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.     

Comparison of recovery profile after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol, isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane: a systematic review

In this systematic review we focused on postoperative recovery and complications using four different anesthetic techniques. The database MEDLINE was searched via PubMed (1966 to June 2002) using the search words "anesthesia" and with ambulatory surgical procedures limited to randomized controlled trials in adults (>19 yr), in the English language, and in humans. A second search strategy was used combining two of the words "propofol," "isoflurane," "sevoflurane," or "desflurane". Screening and data extraction produced 58 articles that were included in the final meta-analysis. No differences were found between propofol and isoflurane in early recovery. However, early recovery was faster with desflurane compared with propofol and isoflurane and with sevoflurane compared with isoflurane. A minor difference was found in home readiness between sevoflurane and isoflurane (5 min) but not among the other anesthetics. Nausea, vomiting, headache, and postdischarge nausea and vomiting incidence were in favor of propofol compared with isoflurane (P < 0.05). A larger number of patients in the inhaled anesthesia groups required antiemetics compared with the propofol group. We conclude that the differences in early recovery times among the different anesthetics were small and in favor of the inhaled anesthetics. The incidence of side effects, specifically postoperative nausea and vomiting, was less frequent with propofol. IMPLICATIONS: A systematic analysis of the literature comparing postoperative recovery after propofol, isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane-based anesthesia in adults demonstrated that early recovery was faster in the desflurane and sevoflurane groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting were less frequent with propofol.     

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.     

全凭静脉麻醉妇科腹腔镜术后恶心呕吐的临床观察

目的观察妇科腹腔镜手术患者丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉（TIVA）术后恶心呕吐的发生率。方法138例妇科腹腔镜手术随机分为七氟烷（Sev）组、七氟烷-恩丹西酮（Sev-O）组及丙泊酚TIVA组,每组46例。Sev组和Sev-O组：术中以持续吸入50%N2O和七氟烷维持麻醉,Sev-O组手术结束前30min静脉给予恩丹西酮8mg;TIVA组：术中以丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼靶控输注维持麻醉。记录术后24h内发生恶心呕吐及额外需要止吐药情况。结果TIVA组术后0～2h恶心呕吐发生率[22%（10/46）]低于Sev组[54%（25/46）,χ^2=10.376,P=0.001]和Sev-O组[50%（23/46）,χ^2=7.986,P=0.005]。Sev-O组术后2～6h恶心呕吐发生率低于Sev组[22%（10/46）vs46%（21/46）,χ^2=5.887,P=0.015]。TIVA组术后0～24h恶心呕吐发生率低于Sev组[57%（26/46）vs80%（37/46）,χ^2=6.093,P=0.014）。3组分别有13例（28%）、6例（13%）、6例（13%）术后需要额外止吐药。结论与七氟烷吸入麻醉比较,丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉可降低妇科腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的发生率。     

Midazolam vs ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomised controlled trial

We compared the prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of midazolam and ondansetron in 90 patients scheduled for minor gynaecological (hysteroscopy) or urological (ureteroscopy) procedures planned to last 1-2 h under sevoflurane anaesthesia with spontaneous ventilation of the lungs via a laryngeal mask airway. Midazolam 2 mg or ondansetron 4 mg were administered intravenously 30 min before the end of surgery. The proportions of patients who experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first 24 h (30% and 27% for the midazolam and ondansetron groups, respectively) were similar in the two groups. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly smaller in both groups than predicted according to the patients' underlying risks (midazolam group: p = 0.018; ondansetron group: p = 0.017). There were no significant differences in average sedation scores or pain scores. Treatment using ondansetron for anti-emetic prophylaxis did not provide a superior benefit compared to midazolam in the present study.     

Sevoflurane versus propofol for anesthetic induction: a meta-analysis

We performed this meta-analysis to compare the characteristics of sevoflurane and propofol for the induction of routine anesthesia and for laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. The variables assessed were 1) time to loss of consciousness, 2) incidence of apnea during induction, 3) induction complications, 4) time for successful LMA insertion, 5) success with LMA insertion on first attempt, 6) patient dissatisfaction, and 7) postoperative nausea and vomiting. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases between January 1992 and October 1999 were reviewed for randomized, controlled trials comparing anesthetic induction between sevoflurane/nitrous oxide and propofol. Data from the 12 randomized, controlled studies were used for the meta-analysis. Sevoflurane induction was associated with a trend toward higher patient dissatisfaction and higher first-time success with LMA. Apnea was less common in the sevoflurane group. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly more frequent in the sevoflurane group (P < 0.05). This effect was still present when all other variables, except the induction methods, were controlled. The other pooled variables did not show a significant difference between sevoflurane and propofol. Sevoflurane and propofol had similar efficacy for anesthetic induction. However, for routine outpatient surgery, propofol may still be the preferred induction anesthetic because of its favorable induction of anesthesia characteristics, high patient satisfaction, and less frequent incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. IMPLICATIONS: Sevoflurane and propofol had similar efficacy for anesthetic induction. However, for routine outpatient surgery, propofol may still be the preferred induction anesthetic because of its favorable induction of anesthesia characteristics, high patient satisfaction, and less frequent incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.     

Superior prolonged antiemetic prophylaxis with a four-drug multimodal regimen - comparison with propofol or placebo

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a low-dose propofol infusion with a four-drug multimodal regimen for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: : PONV was studied in two patient groups with a known high incidence. Through a stratified randomization, 60 patients undergoing breast surgery and 120 patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomized to three groups of equal size: the propofol group (P), the multidrug group (M) and the control group (C). All patients received general anesthesia, induction with propofol and maintenance with sevoflurane. After induction, patients in the P group received a continuous infusion of propofol 1 mg/kg/h during the operation and the first 4 postoperative h. Patients in the M group received dexamethasone 4 mg and three antiemetics, ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg and metoclopramide 10 mg i.v. In the control group no prophylaxis was given. Nausea and pain were evaluated by incidence and a visual analog scale (0-10 cm). All emetic episodes were noted by the staff during the first 4 h and by the patients during the next 20 h. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the M group (24%) than in the P group (49%) (P<0.01) or the C group (70%) (P<0.001). The incidence of PONV increased significantly both in patients undergoing breast surgery and abdominal surgery after termination of propofol. The number of patients who vomited was significantly lower in the M group, both in breast surgery patients (5%) and abdominal surgery patients (3%) compared to patients in the propofol groups (breast 16% NS; abdominal 29%, P<0.05) and in the control groups (breast 37%, P<0.01; abdominal 29%, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PONV is very high in patients undergoing breast and abdominal surgery. In the present study antiemetic prophylaxis with a combination of droperidol, ondansetron, metoclopramide and dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV, especially vomiting, than a postoperative low-dose infusion of propofol, which had a short lasting effect.     

Sevoflurane vs. isoflurane: a clinical comparison in day surgery

Discharge times after ambulatory surgery are determined by postoperative complications and in particular by the presence and severity of nausea and vomiting. Sevoflurane has become a popular agent for day-case surgery despite little evidence of clear advantages over current alternatives. We compared this agent with isoflurane in day-case patients undergoing knee arthroscopy in order to quantify the incidence of complications associated with each agent. One hundred and eighty patients received a standardised anaesthetic induction with propofol and fentanyl followed by maintenance with either isoflurane or sevoflurane. Standardised postoperative analgesic and anti-emetic drugs were prescribed. Any intra-operative cardiovascular or respiratory instability was recorded. After surgery, nausea, vomiting and pain were assessed. Almost all patients made an uneventful recovery and were discharged as scheduled. There was a significantly higher incidence of complications in the sevoflurane group. These included the presence of nausea and vomiting, and cardiovascular and respiratory complications. We found nothing to commend the routine use of sevoflurane rather than isoflurane in the context of day case anaesthesia.     

The prevention of propofol injection pain by tramadol or ondansetron

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of tramadol and ondansetron in minimizing the pain due to injection of propofol in 100 patients. METHODS: An intravenous cannula was inserted in the dorsum of the hand. After tourniquet application to the forearm, tramadol 50 mg (Group 1, n = 50) or ondansetron 4 mg (Group 2, n = 50) was injected. The tourniquet was released after 20 s, and propofol 5 mL was administered over 5 s. The patients were observed and asked if they had pain in the arm and the response was assessed. Nausea and vomiting and degree of sedation were recorded for the first postoperative 24 h. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients in Group 1 and 14 patients in Group 2 reported no pain. Slight pain was seen in 15 patients in Group 1 and in 18 patients in Group 2. Moderate pain was seen in 10 patients in Group 1 and 15 patients in Group 2. Severe pain was seen in four of the patients in Group 1 and three patients in Group 2. There was no significant difference of pain between Groups 1 and 2, but we found a significant reduction of nausea and vomiting in the ondansetron group compared with the tramadol group (P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Tramadol or ondansetron are equally effective in preventing pain from propofol injection. The added benefit of a reduction in nausea and vomiting after operation in the ondansetron group may be a reason to prefer this drug.     

Onset time, recovery duration, and drug cost with four different methods of inducing general anesthesia

We compared two conventional induction techniques (thiopental and propofol), an inhaled induction with sevoflurane using a circle system, and a rebreathing method. Fentanyl 1 microg/kg was given to women undergoing 10- to 20-min procedures. Anesthesia was induced (n = 20 each) with one of the following: 1) sevoflurane and N2O from a rebreathing bag (Sevo/Bag). A 5-L bag was prefilled with a mixture of sevoflurane 7% and N2O 60% in oxygen. The bag was connected between the normal circle system, separated by a spring-loaded valve; 2) sevoflurane 8% and N2O 60% from a circle system on a conventional anesthesia machine with a total fresh gas flow of 6 L/min (Sevo/Circle); 3) propofol 3 mg/kg as an i.v. bolus; 4) thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg as an i.v. bolus. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was treated with ondansetron. Induction times were comparable with each method. Recovery duration was shortest with sevoflurane, intermediate with propofol, and longest with thiopental. Induction drug costs were lowest with Sevo/Bag and thiopental, intermediate with Sevo/Circle, and highest with propofol. However, sevoflurane (by either method) caused considerable nausea and vomiting that required treatment. Consequently, total drug cost was least with thiopental, intermediate with Sevo/Bag and propofol, and greatest with Sevo/Circle. Thus, no single technique was clearly superior. Implications: Anesthetic induction techniques influence awakening time, recovery duration, and drug costs. We tested two i.v. methods and two inhaled techniques. However, none of the four tested methods was clearly superior to the others.     

The effect of combining dexamethasone with ondansetron for nausea and vomiting associated with fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

We investigated whether combined dexamethasone and ondansetron is more effective than ondansetron alone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients with fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. One hundred and thirty patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery were assigned to either an ondansetron group or a dexamethasone and ondansetron group. In all patients, ondansetron 4 mg was administered at the end of surgery and 12 mg was added to the patient-controlled analgesia solution. The dexamethasone and ondansetron group received dexamethasone 8 mg at the induction of anaesthesia. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting during the first 48 h postoperatively did not differ between groups (34/61 (56%) vs 28/62 (45%) in the ondansetron group and dexamethasone and ondansetron groups, respectively). The incidence of severe nausea and vomiting (≥ 7 nausea on an 11-point verbal numerical rating scale, retching or vomiting) was higher in the ondansetron group than in the dexamethasone and ondansetron group (15/61 (25%) vs 6/62 (10%, respectively, p=0.028). Combined dexamethasone and ondansetron is more effective in reducing severe nausea and vomiting than ondansetron alone in patients receiving fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia.     

Anaesthetic agents in paediatric day case surgery: do they affect outcome?

Both the numbers of children undergoing day case surgery and the type of procedures performed in this way are increasing. This expansion will only be beneficial if anaesthesia and surgery are provided with minimal post-operative morbidity e.g. postoperative delirium or nausea and vomiting. The choice of anaesthetic technique is considered critical to optimizing the service provided to patients and for this reason much research has addressed this question. This review considers the effect of anaesthetic technique on postoperative outcome in paediatric day case surgery. The outcome measures reviewed by this article are induction of anaesthesia, effects on the cardiovascular system, recovery from anaesthesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting. In each section both quantitative and qualitative outcome measures are discussed. Comparisons are made between sevoflurane and halothane, sevoflurane and propofol, propofol and halothane, desflurane and halothane and the presence or absence of nitrous oxide.     

Sevoflurane: an ideal agent for adult day‐case anesthesia?

Sevoflurane has several properties which make it potentially useful as a day case anaesthetic. Following induction of anaesthesia with propofol, awakening from sevoflurane is faster compared to isoflurane, faster or similar compared to propofol and comparable (in the majority of studies) to desflurane. Subsequent recovery and discharge is generally similar following all agents. Sevoflurane may also be used to induce anaesthesia, which is generally well-received and causes less hypotension and apnoea compared to propofol. When used as a maintenance anaesthetic, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after sevoflurane is comparable to other inhaled anaesthetics, but this complication appears more common after inhaled inductions. The tolerability and low solubility of sevoflurane facilitate titration of anaesthesia and may reduce the need for opioid analgesia, which in turn may limit the occurrence of nausea and vomiting.     

Management of outpatient ear, nose and throat surgery

In the year under review there have been steady advances in anaesthesia. Premedication in children is best achieved with oral midazolam formulated in flavoured syrups, and the inhalational induction of anaesthesia may be accomplished using sevoflurane. Pain management of the most common surgical procedure performed in children, tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy, is still sub-optimal, but combinations of opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are helpful. There are, however, some concerns regarding the possible increases in postoperative blood loss after tonsillectomy when non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used. Middle ear surgery leads to a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and these are best managed by utilizing a total intravenous anaesthetic technique with propofol, the avoidance of nitrous oxide, and administration of dexamethasone and a 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist such as ondansetron.     

A comparison of total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol with sevoflurane or desflurane in ambulatory surgery: systematic review and meta‐analysis

With the popularity of ambulatory surgery ever increasing, we carried out a systematic review and meta‐analysis to determine whether the type of anaesthesia used had any bearing on patient outcomes. Total intravenous propofol anaesthesia was compared with two of the newer inhalational agents, sevoflurane and desflurane. In total, 18 trials were identified; only trials where nitrous oxide was administered to, or omitted from, both groups were included. A total of 1621 patients were randomly assigned to either propofol (685 patients) or inhalational anaesthesia (936 patients). If surgical causes of unplanned admissions were excluded, there was no difference in unplanned admission to hospital between propofol and inhalational anaesthesia (1.0% vs 2.9%, respectively; p = 0.13). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (13.8% vs 29.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). However, no difference was noted in post‐discharge nausea and vomiting (23.9% vs 20.8%, respectively; p = 0.26). Length of hospital stay was shorter with propofol, but the difference was only 14 min on average. The use of propofol was also more expensive, with a mean (95% CI) difference of £6.72 (£5.13–£8.31 (€8.16 (€6.23?€10.09); $11.29 ($8.62–$13.96))) per patient‐anaesthetic episode (p < 0.001). Therefore, based on the published evidence to date, maintenance of anaesthesia using propofol appeared to have no bearing on the incidence of unplanned admission to hospital and was more expensive, but was associated with a decreased incidence of early postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with sevoflurane or desflurane in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.     

Recovery characteristics of sevoflurane- or propofol-based anaesthesia for day-care surgery

Background: Sevoflurane has a low blood-gas partition coefficient resulting in a rapid recovery. Few studies have examined the maintenance and recovery characteristics of sevoflurane compared with propofol in a standardized outpatient population. Methods: The study was a multicentre study performed in 10 centres. One hundred and sixty-nine elective outpatients due for knee-arthroscopy received 100 mg diclofenac rectally as pain prophylaxis prior to induction of general anaesthesia with fentanyl 1.0–1.5 μg/kg+propofol 2.0–2.5 mg/kg iv. Anaesthesia was maintained with 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen through a laryngeal mask and continuous administration of either: sevoflurane (group S) or propofol infusion (group P) in order to maintain stable haemodynamics. Data of postoperative function and side-effects were collected in a double-blind design, including a patient interview after 24 h. Results: The sevoflurane patients had a significantly faster emergence from anaesthesia, with response to commands at 6.9±0.4 min versus 8.2±0.4 min in the propofol group (P < 0.05, mean±SD). At 15 min after surgery, group S had a better score in the digit symbol substitution test and felt less confused in a visual analogue scale test compared with group P (P<0.05). Peroperative bradycardia, nausea and vomiting and late postoperative dizziness were more common in group S. In the sevoflurane group, 32% had nausea or vomiting in the 24 h observation period compared with 18% for propofol (P < 0.05). There was no difference between group S and group P in postoperative pain, eligibility for recovery room discharge (75±12 versus 70±11 min) or home-readiness (155±12 versus 143±11 min). Conclusion: Maintenance of anaesthesia with sevoflurane results in a more rapid emergence, but a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting compared with propofol. The side-effects were minor in our study, and did not result in any difference in time to discharge from the recovery ward or the hospital.     

The efficacy of postoperative ondansetron (Zofran) orally disintegrating tablets for preventing nausea and vomiting after acoustic neuroma surgery

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a frequent complication of craniotomy. We evaluated the ability of intraoperative IV ondansetron followed by postoperative ondansetron in an orally disintegrating tablet formulation to reduce the frequency and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trial of 60 patients undergoing acoustic neuroma resection. Each patient received intraoperative ondansetron (4 mg IV) or placebo 30 min before case end. Postoperatively, patients received ondansetron in an orally disintegrating tablet formulation (8 mg BID) or placebo twice a day for up to 72 h. Metoclopramide was available as rescue therapy for both groups. Severity of nausea (as measured on a 10-cm visual scale), number of emetic episodes, and requirement for rescue therapy were recorded. In the immediate postoperative period, nausea severity was less in patients treated with ondansetron than placebo (3.3 +/- 4.1 versus 7.3 +/- 4.2; P < 0.001) and fewer patients experienced vomiting (3 of 28 versus 11 of 32; chi2 P < 0.01). More patients required some form of rescue treatment in the placebo group on the first postoperative day (26 of 32 versus 16 of 28; chi2 P < 0.01). We conclude that after acoustic neuroma surgery IV ondansetron treatment prevents immediate postoperative nausea and vomiting. Postoperative treatment with ondansetron in an orally disintegrating tablet formulation was associated with less frequent rescue therapy as compared with placebo on the first postoperative day.     

Prophylactic ondansetron is effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting but not on pruritus after cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of ondansetron for prevention of pruritus, nausea and vomiting after cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Referral center, institutional practice. PATIENTS: 100 nonbreastfeeding women undergoing elective cesarean delivery with sufentanil-morphine-bupivacaine anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: After the umbilical cord was clamped, patients in Group 1 received ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (IV) and patients in Group 2 received placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency and severity of postoperative (24-hour) pruritus, nausea and vomiting, surgical pain, and side effects related to ondansetron were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: In the ondansetron group, 38 patients had pruritus (16 mild and 22 severe) and 9 patients had nausea and vomiting (5 mild and 4 severe). In the placebo group, 41 patients had pruritus (21 mild and 20 severe) and 29 patients had nausea and vomiting (9 mild and 15 severe). The frequency and severity of the nausea and vomiting episodes were significantly reduced in the ondansetron group. Pain scores were comparable between groups. No side effects related to ondansetron were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IV ondansetron 8 mg is safe and effective in reducing the frequency and the severity of nausea and vomiting, but not pruritus, following cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine.     

Prophylactic ondansetron for postoperative emesis.Meta-analysis of its effectiveness in patients with previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare, by means of meta-analysis, the postoperative antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron in patients with and without antecedents of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for randomised placebo-controlled trials which evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness of 4 mg and 8 mg intravenous doses of prophylactic ondansetron in adult patients. A further selection was with respect to those studies which noted the patient's previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PH-PONV) and, for the meta-analysis, the patients were divided into two sub-groups: those with (PH-PONV +) and those without a previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PH-PONV -). Absence of vomiting was used as the index of effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty-one trials involving 3984 patients (2446 in ondansetron groups and 1538 in placebo groups; 1163 PH-PONV(+) patients and 2821 PH-PONV(-) patients) met the selection criteria. The effectiveness of the 4 mg dose of ondansetron was: OR (95% CI)=2.40 (1.77-3.26) vs. 2.71 (2.23-3.30) for the patients of PH-PONV(+) and PH-PONV(-) sub-groups, respectively. For the 8 mg dose, the effectiveness of ondansetron was: PH-PONV(+)=4.21 (2.66-6.66) and PH-PONV(-)=2.61 (1.81-3.59). For neither of the doses evaluated was there any significant statistical difference between the sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative vomiting is not affected by the patients' PH-PONV.     

Comparative study of the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron, propofol and midazolam in the early postoperative period

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron with two different hypnotic drugs (propofol 15 mg, midazolam 1 and 2 mg) for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Four-hundred-and-fifty-three patients scheduled for elective gynaecological or abdominal surgery were enrolled. One-hundred-and-twenty patients (26%) experienced postoperative emesis, and when nausea scores reached 2 or greater on a five-point scale, they were randomized to receive intravenously: propofol 15 mg (1.5 mL) in Group P, midazolam 1 mg in Group M1, midazolam 2 mg in Group M2 and ondansetron 4 mg in Group O. RESULTS: Four patients (13.3%) in Group P, 13 patients (43.3%) in Group M1, five patients (16.6%) in Group M2 and one patient (3.3%) in Group O required a second dose of the study drug. After administration of the study drugs, nausea scores were significantly lower in all groups than before these drugs were given. No patient had a sedation score over 3 (the patients remained awake and/or responded to verbal contact). The sedative effects of midazolam and propofol lasted for a much shorter time than the antiemetic effects of these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol and midazolam used in subhypnotic doses were as effective as ondansetron in treating PONV in patients undergoing abdominal or gynaecological surgery without untoward sedative or cardiovascular effects.