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.     

Randomized,double-blinded comparison of tropisetron and placebo for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after supratentorial craniotomy

This prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of tropisetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective supratentorial craniotomy in adult patients. We studied 65 ASA physical status I-III patients aged 18 to 76 years who were undergoing elective craniotomy for resection of various supratentorial tumors. Patients were divided into two groups and received either 2 mg of tropisetron (group T) or saline placebo (group P) intravenously at the time of dural closure. A standard general anesthetic technique was used. Episodes of nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetic medication were recorded during 24 hours postoperatively. Demographic data, duration of surgery and anesthesia, and sedation scores were comparable in both groups. Nausea occurred in 30% of group T patients and in 46.7% of group P patients (P >.05). The incidence of emetic episodes was 26.7% and 56.7% in the two groups (P <.05). Rescue antiemetic medication was needed in 26.7% and 60% of the patients (P <.05). Administration of a single dose of tropisetron (2 mg intravenously) given at the time of dural closure was effective in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective craniotomy for supratentorial tumor resection in adult patients.     

A randomized, double-blind comparison of ondansetron versus placebo for prevention of nausea and vomiting after infratentorial craniotomy

Ondansetron was compared with placebo for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis after fentanyl/isoflurane/relaxant anesthesia and infratentorial craniotomy. Eight milligrams intravenous ondansetron or vehicle was administered at skin closure. Nausea, emesis, and antiemetic use were recorded at 0, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours. There were no significant intergroup differences for nausea incidence at any interval, but cumulatively the placebo group was 3.2 times more likely to develop nausea during the first 12 hours (P = .04). Nausea incidence was bimodal in both groups, peaking during the first 1 to 4 hours. A nadir occurred at 8 to 12 hours, but nausea increased during the next 36 hours. By 48 hours, approximately 40% of patients in both groups were still nauseated. Reduced vomiting frequency was seen with ondansetron at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours (P < .05). Despite rescue antiemetics, emesis occurred in an irregular pattern with episodes still observed in 35% of placebo patients at 48 hours. For ondansetron, emesis was infrequent for the first 12 hours but then a persistent increase was observed (48 hours, 22%). The incidence of rescue antiemetic use was 65% for both groups. There was no effect of gender. Nausea and vomiting are frequent and protracted after infratentorial craniotomy. Administration of single-dose ondansetron (8 mg intravenously) at wound closure was partially effective in reducing acute nausea and vomiting but had little delayed benefit. Scheduled prophylactic administration of antiemetic therapy during the first 48 hours after infratentorial craniotomy should be evaluated for efficacy and safety.     

Dolasetron versus ondansetron for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

The management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a persistent problem. Despite the use of prophylactic antiemetics, breakthrough nausea and vomiting still frequently occur. There have been no published studies comparing dolasetron and ondansetron for the treatment of PONV. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult outpatient surgery patients. We screened 559 consecutive adult surgery patients, with 92 patients randomized to either ondansetron or dolasetron. The objectives of the study were 1) to determine whether treatment of PONV with ondansetron 4 mg IV or dolasetron 12.5 mg IV would result in better outcomes in patients undergoing day surgery and 2) to compare the cost of drugs used for treating PONV. Thirty-three (70%) of 47 patients given ondansetron required rescue medication, compared with 18 (40%) of 45 patients given dolasetron (P < 0.004). Dolasetron was approximately 40% less expensive than ondansetron, and the costs of the study drug plus rescue antiemetics were 30% less in the dolasetron group than in the ondansetron group. Dolasetron provided greater efficacy for antiemetic treatment because of the need for less rescue therapy. Because of the decreased use of rescue antiemetics and acquisition cost at our hospital, costs in the dolasetron group were less than costs in the ondansetron group.     

Prevention of PONV by acustimulation with capsicum plaster is comparable to ondansetron after middle ear surgery

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of stimulation of P6 acupoint with capsicum plaster in comparison with iv ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: 120 patients of either sex, ASA I-II, undergoing elective middle ear surgeries under general anesthesia were included in this randomized, prospective, double-blinded and placebo-controlled study. The anesthetic technique was standardized. Patients were divided into three groups. Group I was the control group. Capsicum plaster (1 x 1 cm) was affixed at the P6 acupoint on both forearms 30 min before induction of anesthesia in patients of Group II. Patients of Groups I and III received an inactive adhesive plaster at the same site. Ondansetron 4 mg iv was given to patients of Group III at the end of surgery and the rest of the patients received a placebo. The plasters were removed six hours after transferring the patients to the postoperative unit. Criteria were fixed for the administration of rescue antiemetics (ondansetron 4 mg iv). PONV and the requirement for rescue antiemetics were recorded by a blinded observer. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV and the requirement for rescue antiemetics were significantly lower in both the acustimulation and ondansetron groups at six hours. At 24 hr there was a reduction in the requirement for rescue medication in the ondansetron group. CONCLUSION: Stimulation of the P6 acupoint with capsicum plaster is an effective method for prevention of PONV after middle ear surgery and its efficacy is comparable to ondansetron for the first six hours after surgery.     

地塞米松联合恩丹西酮对手术后病人自控镇痛相关恶心呕吐的影响

目的　观察地塞米松联合恩丹西酮对手术后病人自控镇痛 (PCA)所致恶心呕吐的防治效果。方法　随机将 2 0 0例在连续硬膜外麻醉下行下肢手术的患者分为四组 :对照 (C)组于手术切皮前 (T1)和手术结束时 (T2 )分别静脉注射生理盐水 2ml;地塞米松 (D)组于T1、T2 时分别注射地塞米松 10mg和生理盐水 2ml;恩丹西酮 (O)组于T1、T2 时分别注射生理盐水 2ml和恩丹西酮4mg ;地塞米松 +恩丹西酮 (D +O)组于T1、T2 时分别注射地塞米松 10mg和恩丹西酮 4mg。术毕均行病人自控静脉芬太尼镇痛 (PCIFA)。观察术后 2 4h内病人镇痛效果、镇静评分和恶心呕吐发生情况。结果　 5例患者因故退出此观察。组间镇痛效果、镇静评分无明显差异。C组恶心呕吐发生率为 5 2 1% ,明显高于D组 (33 3% )和O组 (32 7% ) ,P <0 0 5 ;D +O组恶心呕吐发生率为16 0 % ,与C组比较 ,P <0 0 1,与D组和O组比较 ,P <0 0 5 ;各处理组恶心程度均小于对照组 ,P <0 0 5 ;D +O组呕吐程度低于C组 ,P <0 0 5。结论　地塞米松与恩丹西酮单独应用均能有效地减少手术后PCIFA相关的恶心呕吐 ,减轻恶心程度 ;两药联合应用进一步降低患者的恶心呕吐发生率和呕吐的程度     

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.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after craniotomy for tumor surgery: a comparison between awake craniotomy and general anesthesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients following an awake craniotomy compared to general anesthesia for tumor surgery. DESIGN: Prospective observational and chart review of all patients having a craniotomy for tumor during one year. SETTING: Postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital. PATIENTS: 187 patients were reviewed. 107 patients who had a craniotomy for supratentorial tumor that was less than six hours in duration were analyzed and compared (50 awake craniotomy vs. 57 general anesthesia). INTERVENTIONS: Medical records were reviewed for events after the first four hours until discharge. The occurrence and the time of any nausea, vomiting; the administration of antiemetics and analgesic drugs; and complications were documented. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of nausea, vomiting, administration of antiemetics and analgesia, and outcome between the two groups were compared using Chi-square and Student's t-test. MAIN RESULTS : The frequency of nausea (4% vs. 23%; p = 0.012) and vomiting (0% vs. 11%; p = 0.052) were less in patients having an awake craniotomy compared to general anesthesia, but only during the first four hours. The administration of postoperative analgesia was not different between the two groups and did not influence the frequency of PONV. CONCLUSION: The frequency of PONV during the initial recovery phase was less in patients having an awake craniotomy for tumor surgery than in patients having a similar procedure with general anesthesia.     

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.     

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.     

联合用药对全麻术后自控镇痛患者恶心呕吐的随机对照研究

目的探讨联合用药对术后自控镇痛患者恶心呕吐的疗效。方法 176例手术后应用患者自控镇痛(patient controlled analgesia,PCA)随机分为4组:A组,分别在术中、PCA泵中给予昂丹司琼8mg;B组,在PCA泵中给予地塞米松5mg、氟哌利多2.5mg;C组,在术中给予昂丹司琼8mg、PCA泵中给予地塞米松5mg、氟哌利多2.5mg及昂丹司琼8mg;D组,分别在术中给予昂丹司琼8mg、在PCA泵中给予地塞米松5mg及氟哌利多2.5mg。术后48h回访患者术后恶心呕吐(postoperative nausea and vomiting,PONV)的发生情况。结果 4组PONV发生率分别为A组29.5%(13/44)、B组34.1%(15/44)、C组7.0%(3/43),D组11.4%(5/44),联合用药组即C组和D组PONV发生率明显低于单一用药组A组和B组(P0.05);A、B2组PONV发生率差异无显著性(χ2=0.210,P=0.647),C组PONV发生率与D组间差异无显著性(χ2=0.114,P=0.736)。结论联合应用昂丹司琼、地塞米松及氟哌利多3种止吐药可以显著减少术后自控镇痛患者的恶心呕吐的发生率。     

Prophylactic control of post‐operative nausea and vomiting using ondansetron and ramosetron after cardiac surgery

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron and ramosetron in the reduction of post‐operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with patient‐controlled analgesia (PCA) after cardiac surgery. Methods: A total of 320 patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment regimens (n=80 in each group): no prophylactic antiemetics (group P); intravenous (i.v.) ondansetron 4 mg at the end of surgery and 12 mg added to PCA (group O); i.v. ramosetron 0.3 mg at the end of surgery and no antiemetics added to PCA (group R1); and i.v. ramosetron 0.3 mg at the end of surgery and 0.6 mg added to PCA (group R2). Results: The incidence of PONV during the 48‐h post‐operative period was lower in groups O (46%), R1 (54%), and R2 (35%) compared with group P (71%, P<0.001). The incidence and severity of nausea were lower in groups O, R1, and R2 than in group P during the 24‐h post‐operative period, whereas the incidence and severity of nausea during 24–48 h after surgery were lower in groups O and R2, but not in group R1, than in group P. Compared with group P (53%), the frequency of rescue antiemetic usage was significantly lower in groups O (34%) and R2 (29%), but not in group R1 (43%). Conclusion: The addition of either ondansetron or ramosetron to PCA can reduce the incidence of PONV during 48 h after cardiac surgery.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in children and adolescents undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation: a randomized comparison of propofol- and isoflurane-based anesthetics

In children, radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is typically performed under general anesthesia. With the use of volatile anesthetics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common, with an incidence of emesis as frequent as 60%. We tested the hypothesis that a propofol (PRO)-based anesthetic would have a less frequent incidence of PONV than an isoflurane (ISO)-based anesthetic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either an ISO- or PRO-based anesthetic. Prophylactic ondansetron was given to all patients and droperidol was used as a rescue antiemetic postoperatively while PONV was monitored postoperatively for 18 h. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, use of rescue antiemetic drugs, and sedation scores were recorded. The cost for the anesthetic was also calculated. Fifty-six subjects were included in this study. The cumulative incidence of PONV was significantly more frequent in group ISO (63% nausea/55% emesis) compared with group PRO (21% nausea/6% emesis). After the administration of droperidol, further vomiting occurred in 70% of the patients in group ISO versus 0% of the patients in group PRO. We conclude that RFCA using ISO has a high PONV risk and the prophylactic use of ondansetron as well as antiemetic therapy with droperidol are ineffective. In contrast, a PRO-based anesthetic is highly effective in preventing PONV in children undergoing RFCA. IMPLICATIONS: In children undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation and receiving prophylactic ondansetron, a frequent incidence (60%) of postoperative vomiting was observed under an isoflurane-based anesthetic, whereas the incidence was significantly reduced to a very low level (5%) under a propofol-based anesthetic.     

Midazolam: an effective antiemetic after cardiac surgery--a clinical trial

Cardiac surgery has been associated with a significant incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). To assess the antiemetic property of midazolam, we undertook this double-blinded, randomized trial in 200 patients undergoing cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass, and we compared its efficacy with that of ondansetron in preventing PONV. Assessments on the occurrence of PONV were made at regular intervals for the first 24 h after tracheal extubation, along with sedation and pain scoring. We report a 6% incidence of nausea and no incidence of vomiting in the midazolam group, compared with a 21% incidence of PONV in the ondansetron group (P < 0.001). All 21 patients (18 women and 3 men) in the ondansetron group and none of the 6 patients (all women) in the midazolam group required a rescue antiemetic drug (P < 0.001). The sedation scores and postoperative pain scores were comparable in both groups. We conclude that midazolam, instituted as a continuous infusion in a dose of 0.02 mg. kg(-1). h(-1), is a more effective antiemetic than ondansetron in a dose of 0.1 mg/kg IV every 6 h for the prevention of PONV after cardiac surgery.     

Antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) vs ondansetron (Zofran)

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) is as effective as the use of ondansetron (Zofran) in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective double-blind randomized study was performed in a tertiary care referral center. METHODS: For this study, 128 American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical statuses I, II, and III patients were randomly assigned to receive either ondansetron 4 mg intravenously (IV) at $17 per dose (group 1) or dimenhydrinate 50 mg IV at $2.50 per dose (group 2) before induction of anesthesia. The end points evaluated were frequency of PONV, need for rescue antiemetics, need for overnight hospitalization secondary to persistent nausea and vomiting, and frequency PONV 24 h after discharge. RESULTS: Chi-square tests and student's t-test were used to determine the significance of differences among groups. Of the 128 patients enrolled in this study, 20 were excluded: 15 patients received an additional antiemetic preoperative; 4 were converted to open cholecystectomies; and 1 procedure was aborted due to carcinomatosis. Of the 108 remaining participants, 50 received ondansetron (group 1) and 58 received dimenhydrinate (group 2). Both groups were well matched for demographics including gender, ASA class, and history of motion sickness. The need for rescue antiemetics occurred in 34% of group 1 and 29% of Group 2 (p = 0.376), postoperative vomiting in 6% of group 1 and 12% of group 2 (p = 0.228), and postoperative nausea in 42% of group 1 and 34% of group 2 (p = 0.422). One group 1 patient and two group 2 patients required overnight hospitalization for persistent nausea, a difference that was not significant. Rates of PONV 24 h after discharge were similar between groups 1 and 2 (10% vs 14%, p = 0.397 and 2% vs 5%, p = 0.375, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate is as effective as the use of ondansetron in preventing PONV in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dimenhydrinate is the preferred drug because it is less expensive. With more than 500, 000 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in the United States each year, the potential drug cost savings from the prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate instead of ondansetron exceed $7.25 million per year.     

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.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast surgery: efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and droperidol in a randomized placebo-controlled study

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse phenomenon following breast surgery. The efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol in preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing breast surgery was compared in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Altogether 207 women were randomly assigned to receive either a single intravenous dose of droperidol (1.25 mg) (n = 69), ondansetron (8 mg) (n = 67) or saline (n = 71) immediately after induction of general anaesthesia with thiopental, fentanyl, atracurium, nitrous oxide in oxygen and isoflurane. Complaints of nausea, vomiting and requests for rescue antiemetics were recorded during a 24-h period postoperatively. During the initial 2 h in the postanaesthesia care unit, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 15%, 6% and 12% in the placebo, droperidol and ondansetron groups, respectively (NS). The incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h was 61%, 48% and 45% in the placebo, droperidol and ondansetron treatment groups, respectively (NS). Postoperative analgesic requirements and the length of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit were equal in all three treatment groups. It is concluded that the intravenous pretreatment with single doses of ondansetron or droperidol did not substantially prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast surgery.     

Ondansetron versus droperidol or placebo to prevent nausea and vomiting after otologic surgery

This study compares the preoperative administration of ondansetron with that of droperidol or saline solution for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in otologic surgery patients. A total of 120 otherwise healthy individuals were randomly assigned to receive either saline solution, ondansetron (4 mg intravenously), or droperidol (25 μg/kg intravenously) before anesthetic induction. Intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit times were recorded along with incidence of nausea, vomiting, pain, nausea and recovery scores, and the administration of rescue antiemetics. Similar assessments were made during the next 24 hours. Demographics were similar, but more males received ondansetron. Anesthetic recovery scores were lower after administration of droperidol than after ondansetron. Incidence of nausea was similar between groups, but severity was greater with placebo and droperidol than with ondansetron. More vomiting occurred with placebo than with ondansetron or droperidol. No intergroup differences in rescue antiemetic administration were noted, however. Twenty-four hours later, more patients receiving placebo had nausea or vomited than patients receiving droperidol or ondansetron. Fewer women in the ondansetron group vomited than in the other two groups. Ondansetron 4 mg intravenously is as effective as droperidol and better than saline solution in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing otologic surgery. No cost advantage as determined by lower use of rescue antiemetics or shorter postanesthesia care unit times was noted after ondansetron therapy. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:785-9.)     

A randomized controlled comparison of electro-acupoint stimulation or ondansetron versus placebo for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

In this study we evaluated the efficacy of electro-acupoint stimulation, ondansetron versus placebo for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Patients undergoing major breast surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into active electro-acupoint stimulation (A), ondansetron 4 mg IV (O), or sham control (placement of electrodes without electro-acupoint stimulation; placebo [P]). The anesthetic regimen was standardized. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, pain, and patient satisfaction with management of PONV were assessed at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 min, and at 24 h. The complete response (no nausea, vomiting, or use of rescue antiemetic) was significantly more frequent in the active treatment groups compared with placebo both at 2 h (A/O/P = 77%/64%/42%, respectively; P = 0.01) and 24 h postoperatively (A/O/P = 73%/52%/38%, respectively; P = 0.006). The need for rescue antiemetic was less in the treatment groups (A/O/P = 19%/28%/54%; P = 0.04). Specifically, the incidence and severity of nausea were significantly less in the A group compared with the other groups, and in the O group compared with the P group (A/O/P = 19%/40%/79%, respectively). The A group experienced less pain in the postanesthesia care unit, compared with the O and P groups. Patients in the treatment groups were more satisfied with their management of PONV compared with placebo. When used for the prevention of PONV, electro-acupoint stimulation or ondansetron was more effective than placebo with greater degree of patient satisfaction, but electro-acupoint stimulation seems to be more effective in controlling nausea, compared with ondansetron. Stimulation at P6 also has analgesic 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.