Randomized, double-blind comparison of subhypnotic-dose propofol alone and combined with dexamethasone for emesis in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery

BACKGROUND: Nausea, retching, and vomiting are common in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery performed under regional anesthesia. Subhypnotic-dose propofol 1.0 mg/kg per hour has been used to reduce the incidence of these emetic symptoms. Dexamethasone has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced emesis when added to an antiemetic regimen. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the difference in efficacy and tolerability between subhypnoticdose propofol 1.0 mg/kg per hour alone and combined with dexamethasone 8 mg for reducing postdelivery emetic episodes in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, parturients received IV placebo (saline) or dexamethasone 8 mg followed by a continuous infusion of propofol at subhypnotic dose (1.0 mg/kg per hour) immediately after clamping of the umbilical cord. Intraoperative, postdelivery emetic episodes and safety assessments were performed by an investigator. RESULTS: One hundred twenty parturients (mean [SD] age, 29 [5] years; age range, 21-38 years; mean [SD] height, 158 [7] cm; height range, 145-172 cm; mean [SD] body weight, 72 [8] kg; weight range, 54-90 kg) were enrolled in the study, 60 in each treatment group. The treatment groups were comparable with respect to maternal demographics and operative management. The rate of emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, and vomiting) in an intraoperative, postdelivery period was lower in patients who received the combination regimen than in those who received subhypnotic-dose propofol 1.0 mg/kg per hour alone (5% [3/60] vs 20% [12/60], respectively; P = 0.012). No clinically important adverse events attributable to the study drug were observed in either group. CONCLUSION: In the parturients undergoing cesarean delivery performed under spinal anesthesia in this study, the combination of subhypnotic-dose propofol 1.0 mg/kg per hour and dexamethasone 8 mg was more effective than propofol alone for reducing the incidence of postdelivery emetic symptoms.     

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.     

A randomized, double-blind comparison of granisetron alone and combined with dexamethasone for post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy emetic symptoms

Background

Granisetron hydrochloride, a selective serotonin receptor antagonist, has been used to treat established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Dexamethasone has been shown to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced emesis when added to an antiemetic regimen.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the differences in efficacy and tolerability between the combination of granisetron plus dexamethasone and granisetron alone for the treatment of PONV.

Methods

This study was a randomized, double-blind trial conducted at Toride Kyodo General Hospital (Toride, Ibaraki, Japan). Men and women aged 25 to 65 years and experiencing emetic symptoms after laparoscopic cholecystectomy were eligible for the study. Patients received IV therapy with either granisetron 40 μg/kg alone or with dexamethasone 8 mg. Patients were observed for 24 hours. Emetic episodes and the need for a rescue antiemetic were recorded by nursing staff, who were blinded to treatment assignment.

Results

One hundred patients (63 women, 37 men; mean [SD] age, 47 [10] years; range, 25-65 years) were enrolled; 50 patients were randomized to each treatment group. No significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics were observed between the groups. Complete control of established PONV, defined as no emetic symptoms and no need for another rescue antiemetic medication, occurred in significantly more patients who received the combination (49/50 [98%]) than in those who received granisetron alone (41/50 [82%]) (P = 0.008). No clinically important adverse effects due to the study drugs were observed in either group.

Conclusion

In this study population of patients experiencing post-cholecystectomy emesis, the combination of granisetron plus dexamethasone was more efficacious than granisetron alone for the treatment of PONV. Tolerability between the 2 treatments was similar.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of ramosetron, dexamethasone, and a combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in Korean women undergoing thyroidectomy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study

Background: Thyroidectomy is associated with a relatively high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), ranging from 51% to 76%. Because these symptoms are distressing for patients, prophylactic medication to avoid or reduce PONV is recommended.Objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of ramosetron, dexamethasone, and a combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone in preventing PONV in Korean women undergoing thyroidectomy.Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, consecutive adult female patients who were scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy under general anesthesia at the Kyungpook National University Hospital (Daegu, Korea) were randomly assigned to receive ramosetron 0.3 mg alone, dexamethasone 8 mg alone, or a combination of ramosetron 0.3 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg administered intravenously as a single dose immediately after induction of anesthesia. The primary end point of this study was the total PONV rate up to 24 hours postanesthesia. The secondary end points were the incidence of nausea, incidence of vomiting, severity of nausea (0 = no nausea to 10 = nausea as bad as it could be), use of rescue antiemetic drugs, and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) determined through interview or spontaneous patient report for 24 hours postanesthesia.Results: A total of 198 female patients were approached for study inclusion, 18 of whom were excluded. Therefore, 180 Korean women (mean [SD] age, 46.5 [12.6] years; height, 159.8 [2.7] cm; weight, 53.2 [3.6] kg) were enrolled and completed the study. The total PONV rates up to 24 hours postanesthesia were 35%, 13%, and 10% in the dexamethasone, ramosetron, and combination groups, respectively. The PONV rate was significantly lower in the combination group than in the dexamethasone alone group (P = 0.006). The PONV rate was not significantly different in the combination group compared with the ramosetron alone group. The PONV rate in the dexamethasone alone group was significantly higher than that in the ramosetron alone group (P = 0.03). The severity of nausea (median [25th-75th percentiles], 0 [0-0] vs 0 [0-4]; P = 0.009) and rate of use of rescue antiemetic drugs (5% vs 27%; P = 0.006) were significantly lower in the combination group than in the dexamethasone alone group, whereas the severity of nausea (median [25th-75th percentiles], 0 [0-0] vs 0 [0-0]) and rate of use of rescue antiemetic drugs (5% vs 7%) were not significantly different between the combination and ramosetron alone groups. The severity of nausea (median [25th-75th percentiles], 0 [0-4] vs 0 [0-0]; P = 0.033) and the rate of use of rescue antiemetic drugs (27% vs 7%; P = 0.018) were significantly higher in the dexamethasone alone group than in the ramosetron alone group. The rates of AEs (headache: 15%, 20%, and 18%; dizziness: 18%, 22%, and 15%) were not significantly different in the dexamethasone alone, ramosetron alone, or combination groups, respectively.Conclusions: The combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone was more effective in reducing PONV than was dexamethasone monotherapy. However, the combination did not show additional benefits compared with ramosetron alone in preventing PONV after thyroidectomy in these Korean women.     

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.     

A comparison of granisetron,droperidol, and metoclopramide in the treatment of established nausea and vomiting after breast surgery: a double-blind,randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing breast surgery are at particular risk for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), with an incidence of emesis as high as 50% when no prophylactic antiemetic is used.OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) receptor antagonist granisetron with that of the traditional antiemetics droperidol and metoclopramide in the treatment of established PONV after breast surgery. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, patients who had undergone breast surgery and were experiencing PONV during the first 3 hours after anesthesia received either granisetron 40 microg/kg IV, droperidol 20 microg/kg IV, or metoclopramide 0.2 mg/kg IV. Patients were observed for 24 hours after administration of study drug. Emetic episodes were recorded by nursing staff who were blinded to treatment assignment. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled in the study, 25 in each treatment group. Their age ranged from 41 to 65 years. There were no significant between-group differences in patients' demographic or surgical characteristics at study entry. The number of patients who were emesis free (no nausea, retching, or vomiting) was significantly higher in patients who received granisetron (88% [2225]) than in those who received droperidol (64% [1625]; P = 0.047) or metoclopramide (56% [1425]; P = 0.013). In patients who experienced nausea (3, 8, and 9 patients in the granisetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide groups, respectively), the severity of nausea was significantly lower with granisetron compared with droperidol (P = 0.028) and metoclopramide (P = 0.025). No clinically serious adverse events were observed in any group. CONCLUSION: Granisetron was significantly more effective than the traditional antiemetics droperidol and metoclopramide for the treatment of PONV in this population of patients undergoing breast surgery.     

Effects of dexamethasone in preventing postoperative emetic symptoms after total knee replacement surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial in adult Japanese patients

BACKGROUND: Postoperative emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, and vomiting) are common following total joint replacement, with an incidence as high as 83% when no prophylactic antiemetic is provided. However, most antiemetics currently used in Japan, such as antihistamines (eg, hydroxyzine), butyrophenones (eg, droperidol), and dopamine receptor antagonists (eg, metoclopramide), have been associated with adverse effects (AEs), such as excessive sedation, hypotension, dry mouth, dysphoria, hallucinations, and extrapyramidal symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of 3 doses of intravenous dexamethasone monotherapy versus vehicle in preventing emetic symptoms after total knee replacement performed under combined general and epidural anesthesia. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, University of Tsukuba Institute of Clinical Medicine, Tsukuba, Japan. Adult Japanese patients scheduled to undergo total knee replacement were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups: dexamethasone 4, 8, or 16 mg, or vehicle (control). Patients received combination anesthesia with sevoflurane and nitrous oxide in pure oxygen (general) and lidocaine (epidural). Study drugs were administered intravenously after the completion of surgery. An investigator blinded to treatment assignment monitored patients for emetic symptoms for 24 hours after the patient awoke. Patients rated their satisfaction with the study drug using a linear, 11-point scale (0 = complete satisfaction to 10 = complete dissatisfaction). Tolerability was assessed by the study investigator using spontaneous reporting and patient interview. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled (58 women, 22 men; mean [SD] age, 59 [10] years; mean [SD] height, 154 [7] cm; mean [SD] body weight, 55 [7] kg; 20 patients per treatment group). The demographic, clinical, and surgical data were comparable between the 4 treatment groups. The rates of emesis-free patients were 35% (7 patients), 70% (14), and 75% (15) with dexamethasone 4, 8, and 16 mg, respectively, compared with 30% (6) with vehicle (P = NS, 0.013, and 0.005, respectively). Median (range) patient satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the groups receiving dexamethasone 8 and 16 mg (both, 0.0 [0-9]) compared with controls (6.0 [0-10]) (P = 0.013 and 0.008, respectively). This effect was not found with the 4-mg dose. No clinically serious AEs attributed to the study drug were observed in any of the 4 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of a small, select group of adult Japanese patients undergoing total knee replacement, the rates of emesis-free patients were higher with dexamethasone 8 and 16 mg compared with vehicle 24 hours after anesthesia induction. This effect was not found with the 4-mg dose. All treatments were well tolerated.     

Comparison of granisetron and ramosetron for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common after thyroidectomy. Granisetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, is more effective than the traditional antiemetics droperidol and metoclopramide for the prevention of PONV after thyroidectomy. Ramosetron, another new selective antagonist of 5-HT3 receptor, has been shown to have more potent and longer-acting properties than granisetron against cisplatin-induced emesis in ferrets. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of granisetron and ramosetron for the prevention of PONV after thyroidectomy. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, patients received granisetron 3 mg or ramosetron 0.3 mg intravenously at the end of surgery. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. Emetic episodes and safety were assessed during the first 24 hours and the second 24 hours after anesthesia. RESULTS: Eighty patients (15 men, 65 women) aged 33 to 58 years were included in the study. Each study group consisted of 40 patients. There were no differences between groups with regard to patient demographics. The percentage of patients who were emesis free (no nausea, no retching, no vomiting) 0 to 24 hours after anesthesia was 83% (33 of 40) with granisetron and 88% (35 of 40) with ramosetron; the corresponding rates 24 to 48 hours after anesthesia were 63% (25 of 40) and 90% (36 of 40), respectively (P = 0.004). The safety profile of the two 5-HT3 receptor antagonists was comparable, as no clinically serious adverse effects caused by the study drug were observed in either of the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ramosetron was comparable to therapy with granisetron for the prevention of PONV 0 to 24 hours after anesthesia in patients who underwent thyroidectomy; 24 to 48 hours after anesthesia, ramosetron was more ef- fective than granisetron for prophylaxis against PONV in this population.     

Comparison of granisetron with granisetron plus droperidol combination prophylaxis in post-operative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of granisetron and granisetron plus droperidol combination therapy on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in 60 patients who had undergone elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Induction of anaesthesia was achieved using 5 mg/kg thiopentone, 2 micrograms/kg fentanyl and 0.5 mg/kg atracurium, and anaesthesia was maintained with 2-2.5% sevoflurane. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group G (granisetron) (n = 30) patients received 3 mg granisetron and group GD (granisetron plus droperidol) (n = 30) patients received 3 mg granisetron and 1.25 mg droperidol shortly before the induction of anaesthesia. PONV incidence was recorded post-operatively at 15 min, 30 min, 60 min, 2 h, 4 h, 12 h and 24 h. While PONV prophylaxis provided almost complete emetic control in patients who received the granisetron plus droperidol combination, patients who received granisetron prophylaxis alone experienced PONV more frequently at 30 min and 60 min post-operatively. We conclude that addition of a low dose of droperidol to granisetron prophylaxis is more effective than granisetron prophylaxis alone for successful control of PONV.     

Efficacy of combination intravenous lidocaine and dexamethasone on propofol injection pain: a randomized, double-blind, prospective study in adult Korean surgical patients

BACKGROUND: Pain on injection is a common adverse effect with propofol used for general anesthesia. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate the analgesic effect of dexamethasone during propofol injection and investigate whether a combination of dexamethasone and lidocaine produced additional analgesic efficacy compared with either treatment alone. METHODS: In a double-blind, prospective trial, patients scheduled to undergo elective plastic surgery were randomized to receive lidocaine 20 mg, dexamethasone 6 mg, combination lidocaine 20 mg and dexamethasone 6 mg, or normal saline with venous occlusion for 1 minute, followed by administration of 25% of the total calculated dose of propofol (2.5 mg/kg) into a dorsal hand vein. Pain intensity and incidence were evaluated during a 10-second pause before the induction of anesthesia, using a 4-point verbal rating scale (0=none, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe); a score of 1 to 3 was counted as pain. Patients were monitored hourly for 24 hours postsurgery by a blinded investigator for adverse effects at the injection site (eg, pain, edema, wheal, flare response). RESULTS: A total of 140 (35 per group) Korean patients (91 women, 49 men; mean [SD] age, 47 [14] years; mean [SD] height, 162 [8] cm; and mean [SD] body weight, 60 [8] kg) completed the study. Demographic variables were similar among groups. With respect to pain intensity, mean pain score was significantly less in the combination group than in the lidocaine or dexamethasone groups (P<0.01, respectively), although the median pain scores for all groups were 0. The incidence of pain associated with propofol injection was reduced significantly in the combination group compared with the lidocaine or dexamethasone group (0% vs 34.3% and 37.1%, respectively; both, P<0.01). One patient (in the combination group) complained of perineal itching immediately following injection; however, this subsided within a few seconds and did not require any intervention. No other adverse effects at the injection site were observed in any patient in the 24 hours post surgery. CONCLUSION: Combination lidocaine 20 mg and dexamethasone 6 mg, with venous occlusion for 1 minute, was more effective than lidocaine 20 mg or dexamethasone 6 mg alone for pain control during propofol injection in these Korean patients.     

A review of the efficacy of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Aims of the review. To consider the efficacy of dexamethasone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting following general anaesthesia and a range of surgical procedures, compared with a placebo of sodium chloride (normal saline). To inform nurses’ pharmacological knowledge of the effects of this medication during peri‐operative care. Background. Dexamethasone was serendipitously discovered to have an effect on reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients receiving various chemotherapeutic regimes. Experience suggests many nurses remain unaware of the anti‐emetic effect of this medication. Methods. Multiple databases were searched and selected articles were restricted to experiments published within the past 10 years. Participants of each study had received dexamethasone or sodium chloride (not administered in combination with any other anti‐emetics) preoperatively, undergone general anaesthesia and received a common surgical procedure. Thirteen research articles met these criteria and were reviewed. Results. The surgical procedures represented have shown high incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting associated with them. Importantly, 12 of the 13 trials reported significant reductions suggesting dexamethasone has a significant preventative effect in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting when given during induction. However, as a preventative of postoperative nausea alone, dexamethasone does not appear to have a significant effect. Conclusions. The findings clearly support the notion that dexamethasone does have anti‐emetic properties. Research examining dexamethasone in combination with other drugs as a cocktail of anti‐emetics is welcomed. Future research into the usefulness of dexamethasone given beyond the induction period as an anti‐emetic to inform postoperative protocols of care is needed. Relevance to clinical practice. Nurses in the peri‐operative arena can administer this medication, when ordered, with the knowledge based on research evidence as to why it has been included in preoperative protocols. However, dexamethasone has been noted in postanaesthesia recovery care units as a clinical pathway option for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no retrieved articles discuss this option.     

韩氏穴位神经刺激仪对妇科腹腔镜术后疼痛与恶心呕吐的影响

目的:观察在妇科腹腔镜术前、后使用韩氏穴位神经刺激仪(Han’s Acupoint Nerve Stimulator,HANS),对术后疼痛与恶心呕吐症状的影响。方法:接受妇科腹腔镜手术患者91例,随机分配到3组:A组为术前30分钟使用安慰剂HANS,B组为术前30分钟使用HANS,C组为手术前与术后30分钟各使用HANS 30分钟。频率:2/100 Hz,取穴:一侧合谷-劳宫,对侧内关-外关。采用视觉模拟尺(visual analogue scale,VAS)在术后0.5、6、24小时分别评估患者疼痛与恶心呕吐的程度。结果:与A组比较,B组与C组在术后0.5、6、24小时的疼痛症状均有显著改善;也能显著改善术后30分钟时恶心呕吐症状。C组的治疗作用似优于B组,但差异未达显著水平。结论:术前使用,或者术前加术后使用HANS,能有效降低妇科腹腔镜术后疼痛与恶心呕吐症状。     

A randomized double blind study to evaluate efficacy of palonosetron with dexamethasone versus palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting in subjects undergoing laparoscopic surgeries with high emetogenic risk

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are common occurrences (50%-80%) after laparoscopic surgery. Palonosetron (Pal), the newest 5-HT3 antagonist, is an effective antiemetic that has advantages in treating PDNV due to its prolonged duration of action. We hypothesized that a combination of Pal and dexamethazone (Dex) could further improve the efficacy of the treatment in comparison to Pal alone in patients at high risk for PONV. Patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia were randomized to receive 8-mg dexamethasone + 0.075-mg palonosetron (Pal + Dex) or an equivalent volume of saline + 0.075 mg palonosetron (Pal). Data was collected at defined postoperative times (2, 6, 12, 24, and 72 hours). All patients also completed an 18-question QOL-Functional Living Index-Emesis instrument at 96 hours. We enrolled 118 patients, ASA 1-2, with at least 3 PONV risk factors, who were undergoing outpatient surgery. Both groups had a low incidence of vomiting in the PACU (Pal + Dex, 1.7%; Pal, 6.8%) and at 72 hours (0.0% both groups). Complete response (no vomiting, no rescue medication) was not different between treatment groups for any time intervals. Cumulative success rates over the entire 72 hours were 60.4% (Pal + Dex) versus 60.0% (Pal). The Pal + Dex group showed a trend toward greater satisfaction on the QOL- Functional Living Index-Emesis scores with the greatest differences in the "nausea domain". The combination therapy of palonosetron + dexamethasone did not reduce the incidence of PONV or PDNV when compared with palonosetron alone. There was no change in comparative efficacy over 72 hours, most likely due to the low incidence of PDNV in both groups.     

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.     

Antiemetic efficacy of combination therapy with granisetron plus prednisolone plus the dopamine D2 antagonist metopimazine during multiple cycles of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in patients refractory to previous antiemetic therapy

 Effective antiemetic treatment of patients who have previously experienced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is difficult. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of a single intravenous dose of granisetron plus a 3-day oral treatment with prednisolone 25 mg once a day plus metopimazine 30 mg four times a day in patients refractory to previous antiemetic treatment with granisetron or with prednisolone plus metopimazine. The study population was made up of 25 consecutive women with stage I or II breast cancer, who were treated with multiple cycles of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil plus methotrexate or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin plus fluorouracil given i.v. every 3 weeks. Patients received the three-drug combination of antiemetics during a total of 113 cycles of chemotherapy. No emetic episodes were reported in 88.9% cycles on day 1, in 94.7% cycles on days 2 through 5 and in 85.8% cycles on days 1 through 5 after chemotherapy. No nausea was reported in 43.4% cycles on day 1, in 49.6% cycles on days 2 through 5 and in 34.5% cycles on days 1 through 5. Nineteen patients (76.0%) completed the scheduled nine cycles of chemotherapy, 1 being withdrawn because of ≥5 emetic episodes and 5, because they were not satisfied with the antiemetic treatment. The treatment was well tolerated. In conclusion, granisetron plus prednisolone plus metopimazine is a highly effective antiemetic treatment in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy refractory to antiemetic therapy with granisetron or prednisolone plus metopimazine. Published online: 25 February 2000     

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.     

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.     

Effects of Ondansetron and Granisetron on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Adult Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common and potentially distressing adverse events (AEs) associated with surgery and anesthesia. In patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) without antiemetic prophylaxis, the incidence of PONV can be as high as 72%.Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the prophylactic antiemetic effects of ondansetron and granisetron in patients undergoing LC when these agents are administered before the end of surgery.Methods: Patients classified by the American Society of Anesthesiologist's physical status as I or II who were scheduled for elective LC were included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesia was induced with thiopental 5 mg/kg and fentanyl 2 μg/kg, and was maintained with isoflurane 1% to 3% in 50% oxygen and 50% nitrous oxide and fentanyl as needed. Approximately 20 to 30 minutes before the end of the surgery, the patients randomly received either IV ondansetron 100 μg/kg (group O), IV granisetron 40 μg/kg (group G), or normal saline (group P). Plasma levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were determined preoperatively and 24 hours postoperatively. The patients were observed for 24 hours for PONV and other possible AEs. Postoperative pain intensity was determined using a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Four-point satisfaction scores were determined at 24 hours.Results: Ninety patients (69 women, 21 men) participated in the study. Demographic characteristics and operative data (duration of surgery and anesthesia and amount of intraoperative fentanyl) were similar in the 3 groups. The only AE reported by patients during the 24-hour observation period was nonsevere headache. The number of patients experiencing headache was similar in group P, group O, and group G (10 [33%] patients, 6 [20%], and 10 [33%], respectively). No significant changes were found in presurgical and postsurgical plasma levels of ALT and AST in any group. The mean (SD) satisfaction scores in group O and group G (3.0 [0.4] and 3.0 [0.6], respectively) were significantly higher than those in group P (2.5 [0.5]; both, P < 0.01). Immediately after surgery (period 0), significantly more patients in the placebo group (21 [70%]) experienced PONV compared with those in the ondansetron group (9 [30%]; P < 0.05) and the granisetron group (7 [23%]; P < 0.01). During the 24-hour observation period, a significantly greater number of patients in group P (18 [60%]) required a single dose of a rescue antiemetic drug compared with those in groups O and G (9 [30%] and 6 [20%], respectively; both, P < 0.01).Conclusions: Patients administered ondansetron 100 μg/kg or granisetron 40 μg/kg 20 to 30 minutes before the end of LC had significantly higher PONV control during the 24-hour postoperative observation period than patients receiving placebo. However, there were no significant differences between the active treatment groups in the incidence of PONV, patient satisfaction, or AEs.