Benefits and risks of granisetron versus ramosetron for nausea and vomiting after breast surgery: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Women undergoing general anesthesia for breast surgery are at particular risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 90 patients scheduled for breast surgery, aged 33-63 years, received intravenously placebo, 3 mg granisetron, or 0.3 mg ramosetron (n = 30 of each) at the end of surgical procedure. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. Emetic episodes and safety assessment were performed during 0-24 hours and 24-48 hours after anesthesia. The rate of patients experiencing emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, vomiting) 0-24 hours after anesthesia was 17% with granisetron (P = 0.013) and 10% with ramosetron (P = 0.002) compared with placebo (47%); the corresponding rate 24-48 hours after anesthesia was 27% (P = 0.032) and 7% (P = 0.001), compared with placebo (53%). In the 24-48 hours after anesthesia, there were fewer emetic episodes in patients who had received ramosetron than in those who had received granisetron (P = 0.039). The severity of nausea was less in patients receiving ramosetron than in those receiving granisetron (P = 0.044). Zero to 24 hours after anesthesia, no difference in the rate of patients having emetic symptoms and the severity of nausea was observed between the granisetron and ramosetron groups. The most common reported adverse events were headache and dizziness, and there were no difference in the incidence of adverse events due to the study drug among the 3 groups. In conclusion, prophylactic therapy with ramosetron is more effective than that with granisetron for the long-term prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing general anesthesia for breast surgery.     

An open-label dose comparison study of ondansetron for the prevention of emesis associated with chemotherapy prior to bone marrow transplantation

Nausea and vomiting are significant side effects in bone marrow transplant (BMT) patients who receive high-dose preparative regimens. Higher than conventional ondansetron doses and continuous infusion might improve emetic control, because of the high doses and combinations of chemotherapy (CT) used in this setting. Our objective was to conduct a prospective, randomized study comparing two different administration methods of high-dose ondansetron during a BMT preparative regimen in breast cancer patients. Patients were eligible if they were nonpregnant women over 18 but under 65 years of age, undergoing highly emetogenic CT in preparation for autologous BMT. All patients received ondansetron as an intermittent (INT=24 mg i.v. q 12 h/day) or continuous intravenous infusion (CIV=8 mg i.v. loading dose followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg/h per day). A total of 66 patients were enrolled in the study (n=34, INT; n=32, CIV). There was no statistical difference between treatment groups in the worst grade of emesis for the entire study period (P=0.49). Greater than 90% of all patients were graded as failures (≥5 emetic episodes or need for rescue antiemetics). Complete control (no vomiting episodes) and complete plus major control (1–2 emetic episodes) per day ranged from 8% to 85% and 11% to 91%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the treatment arms in: grade of emesis, episodes of vomiting and retching, nausea scores, and mean number of rescue medications administered. There were no differences in efficacy when high-dose ondansetron was given as CIV or INT for the control of nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients undergoing high-dose CT for autologous BMT. Ondansetron alone was not adequate to provide sustained control of CT-induced nausea and vomiting over the entire 5-day study period. A combination of antiemetics targeting various mechanisms of CT-induced nausea and vomiting may be necessary to improve response rates.     

Emergency Department Treatment of Viral Gastritis Using Intravenous Ondansetron or Dexamethasone in Children

Objectives To compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron or dexamethasone compared with intravenous fluid therapy alone in children presenting to the emergency department with refractory vomiting from viral gastritis who had failed attempts at oral hydration. Methods This double‐blind, randomized, controlled trial was performed in a tertiary care pediatric emergency department. Children aged 6 months to 12 years presenting with more than three episodes of vomiting in the past 24 hours, mild/moderate dehydration, and failed oral hydration were included. Patients with other medical causes were excluded. Subjects were randomized to dexamethasone 1 mg/kg (15 mg maximum), ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg, or placebo (normal saline [NS], 10 mL). All subjects also received intravenous NS at 10–20 mL/kg/hr. Oral fluid tolerance was evaluated at two and four hours. Those not tolerating oral fluids at four hours were admitted. Discharged patients were evaluated at 24 and 72 hours for vomiting and repeat health care visits. The primary study outcome was hospitalization rates between the groups. Data were analyzed using chi‐square test, Kruskal–Wallis test, Mantel–Haenszel test, and analysis of variance, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results A total of 166 subjects were enrolled; data for analysis were available for 44 NS‐treated patients, 46 ondansetron‐treated patients, and 47 dexamethasone‐treated patients. Hospital admission occurred in nine patients (20.5%) receiving placebo (NS alone), two patients (4.4%) receiving ondansetron, and seven patients (14.9%) receiving dexamethasone, with ondansetron significantly different from placebo (p = 0.02). Similarly, at two hours, more ondansetron‐treated patients (39 [86.6%]) tolerated oral hydration than NS‐treated patients (29 [67.4%]; relative risk, 1.28; 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.68). There were no differences in number of mean episodes of vomiting or repeat visits to health care at 24 and 72 hours in the ondansetron, dexamethasone, or NS groups. Conclusions In children with dehydration secondary to vomiting from acute viral gastritis, ondansetron with intravenous rehydration improves tolerance of oral fluids after two hours and reduces the hospital admission rate when compared with intravenous rehydration with or without dexamethasone.     

Assessment of the emetogenic potential of intrathecal chemotherapy and response to prophylactic treatment with ondansetron

 The purpose of this study was to document the emetogenic potential of intrathecal chemotherapy (IC) in children and to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron in reducing nausea and vomiting with this chemotherapy treatment. Patients less than 18 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were eligible to participate in a survey project measuring the emetogenic potential of various chemotherapy treatments. Patients surveyed for 1 or more IC treatments were included in this report. The IC consisted of methotrexate, hydrocortisone and cytarabine, dosed according to patient age. A nausea/vomiting survey instrument was completed by each patient and/or parent following IC treatment. The instrument rated nausea, vomiting and daily activity interference (DAI) on a 4-point scale of 0=none, 1=mild, 2=moderate and 3=severe, and collected data on the number of vomiting and/or retching episodes in addition to the child's appetite following the chemotherapy treatment. When ondansetron was employed, it was administered in an i.v. infusion at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg before and after chemotherapy or as an oral dose of 4 mg or 8 mg before chemotherapy. Courses of IC without antiemetics were analyzed to determine the emetogenic potential of IC. For patients receiving IC both with and without ondansetron, courses were compared with each patient used as their own control to determine the influence of ondansetron upon survey responses. Statistical analysis consisted of nonparametric Friedman 2-way ANOVA for ordinal variables and a paired t-test for continuous variables. The binomial test was employed to analyze for differences between ondansetron and no antiemetic in the number of patients with complete control of both nausea and vomiting or vomiting alone. A total of 63 children with a mean age of 7.6±4.2 years were each studied on one or more occasions. Thirty-seven children were surveyed for 87 IC treatments without antiemetics (group I), and 17 children from this group were surveyed for 48 IC courses with i.v. ondansetron (group IA). An additional 18 children were subsequently surveyed for 39 IC courses with i.v. ondansetron (group II). Fifteen patients (7 of whom were members of group I) were surveyed following 33 IC courses with oral ondansetron (group III). The survey scores for group I patients were: nausea severity 1.3±1.1, vomiting severity 1.2±1.1, DAI 1.2±1.0 and mean number of emetic episodes 4.7±8.4. The mean appetite score was 1.5±1.1. For patients in group IA, nausea severity (0.8±0.9), vomiting severity (0.5±0.8), DAI (0.7±0.8), and the number of emetic episodes (1.4±2.8) were all significantly lower than with prior IC treatments without ondansetron. For complete protection, children receiving i.v. ondansetron had greater complete protection rates from both nausea and vomiting or vomiting alone than did patients receiving no antiemetic. Survey responses were also lower for patients receiving oral ondansetron, but insufficient control data did not allow for statistical analysis. IC results in mild to moderate nausea and vomiting in children. The emetogenic potential of IC is significantly reduced by i.v. ondansetron.     

Intravenous ondansetron for the control of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. International S3AA3013 Study Group.

This randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial was conducted in 9 countries to assess the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of intravenous ondansetron (8 and 16 mg) for the control of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. A total of 2574 nonsurgical patients who presented with pain requiring treatment with an opioid analgesic agent participated in this trial. The most common presenting painful condition was back or neck pain, reported by approximately one third of patients. A total of 520 patients (317 females, 203 males) developed nausea or vomiting after opioid administration and were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of 1 of 3 study treatments: placebo (n = 94), ondansetron 8 mg (n = 215), or ondansetron 16 mg (n = 211). Ondansetron 8 and 16 mg led to complete control of emesis in 134 of 215 patients (62.3%) and 145 of 211 patients (68.7%), respectively. Results with both doses were significantly better than those seen with placebo (43 of 94 patients [45.7%]). Complete control of nausea was achieved in 6.8% of placebo patients, 14.8% of ondansetron 8-mg-treated patients, and 19.4% of ondansetron 16-mg treated patients; only ondansetron 16 mg was significantly better than placebo (P = 0.007). Significantly more patients who received ondansetron 8 mg than patients who received placebo were satisfied/very satisfied with their antiemetic treatment, as assessed by 4 patient-satisfaction questions. Significantly more patients who received ondansetron 16 mg compared with placebo were satisfied/very satisfied on 2 of 4 satisfaction questions. In conclusion, based on the observed incidence of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in this study, it may be more appropriate to treat symptoms on occurrence rather than administering antiemetic agents prophylactically. The results of this study demonstrate that intravenous ondansetron in doses of 8 or 16 mg is an effective antiemetic agent for the control of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in nonsurgical patients requiring opioid analgesia for pain.     

Procedures for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: dexamethasone and ondansetron

This randomized double-blind study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of ondasetron and dexamathesone in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study covered 60 patients (ASA I/II) who had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia. The patients were divided into two groups: 1) 30 patients who received dexamethasone, 4 mg i.v.; and 2) 30 patients who took ondansetron, 4 mg i.v., prior to general anesthesia. Postoperatively, nausea, vomiting, and severe pain (VAS) were observed every 6 hours within the first 24 hours. Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred in 6 (20) patients in Group I and in 13 (43.33) patients in Group 2 (p < 0.05), while vomiting did only in 5 (16.66%) patients in Group I and 4 (13.33%) in Group 2 (p > 0.05). The least intensity of postoperative pain was observed in Group 1, but the difference between the study groups was insignificant. It is concluded that dexamethasone is more effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy than ondansetron. This is mainly determined by a significant reduction in the incidence of postoperative nausea.     

Granisetron versus granisetron/dexamethasone combination for the treatment of nausea,retching, and vomiting after major gynecologic surgery: a randomized,double-blind study

BACKGROUND: Granisetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine3 antagonist, is effective for the treatment of patients with postoperative nausea and vomiting. Dexamethasone decreases chemotherapy-induced emesis when added to an antiemetic regimen. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of granisetron alone with granisetron/dexamethasone combination for the treatment of nausea and vomiting after major gynecologic surgery. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, patients who were experiencing emetic symptoms during 0 to 3 hours after the end of anesthesia administration received granisetron 40 microg/kg i.v. either alone or in combination with dexamethasone 8 mg. Patients then were observed for 24 hours after study drug administration, with emetic episodes recorded and tolerability assessments performed by nursing staff blinded to treatment. RESULTS: A total of 120 women were enrolled (n = 60 in each treatment group; mean [SD] age in the granisetron group, 44 [9] years [range, 23-63 years]; combination group, 45 [8] years [range, 21-65 years]). No significant differences in patient demographic characteristics were found between the 2 treatment groups. However, the percentage of patients free of emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, vomiting) was higher in the granisetron/dexamethasone combination group than in the granisetron group (95.0% and 80.0%, respectively; P = 0.012). No clinically serious adverse events attributed to the study drugs were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: In this study, the granisetron/dexamethasone combination was more effective than was granisetron alone for the management of nausea and vomiting during 0 to 3 hours after anesthesia in women undergoing major gynecologic surgery.     

Effects of granisetron in the treatment of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy are at high risk for postoperative emetic symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and retching). Antihistamines, butyrophenones, dopamine receptor antagonists, and selective serotonin receptor antagonists (SSRAs) have been investigated for the prevention and treatment of emetic symptoms. However, these drugs are associated with undesirable adverse effects (AEs), such as excessive sedation, hypotension, dry mouth, dysphoria, hallucinations, and extrapyramidal signs. Granisetron hydrochloride is a newer SSRA developed for the prevention and treatment of cytotoxic drug-induced emetic symptoms, but its effects in postoperative laparoscopic cholecystectomy have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess the efficacy and tolerability of 4 doses of granisetron, and to determine the minimum effective dose, for the control of established emetic symptoms in patients undergoing general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study was conducted in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Surgery, Toride Kyodo General Hospital (Toride, Japan). Male and female patients aged 23 to 68 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I (no organic, physiologic, biochemical, or psychiatric disturbance) who were experiencing nausea lasting >10 minutes or retching or vomiting within 3 hours after recovery from general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive a single IV dose of placebo or granisetron at 1 of 4 doses (10, 20, 40, or 80 microg/kg). Patients were monitored for 24 hours after study drug administration. RESULTS: One hundred patients (60 women, 40 men; mean [SD] age, 48 [10] years [range, 23-68 years]; mean [SD] height, 158 [7] cm [range, 145-177 cm]; mean [SD] body weight, 56 [8] kg [range, 43-75 kg]) were enrolled. No significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics were found between the study groups. The proportions of patients who were free of emetic symptoms were significantly higher with granisetron 20, 40, and 80 microg/kg than with placebo (P = 0.02, 0.007, and 0.007, respectively). The difference between the granisetron 10-microg/kg group and the placebo group was not significant. No clinically significant AEs were reported in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron 20 microg/kg was the minimum effective dose for the treatment of established postoperative emetic symptoms in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Increasing the dose to 80 microg/kg provided no further benefit.     

Double-blind,placebo-controlled,dose-ranging study of ramosetron for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving general anesthesia during thyroidectomy have a high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting. OBJECTIVE: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of ramosetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3-receptor antagonist, in preventing nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy. METHODS: Standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were employed. Patients undergoing thyroidectomy were randomized to receive IV ramosetron 0.15, 0.3, or 0.6 mg or placebo at completion of the procedure. During the first 48 hours after anesthesia, episodes of emesis and adverse events were assessed by nursing staff who were blinded to patients' treatment assignment. RESULTS: Eighty patients (22 men, 58 women; age range, 28-63 years; weight range, 37-91 kg) were enrolled in the study. There were no differences in demographic characteristics between treatment groups. The numbers of patients who were emesis free (no nausea, retching, or vomiting) 0 to 24 hours after anesthesia were 10 of 20 (50%) with ramosetron 0.15 mg, 17 of 20 (85%) with ramosetron 0.3 mg, 18 of 20 (90%) with ramosetron 0.6 mg, and 8 of 20 (40%) with placebo. The corresponding numbers 24 to 48 hours after anesthesia were 11 of 20 (55%), 18 of 20 (90%), 18 of 20 (90%), and 9 of 20 (45%). At both time points, only the values for ramosetron 0.3 and 0.6 mg were statistically significant versus placebo (P < or = 0.001). No clinically serious adverse events were observed in any group. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients receiving general anesthesia while undergoing thyroidectomy, ramosetron 0.3 mg was effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting 0 to 48 hours after anesthesia. Increasing the dose to 0.6 mg provided no demonstrable benefit.     

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dosed-finding study of the antiemetic effects and tolerability of ramosetron in adults undergoing middle ear surgery

BACKGROUND: Ramosetron is a selective serotonin receptor antagonist (SSRA) that is approved for the treatment of emetic symptoms induced by cytotoxic drugs in Japan. We have reported that ramosetron 0.3 mg had comparable efficacy to granisetron 3 mg, another SSRA, in preventing emetic symptoms in adults in the first 48 hours after the start of anesthesia for middle ear surgery. Although it has been shown that a high dose of ramosetron can cause adverse effects (AEs), such as severe headache, the minimal effective dose of ramosetron is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the minimum effective and tolerable dose of ramosetron needed to prevent postoperative emetic symptoms in adult patients undergoing middle ear surgery. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, Toride Kyodo General Hospital (Toride, Japan). Patients aged > or =20 years scheduled for middle ear surgery were randomized to receive either placebo or ramosetron at 1 of 3 doses (0.15, 0.3, or 0.6 mg), regardless of body weight, i.v. immediately before anesthesia induction. Emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, or vomiting) occurring from 0 to <24 and 24 to 48 hours after the start of anesthesia were recorded. Other AEs also were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (55 women, 45 men; mean [SD] age, 44 [12] years; mean [SD] body weight, 56 [8] kg; mean [SD] height, 159 [8] cm) were enrolled. Each treatment group comprised 25 patients. The treatment groups were comparable with regard to demographic characteristics and type of surgery After the second 24 hour postanesthesia period, significantly more patients in the ramosetron 0.3-mg and 0.6-mg groups were emesis free than in the placebo group (both P<0.001). The number of emesis-free patients in the ramosetron 0.15-mg group and the placebo group were similar after both study periods. No significant difference in antiemetic efficacy was found between the ramosetron 0.3-mg and 0.6-mg groups. No relationship between body weight and the efficacy of ramosetron was observed. The incidence of AEs was similar in all 4 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ramosetron 0.3 mg, regardless of body weight, was more effective than either ramosetron 0.15 mg or placebo and as effective as ramosetron 0.6 mg for the prevention of emetic symptoms in the first 48 hours after the start of anesthesia in this selected population of adult patients who underwent middle ear surgery.     

Treatment of postoperative emetic symptoms with granisetron in women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study

Background

Postoperative emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, and vomiting) frequently occur in women undergoing general anesthesia for abdominal hysterectomy. In a previous report by us, granisetron, a selective serotonin receptor antagonist, was more effective than the traditional antiemetics, droperidol and metoclopramide, for the treatment of postoperative emetic symptoms in this population.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the optimal dose of granisetron for the treatment of emetic symptoms following abdominal hysterectomy.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study was conducted at Toride Kyodo General Hospital (Toride, Japan). Female patients aged 33 to 66 years experiencing postoperative emetic symptoms after abdominal hysterectomy were eligible for the study. Patients received IV granisetron at 1 of 4 doses (10, 20, 40, or 100 μg/kg) or placebo; they were then observed for 24 hours. Emetic symptoms and the need for a rescue antiemetic were recorded by nursing staff, who were blinded to treatment assignment.

Results

A total of 100 patients (mean [SD] age, 45 [7] years [range, 33-66 years]) were enrolled (n = 20 in each group). No significant differences in patient demographic characteristics were observed between the groups. The number of patients in whom complete control of postoperative emetic symptoms, defined as being free of emetic symptoms and not needing rescue antiemetic medication for 24 hours after study drug administration, was established was significantly greater in 3 of the granisetron groups than in the placebo group (6 patients [30%]): granisetron 10 μg/kg, 7 patients (35%; P= NS); granisetron 20 μg/kg, 17 patients (85%; P = 0.001); granisetron 40 μg/kg, 17 patients (85%; P = 0.001); and granisetron 100 μg/kg, 16 patients (80%; P = 0.002). No clinically significant adverse events attributable to the study drug were observed in any group.

Conclusion

In this study of patients who experienced emetic symptoms after undergoing general anesthesia for abdominal hysterectomy, granisetron at doses ≥20 μg/kg was effective in the treatment of established postoperative emetic symptoms.     

Efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in a patient-controlled analgesia environment

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to examine the efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during opioid patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). In total, 374 patients using opioid PCA, but otherwise considered to be low risk for PONV, were randomly allocated to ondansetron (4 mg given intravenously and 16 mg added into the PCA pump) or saline (control group). PONV was evaluated in terms of nausea graded on a visual analogue scale, and the number of patients who experienced emetic episodes or needed rescue anti-emetics in the 48-h post-operative period. Patient satisfaction for PCA was scored at the end of the evaluation period. The only difference between the two groups was the higher number of headaches in the ondansetron group. In patients using opioid PCA, but with no other high risk factors for PONV, prophylactic ondansetron does not have any clinical benefit.     

Single-dose intravenous casopitant in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of oxaliplatin-induced nausea and vomiting: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two arm, parallel group study

Purpose

The primary objective was to determine if a single dose of casopitant 90?mg added to ondansetron and dexamethasone would improve the control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) over 0–120?h following initiation of oxaliplatin-based moderately emetic chemotherapy (MEC) compared to ondansetron and dexamethasone alone.

Methods

Patients with colorectal cancer received either casopitant or placebo intravenously (IV) added to ondansetron 8?mg bid oral on study days?1 to 3 and one dose of dexamethasone 8?mg IV given prior to starting the oxaliplatin on day?1. The primary endpoint was the percentage of subjects achieving complete response (CR; no vomiting/retching or use of rescue medication) during 120?h after initiation of chemotherapy in cycle 1.

Results

No difference in the rate of CR was noted in the casopitant group compared to the placebo group for the overall (placebo 85%, casopitant 86%, p?=?0.7273), acute (placebo 96%, casopitant 97%), or delayed phases (placebo 85%, casopitant 86%). The average area under curve (0–∞) of casopitant after a single 90-mg IV dose was 8,390?ng?h/mL. At 24?h after casopitant 90-mg IV dosing, the plasma casopitant concentration was 24% lower than the values noted in prior studies with 150?mg oral administration, and the plasma exposure of the major metabolite (GSK525060) was 18% lower.

Conclusions

Addition of single-dose casopitant 90?mg IV did not improve the control of CINV at any time during 120?h following initiation of oxaliplatin-based MEC. Excellent control of CINV was achieved in this study population with the combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone alone.     

A randomized, double-blind trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery

This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the relative efficacy of palonosetron (a new, selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 [5-HT(3)] receptor antagonist) and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Patients received either palonosetron 0.075 mg (n = 45) or ondansetron 8 mg (n = 45), intravenously, immediately before induction of general anaesthesia. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting and the severity of nausea according to a visual analogue scale were monitored immediately after the end of surgery and during the following 24 h. The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the palonosetron group compared with the ondansetron group (42.2% vs 66.7%, respectively). There were no significant statistical differences in the visual analogue scale for nausea. In conclusion, palonosetron 0.075 mg was more effective than ondansetron 8 mg in preventing PONV.     

Rationale for the use of a single fixed intravenous dolasetron dose for the prevention of cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting

Dolasetron mesilate is a selective 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist that prevents chemotherapy-induced and postoperative nausea and vomiting. For the majority of patients in intravenous dolasetron trials for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, dosing has been based on body weight (mg/kg). The approved weight-based dose is 1.8 mg/kg based on results of controlled clinical trials. However, trials of dolasetron evaluating oral doses for prevention of chemotherapy-induced emesis, and intravenous doses for prevention and treatment of postoperative emesis have used a fixed milligram dose. To identify an appropriate intravenous fixed milligram dose for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, this analysis was performed to derive efficacy results for fixed milligram doses from pooled results obtained with dosing based on body weight. Intravenous dolasetron doses for 1,598 patients treated on a mg/kg basis (0.3, 0.6, 1.2, 1.8, 2.4, 3.0 and 5.0 mg/kg) in 14 clinical trials were converted to fixed milligram doses based on weight. Fixed-dose groups were established at doses of 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, and 200 mg. Doses less than or equal to the midpoint between two dose groups were included in the lower dose group. Pooled results showed that the 100 mg intravenous dolasetron dose group (who received actual doses of 88–112 mg) produced the highest rate (53%) of complete response (0 emetic episodes and no rescue medication in the 24-h period following initiation of chemotherapy).     

Biphasic dosing regimen of meclizine for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a high-risk population

The purpose of this study was to determine if giving 50 mg of meclizine the night before and on the day of surgery would effectively reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for the entire 24 hours after surgery in patients identified as being at high risk for PONV Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 50 mg of oral meclizine (experimental group) or a placebo (control group) the night before and the day of surgery. All subjects were intravenously administered 4 mg of ondansetron before the conclusion of surgery. Seventy subjects (35 control; 35 experimental) were included in analysis. postoperaIn the placebo group we noted higher verbal numeric rating scale scores for nausea, a higher incidence oftive nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a common complication after general anesthesia, with the incidence ranging from 17% to 87%.15 It has been reported that PONV increased antiemetic requirements, and lower overall anesthesia satisfaction scores at all time intervals measured, compared with the experimental group, but the differences were not statistically significant until analyzed by postoperative setting. No difference in sedation or side effects was noted between groups. Based on these results, we recommend that the administration of 50 mg of oral meclizine the night before and on the day of surgery be considered effective antiemetic prophylaxis in patients identified as having a high risk for PONV.     

Electroacupuncture for refractory acute emesis caused by chemotherapy

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of electroacupuncture in preventing anthracycline-based chemotherapy-related nausea and emesis refractory to combination 5HT(3)-antagonist and dexamethasone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer patients with refractory emesis after their first cycle of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy were accrued into this study. Electroacupuncture was given during the second cycle of chemotherapy. Each patient was evaluated for the number of emetic episodes and grade of nausea within the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and electroacupuncture. RESULTS: Forty-seven of a total of 317 patients screened were eligible for this study. Of these, 27 patients agreed to participate. Twenty-six (26; 96.3%) of them had significant reduction in both nausea grade and episodes of vomiting after electroacupuncture. There was complete response with no emetic episodes in 37%. Subjectively, 25 (92.6%) of the total 27 patients believed that acupuncture was an acceptable procedure and was helpful in reducing emesis. Electroacupuncture was well-tolerated with a median pain score of 3 of 10. CONCLUSION: Electroacupuncture is well-tolerated and effective as an adjunct in reducing chemotherapy-related nausea and emesis.     

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison of oral ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d., 24 mg q.d., and 32 mg q.d. in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of orally administered ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d., 24 mg q.d., and 32 mg q.d. in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy (cisplatin > or = 50 mg/m2). This was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study conducted in North America. It was planned that all patients would receive one of the following orally administered ondansetron treatments 30 min before starting cisplatin dosing (administered over < or = 3 h): 8 mg b.i.d. with 8 h between doses (124 patients), 24 mg q.d. (116 patients), and 32 mg q.d. (117 patients). Use of prophylactic corticosteroids was not permitted. During the 24-h study period, the highest complete response rate (no emesis, rescue antiemetic therapy, or withdrawal) occurred in patients who received ondansetron 24 mg q.d.: 76/115 or 66%, as against 68/124 (55%) after ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d. and 64/117 (55%) after ondansetron 32 mg q.d. Complete control of nausea (no nausea, no rescue, no withdrawal) occurred in more patients in the ondansetron 24 mg q.d. group (64/114, 56%) than in the ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d. group (43/121, 36%) or in the ondansetron 32 mg group (55/117, 50%). These results demonstrate that following highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy (> or =2 50 mg/m2), oral ondansetron 24 mg q.d. is more effective than 8 mg b.i.d. for overall control of nausea, and at least as effective if not more effective in the control of acute vomiting than 8 mg b.i.d. or 32 mg q.d. Ondansetron 24 mg q.d. was well tolerated, and no new or unexpected adverse events were identified.     

The search for cost-effective prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the child undergoing reconstructive burn surgery: ondansetron versus dimenhydrinate.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and unpleasant problem for children with burns who are undergoing reconstructive burn surgery. Ondansetron and dimenhydrinate have been found to be effective for the prevention of PONV in other patient populations, but they have not been directly compared in the pediatric population. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of ondansetron and dimenhydrinate was performed. One hundred patients with a mean age of 11.8 years who were undergoing reconstructive burn surgery with general anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo, 0.1 mg/kg of ondansetron, or 0.5 mg/kg of dimenhydrinate. The 3 groups were well matched for all demographic and procedural variables. The study drugs were given twice, first at the end of surgery and again 4 hours later, to ensure adequate blood levels during the 8-hour study period. Postoperatively, on the basis of the presence and amount of PONV experienced, all patients were assigned a PONV score by a blinded investigator. Statistically significant reductions in the incidence of PONV in the patients who received ondansetron or dimenhydrinate were found, as compared with the results of patients who received placebo. Postoperative vomiting was reduced from 61% in the placebo group to 29% and 40% in the ondansetron and dimenhydrinate groups, respectively, and PONV was similarly reduced from 69% to 47% and 40%, respectively. The differences between ondansetron and dimenhydrinate were not significant. The average cost to our pharmacy for the prescribed dose of ondansetron was $19.34; the cost for dimenhydrinate was $0.90. In this patient population, dimenhydrinate was as effective as ondansetron for the prevention of PONV and postoperative vomiting, and it was much less expensive.     

地塞米松对术后硬膜外吗啡引起恶心呕吐的预防作用

目的:评价地塞米松对硬膜外吗啡引起恶心呕吐的预防效果。方法:妇科肿瘤择期手术病人120例,随机双盲分为地塞米松(A)组、恩丹西酮(B)组、生理盐水(C)组三组,每组40人。当手术开始时,随机给予地塞米松10 mg或者恩丹西酮8 mg或者生理盐水2 mL。所有病人在手术结束前1 h均接受硬膜外吗啡2 mg,然后以0.125％布比卡因100 mL和吗啡0.12mg/kg维持硬膜外术后止痛48 h,评价镇痛效果、恶心呕吐。结果:A组和B组早期和晚期恶心呕吐发生率低于C组(P<0.05),而A组和B组无差别(P>0.05)。结论:地塞米松和恩丹西酮均能降低硬膜外吗啡引起的恶心呕吐,地塞米松对术后硬膜外吗啡引起的恶心呕吐有预防作用。