联合用药预防吗啡术后镇痛期恶心呕吐

目的观察昂丹司琼、地塞米松、氟哌利多联合应用预防术后吗啡镇痛引起恶心呕吐（PONV）的作用。方法连续硬膜外行妇科手术的患者120例,ASAI～Ⅱ级,随机分为A、B、C、D、E、F6组。A组静注地塞米松针5mg;B组地塞米松针＋镇痛泵中加氟哌利多针2．5mg：C组地塞米松针5mg＋镇痛泵中加氟哌利多针1．25mg;D组地塞米松针5mg＋镇痛泵中加昂丹司琼4mg;E组地塞米松针5mg＋镇痛泵中加昂丹司琼8mg＋氟哌利多针1．25rag;F组静注生理盐水5mg。结果A、B、C、D、F每组20例止吐难以得到预防和治疗的效果,E组3种药物联合应用能够阻断引起PONV的多个病因使PONV发生率明显降低．从而达到预期的治疗目的。结论盐酸昂丹司琼、地塞米松、氟哌利多这三种药物联合应用能够阻断引起PONV的多个病因,使PONV发生率明显降低,从而达到预期的治疗目的。     

昂丹司琼与氟哌利多应用于全麻腹腔镜胆囊切除术后恶心、呕吐的临床观察

目的观察比较昂丹司琼与氟哌利多在全麻腹腔镜胆囊切除术后预防恶心、呕吐的临床效果。方法选择择期全麻下行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者120例,随机分为3组,每组40例。A组镇痛泵中加入昂丹司琼8 mg,手术结束前静脉注射昂丹司琼4 mg;B组镇痛泵中加入氟哌利多5 mg;C组不加昂丹司琼与氟哌利多。记录各组术后恶心、呕吐发生例数及应用止吐药的例数。结果A组恶心4例,呕吐2例;B组恶心16例,呕吐8例;C组恶心24例,呕吐16例,三组间恶心、呕吐的发生率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论昂丹司琼与氟哌利多均能降低术后恶心、呕吐的发生率,但昂丹司琼的预防效果优于氟哌利多。     

昂丹司琼防治异位妊娠腹腔镜术后恶心呕吐的临床观察

目的:观察观察昂丹司琼配伍地塞米松预防异位妊娠患者腹腔镜术后恶心呕吐的应用.方法:收集116例异位妊娠患者,随机分为四组,A组(空白组)、B(单用昂丹司琼组)、C组(昂丹司琼+地塞米松组)、D组(昂丹司琼+氟哌利多组),观察并记录各组患者术后6h和24h内恶心呕吐发生情况.结果:B、C、D组术后恶心呕吐发生率低于A组(P＜0.05),其中C、D组最为明显(P＜0.01).结论:昂丹司琼联合用药是预防异位妊娠腹腔镜术后PONV的有效措施.     

昂丹司琼预防剖宫产术后曲马多持续镇痛所致的恶心呕吐

目的 探讨昂丹司琼不同给药方式对剖宫产术后曲马多持续镇痛所致术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的防治效果.方法 80例腰-硬联合麻醉下行剖宫产手术的产妇随机均分为四组:A组昂丹司琼8 mg加入曲马多镇痛泵持续输注;B组昂丹司琼8 mg在胎儿娩出后缓慢静注;C组昂丹司琼4 mg胎儿娩出后单次静注并4 mg镇痛泵持续输注;D组胎儿娩出后静注生理盐水4 ml,所有患者均行术后曲马多静脉自控镇痛(PCIA).观察并记录四组术后1、6、8、12、24 h时PONV评分及疼痛VAS评分.结果 四组间不同时点疼痛VAS评分差异无统计学意义.术后1、6、8、12、24 PONV评分A、B、C组明显低于D组(P＜0.01),C组明显低于A、B组(P＜0.05);A、B组间差异无统计学意义,与术后6h比较,术后1hA组及术后12、24hA、B后PONV评分明显降低(P＜0.05).结论 昂丹司琼可有效预防曲马多术后镇痛引起的恶心呕吐,但在胎儿娩出后单次静注昂丹司琼4mg,并4mg于PCA中持续输注,其预防效果更佳.     

昂丹司琼对术后PCA曲马多镇痛疗效的影响

目的　比较使用昂丹司琼预防术后PCA曲马多镇痛时恶心呕吐对曲马多镇痛疗效的影响 ,观察昂丹司琼与曲马多合用于PCA是否会降低曲马多的镇痛疗效。方法　选择 80例择期中上腹部手术病人 ,ASAⅠ～Ⅲ级。手术结束后 ,选择曲马多PCA镇痛。分四组 :A组 ,病人用生理盐水加曲马多 ;B组 ,病人 (对照组 )用昂丹司琼加曲马多 ;C组 ,给予曲马多加安慰药和氟哌利多 ;D组 ,给予曲马多加昂丹司琼和氟哌利多。观察 4、8、1 2、2 4h的曲马多用量、疼痛视觉评分、镇静评分、恶心呕吐评级。结果　B组的恶心、呕吐、镇静、疼痛评分值均小于A组 ,但无统计学差异 ;B组的 4h曲马多用量为 (4 92± 1 0 3)mg ,明显高于A组 (390± 83)mg(P <0 0 5 ) ,且 8、1 2、2 4h的曲马多用量也多于A组 ,但两者无统计学差异。C组与D组比较 ,恶心、呕吐、镇静、疼痛评分无统计学差异。结论　昂丹司琼可降低术后曲马多PCA的镇痛疗效     

几种药物预防腹腔镜胆囊切除术后恶心呕吐的对比研究

目的比较格拉司琼、氟哌利多、地塞米松单用或合用预防腹腔镜胆囊切除术后恶心呕吐的效果。方法择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者160例，于麻醉前随机分为四组，静脉注入各预防性药物，A组：地塞米松10mg；B组：氟哌利多2．5mg；C组：氟哌利多2．5mg＋地塞米松10mg；D组：格拉司琼3mg。观察术后24h恶心呕吐发生率。结果四组术后24h恶心呕吐总发生率分别为78％、63％、25％、28％，C组和D组明显低于A组和B组（P〈0．01），而C组与D组差异无统计学意义。结论格拉司琼、氟哌利多、地塞米松都有预防腹腔镜胆囊切除术后恶心呕吐的作用，但以格拉司琼和氟哌利多＋地塞米松效果显著，而且氟哌利多＋地塞米松更显示其性价比优越性。     

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.     

格拉司琼用于硬膜外镇痛抗呕吐作用的观察

病人自控镇痛(PCA)可以大大减轻病人术后痛苦。吗啡因其镇痛效果确切而常被作为术后镇痛的首选药物，但其恶心呕吐等不良反应常令患者痛苦不堪。为此，以往多用氟哌利多防治，但该药有嗜睡和锥体外系症状等不良反应。本研究旨在对比观察格拉司琼、氟哌利多硬膜外用药时的抗恶心呕吐作用。     

5-羟色胺受体拮抗剂与氟哌利多预防术后恶心呕吐效果的Meta分析

目的 采用Meta分析比较5-羟色胺(5-hydroxytryptamine,5-HT3)受体拮抗剂与氟哌利多预防术后恶心呕吐(postoperative nausea and vomiting,PONV)的效果. 方法 检索Cochrane图书馆、Pubmed、EMBASE、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国学术期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、重庆维普中文科技期刊全文数据库(VIP)、万方数据库,检索时间从建库至2013年9月.收集所有比较5-HT3受体拮抗剂与氟哌利多用于预防全麻PONV的文献.采用Cochrane协作网系统评价法评价纳入文献的质量,采用RevMan 5.1软件对收集的患者资料进行Meta分析评价. 结果 共纳入17项随机对照试验(randomized controlled trial,RCT),1 823例患者.Meta分析结果显示:与氟哌利多比较,5-HT3受体拮抗剂能降低全麻患者PONV(术后0～24 h)[比值比(RR)=0.49,95％可信区间(CI)=0.39～0.63]与呕吐(RR=0.54,95％CI=0.43～0.67)的发生率.亚组分析结果表明,昂丹司琼预防PONV(RR=0.67,95％CI=0.47～0.96)与呕吐(RR=0.56,95％CI=0.39～0.82)的发生较氟哌利多更好;格拉司琼预防PONV (RR=0.42,95％CI=0.30～0.58)与呕吐(RR=0.58,95％CI=0.42～0.81)的发生较氟哌利多更好.5-HT3受体拮抗剂与氟哌利多预防术后恶心的效果相当(RR=0.89,95％CI=0.77～1.04).昂丹司琼(RR=0.88,95％CI=0.67～1.14)或格拉司琼(RR=0.94,95％CI=0.75～1.17)与氟哌利多预防术后恶心的效果相当.与氟哌利多比较较,5-HT3受体拮抗剂组头痛发生率明显增加(RR=1.44,95％CI=1.12～1.84);5-HT3受体拮抗剂与氟哌利多术后头晕(RR=I.19,95％CI=0.88～1.62)、嗜睡(RR=1.24,95％CI=0.34～4.49)的发生率相同. 结论 与氟哌利多比较,5-HT3拮抗剂预防全麻患者PONV效果较好.     

盐酸戊乙奎醚联合氟哌利多降低吗啡硬膜外术后镇痛的不良反应

目的观察盐酸戊乙奎醚联合氟哌利多对吗啡用于硬膜外术后镇痛不良反应发病率的影响。方法连续硬膜外麻醉行子宫下段剖宫产手术的患者96例,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为单纯吗啡组(A组)、吗啡 氟哌利多组(B组)、吗啡 盐酸戊乙奎醚组(C组)及吗啡 盐酸戊乙奎醚 氟哌利多组(D组),每组24例。术毕5min分别将各组吗啡混合液各自注入硬膜外腔后拔出硬膜外导管回病房,记录术后镇痛效果及术后恶心呕吐(PONV)、皮肤瘙痒、尿潴留、口干等不良反应。结果D组的镇痛效果明显优于A、B、C组(P<0.01),且PONV、皮肤瘙痒等不良反应发病率明显低于A、B、C组(P<0.05)。结论盐酸戊乙奎醚联合氟哌利多可明显降低吗啡用于硬膜外术后镇痛不良反应的发病率。     

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.     

The effectiveness of rescue antiemetics after failure of prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol: a preliminary report

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of treating established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with an antiemetic acting at a different receptor with that of treating PONV with the antiemetic used for prophylaxis. DESIGN: Analysis of data collected in a previously published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Outpatient surgical procedures from 50 institutions in North America. PATIENTS: Patients (N = 2061) undergoing outpatient surgical procedures planned to last no more than 2 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 1.25, droperidol 0.625 mg, or placebo. In the postoperative anesthesia care unit, patients who developed PONV received rescue antiemetics at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist. The following antiemetics were used for rescue: ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg, and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg. MEASUREMENTS: The complete response rate (no nausea, no emesis, and no need for further rescue) after administration of the rescue antiemetic in patients with established PONV was calculated. The complete response rate after administration of each of the different rescue antiemetics was compared with that after administration of the same antiemetic used for PONV prophylaxis. MAIN RESULTS: In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron 4 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher (P = .02) after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (78%) than after rescue with ondansetron 4 mg (46%). In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol 0.625 and 1.25 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (77%; P = .02) and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg (78%; P = .04) than after rescue with droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg (56%). CONCLUSION: In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol, promethazine was significantly more effective than the agent used for prophylaxis for the treatment of PONV. In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol, dimenhydrinate was also more effective than droperidol for the treatment of established PONV in the postoperative anesthesia care unit.     

盐酸帕洛诺司琼预防硬膜外自控镇痛所致恶心呕吐的分析

【摘要】　目的 观察盐酸帕洛诺司琼预防术后硬膜外腔自控镇痛引起恶心呕吐副作用的效果。方法 选取择期硬膜外麻醉下开腹胆囊切除术后施行硬膜外腔自控镇痛(PCEA)的患者60例,PCEA采用吗啡6 mg+0.125%布比卡因混合液(100 mL)。将患者分为盐酸帕洛诺司琼组,氟哌啶组和对照组(每20例),在术前静脉给予盐酸帕洛诺司琼0.25 mg,氟哌啶2.5 mg和生理盐水100 mL。术后记录使用PCEA镇痛期间的恶心例数及其严重程度;呕吐例数及次数;出现呕吐后给予胃复安,非那根,地塞米松等药物止吐的控制率。结果 对照组13例出现Ⅰ~Ⅲ级恶心呕吐的不良反应,盐酸帕洛诺司琼组患者1例1级恶心呕吐的发生,与其他两组相比P<0.001;氟哌啶组出现5例Ⅰ~Ⅱ级恶心呕吐的,与对照组相比P=0.022。结论 术前预防性给予盐酸帕洛诺司琼可显著降低胆囊切除术后PCEA引起恶心呕吐副作用的发生。     

Ondansetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone compared for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomies are associated with an appreciably high rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of ondansetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone for the prevention of PONV in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A total of 80 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical class I-II patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. All patients received a similar standardized anesthesia and operative treatment. Patients were randomly divided into four groups (n = 20 each). Group 1, consisting of control patients, received 0.9% NaCl; group 2 patients received ondansetron 4 mg i.v.; group 3 patients received granisetron 3 mg i.v.; and group 4 patients received dexamethasone 8 mg i.v., all before the induction of anesthesia. Both nausea and vomiting were assessed during the first 24 h after the procedure. RESULTS: The total incidence of PONV was 75% with placebo, 35% with ondansetron, 30% with granisetron, and 25% with dexamethasone. The incidence of PONV was significantly less frequent in groups receiving antiemetics (p < 0.05). The differences between dexamethasone, granisetron, and ondansetron were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic dexamethasone 8 mg i.v. significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dexamethasone 8 mg was as effective as ondansetron 4 mg and granisetron 3 mg, and it was more effective than placebo.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of three combinations of antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Background. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of threecombinations of antiemetics in the prevention of postoperativenausea and vomiting (PONV). Methods. We conducted a prospective, double-blind study. NinetyASA I–II females, 18–65 yr, undergoing general anaesthesiafor major gynaecological surgery, with standardized postoperativeanalgesia (intrathecal 0.2 mg plus i.v. PCA morphine), wererandomly assigned to receive: ondansetron 4 mg plus droperidol1.25 mg after induction and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group1); dexamethasone 8 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after inductionand droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 2); ondansetron 4 mgplus dexamethasone 8 mg after induction and placebo 12 h later(Group 3). A decision analysis tree was used to divide eachgroup into nine mutually exclusive subgroups, depending on theincidence of PONV, need for rescue therapy, side effects andtheir treatment. Direct cost and probabilities were calculatedfor each subgroup, then a cost-effectiveness analysis was conductedfrom the hospital point of view. Results. Groups 1 and 3 were more effective (80 and 70%) thanGroup 2 (40%, P=0.004) in preventing PONV but also more expensive.Compared with Group 2, the incremental cost per extra patientwithout PONV was €6.99 (95% CI, –1.26 to 36.57) forGroup 1 and €13.55 (95% CI, 0.89–132.90) for Group3. Conclusion. Ondansetron+droperidol is cheaper and at least aseffective as ondansetron+ dexamethasone, and it is more effectivethan dexamethasone+droperidol with a reasonable extra cost. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 589–92     

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.     

Continuous epidural, not intravenous, droperidol inhibits pruritus, nausea, and vomiting during epidural morphine analgesia

PURPOSE: To investigate whether continuous epidural droperidol and intravenous (IV) intraoperative droperidol inhibit pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during epidural morphine analgesia. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded, controlled study. SETTING: Metropolitan cancer center. PATIENTS: 120 ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing thoracic or abdominal surgery with general anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received an intraoperative epidural injection of 2 mg morphine hydrochloride, followed postoperatively by a continuous epidural infusion of morphine hydrochloride 4 mg/day for 4 days. Patients were randomly allocated to four groups: Group A = control group, Group B = intraoperative single IV injection of droperidol (2.5 mg), Group C = postoperative continuous epidural droperidol infusion (2.5 mg/day), and Group D = intraoperative IV injection of droperidol (2.5 mg) and postoperative continuous epidural droperidol infusion (2.5 mg/day). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The frequency and severity of pruritus and PONV in each group were evaluated during the postoperative period. Continuous epidural infusion of droperidol significantly reduced the frequency and severity of pruritus and PONV induced by epidural morphine without causing significant side effects. Intraoperative single IV injection of droperidol was effective for PONV (p < 0.05) but not for pruritus. CONCLUSION: Postoperative epidural droperidol infusion significantly decreased both the frequency and severity of pruritus and PONV during postoperative continuous epidural morphine analgesia. IV intraoperative droperidol significantly reduced the frequency and the severity of PONV but not pruritus.     

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.     

A comparison of dexamethasone,ondansetron, and dexamethasone plus ondansetron as prophylactic antiemetic and antipruritic therapy in patients receiving intrathecal morphine for major orthopedic surgery

In a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial, we evaluated the efficacy of IV (a) dexamethasone 8 mg, (b) ondansetron 8 mg, and (c) dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg for the prevention of postoperative nausea, vomiting (PONV), and pruritus in 130 (ASA physical status I to III) patients undergoing elective major orthopedic surgery after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine and intrathecal morphine. After spinal anesthesia, patients were randomized to one of three groups. Failure of PONV prophylaxis in the 24-h postoperative period occurred more frequently in patients who received dexamethasone alone (29 of 40; 73%) compared with those who received either ondansetron alone (23 of 47; 49%) (P = 0.02) or dexamethasone plus ondansetron together (19 of 43; 44%)(P = 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of failure of prophylaxis of pruritus (70%, 72%, and 70% in dexamethasone 8 mg, ondansetron 8 mg, and dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg, respectively) (P > 0.1) in the 24-h postoperative period. We conclude that the administration of dexamethasone 8 mg with ondansetron 4 mg has no added benefit compared with ondansetron 8 mg alone in the prophylaxis of PONV and pruritus. IMPLICATIONS: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pruritus are common side effects after spinal opioid administration. In this study, dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg was as effective as ondansetron 8 mg. The administration of dexamethasone alone was associated with a frequent incidence of PONV, demonstrating a lack of efficacy. This has important cost implications.