Postoperative nausea and vomiting after neurosurgery (infratentorial and supratentorial surgery)

OBJECTIVE: To perform a synthesis regarding postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after neurosurgery. DATA EXTRACTION: A Medline search was performed to identify publications about frequency, risk factors, prevention and treatment of PONV in adults and children, after neurosurgery. DATA SYNTHESIS: After neurosurgery, the estimated frequency of nausea is around 50% and around 39% for vomiting. After neurosurgery; PONV risk factors are female sex and infratentorial surgery. Children older than two years are at higher risk for PONV. To reduce baseline risk factors, it is recommended to use propofol for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, to avoid nitrous oxide and to use hydration (20 ml/kg of crystalloids before induction). For PONV prophylaxis, ondansetron and droperidol may be given, using one drug for a moderate risk patient and both drugs for a high-risk patient. Droperidol should not be used in children as a first choice therapy because of an increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Dexamethasone has not been evaluated after neurosurgery. Metoclopramide has no clinically relevant effect for PONV. Especially in neurosurgery, after occurrence of PONV, it is recommended to rule out a possible triggering factor that should need specific treatment. A global management of PONV is proposed, based on the administration of the same drugs given at half the doses used for prophylaxis.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting with special reference to risk factors and prevention in laparoscopic surgery

The current incidence, risk factors and prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were prospectively evaluated in 1703 inpatients. The objectives of the study were: 1) to create a predictive model based on patient characteristics in order to enable the estimation of the risk for PONV, 2) to ascertain the antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic intravenous ondansetron in comparison with droperidol and placebo against PONV following laparoscopic surgery, and 3) to evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness of combining ondansetron with a low dose of droperidol in high-risk inpatients. The incidence of nausea and vomiting after common surgical procedures was high. In the recovery room, the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 18% and 5%, respectively, and over the whole 24-h observation period the respective figures were 52% and 25%. The most significant predictive factors associated with an increased risk for the symptoms were female sex, a previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a history of motion sickness, a longer duration of surgery and non-smoking. Based on these five items, a risk score predicting nausea and vomiting was constructed with a moderately good discriminating power, as judged from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Intravenous ondansetron 4 mg was ineffective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A higher dose of prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg effectively reduced the incidence and alleviated the intensity of PONV in women scheduled to have laparoscopy for gynaecological and general surgical procedures, as compared with placebo. The antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg and droperidol 1.25 mg was similar as for overall nausea during the 24-h observation period, but ondansetron seemed to be slightly more efficacious in preventing vomiting. Both ondansetron and droperidol were well-tolerated with only minor side-effects. In a high-risk, female, inpatient laparoscopic population, with a mean estimated risk of 65% for PONV, prophylactically administered ondansetron 8 mg in combination with either a 0.75 mg or 1.25 mg dose of droperidol reduced the incidence of post-operative nausea to 35% and that of vomiting to 15% during the first 24 h after surgery. Of these drug combinations, the smaller dose of droperidol resulted in less postoperative sedation than the higher dose; both combinations being otherwise equally well-tolerated without serious adverse events. These results indicate that postoperative nausea and vomiting can, to some extent, be predicted by a few patient characteristics, and in laparoscopic surgery - which is associated with an increased risk for PONV - the incidence can be reduced with either a single dose of ondansetron or droperidol or a combination of these drugs.     

Dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review

The role of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is unclear. We reviewed efficacy and safety data of dexamethasone for prevention of PONV. A systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, hand searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to April 1999) was done for full reports of randomized comparisons of dexamethasone with other antiemetics or placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (0 to 6 h postoperatively), late PONV (0 to 24 h), and adverse effects. Data from 1,946 patients from 17 trials were analyzed: 598 received dexamethasone; 582 received ondansetron, granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide, or perphenazine; 423 received a placebo; and 343 received a combination of dexamethasone with ondansetron or granisetron. With placebo, the incidence of early and late PONV was 35% and 50%, respectively. Sixteen different regimens of dexamethasone were tested, most frequently, 8 or 10 mg IV in adults, and 1 or 1.5 mg/kg IV in children. With these doses, the number needed to treat to prevent early and late vomiting compared with placebo in adults and children was 7.1 (95% CI 4.5 to 18), and 3.8 (2.9 to 5), respectively. In adults, the number needed to treat to prevent late nausea was 4.3 (2.3 to 26). The combination of dexamethasone with ondansetron or granisetron further decreased the risk of PONV; the number needed to treat to prevent late nausea and vomiting with the combined regimen compared with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists alone was 7.7 (4.8 to 19) and 7.8 (4.1 to 66), respectively. There was a lack of data from comparisons with other antiemetics for sensible conclusions. There were no reports on dexamethasone-related adverse effects. IMPLICATIONS: When there is a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a single prophylactic dose of dexamethasone is antiemetic compared with placebo, without evidence of any clinically relevant toxicity in otherwise healthy patients. Late efficacy seems to be most pronounced. It is very likely that the best prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting currently available is achieved by combining dexamethasone with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Optimal doses of this combination need to be identified.     

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.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting

Numerous pathophysiological mechanisms are known to cause nausea or vomiting but their role for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is not quite clear. Volatile anesthetics, nitrous oxide and opioids appear to be the most important causes for PONV. Female gender, non-smoking and a history of motion sickness and PONV are the most important patient specific risk factors. With these risk factors an objective risks assessment is achievable as a good rational basis for a risk dependent antiemetic approach: When the risk is low, moderate, or high, the use of none, a single or a combination of prophylactic antiemetic interventions seems to be justified. Performing a total intravenous anesthesia (Ti.v.A) with propofol is a reasonable prophylactic approach, but does not solve the problem satisfactorily alone if the risk is very high, reducing the risk of PONV only by 30%. This is comparable to the reduction rate of antiemetics, such as serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone and droperidol. It must be stressed that metoclopramide is ineffective. Data from IMPACT indicate that prophylaxis is not very effective if the patients risk is low. At a moderate risk the use of Ti.v.A or an antiemetic is reasonable and only a (very) high risk justifies the combination of several prophylactic antiemetic interventions. For the treatment of PONV an antiemetic should be chosen which has not been used prophylactically. The necessary doses are usually a quarter of those needed for prophylaxis.     

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The common and distressing complications of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the main concern of 40–70% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The first step in preventing PONV after LC is to reduce the risk factors involving patient characteristics, surgical procedure, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care. Particularly, the use of propofol-based anesthesia can reduce the incidence of PONV after LC. Second, prophylactic antiemetics including antihistamines (dimenhydrinate), phenothiazines (perphenazine), butyrophenones (droperidol), benzamides (metoclopramide), dexamethasone, and serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, and ramosetron) are available for preventing PONV after LC. Third, antiemetic therapy combined with a serotonin receptor antagonist (ondansetron, granisetron) and droperidol or dexamethasone is highly effective in the prevention of PONV after LC. Fourth, acupressure at the P6 point is a nonpharmacologic technique that is as effective as ondansetron for preventing PONV after LC. Knowledge regarding the risk factors for PONV and antiemetics is needed for the management of PONV after LC.     

Changing patterns of postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis drug use in an academic anesthesia practice

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To characterize the evolution of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylactic drug use. DESIGN: Retrospective data extraction and analysis of electronic anesthesia records. SETTING: Anesthesia department of an urban academic medical center. MEASUREMENTS: 144,134 anesthetics given by 57 attending anesthesiologists were studied. Administered doses of droperidol, ondansetron, dexamethasone, and metoclopramide were tabulated for each year for each practitioner. MAIN RESULTS: Ondansetron use in the periods before and after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning concerning droperidol was 8% and 35%, respectively. Use of PONV prophylaxis increased for all included patient and anesthetic factors. Among those who used droperidol before the revised FDA warning, 61% stopped using it altogether. Afterwards, 75% (27-100%) of droperidol use was in combination with another agent. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant and sustained decrease in droperidol use after the FDA-mandated labeling revision. We also found a significant increase in ondansetron use--an increase that exceeded the amount needed to substitute for the decreased droperidol use. The changes may be related to multiple factors, including the FDA warning, a trend toward more PONV prophylaxis, and the increasing predominance of serotonin antagonists for this indication.     

A challenging problem that concerns the aesthetic surgeon: postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are among the most common adverse events in the postoperative period. This is especially disastrous in aesthetic surgery; it may cause hematoma, wound dehiscence, and patient dissatisfaction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of PONV after aesthetic surgery procedures, and to determine the risk factors for PONV. Two hundred and twelve patients undergoing the most common aesthetic surgical procedures were included into this study. Female gender, surgical site, and history of PONV were found to be significant risk factors, however, postoperative opiate use and history of motion sickness were not found to be significant risk factors for PONV. Those undergoing trunk surgery procedures appeared to be at higher risk than were those undergoing head and neck surgery procedures. Also, ondansetron was found to be more affective than metoclopramide. Risk factors for PONV must be questioned preoperatively. Patients with risk factors are good candidates for prophylaxis. As a result of the effective prevention of PONV, postoperative patient comfort and satisfaction should be more improved.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in children and adolescents undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation: a randomized comparison of propofol- and isoflurane-based anesthetics

In children, radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is typically performed under general anesthesia. With the use of volatile anesthetics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common, with an incidence of emesis as frequent as 60%. We tested the hypothesis that a propofol (PRO)-based anesthetic would have a less frequent incidence of PONV than an isoflurane (ISO)-based anesthetic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either an ISO- or PRO-based anesthetic. Prophylactic ondansetron was given to all patients and droperidol was used as a rescue antiemetic postoperatively while PONV was monitored postoperatively for 18 h. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, use of rescue antiemetic drugs, and sedation scores were recorded. The cost for the anesthetic was also calculated. Fifty-six subjects were included in this study. The cumulative incidence of PONV was significantly more frequent in group ISO (63% nausea/55% emesis) compared with group PRO (21% nausea/6% emesis). After the administration of droperidol, further vomiting occurred in 70% of the patients in group ISO versus 0% of the patients in group PRO. We conclude that RFCA using ISO has a high PONV risk and the prophylactic use of ondansetron as well as antiemetic therapy with droperidol are ineffective. In contrast, a PRO-based anesthetic is highly effective in preventing PONV in children undergoing RFCA. IMPLICATIONS: In children undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation and receiving prophylactic ondansetron, a frequent incidence (60%) of postoperative vomiting was observed under an isoflurane-based anesthetic, whereas the incidence was significantly reduced to a very low level (5%) under a propofol-based anesthetic.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olanzapine as an add-on,pre-operative anti-emetic drug for postoperative nausea or vomiting: a randomised controlled trial

Postoperative nausea or vomiting occurs in up to 40% in patients with multiple risk factors, despite prophylaxis. Olanzapine is an antipsychotic drug that is used to prevent nausea and vomiting in palliative care and to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This study aimed to examine whether pre-operative olanzapine, as a prophylactic anti-emetic added to intra-operative dexamethasone, ondansetron and total intravenous anaesthesia, reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting. We performed a multiply-blinded randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18–60 years with cancer at high risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting (three or four risk factors according to the Apfel criteria) plus a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Patients were allocated at random to receive 10 mg olanzapine or placebo orally 1 h before surgery in addition to a two-drug regimen (dexamethasone and ondansetron) and propofol anaesthesia to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery. In total, 100 patients were enrolled; 47 in the olanzapine group and 49 in the control group completed the study. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. The incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery was lower in the olanzapine group (12/47, 26%) than in the control group (31/49, 63%) (p = 0.008, RR 0.40 (95%CI 0.21–0.79)). Adding pre-operative oral olanzapine to intra-operative dexamethasone and ondansetron was highly effective in reducing the risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery in patients with a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and at least three Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea or vomiting.     

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

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

Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children. An evidence-based approach

Significant improvement towards an efficacious control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has taken place recently. These improvements may be summarised using the "rule of three". That rule describes a pragmatic and rational approach of PONV control. First, identify the patient at risk using predictive factors. Second, modify the anaesthesia technique to keep the baseline risk as low as possible. Third, administer antiemetics rationally, considering their degree of efficacy, their risk, and their potential additive effects. Despite considerable research efforts, identifying the patient at high risk of PONV remains a difficult task. However, today, we understand the degree of efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and adverse effects of most antiemetics. None of those molecules should be regarded as being universally efficacious, there is no gold standard, and, when used alone, their degree of efficacy is limited. Thus, they should be combined for improved efficacy. Among the most promising molecules are butyrophenones (droperidol, haloperidol), 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (ondansetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, granisetron), and steroids (for instance, dexamethasone). The lack of relevant paediatric PONV data remains a major drawback and is highly unsatisfactory. Hopefully, future research will further improve the control of PONV not only in adults but also in children.     

Oral ondansetron,tropisetron or metoclopramide to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a comparison in high-risk patients undergoing thyroid or parathyroid surgery

BACKGROUND: Oral antiemetic prophylaxis may be a practical alternative to intravenous administration. Intravenous ondansetron and tropisetron prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) at least as efficiently as traditional antiemetics, droperidol and metoclopramide. We tested the hypothesis that the incidence of PONV after oral ondansetron or tropisetron prophylaxis is lower compared with metoclopramide among high-risk patients. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind study we studied 179 high-risk patients who received either ondansetron 16 mg, tropisetron 5 mg, or metoclopramide 10 mg orally 1 h before the operation. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. The incidence of PONV and the need for rescue antiemetic medication was recorded for 24 h. RESULTS: In the postanesthesia care unit, the incidence of PONV was lower after premedication with tropisetron compared with ondansetron and metoclopramide (15%, 32% and 39%, respectively). The incidence of PONV during 0-24 h was the same in each group (68%, 58% and 75% in the ondansetron, tropisetron and metoclopramide group, respectively), but the incidence of vomiting was significantly lower after ondansetron (34%) and tropisetron (22%) prophylaxis compared with metoclopramide (53%). The need for additional antiemetics was significantly lower after tropisetron prophylaxis compared with metoclopramide. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher after tropisetron than after metoclopramide. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial period, the incidence of PONV was lower after premedication with oral tropisetron than after ondansetron or metoclopramide. Considering the entire 24-h postoperative period, the incidence of PONV was the same after all three premedications, but the incidence of vomiting was lower after oral ondansetron and tropisetron than after metoclopramide.     

A randomized comparison of a multimodal management strategy versus combination antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

A multimodal management strategy for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) appears to be superior to single-drug prophylaxis. We tested the hypothesis that a multimodal PONV prophylaxis regimen incorporating total IV anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and a combination of ondansetron and droperidol is more effective than a combination of these antiemetics in the presence of an inhaled anesthetic. Ninety patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to one of three groups. Group 1 (multimodal group) received TIVA with propofol, droperidol, and ondansetron. Group 2 (combination group) received droperidol and ondansetron with isoflurane and nitrous oxide for the maintenance of anesthesia. Group 3 (TIVA group) received propofol for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The complete response rate (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic) at 2 h after surgery was 90%, 63%, and 66% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.05, Group 1 versus Group 2). At 24 h, the complete response rate was 80%, 63%, and 43% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.05, Group 1 versus Group 3). Patient satisfaction was also greater in the multimodal group than in the other two groups in the postanesthesia care unit (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the multimodal management strategy for PONV was associated with a higher complete response rate and greater patient satisfaction when compared with similar antiemetic prophylaxis with inhaled anesthesia or TIVA with propofol.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting are important causes of morbidity after anesthesia and surgery. We performed a meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials to determine the relative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We performed a literature search of English references using both the MEDLINE database and a manual search. Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials comparing the efficiency of the prophylactic administration of ondansetron, droperidol, and/or metoclopramide therapy during general anesthesia were included. A total of 58 studies were identified, of which 4 were excluded for methodological concerns. For each comparison of drugs, a pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI was calculated using a random effects model. Ondansetron (pooled OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31, 0.61; P < 0.001) and droperidol (pooled OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54, 0.85; P < 0.001) were more effective than metoclopramide in preventing vomiting. Ondansetron was more effective than droperidol in preventing vomiting in children (pooled OR 0.49; P = 0.004), but they were equally effective in adults (pooled OR 0.87; P = 0.45). The overall risk of adverse effects was not different among drug combinations. We conclude that ondansetron and droperidol are more effective than metoclopramide in reducing postoperative vomiting. IMPLICATIONS: We performed a systematic review of published, randomized, controlled trials to determine the relative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron and droperidol were more effective than metoclopramide in reducing postoperative vomiting. The overall risk of adverse effects did not differ.     

Small-dose droperidol effectively reduces nausea in a general surgical adult patient population

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study, we (1) determined whether 0.625 mg of IV droperidol given 30 min before emergence from general anesthesia reduces the incidence of immediate and delayed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in a general surgical adult patient population, and (2) compared the efficacy of droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine for the rescue treatment of PONV. One hundred fifty adult patients receiving general anesthesia for >2 h received either droperidol (0.625 mg IV) or a placebo before emergence. Patients requiring treatment for PONV in the postanesthesia care unit were randomized to receive either droperidol (0.625 mg IV), ondansetron (4 mg IV), or promethazine (12. 5 mg IV). Droperidol effectively prevented PONV (6.8% in droperidol-treated patients versus 40.8% in placebo-treated patients, P: < 0.001). Droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine were equally effective in treating established PONV, without significant differences in side effects or time to postanesthesia care unit discharge. Implications: Droperidol 0.625 mg IV before emergence from general anesthesia effectively reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the general surgical population. Our randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study demonstrated a reduction in PONV from 41% to 7%. Droperidol is a safe and inexpensive alternative to ondansetron. Droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine are also equally effective in treating PONV in the postanesthesia care unit.     

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women scheduled for breast cancer surgery

Breast cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A number of approaches are available for the management of PONV after breast cancer surgery. First, the risk factors related to patient characteristics, surgical procedure, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care can be reduced. More specifically, the use of propofol-based anesthesia can reduce the incidence of PONV. Secondly, a wide range of prophylactic antiemetics, including butyrophenones (droperidol), benzamides (metoclopramide), glucocorticoids (dexamethasone), clonidine, a small dose of propofol, and serotonin receptor (SR) antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, and palonosetron), are available for preventing PONV. Thirdly, antiemetic therapy combined with granisetron and droperidol or dexamethasone, and a multimodal management strategy which includes a package consisting of dexamethasone, total intravenous anesthesia with propofol, and ondansetron are highly effective in preventing PONV. Unfortunately, the use of glucocorticoids and SR antagonists for preventing PONV is not permitted in Japan according to national health insurance guidelines. Fourth, electro-acupoint stimulation at the P6 point (Nei-Guwan) as a non-pharmacologic therapy is as effective as ondansetron for preventing PONV. Knowledge of the risk factors for PONV, antiemetics, and a non-pharmacologic approach are needed for the management of PONV in women undergoing breast cancer surgery.