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.     

Comparison of ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery in women

Background : Women undergoing laparoscopic surgery are susceptible to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Ondansetron and droperidol are useful antiemetics. This study was designed to ascertain primarily the relative difference in efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol and secondarily between these drugs and placebo in the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods : The prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol was compared in a prospective, randomised, double–blind, placebo–controlled trial of 439 female inpatients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery. During induction of standardised general anaesthesia the patients received intravenously either ondansetron 8 mg (n=195), droperidol 1.25 mg (n=193) or placebo (n=51). The occurrence of nausea, vomiting, sideeffects and the need for rescue antiemetic medication were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. Results : The proportion of patients with nausea was 48%, 50% and 67% in the ondansetron, droperidol and placebo groups, respectively; with a significant difference when both ondansetron (P=0.02) and droperidol (P=0.04) were compared with placebo. Vomiting occurred in 18%, 26% and 37% of the patients in the three groups, respectively (P=0.05 between ondansetron and droperidol, P=0.004 between ondansetron and placebo, P=0.16 between droperidol and placebo). The proportion of patients given rescue medication was 34%, 28% and 49%, respectively (P=0.23 for ondansetron and droperidol, P=0.07 for ondansetron and placebo, P=0.007 for droperidol and placebo). During early recovery the patients treated with ondansetron were significantly more alert than after droperidol. Serious side–effects were not observed. Headache was significantly more common after ondansetron than after droperidol treatment. Conclusions : The efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and droperidol in reducing postoperative nausea associated with laparoscopic surgery in female inpatients was similar, but ondansetron appeared to be slightly more efficient than droperidol in preventing vomiting. Ondansetron and droperidol were both significantly better than placebo in the prophylaxis of PONV.     

P6 acupoint injections are as effective as droperidol in controlling early postoperative nausea and vomiting in children

BACKGROUND: P6 acupuncture in adults is reported to be an effective preventive treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). It is not clear, however, whether this technique is effective as a preventive treatment for PONV in children. METHODS: Children undergoing anesthesia and surgery were randomized to four groups: (a) intravenous saline + bilateral P6 acupoint injections (n = 50); (b) intravenous droperidol + bilateral P6 sham acupuncture (n = 49); (c) intravenous saline + bilateral sham point injections (n = 43); (d) intravenous saline +bilateral P6 sham acupuncture (n = 45). The perioperative anesthetic technique was standardized in all subjects. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was evaluated in postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: Incidence of nausea in the PACU was significantly lower in the acupoint group as compared with the sham point group (32% vs. 56%, P = 0.029) and P6 sham group (32% vs. 64%, P = 0.002) but not as compared with the droperidol group (32% vs. 46%, P = ns). Similarly, subjects in the acupoint group had a significantly lower incidence of vomiting in the PACU as compared with the sham point group (12% vs. 33%, P = 0.026) and P6 sham group (12% vs. 31%, P = 0.029) but not as compared with the droperidol group (12% vs. 18%, P = ns). The combined incidence of early PONV was also lower in the acupoint group as compared with the sham point group (P = 0.045) and P6 sham group (P = 0.004) but not as compared with the droperidol group (42% vs. 51%, P = ns). Finally, significantly fewer subjects in the acupoint group required intravenous ondansetron as an initial rescue therapy (P = 0.024). At 24 h after surgery, however, the incidence of late PONV was similar among the four study groups (P = ns). CONCLUSION: In children, P6 acupoint injections are as effective as droperidol in controlling early postoperative nausea and vomiting.     

Double-blind comparison of ondansetron, droperidol and saline in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

We have compared the efficacy of ondansetron with droperidoland saline in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV) in 120 ASA I and If patients undergoing hip and kneereplacements and femoral resections. They received a standardizedcombined extradural and general anaesthetic and at the end ofsurgery were allocated randomly to receive droperidol 1.25 mg,ondansetron 4mg or 0.9% saline in a 25-ml bag. An extraduralmixture containing 0.5% plain bupi-vacaine 10 ml, fentanyl 500µg and saline 30 ml was infused and PONV assessed for24 h. Both ondansetron and droperidol were superior to salinein preventing vomiting (P < 0.01) although there was no significantdifference between them. The incidence of vomiting was 17% forondansetron, 18% for droperidol and 45% for saline. There wasno significant difference in the incidence of nausea betweenthe groups. Metoclopramide, the rescue antiemetric, was demandedby 38%, 34% and 17% of patients receiving saline, droperidoland ondansetron, respectively (ondansetron vs dro -peridol P<0.05).(Br. J. Anaesth. 1994; 72: 544–547)     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anaesthesia: a randomized study of ondansetron prophylaxis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy under general anaesthesia have a high risk of developing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anaesthesia with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) using morphine and to compare its incidence with and without antiemetic prophylaxis. METHODS: Thirty-four patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anaesthesia with i.v. PCA morphine postoperatively were divided into two groups. The first (n = 17) received ondansetron prophylaxis near the end of surgery while the second (n = 17) received no prophylaxis. Morphine consumption, emetic episodes (on a 3-point scale), patient satisfaction (visual analogue score), sedation and pruritus were evaluated 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24h postoperatively. RESULTS: Patient characteristics, postoperative morphine consumption (43.3 +/- 7.6 vs. 40.3 +/- 12.3 mg) and peristaltic recovery time (16.9 +/- 5 vs. 18.4 +/- 5.2 h) were similar in both groups. Overall nausea and vomiting were significantly lower in the ondansetron prophylaxis group than in the group without prophylaxis (52.9% vs. 88.2%, P < 0.05). Though nausea alone was higher in the prophylaxis group (41.2% vs. 29.4%), nausea with vomiting was significantly lower in the prophylaxis group (11.8% vs. 58.8%, P < 0.01). Patients' satisfaction scores were higher in the ondansetron group at all times and the difference was significant (P < 0.05) 4 h postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PONV in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anaesthesia with i.v. PCA morphine is very high (88.2%). Antiemetic prophylaxis with ondansetron is highly recommended in this patients group resulting in a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting, and significantly improves patient' satisfaction and life quality in the early postoperative period.     

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。     

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.     

Comparison of ondansetron and cyclizine for prevention of nausea and vomiting after day-case gynaecological laparoscopy

We have compared ondansetron 4 mg i.v. and cyclizine 50 mg i.v., in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for 24 h after day-case gynaecological laparoscopy. Compared with placebo (n = 58), ondansetron (n = 60) and cyclizine (n = 57) reduced significantly the incidence of moderate or severe nausea (30% and 23% vs 52%; P = 0.02 and P = 0.001, respectively) and requirement for escape antiemetic (28% and 16% vs 47%; P = 0.04 and P < 0.001, respectively) before discharge from hospital. There were no significant differences in PONV after discharge. Significantly more patients suffered no PONV before and after discharge after ondansetron and cyclizine compared with placebo (31% and 33% vs 12%; P = 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively). For diagnostic laparoscopy (n = 74), fewer patients received escape antiemetic after cyclizine than after ondansetron (4% vs 37%; P < 0.01); for laparoscopic sterilization (n = 101), both antiemetics were equally effective. Ondansetron and cyclizine both reduced severe and moderate nausea and the need for antiemetic therapy after day-case gynaecological laparoscopy.      

Ondansetron or droperidol for prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after intrathecal morphine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a controversy regarding the best drug for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal morphine. The aim of this study was to examine efficacy and tolerability of droperidol compared with ondansetron for the prevention of morphine-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 120 women undergoing Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia with intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg received intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (n = 40), droperidol 1.25 mg (n = 40) or saline (n = 40) immediately after umbilical-cord clamping. Nausea and vomiting were graded according to intensity at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h. RESULTS: Nausea or vomiting occurred in 14 patients (35%) in the placebo group, 4 (10%) in the ondansetron group and 10 (25%) in the droperidol group; the difference between ondansetron and placebo was statistically significant (P = 0.007). Eleven of the 14 placebo patients (27.5%) vomited, compared with none of the 4 ondansetron patients (vs. placebo, P = 0.0004) and 5 of the droperidol patients (vs. placebo, P = 0.18). Three of the 14 placebo patients (7.5%) were nauseous, compared with 4 (10%) receiving ondansetron and 5 (12.5%) receiving droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron was effective in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal morphine for Caesarean section.     

A comparison of three antiemetic combinations for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of three antiemetic combinations in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Ninety ASA status I-II women, aged 18-65 yr, undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery, were included in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. A standardized anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia (intrathecal morphine plus IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine) were used in all patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 4 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 1, n = 30), dexamethasone 8 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 2, n = 30), or ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg after the induction of anesthesia and placebo 12 h later (Group 3, n = 30). A complete response, defined as no PONV in 48 h, occurred in 80% of patients in Group 1, 70% in Group 3, and 40% in Group 2 (P = 0.004 versus Groups 1 and 3). The incidences of side effects and other variables that could modify the incidence of PONV were similar among groups. In conclusion, ondansetron, in combination with droperidol or dexamethasone, is more effective than dexamethasone in combination with droperidol in women undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery with intrathecal morphine plus IV PCA with morphine for postoperative analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone or droperidol was significantly better than the combination of dexamethasone plus droperidol in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery, with intrathecal and IV morphine (patient-controlled analgesia) for management of postoperative pain.     

Ondansetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone compared for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomies are associated with an appreciably high rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of ondansetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone for the prevention of PONV in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A total of 80 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical class I-II patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. All patients received a similar standardized anesthesia and operative treatment. Patients were randomly divided into four groups (n = 20 each). Group 1, consisting of control patients, received 0.9% NaCl; group 2 patients received ondansetron 4 mg i.v.; group 3 patients received granisetron 3 mg i.v.; and group 4 patients received dexamethasone 8 mg i.v., all before the induction of anesthesia. Both nausea and vomiting were assessed during the first 24 h after the procedure. RESULTS: The total incidence of PONV was 75% with placebo, 35% with ondansetron, 30% with granisetron, and 25% with dexamethasone. The incidence of PONV was significantly less frequent in groups receiving antiemetics (p < 0.05). The differences between dexamethasone, granisetron, and ondansetron were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic dexamethasone 8 mg i.v. significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dexamethasone 8 mg was as effective as ondansetron 4 mg and granisetron 3 mg, and it was more effective than placebo.     

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients during menstruation: comparison of droperidol, metoclopramide and granisetron

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is high in women during menstruation. We have compared the efficacy of droperidol, metoclopramide and granisetron in the prevention of PONV in female patients during menstruation undergoing major gynaecological surgery. In a randomized, double-blind study, 120 patients received droperidol 25 micrograms kg-1, metoclopramide 0.2 mg kg-1 or granisetron 40 micrograms kg-1 (n = 40 in each group) i.v. immediately before induction of anaesthesia. A standard general anaesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used throughout. There was a complete response, defined as no PONV and no administration of rescue medication, during the 24-h observation period in 45% of patients in the droperidol group, 38% in the metoclopramide group and 70% in the granisetron group (P = 0.021 vs droperidol, P = 0.003 vs metoclopramide). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups. We conclude that the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of granisetron was superior to that of droperidol or metoclopramide for prevention of PONV in women during menstruation.      

Low-dose haloperidol prevents post-operative nausea and vomiting after ambulatory laparoscopic surgery

Background: We evaluated the prophylactic effect of low-dose haloperidol (1 mg) on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery. Droperidol (0.625 mg) and saline were controls.
Methods: One hundred and fifty women undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery under general anaesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study. After tracheal intubation, the haloperidol group ( n =50) received intravenous haloperidol (1 mg), the droperidol group ( n =50) received intravenous droperidol (0.625 mg), and the saline group ( n =50) received intravenous saline.
Results: Haloperidol- and droperidol-group patients reported a lower incidence of PONV [24% and 23% vs. 49% (saline group); P <0.05] and requested fewer doses of rescue antiemetics [13% and 16% vs. 38% (saline group); P <0.05] during the first four post-operative hours. During the 24-h post-operative period, haloperidol- and droperidol-group patients also reported a lower incidence of PONV [31% and 32% vs. 62% (saline group); P <0.01]. No differences were found between the haloperidol and droperidol groups.
Conclusion: Like droperidol (0.625 mg), prophylactic intravenous haloperidol (1 mg) significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in women undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery.     

Additive anti-emetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron with droperidol in out-patient gynecological laparoscopy

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol, alone and in combination, administered for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing general anesthesia for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. METHODS: Following Institutional Ethics Board approval and patient consent, 160 female out- patients scheduled for laparoscopy were randomly allotted in a double-blind fashion to receive: i) saline (placebo), ii) 4 mg ondansetron, iii) 1.25 mg droperidol, or iv) 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol combination intravenously on induction. Following a standardized general anesthesia, patients were interviewed and assessed for PONV at various times. RESULTS: During the first 24 hr after surgery, the incidence of PONV in the placebo group was 71%. This was reduced to 61% with droperidol alone (P = 0.334), to 46% with ondansetron alone (P = 0.027), and to 23% with the combination group (P<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between combination and droperidol (P<0.001) and between combination and ondansetron (P = 0.036). There were fewer requests for rescue medication from the combination group (7.7%) than from the ondansetron and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the combination of 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol is more efficacious as a prophylactic anti-emetic than either agent alone during the 24 hr post-surgery. This additive effect may be due to the different mechanisms of action of ondansetron and droperidol.     

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.     

Comparison of ondansetron and tropisetron combined with droperidol for the prevention of emesis in women with a history of post-operative nausea and vomiting.

The anti-emetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and tropisetron in combination with a low dose of droperidol in patients with high probability for post-operative nausea and vomiting undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy was compared. Patients were randomly allocated in a double-blind manner to receive either ondansetron 8 mg (n = 45) or tropisetron 5 mg (n = 43) at the end of surgery. A standardized general anaesthetic technique was used, including droperidol 0.75 mg. The incidence of nausea was 36% and 49% (P = 0.28), and vomiting occurred in 13% and 14% of the patients in the ondansetron and tropisetron groups, respectively. The onset time for rescue medication was significantly sooner after tropisetron than ondansetron (3 h 18 min vs. 6 h 25 min; P = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences in efficacy between prophylactic ondansetron and tropisetron combined with droperidol in a high-risk population. However, ondansetron appeared to be more effective in preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting in the early hours after surgery compared with tropisetron.     

P6 Acupoint Injections Are as Effective as Droperidol in Controlling Early Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Children

Background: P6 acupuncture in adults is reported to be an effective preventive treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). It is not clear, however, whether this technique is effective as a preventive treatment for PONV in children.

Methods: Children undergoing anesthesia and surgery were randomized to four groups: (a) intravenous saline + bilateral P6 acupoint injections (n = 50); (b) intravenous droperidol + bilateral P6 sham acupuncture (n = 49); (c) intravenous saline + bilateral sham point injections (n = 43); (d) intravenous saline +bilateral P6 sham acupuncture (n = 45). The perioperative anesthetic technique was standardized in all subjects. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was evaluated in postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and 24 h after surgery.

Results: Incidence of nausea in the PACU was significantly lower in the acupoint group as compared with the sham point group (32%vs. 56%, P = 0.029) and P6 sham group (32%vs. 64%, P = 0.002) but not as compared with the droperidol group (32%vs. 46%, P = ns). Similarly, subjects in the acupoint group had a significantly lower incidence of vomiting in the PACU as compared with the sham point group (12%vs. 33%, P = 0.026) and P6 sham group (12%vs. 31%, P = 0.029) but not as compared with the droperidol group (12%vs. 18%, P = ns). The combined incidence of early PONV was also lower in the acupoint group as compared with the sham point group (P = 0.045) and P6 sham group (P = 0.004) but not as compared with the droperidol group (42%vs. 51%, P = ns). Finally, significantly fewer subjects in the acupoint group required intravenous ondansetron as an initial rescue therapy (P = 0.024). At 24 h after surgery, however, the incidence of late PONV was similar among the four study groups (P = ns).     

Placebo-controlled comparison of dolasetron and metoclopramide in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing hysterectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we compared the efficacy of dolasetron and metoclopramide in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing hysterectomy. METHODS: Patients were allocated randomly to one of three groups: group A (n = 50) received 50 mg dolasetron orally, group B (n = 50) received 20 mg metoclopramide intravenously and placebo orally, group C (n = 50) received placebo orally. If patients complained of retching or vomiting, or if patients demanded an antiemetic, 1.25 mg droperidol was administrated intravenously. To quantify postoperative nausea and vomiting the following score was used: 0 = no nausea, 1 = nausea, 2 = retching, 3 = single vomiting, 4 = multiple vomiting. The Raatz test was used to analyse postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores. RESULTS: Dolasetron reduced the postoperative nausea and vomiting score significantly (P < 0.02 vs. metoclopramide; P < 0.0001 vs. placebo). Metoclopramide also reduced the postoperative nausea and vomiting score (P < 0.02 vs. placebo). Fisher's exact test showed a significant reduction of vomiting in the dolasetron group compared with metoclopramide-treated patients (P < 0.007) and placebo-treated patients (P < 0.000006) and a significantly lower rate of nausea in comparison to the placebo group (P < 0.009). There were no significant differences between the metoclopramide and the placebo groups (in Fisher's exact test). The use of postoperative droperidol per patient was significantly lower in the dolasetron group (P < 0.04 vs. metoclopramide; P < 0.0001 vs. placebo) than in the metoclopramide (P < 0.02 vs. placebo) and in the placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Oral dolasetron is more effective than either metoclopramide given intravenously or placebo for preventing vomiting after hysterectomy. It also was significantly superior to either metoclopramide or placebo concerning the PONV score and the need for droperidol rescue.     

Effect of ondansetron on nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery during general anaesthesia

The efficacy of ondansetron 4 mg and 8 mg was compared with placebo in the reduction of postoperative nausea, retching and vomiting (PONV) after middle ear surgery during general anaesthesia, in 75 patients, in a double-blind and randomized study. Both doses of ondansetron were predictors for a decrease in PONV and the number of doses of rescue antiemetic needed per patient (droperidol: from 0.72 in the placebo group to 0.32 in both the 4-mg and 8-mg groups). No reduction in PONV was observed in patients with a history of motion sickness, whereas in patients without a history of motion sickness, ondansetron reduced both the proportion of patients suffering from PONV from 53% to 20% (P < 0.05) and of those needing droperidol from 53% to 17% (P < 0.05).      

A small dose of droperidol decreases postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults but cannot improve an already excellent patient satisfaction

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether or not 1) a routine prophylaxis with 20 microg x kg(-1) body weight of droperidol would efficiently prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after elective surgery in adults and 2) an efficient prophylaxis would improve patient satisfaction. METHODS: With approval of the local ethics committe and after having obtained informed written consent, 1334 patients in a randomised, single-blinded fashion either received droperidol (group 1, n=665) or saline intravenously (group 2, n=669) 20 min before the end of a standard O2/N2O/fentanyl/isoflurane anaesthesia of at least 30 min duration. End points: incidence of PONV during the first 24 h; individual episodes of nausea or vomiting, overall patient satisfaction with the procedure. RESULTS: Compared to saline, intravenous injection of droperidol substantially and significantly reduced the incidence of PONV from 30% to 20% (P<0.0001). Women suffered three times more frequently from PONV (10.5% vs. 30%, P<0.0001). Droperidol significantly reduced the incidence of PONV from 35.4% to 24.4% in women (relative risk reduction: 31%, P=0.0002), but not in men (13.1% vs. 8.2%, relative risk reduction: 37%, P=0.159)--without impact on overall patient satisfaction (98.8% vs. 97.1%, P=0.439). Distribution of surgical procedures, sex, age, height, weight and anaesthetic duration were not different between groups. To prevent one woman from suffering PONV, nine had to be treated prophylactically at an individual drug cost (German prices) of about Euro0.80 per woman. CONCLUSION: Routine PONV prophylaxis with 20 microg x kg(-1) body weight of droperidol is cost-efficient and appropriate in women but not in men.