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

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

Effect of nabilone on nausea and vomiting after total abdominal hysterectomy

In a prospective, double-blind study, we have examined the effectof preoperative nabilone on postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV). Sixty women, less than 70 yr old, undergoing total abdominalhysterectomy, were allocated randomly to receive either nabilone2 mg or metoclopramide 10 mg orally 90 min before inductionof anaesthesia. The study was designed to detect a 50% differencein the incidence of postoperative vomiting between the two groups,with an 80% power of achieving a statistically significant resultat the 5% level. Data from 53 patients were analysed: the incidencesof nausea and vomiting for the metoclopramide group were 70%and 67%, respectively; the corresponding values for the nabilonegroup were 73% and 54%. These differences were not significant. Present address: ^*Shackleton Department of Anaesthetics, SouthamptonGeneral Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO9 4XY. Present address:     

昂丹司琼预防妇科腹腔镜手术恶心呕吐的Meta分析

目的 系统评价昂丹司琼预防妇科腹腔镜全麻术后恶心呕吐(postoperative nausea and vomiting,PONV)的有效性和安全性. 方法 电子检索中国学术期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、重庆维普中文科技期刊全文数据库、万方数据库、Pubmed、Springer、Embase、Web of knowledge数据库,并查阅所获文献的参考文献,收集1995～2012年发表的有关昂丹斯琼预防妇科腹腔镜全麻PONV的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trials,RCTs).按Cochrane Handbook5.0.1对纳入文献进行质量评价和资料提取,统计学分析采用Stata11.0软件. 结果共纳入18个RCT,包括1 597例患者.Meta分析结果显示:①有效性:昂丹司琼单次静脉注射能降低妇科腹腔镜全麻PONV的发生率[(RR=0.210,95％CI=0.164～0.268)];昂丹司琼4 mg与8 mg单次静脉注射对预防妇科腹腔镜全麻术后患者24 h PONV效果相当[(RR=0.948,95％CI=0.433～2.075)];手术前期应用昂丹司琼较术毕应用患者PONV发生率更低[(RR=0.450,95％CI=0.290～0.698)];昂丹斯琼4 mg或氟哌利多1.25 mg～2 mg静脉注射患者术后24 h PONV发生率相同[(RR=1.36,95％CI=0.74～2.51)];昂丹司琼联合氟哌利多静脉注射预防术后PONV发生较单独使用昂丹司琼效果更好[(RR=3.56,95％CI=1.74～7.29)].②安全性:昂丹司琼静脉注射不增加头痛、低热的发生率. 结论 昂丹司琼4 mg术前静脉注射能明显降低妇科腹腔镜全麻PONV的发生率,但并不能降低头痛、低热等副作用的发生率.昂丹司琼联合小剂量氟哌利多静脉注射较单独使用昂丹司琼对预防妇科腹腔镜全麻PONV的发生效果更好.     

Single-dose aprepitant vs ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery

Background: The neurokinin₁ antagonist aprepitant is effective for preventionof chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We compared aprepitantwith ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea andvomiting. Methods: Nine hundred and twenty-two patients receiving general anaesthesiafor major abdominal surgery were assigned to receive a singlepreoperative dose of oral aprepitant 40 mg, oral aprepitant125 mg, or i.v. ondansetron 4 mg in a randomized, double-blindtrial. Vomiting episodes, use of rescue therapy, and nauseaseverity (verbal rating scale) were documented for 48 h aftersurgery. Primary efficacy endpoints were complete response (novomiting and no use of rescue therapy) 0–24 h after surgeryand no vomiting 0–24 h after surgery. The secondary endpointwas no vomiting 0–48 h after surgery. Results: Aprepitant at both doses was non-inferior to ondansetron forcomplete response 0–24 h after surgery (64% for aprepitant40 mg, 63% for aprepitant 125 mg, and 55% for ondansetron, lowerbound of 1-sided 95% CI > 0.65), superior to ondansetronfor no vomiting 0–24 h after surgery (84% for aprepitant40 mg, 86% for aprepitant 125 mg, and 71% for ondansetron; P< 0.001), and superior for no vomiting 0–48 h aftersurgery (82% for aprepitant, 40 mg, 85% for aprepitant, 125mg, and 66% for ondansetron; P < 0.001). The distributionof peak nausea scores was lower in both aprepitant groups vsondansetron (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Aprepitant was non-inferior to ondansetron in achieving completeresponse for 24 h after surgery. Aprepitant was significantlymore effective than ondansetron for preventing vomiting at 24and 48 h after surgery, and in reducing nausea severity in thefirst 48 h after surgery. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated.     

Transdermal scopolamine patch in addition to ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in patients undergoing ambulatory cosmetic surgery

Study ObjectiveTo determine the efficacy of transdermal scopolamine in addition to ondansetron in decreasing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).DesignRandomized controlled trial.SettingAcademic hospital.Patients126 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing outpatient plastic surgery with three or more risk factors for PONV.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to one of two groups to receive (Group 1) a transdermal scopolamine (TDS) patch or (Group 2), a placebo patch two hours before surgery.MeasurementsOccurrence of vomiting, severity of nausea using a visual analog scale (VAS), rescue medication, pain intensity and pain medications, and side effects were recorded every hour until discharge from hospital, then every 4 hours thereafter for a total of 24 hours.Main ResultsA statistically significant reduction in postoperative nausea between 8 and 24 hours in patients receiving TDS was noted.ConclusionsTransdermal scopolamine in addition to ondansetron benefits patients at high risk for PONV undergoing outpatient plastic surgery for up to 20 hours after surgery.     

电针联合托烷司琼预防全子宫切除术后恶心呕吐的效果

目的 观察电针联合托烷司琼治疗全子宫切除患者术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的效果.方法 60例择期行妇科经腹全子宫切除患者,随机均分为单纯药物组(M组)和针药联合组(A组).两组术前均静脉推注托烷司琼5 mg.A组在术后5、23、47 h取双侧内关、足三里、上巨虚等穴位针刺.记录两组患者术后48 h内的PONV发生情况、首次排气时间,以及麻醉前、术毕即刻、术后24、48 h血浆胃动素(MTL)和血清胃泌素(GAS)浓度变化.结果 术后24 hM组PONV发生率明显高于A组(P＜0.05).A组首次排气时间明显短于M组(P＜0.01).术后24、48 hA组MTL明显低于M组,GAS明显高于M组(P＜0.05).结论 针刺联合托烷司琼能有效降低PONV发生率,改善胃肠功能.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after sevoflurane with or without ondansetron compared with propofol in female patients undergoing breast surgery

Implications: We studied 180 female patients undergoing breast surgery. The patients were randomly allocated to receive one of three anesthetic techniques. Compared with either propofol or sevoflurane alone, sevoflurane with ondansetron resulted in a decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Sevoflurane with ondansetron prophylaxis is a good alternative to propofol with respect to avoiding postoperative nausea and vomiting.     

Granisetron and ondansetron for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy

Modified radical mastectomy is associated with a relatively high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was undertaken to evaluate the comparative profile and efficacy of ondansetron and granisetron to prevent PONV after modified radical mastectomy. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, sixty female patients received ondansetron 4 mg, granisetron 1 mg or saline intravenously just before induction of anaesthesia (n = 20 for each group). A standardized general anaesthetic technique was employed. The incidence of PONV and adverse events were recorded for the first 24h postoperatively. The incidence of PONV was 25% with ondansetron, 20% with granisetron and 70% with saline (P < 0.05, Chi-square test with Yates' correction factor). The incidence of adverse events was comparable among the groups. Ondansetron and granisetron are both effective for reducing the incidence of PONV in female patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy.     

Combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting

We studied 100 ASA I-II females undergoing general anaesthesia for major gynaecological surgery, in a prospective, double-blind, placebo- controlled, randomized study. Patients received one of four regimens for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): ondansetron 4 mg (n = 25), dexamethasone 8 mg (n = 25), ondansetron with dexamethasone (4 mg and 8 mg, respectively, n = 25) or placebo (saline, n = 25) There were no differences in background factors or factors related to operation and anaesthesia, morphine consumption, pain or side effects between groups. The incidence of nausea and emetic episodes in the ondansetron with dexamethasone group was lower than in the placebo (P < 0.01), ondansetron (P < 0.05) and dexamethasone (P = 0.057) groups. There were no differences between ondansetron and dexamethasone, and both were more effective than placebo (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). Dexamethasone appeared to be preferable in preventing nausea than emetic episodes. Fewer patients in the ondansetron with dexamethasone group needed antimetic rescue (P < 0.01 vs placebo and P < 0.05 vs ondansetron). We conclude that prophylactic administration of combined ondansetron and dexamethasone is effective in preventing PONV.      

Metoclopramide versus ondansetron in prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting are significant problems in laparoscopic surgery. This double-blind, randomized, prospective trial compares the prophylactic use of metoclopramide, ondansetron, and placebo for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-two patients aged 18 to 73 years were randomized into three groups. Patients received intravenously 10 mg of metoclopramide, 4 mg of ondansetron, or placebo in a double-blinded manner prior to surgery. RESULTS: The incidence of nausea was 32% for metoclopramide, 45% for ondansetron, and 44% for placebo in the postanesthesia care unit or day surgery, which was not statistically significant. The incidence of vomiting was 8% for metoclopramide, 4% for ondansetron, and 22% for placebo in the postanesthesia care unit or day surgery. These differences were statistically significant when comparing both drugs to placebo but not when comparing both drugs to each other. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic administration of metoclopramide or ondansetron significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative vomiting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, but neither drug was found to be significantly more effective than the other. Metoclopramide is a more cost-effective treatment.     

星状神经节阻滞对腹腔镜全子宫切除术患者术后睡眠质量和恶心呕吐的影响

目的 观察超声引导下右侧星状神经节阻滞（SGB）对腹腔镜全子宫切除术患者术后睡眠质量和恶心呕吐（PONV）的影响。
方法 选择择期行腹腔镜全子宫切除术患者98例,年龄42～74岁,BMI 19～25 kg/m ²,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级。采用随机数字表法分为两组：全身麻醉联合SGB组（S组）和全身麻醉组（GA组）,每组49例。S组于麻醉诱导前在超声引导下行右侧SGB,注入 0.2%罗哌卡因5 ml,GA组不行SGB。两组采用相同的全身麻醉方法和麻醉药物。记录术前1 d、手术当日、术后1 d的匹兹堡睡眠质量指数（PSQI）。记录术后24 h PONV分级和止吐药补救情况。记录术后24 h活动时VAS疼痛评分、镇痛药补救情况、术后首次下床活动时间和术后住院时间。记录局麻药中毒、全脊髓麻醉、气胸、臂丛神经阻滞等SGB相关并发症发生情况。
结果 与GA组比较,S组手术当日、术后1 d PSQI评分、POSD发生率明显降低（P＜0.05）,PONV 0级、1级发生率明显升高,PONV 2级、3级、4级发生率、止吐药补救率明显降低（P＜0.05）,术后24 h活动时VAS疼痛评分明显降低（P＜0.05）,术后首次下床活动时间明显缩短（P＜0.05）。两组补救镇痛情况、术后住院时间差异无统计学意义。S组无一例出现局麻药中毒、全脊髓麻醉、气胸、臂丛神经阻滞等SGB相关并发症。
结论 右侧星状神经节阻滞可有效改善腹腔镜全子宫切除术患者的术后睡眠质量,降低术后恶心呕吐的发生率及严重程度,减轻术后疼痛。     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult patients

OBJECTIVE: Identifying risk factors and predictive models for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) and developing antiemetic guidelines for its prevention and treatment. DATA SOURCES: Medline (1997-2002) searches, using "postoperative nausea and vomiting" [MESH], complemented by handsearch. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Published randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and multivariable analysis of large cohort studies were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: Avoiding PONV seems to be one of the highest priority for most patients. Its most important risk factors are volatile anaesthetics and opioids. If these are given to susceptible patients such as female, those with previous history of PONV or motion sickness and non-smoker, this is likely to result in PONV. For patients receiving volatile anaesthesia, simplified risk scores are available to estimate the individual risk of PONV. Patients at high risk for PONV may benefit from a multimodal approach which involves a) lowering the baseline risk (e.g. by total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol) with b) prophylactically given antiemetics such as droperidol, dexamethasone and serotonin antagonists, alone or in combination. In these selected patients, antiemetics are cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy to prevent and treat PONV should depend on the individuals risk. However, its clinical usefulness and economic implications needs to be validated.