A randomized, double-blind comparison of ondansetron versus placebo for prevention of nausea and vomiting after infratentorial craniotomy

Ondansetron was compared with placebo for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis after fentanyl/isoflurane/relaxant anesthesia and infratentorial craniotomy. Eight milligrams intravenous ondansetron or vehicle was administered at skin closure. Nausea, emesis, and antiemetic use were recorded at 0, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours. There were no significant intergroup differences for nausea incidence at any interval, but cumulatively the placebo group was 3.2 times more likely to develop nausea during the first 12 hours (P = .04). Nausea incidence was bimodal in both groups, peaking during the first 1 to 4 hours. A nadir occurred at 8 to 12 hours, but nausea increased during the next 36 hours. By 48 hours, approximately 40% of patients in both groups were still nauseated. Reduced vomiting frequency was seen with ondansetron at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours (P < .05). Despite rescue antiemetics, emesis occurred in an irregular pattern with episodes still observed in 35% of placebo patients at 48 hours. For ondansetron, emesis was infrequent for the first 12 hours but then a persistent increase was observed (48 hours, 22%). The incidence of rescue antiemetic use was 65% for both groups. There was no effect of gender. Nausea and vomiting are frequent and protracted after infratentorial craniotomy. Administration of single-dose ondansetron (8 mg intravenously) at wound closure was partially effective in reducing acute nausea and vomiting but had little delayed benefit. Scheduled prophylactic administration of antiemetic therapy during the first 48 hours after infratentorial craniotomy should be evaluated for efficacy and safety.     

Randomized,double-blinded comparison of tropisetron and placebo for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after supratentorial craniotomy

This prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of tropisetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective supratentorial craniotomy in adult patients. We studied 65 ASA physical status I-III patients aged 18 to 76 years who were undergoing elective craniotomy for resection of various supratentorial tumors. Patients were divided into two groups and received either 2 mg of tropisetron (group T) or saline placebo (group P) intravenously at the time of dural closure. A standard general anesthetic technique was used. Episodes of nausea and vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetic medication were recorded during 24 hours postoperatively. Demographic data, duration of surgery and anesthesia, and sedation scores were comparable in both groups. Nausea occurred in 30% of group T patients and in 46.7% of group P patients (P >.05). The incidence of emetic episodes was 26.7% and 56.7% in the two groups (P <.05). Rescue antiemetic medication was needed in 26.7% and 60% of the patients (P <.05). Administration of a single dose of tropisetron (2 mg intravenously) given at the time of dural closure was effective in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective craniotomy for supratentorial tumor resection in adult patients.     

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.     

Ondansetron or droperidol for prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after intrathecal morphine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a controversy regarding the best drug for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal morphine. The aim of this study was to examine efficacy and tolerability of droperidol compared with ondansetron for the prevention of morphine-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 120 women undergoing Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia with intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg received intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (n = 40), droperidol 1.25 mg (n = 40) or saline (n = 40) immediately after umbilical-cord clamping. Nausea and vomiting were graded according to intensity at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h. RESULTS: Nausea or vomiting occurred in 14 patients (35%) in the placebo group, 4 (10%) in the ondansetron group and 10 (25%) in the droperidol group; the difference between ondansetron and placebo was statistically significant (P = 0.007). Eleven of the 14 placebo patients (27.5%) vomited, compared with none of the 4 ondansetron patients (vs. placebo, P = 0.0004) and 5 of the droperidol patients (vs. placebo, P = 0.18). Three of the 14 placebo patients (7.5%) were nauseous, compared with 4 (10%) receiving ondansetron and 5 (12.5%) receiving droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron was effective in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal morphine for Caesarean section.     

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.     

Effect of prophylactic ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective craniotomy.

This prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron, a 5-HT3 antagonist, in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after elective craniotomy in adult patients. The authors also tried to discover certain predictors for postcraniotomy nausea and vomiting. We studied 170 ASA physical status I and II patients, aged 15 to 70 years, undergoing elective craniotomy for resecting various intracranial tumors and vascular lesions. A standardized anesthesia technique and postoperative analgesia were used for all patients. Patients were divided into two groups and received either saline placebo (Group 1) or ondansetron 4 mg (Group 2) intravenously at the time of dural closure. Patients were extubated at the end of surgery and episodes of nausea and vomiting were noted for 24 hours postoperatively in the neurosurgical intensive care unit. Demographic data, duration of surgery, and anesthesia and analgesic requirements were comparable in both groups. Overall, a 24-hour incidence of postoperative emesis was significantly reduced in patients who received ondansetron compared with those who received a saline placebo (39% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2, P = .001). There was a significant reduction in the frequency of emetic episodes and rescue antiemetic requirement in patients treated with ondansetron; however, ondansetron did not significantly reduce the incidence of nausea alone (14% in Group 2 vs 5% in Group 1, P = .065). Prophylactic ondansetron had a favorable influence on PONV outcome measures such as patient satisfaction and number needed to prevent emesis (3.5). Side effects were similar in both groups. We conclude that ondansetron 4 mg given at the time of dural closure is safe and effective in preventing emetic episodes after elective craniotomy in adult patients.     

Ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

We have performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron, droperidol, or both, in preventing postoperative emesis. We studied 242 patients undergoing biliary or gynaecological surgery under general anaesthesia. Shortly before induction of anaesthesia, patients received: saline i.v. (group I, n = 62); droperidol 2.5 mg i.v. (group 2, n = 60); ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 3, n = 57); or droperidol 2.5 mg with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 4, n = 63). Nausea occurred in 45%, 37%, 32% and 29% (P = 0.234) and vomiting in 23%, 17%, 9% and 5% (P = 0.016) of patients in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, during the first 24 h. Groups 2 and 4 had greater sedation scores than group 1 during the first 3 h (P < 0.01). We conclude that both droperidol and ondansetron showed a significant antiemetic effect, ondansetron was not significantly better than droperidol, and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron was better than droperidol but no better than ondansetron alone.      

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.     

Ondansetron, orally disintegrating tablets versus intravenous injection for prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced nausea, vomiting, and pruritus in young males

In this study we compared the efficacy of orally disintegrating tablets (ODT) and IV ondansetron for preventing spinal morphine-induced pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in healthy young male patients. Patients who received bupivacaine with 0.20 mg morphine for spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned to the ODT group (ODT ondansetron 8 mg, n = 50), the IV group (4 mg ondansetron IV, n = 50), or the placebo group (n = 50). Each individual was assessed for pruritus, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pain at 0, 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 h after surgery using three distinct visual analog scales. The frequencies of postoperative nausea and vomiting and frequencies of requirement for rescue antiemetic and antipruritic were recorded. There were no significant differences among the three groups with respect to incidence or severity of PONV or postoperative pain visual analog scale scores. The incidences of pruritus in the ODT (56%) and IV (66%) groups were significantly different from that in the placebo group (86%) (P < 0.02 for both). Only the ODT group had significantly lower mean pruritus visual analog scale scores at 0, 2, 6, and 12 h postsurgery than the placebo group (P < 0.023 for all). The frequency of requirement for rescue antipruritic was significantly less in the ODT group than the placebo group (P = 0.013). Both ODT ondansetron 8 mg and IV ondansetron 4 mg are more effective than placebo for preventing spinal morphine-induced pruritus, but neither form of this agent reduces spinal morphine-induced postoperative nausea and vomiting in this patient group.     

Tropisetron or droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

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

Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron in laparoscopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anaesthesiaA randomised, double-blind comparison with droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo

The prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy and safety of pre-operative intravenous ondansetron was evaluated in a randomised, double-blind, comparison with droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo in 160 ASA grade 1 and 2 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anaesthesia. The patients were randomly allocated to receive ondansetron (4 mg), droperidol (1.25 mg), metoclopramide (10 mg) or placebo given as a single intravenous dose immediately before induction of a standardised general anaesthetic. There were no significant differences between the four study groups with regard to the demographic and anaesthetic data, postoperative analgesia, postoperative sedation scores, duration of postoperative hospital stay and incidence of adverse events. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower (p < 0.05) between 1 h and 4 h after surgery in the ondansetron group compared with the droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo groups. The incidence of nausea was similar in the four groups in the other study periods: 0-1 h and 4-24 h. The incidence of vomiting was lower in the ondansetron, droperidol and metoclopramide groups than in the placebo group between 1 and 4 h but was the same between 4 and 24 h. As a result of the lower incidence of nausea and vomiting between 1 h and 4 h in the ondansetron group, the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower during the first 24 h after surgery in this group than in the other three groups.     

The addition of antiemetics to the morphine solution in patient controlled analgesia syringes used by children after an appendicectomy does not reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: We studied the effect of intraoperative ondansetron 0.1 mg x kg(-1) or droperidol 0.01 mg.kg-1, followed by the same dose of the antiemetic agent added to the morphine solution during patient controlled analgesia (PCA) on the incidence of nausea and vomiting in children following an appendicectomy. METHODS: Sixty children, aged 5-13 years, were recruited and randomly allocated to receive no prophylactic antiemetic, the control group (group C), ondansetron (group O) or droperidol (group D). The PCA pump was programmed to deliver a bolus dose of 20 microg x kg(-1) of morphine.with a 5-min lockout period and a background infusion of 4 microg x kg(-1) x h(-1). RESULTS: Postoperatively, the three groups were compared for nausea, vomiting and sedation scores for 24 h. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 33% for group C, 44% for group O and 41% for group D. There was no increase in sedation scores in the droperidol group. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to show any significant benefit from the prophylactic administration of ondansetron or droperidol to children using morphine PCA devices following appendicectomy in the doses we employed.     

Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ondansetron,tropisetron, granisetron and metoclopramide in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized,double-blind comparison with placebo

Purpose

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a distressing adverse effect of general anaesthesia. The aim of the current study was to compare the antiemetic activity of different 5-hydroxytryptamine₃ receptor antagonists with that of metoclopramide and placebo.

Methods

In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study we have compared the antiemetic activity of the prophylactic administration of ondansetron 4 mg, tropisetron 5 mg and granisetron 3 mg with that of metoclopramide 10 mg and placebo in 132 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. All study drugs and placebo were given as a short iv infusion ten minutes before the induction of anaesthesia. Perioperative anaesthetic care was standardized in all patients. Nausea and vomiting were assessed by direct questioning of the patient at 1, 4, 9, 12, 18 and 24 hr after recovery from anaesthesia. If patients experienced nausea and/or vomiting, rescue antiemetic treatment (metoclopramide 10 mg iv) was administered.

Results

For the 24-hr recovery period after surgery, the percentages of emesis-free patients were 65.5%, 52%, 48%, 29.2% and 27.6% in the ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, metoclopramide and placebo groups, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetic treatment with ondansetron resulted in a lower incidence (P = 0.02) of PONV than with metoclopramide or placebo. The times at which rescue antiemetic was first received were longer (P < 0.01) in ondansetron group than in the placebo and metoclopramide groups. There were no statistical differences between ondansetron, tropisetron and granisetron groups.

Conclusions

Ondansetron, when given prophylactically resulted in a significantly lower incidence of PONV than metoclopramide and placebo. Metoclopramide was ineffective.     

A randomized controlled comparison of electro-acupoint stimulation or ondansetron versus placebo for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

In this study we evaluated the efficacy of electro-acupoint stimulation, ondansetron versus placebo for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Patients undergoing major breast surgery under general anesthesia were randomized into active electro-acupoint stimulation (A), ondansetron 4 mg IV (O), or sham control (placement of electrodes without electro-acupoint stimulation; placebo [P]). The anesthetic regimen was standardized. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, pain, and patient satisfaction with management of PONV were assessed at 0, 30, 60, 90, 120 min, and at 24 h. The complete response (no nausea, vomiting, or use of rescue antiemetic) was significantly more frequent in the active treatment groups compared with placebo both at 2 h (A/O/P = 77%/64%/42%, respectively; P = 0.01) and 24 h postoperatively (A/O/P = 73%/52%/38%, respectively; P = 0.006). The need for rescue antiemetic was less in the treatment groups (A/O/P = 19%/28%/54%; P = 0.04). Specifically, the incidence and severity of nausea were significantly less in the A group compared with the other groups, and in the O group compared with the P group (A/O/P = 19%/40%/79%, respectively). The A group experienced less pain in the postanesthesia care unit, compared with the O and P groups. Patients in the treatment groups were more satisfied with their management of PONV compared with placebo. When used for the prevention of PONV, electro-acupoint stimulation or ondansetron was more effective than placebo with greater degree of patient satisfaction, but electro-acupoint stimulation seems to be more effective in controlling nausea, compared with ondansetron. Stimulation at P6 also has analgesic effects.     

Efficacy of prophylactic droperidol, ondansetron or both in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in major gynaecological surgery. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing droperidol 1.25 mg intravenously (i.v.) (group 1, n = 30), ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 2, n = 30), or both (group 3, n = 30) in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the first 24 h following major gynaecological procedures under combined general and epidural anaesthesia. PONV was analysed by a linear nausea/vomiting score, incidence of nausea and vomiting, and the need for antiemetic rescue. Our results showed a similar incidence of nausea and vomiting in all groups (G1 33%, G2 40%, G3 43%). However, when comparisons were made according to the time of assessment, combination therapy resulted in significantly lower PONV than droperidol in the first hour (0% vs. 13%, P < 0.05) and second hour (0% vs. 13%, P < 0.05), and than ondansetron on the first hour (0% vs. 13%, P < 0.05). A trend persisted up to the fourth hour but was not statistically significant in either group. In conclusion, droperidol and ondansetron are effective agents in the prevention of PONV, and their combination seems to provide slightly better results than either drug alone.     

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.     

Prevention of nausea and vomiting with granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Nausea and vomiting during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section are distressing to the patient. This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in parturients undergoing caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.
Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 120 patients received granisetron 3 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg or placebo (saline) ( n =30 of each) i. v. immediately after clamping of the foetal umbilical cord. Nausea, vomiting and safety assessments were performed during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Results: The incidence of intraoperative, post-delivery nausea and vomiting was 13%, 17%, 20% and 63% after administration of granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo, respectively; the corresponding incidence during 0–3 h after surgery was 7%, 27%, 27% and 43%; the corresponding incidence during 3–24 h after surgery was 7%, 20%, 23% and 37% ( P <0.05; overall Fisher's exact probability test). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any of the groups.
Conclusion: Granisetron is highly effective for preventing nausea and vomiting during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Droperidol and metoclopramide are effective for the prevention of intraoperative, post-delivery emesis, but are ineffective for the reduction of the incidence of postoperative emesis.     

Scheduled prophylactic ondansetron administration did not improve its antiemetic efficacy after intracranial tumour resection surgery in children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting after craniotomy may increase intracranial pressure and morbidity in children. This prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled and double-blinded study was designed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron after intracranial tumour resections in children. METHODS: Ninety children were divided into three groups and received saline (Group 1), ondansetron 150 microg kg-1 intravenously at dural closure (Group 2) or two doses of ondansetron 150 microg kg-1 intravenously, the second dose repeated after 6 h (Group 3). Episodes of nausea, emesis and side-effects were noted for 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Overall 24 h incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was not significantly different among the three groups (9 (37.5%) in Group 1 vs. 7 (27%) in Group 2 and 8 (32%) in Group 3, P = 0.73). No difference in rescue antiemetic treatment or postoperative nausea and vomiting at specific time intervals (0-6 and 6-24 h postoperative period) was seen among the three groups. No significant side-effects were noted in any of the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron, in this study of 90 children, was not very effective in preventing nausea and vomiting after neurosurgical operations.     

Reduction of post-operative nausea and vomiting with the combination of morphine and dropéridol in patient-controlled analgesia

Purpose

To determine whether low doses of droperidol mixed with morphine in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) would extend the duration of prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Methods

Healthy women having elective open-abdominal gynaecological surgery consented to this double-blind, place-bo-controlled study. Subjects were randomized to receive placebo, or 1 mg droperidol before induction followed by droperidol 0.0 (bolus group), 0.02 (0.02 group), or 0.04 (0.04 group) mg · mg^?1 of PCA morphine. Study endpoints included severity of nausea, episodes of vomiting and rescue antiemetic doses, pain, and sedation and were assessed at 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 hr postoperatively.

Results

Seventy-one subjects completed the study. The groups were similar in age, weight, surgical time, pain scores, and morphine used. The 0.04 group had lower mean visual analogue scale scores for nausea (P < 0.05 vs all other groups). The incidence of vomiting was lower in all treatment groups (P < 0.05 for all groups vs placebo). The 0.04 group had lower rescue antiemetic requirements than the bolus group (P < 0.03). Mean sedation scores were tow in all groups but were increased with PCA droperidol (P < 0.02).

Conclusions

Droperidol 1 mg before induction of anaesthesia reduces postoperative vomiting. The addition of droperidol 0.04 mg · mg^?1 of PCA morphine further reduces (i) severity of nausea and (ii) rescue antiemetic requirements postoperatively. No clinically significant side-effects were attributed to this regimen.     

Prophylacticiv ondansetron reduces nausea, vomiting and pruritus following epidural morphine for postoperative pain control

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prophylactic effect of ondansetron on nausea and vomiting following epidural morphine for postoperative pain control. METHODS: Seventy women (n = 35 in each group) undergoing abdominal total hysterectomy under epidural anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded, and placebo-controlled study. At the end of surgery, all patients received epidural morphine 3 mg for postoperative pain relief. Before morphine injection, the ondansetron group received iv ondansetron 4 mg, whereas the placebo group received iv saline. RESULTS: Patients in the ondansetron group reported a lower frequency of total postoperative nausea and vomiting (22%) and lower frequency of rescue antiemetic request (12%) than those in the placebo group (52% and 39%, respectively; P < 0.05). In addition, ondansetron was associated with a reduced incidence of pruritus following epidural morphine (28% vs 58%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: We conclude that iv ondansetron 4 mg is effective in the prevention of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus following epidural morphine for postoperative pain control.