 and 24 hr after recovery from anaesthesia. If patients experienced nausea and/or vomiting, rescue antiemetic treatment (metoclopramide 10 mg iv) was administered.

Results

For the 24-hr recovery period after surgery, the percentages of emesis-free patients were 65.5%, 52%, 48%, 29.2% and 27.6% in the ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, metoclopramide and placebo groups, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetic treatment with ondansetron resulted in a lower incidence (P = 0.02) of PONV than with metoclopramide or placebo. The times at which rescue antiemetic was first received were longer (P < 0.01) in ondansetron group than in the placebo and metoclopramide groups. There were no statistical differences between ondansetron, tropisetron and granisetron groups.

Conclusions

Ondansetron, when given prophylactically resulted in a significantly lower incidence of PONV than metoclopramide and placebo. Metoclopramide was ineffective.     

Comparing the efficacy of prophylactic metoclopramide, ondansetron, and placebo in cesarean section patients given epidural anesthesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of prophylactic metoclopramide, ondansetron, and placebo in nonemergent cesarean section patients given epidural anesthesia intraoperatively and for the first 24-hour period after delivery. DESIGN: Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Inpatient obstetric unit at a university hospital center. PATIENTS: 164 nonemergent cesarean section patients given epidural anesthesia. INTERVENTION: At time of umbilical cord clamp, patients received intravenously (IV) either 4 mg ondansetron (Group O) or 10 mg metoclopramide (Group M) or 10 mL normal saline (Group P). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Episodes and severity of nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic requirement, patient satisfaction, and side effects were recorded. The frequency of intraoperative nausea were 24%, 43%, and 57% for Group O, Group M, and Group P, respectively (p < 0.03). The frequency of nausea for the 24-hour study period were 26%, 51% and 71% for Groups O, M, and P respectively (p < 0.03). The frequency of intraoperative and postoperative vomiting were similar between Group O and Group M, but significantly higher in Group P (p < 0.05). Overall patient satisfaction was highest in Group O compared with Groups P and M (p < 0.05). Maximum analog sedation score was higher in Group M compared to Groups O and P (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In cesarean section patients given epidural anesthesia, prophylactic ondansetron, 4 mg IV, is more efficacious and has a higher patient satisfaction than that with metoclopramide, 10 mg IV, or placebo in preventing nausea and achieving complete responses during intraoperative period and the first 24-hour postdelivery period. However, there is no difference between ondansetron and metoclopramide in reducing frequency of vomiting. Prophylactic ondansetron 4 mg IV is more effective in preventing nausea than vomiting.     

Incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting are similar after metoclopramide 20 mg and ondansetron 8 mg given by the end of laparoscopic cholecystectomies

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron has a well documented antiemetic prophylactic effect, whereas in most studies of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), metoclopramide is less efficacious. This can be attributed to the short-lasting effect of metoclopramide when a low dose is given at the beginning of surgery. We wanted to test a 20-mg dose of metoclopramide given at the end of surgery, using ondansetron 8 mg as a reference. METHODS: 122 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were studied in a randomized, double-blind study design. At the end of the procedure, the patients received either metoclopramide 20 mg or ondansetron 8 mg intravenously. The patients were observed for 24 h for PONV, pain, side-effects and need for rescue antiemetic medication. RESULTS: No significant differences in the incidence of PONV or need for rescue antiemetic treatment was observed in the 0-24 h postoperative study period. The overall incidence of PONV was 43% in the ondansetron group and 47% in the metoclopramide group. The ondansetron patients had a significantly higher incidence of moderate or strong pain during the postoperative observation period (61% vs. 35% in the metoclopramide group) (P < 0.05). No significant differences in side-effects between the groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Metoclopramide 20 mg i.v. given at the end of laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in a similar incidence of PONV compared with ondansetron 8 mg. The patients receiving metoclopramide had less pain than the patients receiving ondansetron.     

The timing of haloperidol administration does not affect its prophylactic antiemetic efficacy

PURPOSE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs frequently after general anesthesia. We evaluated the timing of 2 mg iv doses of haloperidol on the efficacy of this drug as a prophylactic antiemetic for PONV. METHODS: Ninety-four non-smoking female patients with a history of motion sickness and/or PONV (Apfel's simplified risk score=3; predicted incidence of PONV=60%) were eligible to participate in this randomized, double-blind study. Patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 patients received haloperidol 2 mg iv during induction of anesthesia. Group 2 patients received haloperidol 2 mg iv approximately 30 min before the end of surgery. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting, nausea scores, pain scores, sedation levels, and adverse effects (cardiac arrhythmias, and extrapyramidal effects) were recorded by a trained, blinded investigator. RESULTS: The percentages of patients who experienced PONV in the first 24 hr were similar for the two groups (Group 1=30%; Group 2=26%, P=0.645). The incidence of PONV was significantly smaller in both groups than that predicted (60%) according to the patients' underlying risks (Group 1, P=0.004; Group 2, P=0.001). Nausea scores, pain scores, sedation scores, emergence times, and time to first rescue treatment were similar in the two groups. No adverse effects attributable to the study medication were observed. CONCLUSION: The timing of administration of haloperidol 2 mg iv does not influence its antiemetic efficacy. The recovery profiles were also similar whether haloperidol was administered at the start, or at the end of surgery.     

Acupressure and ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of acupressure wrist bands and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: One hundred and fifty ASA I-II, patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in a randomized, prospective, double-blind and placebo-controlled study. Patients were divided into three groups of 50. Group I was the control; Group II received ondansetron 4 mg iv just prior to induction of anesthesia; in Group III acupressure wristbands were applied at the P6 points. Acupressure wrist bands were placed inappropriately in Groups I and II. The acupressure wrist bands were applied 30 min prior to induction of anesthesia and removed six hours following surgery. Anesthesia was standardized. PONV were evaluated separately as none, mild, moderate or severe within six hours of patients' arrival in the postanesthesia care unit and then at 24 hr after surgery by a blinded observer. If patients vomited more than once, they were given 4 mg ondansetron iv as the rescue antiemetic. Results were analyzed by Z test. A P value of < 0.05 was taken as significant. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV and the requirement of rescue medication were significantly lower in both the acupressure and ondansetron groups during the first six hours. CONCLUSION: Acupressure at P6 causes a significant reduction in the incidence of PONV and the requirement for rescue medication in the first six hours following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, similar to that of ondansetron 4 mg iv.     

Comparison of Acustimulation and Ondansetron for the Treatment of Established Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Background: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand(R) compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery.

Methods: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand(R); (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand(R); and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand(R). A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery.

Results: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73%vs. 40%, P < 0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores.     

Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand; and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. RESULTS: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs.40%, P <0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. CONCLUSIONS: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.     

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.     

A randomized comparison of a multimodal management strategy versus combination antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

A multimodal management strategy for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) appears to be superior to single-drug prophylaxis. We tested the hypothesis that a multimodal PONV prophylaxis regimen incorporating total IV anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and a combination of ondansetron and droperidol is more effective than a combination of these antiemetics in the presence of an inhaled anesthetic. Ninety patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to one of three groups. Group 1 (multimodal group) received TIVA with propofol, droperidol, and ondansetron. Group 2 (combination group) received droperidol and ondansetron with isoflurane and nitrous oxide for the maintenance of anesthesia. Group 3 (TIVA group) received propofol for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The complete response rate (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic) at 2 h after surgery was 90%, 63%, and 66% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.05, Group 1 versus Group 2). At 24 h, the complete response rate was 80%, 63%, and 43% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.05, Group 1 versus Group 3). Patient satisfaction was also greater in the multimodal group than in the other two groups in the postanesthesia care unit (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the multimodal management strategy for PONV was associated with a higher complete response rate and greater patient satisfaction when compared with similar antiemetic prophylaxis with inhaled anesthesia or TIVA with propofol.     

A randomized, double-blinded comparison of ondansetron, droperidol, and placebo for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after supratentorial craniotomy

Nausea or vomiting occurs frequently after craniotomy. Because of the need for frequent postoperative neurological assessment, an effective antiemetic with minimal sedative side effects is needed. Therefore, we compared ondansetron to droperidol in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. A total of 60 adults requiring elective supratentorial craniotomy received standardized IV anesthesia with 4 mg of ondansetron, 0.625 mg of droperidol, or placebo at skin closure. The incidence of postoperative nausea, emesis, pain and sedation scores, and rescue antiemetic use were recorded at 0, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h. All groups were demographically similar. Differences existed for cumulative 8, 12, and 24 h incidences of nausea (24 h, P = 0.03) and emesis (24 h, P = 0.04). Within 4 h, when maximal effect could be expected from treatment, 20% of the ondansetron group, 25% of the droperidol group and 50% of the placebo group received rescue antiemetic (P = 0.12). No differences in pain (P = 0.82) or sedation (P = 0.74) scores were detected. Both ondansetron and droperidol prevent nausea; however, only droperidol reduces emesis after supratentorial craniotomy. The dose of droperidol used was not more sedating than ondansetron. Sustained reduction in nausea and emesis over 24 h indicates a preemptive benefit of prophylactic antiemetic in this surgical population. Implications: Nausea and vomiting after brain surgery are particularly troubling, because effective treatment may cause sedation, making postoperative neurological assessment difficult. Our study shows that both ondansetron and droperidol are effective in reducing nausea, and that droperidol is particularly effective in reducing vomiting. Neither drug caused more sedation than placebo.     

Comparative study of the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron, propofol and midazolam in the early postoperative period

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron with two different hypnotic drugs (propofol 15 mg, midazolam 1 and 2 mg) for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Four-hundred-and-fifty-three patients scheduled for elective gynaecological or abdominal surgery were enrolled. One-hundred-and-twenty patients (26%) experienced postoperative emesis, and when nausea scores reached 2 or greater on a five-point scale, they were randomized to receive intravenously: propofol 15 mg (1.5 mL) in Group P, midazolam 1 mg in Group M1, midazolam 2 mg in Group M2 and ondansetron 4 mg in Group O. RESULTS: Four patients (13.3%) in Group P, 13 patients (43.3%) in Group M1, five patients (16.6%) in Group M2 and one patient (3.3%) in Group O required a second dose of the study drug. After administration of the study drugs, nausea scores were significantly lower in all groups than before these drugs were given. No patient had a sedation score over 3 (the patients remained awake and/or responded to verbal contact). The sedative effects of midazolam and propofol lasted for a much shorter time than the antiemetic effects of these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol and midazolam used in subhypnotic doses were as effective as ondansetron in treating PONV in patients undergoing abdominal or gynaecological surgery without untoward sedative or cardiovascular effects.     

Ondansetron, metoclopramid, dexamethason, and their combinations compared for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study

Background A prospective randomized study was performed to assess the value of some individual risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and to compare the efficacy of ondansetron, metoclopramide, dexamethason, and combinations of these antiemetics in preventing PONV in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods The study enrolled 210 patients (157 women and 53 men) scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The patients were randomly divided into seven groups. In groups 1 to 6, antiemetic drugs were administered. Group 7, the control group, received no antiemetic. For all the patients, individual risk factors for the incidence of nausea also were analyzed. Both nausea and vomiting were assessed separately 1, 4, 8, and 12 h after the procedure. Results Postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly less frequent in menopausal women and more frequent in patients with a history of motion sickness. A comparison of mean values for the incidence of nausea and vomiting in groups 1 to 6 with the same values in group 7 showed that the mean PONV incidences were highest in groups 3 and 7, and the difference was significant. Conclusions Administration of antiemetic drugs significantly decreases the incidence of PONV in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The best decreases were achieved when ondansetron and dexamethason were applied together.     

Comparative study of the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron,propofol and midazolam in the early postoperative period

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron with two different hypnotic drugs (propofol 15 mg, midazolam 1 and 2 mg) for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Four-hundred-and-fifty-three patients scheduled for elective gynaecological or abdominal surgery were enrolled. One-hundred-and-twenty patients (26%) experienced postoperative emesis, and when nausea scores reached 2 or greater on a five-point scale, they were randomized to receive intravenously: propofol 15 mg (1.5 mL) in Group P, midazolam 1 mg in Group M1, midazolam 2 mg in Group M2 and ondansetron 4 mg in Group O. RESULTS: Four patients (13.3%) in Group P, 13 patients (43.3%) in Group M1, five patients (16.6%) in Group M2 and one patient (3.3%) in Group O required a second dose of the study drug. After administration of the study drugs, nausea scores were significantly lower in all groups than before these drugs were given. No patient had a sedation score over 3 (the patients remained awake and/or responded to verbal contact). The sedative effects of midazolam and propofol lasted for a much shorter time than the antiemetic effects of these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol and midazolam used in subhypnotic doses were as effective as ondansetron in treating PONV in patients undergoing abdominal or gynaecological surgery without untoward sedative or cardiovascular effects.     

Comparison of ondansetron with ondansetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in diagnostic laparoscopy

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of ondansetron-dexamethasone combination with ondansetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: This double blind, randomized study was carried out in 51 female patients, aged 20-40 yr, ASA-1 physical status undergoing gynecological diagnostic laparoscopy. Group 1 (n = 26) received 4 mg ondansetron i.v. and group 2 (n = 25) received a combination of 4 mg ondansetron and 8 mg dexamethasone i.v. soon after induction of anesthesia. Postoperatively patients were assessed hourly for four hours and then at 24 hr for nausea, vomiting, pain and post anesthetic discharge score. Vomiting occurring up to two hours was considered early vomiting and from 2-24 hr as delayed vomiting. RESULTS: The postoperative nausea score was lower in patients receiving a combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone (3.76) than ondansetron alone (4.38) at 0 hr (P < 0.01), 2 hr (P < 0.05) and 24 hr (P < 0.01). In group 1, 38.5% of patients had a nausea score of > or = 5 (major nausea) compared with only 12% of patients in group 2 (P < 0.025). The overall incidence of vomiting was greater in group 1 (35%) than in group 2 (8%) (P < 0.05). The combination group showed better control of delayed vomiting compared with the ondansetron group (4% vs 35%) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone provides adequate control of PONV, with delayed PONV being better controlled than early PONV.     

Effect of prophylactic ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective craniotomy.

This prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron, a 5-HT3 antagonist, in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after elective craniotomy in adult patients. The authors also tried to discover certain predictors for postcraniotomy nausea and vomiting. We studied 170 ASA physical status I and II patients, aged 15 to 70 years, undergoing elective craniotomy for resecting various intracranial tumors and vascular lesions. A standardized anesthesia technique and postoperative analgesia were used for all patients. Patients were divided into two groups and received either saline placebo (Group 1) or ondansetron 4 mg (Group 2) intravenously at the time of dural closure. Patients were extubated at the end of surgery and episodes of nausea and vomiting were noted for 24 hours postoperatively in the neurosurgical intensive care unit. Demographic data, duration of surgery, and anesthesia and analgesic requirements were comparable in both groups. Overall, a 24-hour incidence of postoperative emesis was significantly reduced in patients who received ondansetron compared with those who received a saline placebo (39% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2, P = .001). There was a significant reduction in the frequency of emetic episodes and rescue antiemetic requirement in patients treated with ondansetron; however, ondansetron did not significantly reduce the incidence of nausea alone (14% in Group 2 vs 5% in Group 1, P = .065). Prophylactic ondansetron had a favorable influence on PONV outcome measures such as patient satisfaction and number needed to prevent emesis (3.5). Side effects were similar in both groups. We conclude that ondansetron 4 mg given at the time of dural closure is safe and effective in preventing emetic episodes after elective craniotomy in adult patients.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting management in maxillofacial procedures: Dexamethasone combined with metoclopramide

BackgroundEfficient prevention and management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a concern that needs to be addressed. There was a persistently high incidence of PONV despite prophylaxis with, metoclopramide, droperidol, dimenhydrinate or ondansetron when each was used alone in ‘at risk’ patients. Dexamethasone was also used as a stand alone drug in patients undergoing surgery. However, the current opinion questions the role of monotherapy. Drug combinations are deemed to be more useful for balanced anti-emesis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prophylactic antiemetic effects of the combination dexamethasone–metoclopramide in patients undergoing maxillofacial procedures.Patients and methodsIn this placebo-controlled, double-blind study, 208 outpatients under standardized anesthetic technique were randomized to receive dexamethasone 8 mg before anesthesia induction and metoclopramide, 10 mg at the end of surgery (Group A), dexamethasone 8 mg before anesthesia induction and placebo at the end of surgery (Group B), placebo before anesthesia induction and metoclopramide, 10 mg at the end of surgery (Group C) or placebo before anesthesia induction and at the end of surgery (Group D). Complete response to prophylactic antiemetic medication was defined as no vomiting, no sustained moderate nausea and no requesting of antiemetic drug.ResultsDuring predischarge period, the number of patients with complete response to prophylactic antiemetic medication was significantly higher in Groups B (90.4%) and A (86.5%) in comparison with Groups D (55.8%) and C (75%). At the 24 h follow-up evaluation, complete response was higher in Group A (96.2%) in comparison with Groups C (67.3%) and D (78.8%).ConclusionsDexamethasone–metoclopramide combination is not more effective than administration of dexamethasone alone in the prophylaxis of (PONV).     

Ondansetron in the treatment of postoperative vomiting: a randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol and metoclopramide.

The prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol and metoclopramide in 66 patients undergoing general anesthesia for dilatation and curettage. Ten minutes before induction of anesthesia, 22 patients received a single intravenous dose of 8 mg of ondansetron, 22 others received 1.25 mg of droperidol, and the remaining 22 received 10 mg of metoclopramide. Anesthesia was induced with 3.3-5 mg/kg of intravenous thiopental and maintained with 65% nitrous oxide in oxygen and 2%-3% enflurane. Postoperatively, the incidence of vomiting was 13% with ondansetron, 45% with droperidol, and 54% with metoclopramide (P less than 0.05; overall chi 2 test). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea among the groups. Postoperative sedation and well-being scores were not significantly different among the groups. We conclude that preoperative prophylactic administration of ondansetron is superior to droperidol or metoclopramide in the prevention of emetic sequelae after general anesthesia for dilatation and curettage.     

Double-blind, Randomized Comparison of Ondansetron and Intraoperative Propofol to Prevent Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting

Background: Breast surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Propofol and prophylactic administration of ondansetron are associated with a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. To date no comparison of these two drugs has been reported. A randomized study was done to compare the efficacy of ondansetron and intraoperative propofol given in various regimens.

Methods: Study participants included 89 women classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 or 2 who were scheduled for major breast surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Group O received 4 mg ondansetron in 10 ml 0.9% saline and groups PI, PIP, and PP received 10 ml 0.9% saline before anesthesia induction. Group O received thiopental, isoflurane, nitrous oxide-oxygen, and fentanyl for anesthesia. Group PI received propofol, isoflurane, nitrous oxide-oxygen, and fentanyl. Group PIP received propofol, isoflurane, nitrous oxide-oxygen, and fentanyl. Thirty minutes before expected skin closure, isoflurane was discontinued and 50 to 150 micro gram [centered dot] kg sup -1 [centered dot] min sup -1 propofol was given intravenously to maintain anesthesia. Group PP received propofol for induction and maintenance of anesthesia, nitrous oxide-oxygen, and fentanyl. Postoperative pain relief was provided with morphine administered by a patient-controlled analgesia pump. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, requests for rescue antiemetic and sedation, pain scores, and hemodynamic data were recorded for 24 h.

Results: Within 6 h of surgery, groups O and PP had a lower incidence of nausea compared with groups PI and PIP (P < 0.05). Fewer patients in group PP (19%) vomited during the 24-h period compared with groups O (48%), PI (64%), and PIP (52%) (P < 0.05). The incidence of antiemetic use was also less in group PP (P < 0.05). Patients in group PP had lower sedation scores at 30 min and at 1 h (P < 0.05). There were no differences among the groups in pain scores, blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and incidence of pruritus.     

Haloperidol is as effective as ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE: Recent warnings regarding the safety of droperidol have limited use of this drug as an antiemetic. Haloperidol, a butyrophenone derivative similar to droperidol, has not been rigorously evaluated as an antiemetic. The aim of this study was to compare the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of haloperidol vs ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after general anesthesia. METHODS: Ninety non-smoking female patients were eligible to participate in this randomized double-blinded study. Approximately 30 min before the end of surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive either haloperidol 2 mg iv, or ondansetron 4 mg iv, respectively. The incidence of PONV, average pain and sedation scores, recovery times, and changes of the rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval were observed postoperatively. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who experienced PONV in the first 24 hr was similar in the two groups (28% and 26% for haloperidol and ondansetron groups, respectively). The incidence of PONV was significantly less in both groups than predicted according to the patients' underlying risks (53% for the haloperidol group, P=0.016; 51% for the ondansetron group, P=0.015). Pain scores, sedation scores, and recovery times were similar in the two groups, and no prolongation of the QTc interval was observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol 2 mg iv given 30 min before the end of surgery is effective in preventing PONV, with efficacy comparable to ondansetron 4 mg iv for the first 24 hr after general anesthesia.     

The effectiveness of rescue antiemetics after failure of prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol: a preliminary report

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of treating established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with an antiemetic acting at a different receptor with that of treating PONV with the antiemetic used for prophylaxis. DESIGN: Analysis of data collected in a previously published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Outpatient surgical procedures from 50 institutions in North America. PATIENTS: Patients (N = 2061) undergoing outpatient surgical procedures planned to last no more than 2 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 1.25, droperidol 0.625 mg, or placebo. In the postoperative anesthesia care unit, patients who developed PONV received rescue antiemetics at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist. The following antiemetics were used for rescue: ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg, and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg. MEASUREMENTS: The complete response rate (no nausea, no emesis, and no need for further rescue) after administration of the rescue antiemetic in patients with established PONV was calculated. The complete response rate after administration of each of the different rescue antiemetics was compared with that after administration of the same antiemetic used for PONV prophylaxis. MAIN RESULTS: In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron 4 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher (P = .02) after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (78%) than after rescue with ondansetron 4 mg (46%). In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol 0.625 and 1.25 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (77%; P = .02) and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg (78%; P = .04) than after rescue with droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg (56%). CONCLUSION: In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol, promethazine was significantly more effective than the agent used for prophylaxis for the treatment of PONV. In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol, dimenhydrinate was also more effective than droperidol for the treatment of established PONV in the postoperative anesthesia care unit.