Supplemental oxygen does not reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy

Background. Supplemental intra-operative oxygen 80% halves theincidence of nausea and vomiting after open and laparoscopicabdominal surgery, perhaps by ameliorating intestinal ischaemiaassociated with abdominal surgery. It is unlikely that thyroidsurgery compromises intestinal perfusion. We therefore testedthe hypothesis that supplemental perioperative oxygen does notreduce the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)after thyroidectomy. Methods. One hundred and fifty patients undergoing thyroidectomywere given sevoflurane anaesthesia. After induction, patientswere randomly assigned to the following treatments: (i) 30%oxygen, (ii) 80% oxygen, or (iii) 30% oxygen with droperidol0.625 mg. Results. The overall incidence of nausea during the first 24 hafter surgery was 48% in the patients given oxygen 30%, 46%in those given oxygen 80%, and 22% in those given droperidol(P=0.004). There were no significant differences between theoxygen 30% and 80% groups in incidence or severity of PONV,the need for rescue antiemetics, or patient satisfaction. Droperidolsignificantly shortened the time to first meal. Conclusions. Supplemental oxygen was ineffective in preventingnausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy, but droperidol reducedthe incidence. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 857–61     

Dexamethasone is as effective as ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following breast surgery

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting remain a common problem following breast surgery. This study assesses whether dexamethasone is as effective as ondansetron in the control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Eighty ASA I-III patients undergoing breast surgery for carcinoma of the breast were included in the study. Following premedication with diazepam 5-10 mg, patients were induced with fentanyl 50 micro g and propofol 2-2.5 mg kg-1. A larynx mask was inserted and anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane in oxygen and nitrous oxide. Patients were then randomly divided into two groups: Group D (dexamethasone) was given 4 mg dexamethasone i.v. after induction and Group O (ondansetron) was given 4 mg ondansetron at the same time point. Postoperatively, nausea, vomiting and pain were recorded at 1-h intervals during 4 h, and thereafter every 4 h during 24 h. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV during 24 h was 37% and 33% in Group D and Group O, respectively (NS). No differences were found between the groups in the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting or pain at the different time intervals. No differences were found in the incidence of PONV in smokers vs. non-smokers. No side-effects of these drugs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron 4 mg or dexamethasone 4 mg are equally effective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following breast surgery. Other factors being similar, the difference in cost between these drugs would favor the use of dexamethasone instead of ondansetron when monotherapy against PONV is used.     

Cost-effectiveness of ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting

The decision as to whether prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting is better than treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting could be made on the basis of cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of ondansetron was calculated using data from published quantitative systematic reviews of randomised trials. Milligrams of ondansetron required to achieve a desired endpoint were chosen as a cost unit. Modelling was based on a cohort of 1000 patients, and examined control event rates (i.e. incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting without prophylaxis) of between 10 and 90%. In a sensitivity analysis, cost-effectiveness of recommended intravenous doses (4 mg for treatment and prophylaxis) was compared with minimal effective doses as shown by meta-analysis (1 mg for treatment, 8 mg for prophylaxis). Fewer patients experience any postoperative nausea and vomiting symptoms with prophylaxis compared with treatment. But prophylaxis is only marginally more effective than treatment, and treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting with effective doses (i.e. 1 or 4 mg) is more cost-effective and safer than prophylaxis with effective doses (i.e. 4 or 8 mg). Reasons for this are the selective treatment of patients who actually need treatment, the high success rate with a lowest dose tested (1 mg) in established postoperative nausea and vomiting, and the disappointing antinausea effect of prophylactic ondansetron even at an eight-fold higher dose.     

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.     

Impact of an antiemetic protocol on postoperative nausea and vomiting in children

The objective of the study was to demonstrate a decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in children through the use of an antiemetic protocol. PONV was recorded in children (1.5-15 years) after inpatient surgery under general anaesthesia in a prospective, interview based survey. Group 1 consisted of children having surgery 1 month before the introduction of a formalized antiemetic protocol and group 2, 2 months after its introduction. Data were collected over a 1-month period in each group. Outcome measures of nausea, emesis, antiemetic requirement and patient satisfaction were monitored for the first 24-h postoperative period. There were 272 children enrolled: 138 in group 1 and 134 in group 2. There was a difference between the two groups for gender (P=0.03), type of surgery (P=0.017), perioperative opioid (P=0.003) and perioperative antiemetic use (P=0.024). However, multivariate analysis did not demonstrate an impact on outcome from these factors. The incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) following the introduction of the protocol was 36% and 34%, respectively. Moderate to severe nausea was decreased after introduction of the protocol (18% versus 9%, P=0.028) but moderate to severe vomiting failed to reach significance (19% versus 11%, P=0.078). The proportion of children who had repeated nausea decreased after the introduction of the protocol (17% versus 8%, P=0.02) but repeated episodes of vomiting remained unchanged (19% versus 14%). This was attributed to a significant increase in antiemetic prescribing by protocol in group 2 (10% versus 59%, P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was high in both groups (85% versus 90%). The introduction of a postoperative antiemetic protocol improved prescribing frequency. This resulted in a decreased incidence of moderate to severe PON and a reduction in the number of patients with repeated nausea.     

Tropisetron or droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy are susceptible to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of tropisetron or droperidol for preventing PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: In a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial, 120 female patients received either tropisetron 5 mg or droperidol 1.25 mg intravenously at the beginning of surgery. A standard general anaesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. Nausea, emetic episodes and the need for rescue medication were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Nausea was experienced by 55% of the patients in the tropisetron group and by 62% in the droperidol group (ns). The incidence of emetic episodes was 20% and 52% (P=0.001) in the two groups, respectively. Rescue antiemetic medication was needed in 42% and 50% (ns) of the patients, respectively. Patients in the droperidol group were more drowsy in comparison with patients in the tropisetron group, mean sedation score being 6.7 vs 5.7, respectively (P=0.023). No difference in other side-effects was observed. CONCLUSION: Tropisetron, when compared with droperidol, had no better efficacy on the prevention of postoperative nausea but resulted in a significantly lower incidence of vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

Double–blind comparison of transdermal scopolamine, droperidol and placebo against postoperative nausea and vomiting

Since transdermal scopolamine (TS) seems effective against seasickness, we compared its antiemetic effect with intravenous droperidol (DHBP), our routine antidote for postoperative emesis. Ninety-six female patients (ASA I-II) scheduled for short-stay surgery were randomly allocated to three study groups after giving their informed consent. The three groups were as follows: TS adhesive, delivering 140 micrograms initially and 5 micrograms/h thereafter + placebo 0.5 ml i.v. 5 min before the end of surgery; transdermal placebo adhesive preoperatively + DHBP 0.5 ml (1.25 mg) i.v. 5 min before the end of surgery; transdermal placebo + 0.5 ml placebo i.v. as indicated above. Oxycodone i.m. and glycopyrrolate i.v. were given for premedication together with the test adhesive. Anaesthesia was induced with thiopental and maintained with nitrous oxide and oxygen, enflurane, vecuronium and fentanyl. Neostigmine and glycopyrrolate were administered for reversal. In the recovery room no differences in nausea or vomiting were observed between the groups. Sedation was significantly more marked (P less than 0.15-0.0001) after DHBP than after either TS or the given DHBP and 6% of those given the placebo (P less than 0.05). During the following 24 h nausea was reported more by the placebo patients (25) than by those on TS (20) or DHBP (15) (P less than 0.05). However, actual vomiting on the ward did not differ between the groups. Visual disturbances were more frequent after TS (P less than 0.01). We conclude that prophylactic transdermal scopolamine does not diminish postoperative emetic sequelae.     

Simplified algorithm for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a before-and-after study

Background

Poor adherence to guidelines aimed at reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is well known. In a before-and-after study, we tested the effectiveness of a simplified algorithm for PONV prophylaxis on the incidence of PONV.

The efficacy of ginger root in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after outpatient gynaecological laparoscopy

To determine the anti-emetic effect of ginger as compared to droperidol, 120 patients scheduled to have gynaecological diagnostic laparoscopy as day cases were randomly allocated into placebo, droperidol, ginger and ginger plus droperidol groups to receive either 2 g of ginger or 1.25 mg of droperidol or both. There were no significant differences in the incidences of postoperative nausea which were 32%, 20%, 22% and 33%, and vomiting which were 35%, 15%, 25% and 25% in the four groups, respectively. We conclude that ginger powder, in the dose of 2 g, droperidol 1.25 mg or both are ineffective in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after day case gynaecological laparoscopy.     

Intravenous dolasetron and ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background: Intravenous dolasetron mesilate has shown efficacy in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when administered as a single dose prior to emergence from anesthesia. This trial compared intravenous dolasetron and ondansetron for the prevention of PONV when administered at induction of anesthesia.
Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial randomized patients to one of four single IV treatments: placebo, 25 or 50 mg dolasetron, or 4 mg ondansetron. Efficacy was measured by complete response (0 emetic episodes and no rescue medication), nausea severity and patient satisfaction as measured on a visual analog scale (VAS), investigator's rating of nausea severity, and total response (complete response with no nausea [≤ mm VAS]).
Results: 514 patients at 24 sites were evaluated for efficacy. The 50 mg dolasetron and 4 mg ondansetron doses were statistically equivalent, and superior to placebo, for all efficacy measures. Complete response rates were 49%, 51%, 71% and 64% for placebo, 25 and 50 mg dolasetron, and ondansetron, respectively. Dolasetron 50 mg was statistically superior to 25 mg dolasetron for complete response, total response, VAS maximum nausea, time to first emetic episode, and patient satisfaction. The majority of adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity. Headache was the most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event with a 3%-5% incidence across treatments.
Conclusion: When given at induction of anesthesia, 50 mg intravenous dolasetron is equivalent to 4 mg ondansetron and superior to 25 mg dolasetron and placebo for the prevention of PONV. All treatments were safely administered and well tolerated.     

术后恶心呕吐的风险评估及防治方法

术后恶心呕吐是最常见的术后并发症之一,防治其发生有重要的临床意义。现就近几年来关于术后恶心呕吐的风险因素、评估方法以及防治方面的研究进展作一综述。     

Evaluation of three risk scores to predict postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: So far there are three different scores to predict postoperative vomiting (PV: Apfel et al., 1998) or postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV: Koivuranta et al., 1997; Palazzo and Evans, 1993). All three scores used logistic regression analysis to identify and create weights for the risk factors for PV or PONV. In short, these were sex, age, history of previous PONV, motion sickness, duration of anaesthesia, and use of postoperative opioids. However, an external evaluation and a comparison of these scores has not been performed so far. METHODS: Patients undergoing a variety of surgical procedures under general anaesthesia were studied prospectively. Preoperatively, they completed a questionnaire concerning potential risk factors for the occurrence of PV or PONV implemented in the three risk scores. Balanced anaesthesia (induction agent, nondepolarising neuromuscular blocker, opioid, and inhalation agent in nitrous oxide/oxygen) was performed. No intravenous anaesthesia or any antiemetic prophylaxis was applied. Postoperatively, the patients were observed in the recovery room for the occurrence of PV and PONV and were visited twice on the ward within the 24-h observation period. Both the patients and the nursing staff were asked whether PV or PONV was present. The severity of PONV was categorised using a standardised scoring algorithm. A total of 1,444 patients was finally included into the analysis. Using information of the predicted risk for the individual patients and the actual occurrence of PV or PONV, Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC-curves) were drawn. The area under each ROC-curve was calculated as a means of the predictive properties of each score and was compared for statistical differences. RESULTS: For prediction of PONV (any severity) the AUC-values (AUC=area under the curve) and the corresponding 95%-confidence intervals were: Apfel: 0.70 (0.67-0.72); Koivuranta: 0.71 (0.69-0.73); Palazzo: 0.68 (0.65-0.70). For prediction of PV: Apfel: 0.73 (0.71-0.75); Koivuranta: 0.73 (0.70-0.75); Palazzo: 0.68 (0.65-0.70). Thus, all three scores appeared to have a moderate accuracy as measured by the AUC. The score of Koivuranta predicts PONV (P=0.007) and also PV (P=0.002) significantly better than Palazzo's score. Furthermore, for predicting of PV the score of Apfel was also superior to Palazzo's score (P=0.005). All three scores predict PV with the same accuracy as PONV. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of PV and PONV in patients undergoing surgery under balanced anaesthesia can be predicted with moderate but acceptable accuracy using one of the available risk scores, regardless of local surgical or anaesthesiological circumstances. For clinical practice, we recommend the score published by Koivuranta, since its calculation is very simple.