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.     

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.     

Ondansetron versus dehydrobenzoperidol and metoclopramide for management of postoperative nausea in laparoscopic surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the efficacy of ondansetron versus dehydrobenzoperidol (droperidol) or metoclopramide in the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting in 200 adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred seventy-three American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients satisfied inclusion criteria. Fifty-seven patients received ondansetron 4 mg (group O), 57 patients were given droperidol 1.25 mg (group D), and 59 patients received metoclopramide 10 mg (group M). Antiemetic efficacy was compared at 10 minutes and 30 minutes after the administration of the study drug. RESULTS: At 10 minutes, nausea scores in group O dropped from 8.3 to 3.7, in group D from 8.5 to 5, and in group M from 8.4 to 6.7; (P < 0.05 between the three groups). At 30 minutes, nausea scores were 1.3 in group O, 1.7 in group D, and 5 in group M; (P < 0.05 between group M and the other two groups). In the droperidol group, 25% of patients developed sedation. Patient satisfaction was best with ondansetron. CONCLUSIONS: Both ondansetron and droperidol were more effective in the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting than was metoclopramide. However, patients were satisfied best with ondansetron, which acts faster and causes less sedation than droperidol.     

Antiemetic prophylaxis for office-based surgery: are the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists beneficial?

BACKGROUND: Office-based surgery has become increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential. However, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can delay patient discharge. Prophylaxis using a combination of antiemetic drugs has been suggested as an effective strategy for minimizing PONV. The authors designed this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron when administered in combination with droperidol and dexamethasone for routine antiemetic prophylaxis against PONV in the office-based surgery setting. METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, 135 consenting outpatients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III who were undergoing superficial surgical procedures lasting 20-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three antiemetic treatment groups. Propofol was administered for induction of anesthesia, followed by 2-4% desflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Desflurane was subsequently adjusted to maintain a clinically adequate depth of anesthesia with an electroencephalographic Bispectral Index value between 50 and 60. All patients received 0.625 mg intravenous droperidol and 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone after induction of anesthesia. The study medication, containing normal saline (control), 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron, or 4 mg intravenous ondansetron, was administered prior to the end of surgery. All patients received local anesthetics at the incisional site and 30 mg intravenous ketolorac to minimize postoperative pain. Recovery profiles, incidence of PONV, requirement for rescue antiemetic drugs, complete response rates, and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: The recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, ambulation, and actual discharge did not differ among the three groups. The incidence of PONV, nausea scores, and requirement for rescue antiemetics were also similar in all three groups during the 24-h study period. In addition, the complete response rates to the prophylactic antiemetics (96-98%) and percentages of very satisfied patients (93-98%) were equally high in all three groups. However, the antiemetic drug acquisition costs were US $2.50, $15.50, and $18.50 in the control, dolasetron, and ondansetron groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The addition of dolasetron (12.5 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg) failed to improve the antiemetic efficacy of droperidol (0.625 mg intravenous) and dexamethasone (4 mg intravenous) when they were used for routine prophylaxis in the office-based surgery setting.     

Additive anti-emetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron with droperidol in out-patient gynecological laparoscopy

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol, alone and in combination, administered for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing general anesthesia for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. METHODS: Following Institutional Ethics Board approval and patient consent, 160 female out- patients scheduled for laparoscopy were randomly allotted in a double-blind fashion to receive: i) saline (placebo), ii) 4 mg ondansetron, iii) 1.25 mg droperidol, or iv) 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol combination intravenously on induction. Following a standardized general anesthesia, patients were interviewed and assessed for PONV at various times. RESULTS: During the first 24 hr after surgery, the incidence of PONV in the placebo group was 71%. This was reduced to 61% with droperidol alone (P = 0.334), to 46% with ondansetron alone (P = 0.027), and to 23% with the combination group (P<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between combination and droperidol (P<0.001) and between combination and ondansetron (P = 0.036). There were fewer requests for rescue medication from the combination group (7.7%) than from the ondansetron and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the combination of 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol is more efficacious as a prophylactic anti-emetic than either agent alone during the 24 hr post-surgery. This additive effect may be due to the different mechanisms of action of ondansetron and droperidol.     

Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Office-based Surgery: Are the 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists Beneficial?

Background: Office-based surgery has become increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential. However, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can delay patient discharge. Prophylaxis using a combination of antiemetic drugs has been suggested as an effective strategy for minimizing PONV. The authors designed this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron when administered in combination with droperidol and dexamethasone for routine antiemetic prophylaxis against PONV in the office-based surgery setting.

Methods: Following institutional review board approval, 135 consenting outpatients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III who were undergoing superficial surgical procedures lasting 20-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three antiemetic treatment groups. Propofol was administered for induction of anesthesia, followed by 2-4% desflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Desflurane was subsequently adjusted to maintain a clinically adequate depth of anesthesia with an electroencephalographic Bispectral Index value between 50 and 60. All patients received 0.625 mg intravenous droperidol and 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone after induction of anesthesia. The study medication, containing normal saline (control), 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron, or 4 mg intravenous ondansetron, was administered prior to the end of surgery. All patients received local anesthetics at the incisional site and 30 mg intravenous ketolorac to minimize postoperative pain. Recovery profiles, incidence of PONV, requirement for rescue antiemetic drugs, complete response rates, and patient satisfaction were assessed.

Results: The recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, ambulation, and actual discharge did not differ among the three groups. The incidence of PONV, nausea scores, and requirement for rescue antiemetics were also similar in all three groups during the 24-h study period. In addition, the complete response rates to the prophylactic antiemetics (96-98%) and percentages of very satisfied patients (93-98%) were equally high in all three groups. However, the antiemetic drug acquisition costs were US $2.50, $15.50, and $18.50 in the control, dolasetron, and ondansetron groups, respectively.     

A comparison of the effects of droperidol and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of the combination of ondansetron and droperidol with that of droperidol alone in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind controlled trial.University affiliated teaching hospital after induction of standardized general anesthesia. PATIENTS: 64 ASA physical status I or II patients aged 18 to 80 years, undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. INTERVENTION: Following induction of general anesthesia, patients received either droperidol 1.25 mg intravenously (IV; n = 30; Group D) or the combination of droperidol 1.25 mg IV and ondansetron 4 mg IV (n = 34; Group D+O). MEASUREMENTS: Number and severity of nausea episodes, number of emetic episodes, total analgesic consumption, and rescue antiemetic administration were assessed at 1, 3, and 24 hours after admission to the recovery room. Data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact test and unpaired Student's t-test; a p-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The proportions of patients who experienced nausea (70% and 53% for D and D+O groups, respectively) and vomiting (30% and 19% for D and D+O groups, respectively) were similar in the two groups. The frequency of moderate and severe nausea (requiring administration of antiemetic) was less in group D + O (7%) compared with group D (19%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received the combination of droperidol and ondansetron experienced less severe nausea compared with patients who received droperidol alone.     

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

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

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.     

Incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting are similar after metoclopramide 20 mg and ondansetron 8 mg given by the end of laparoscopic cholecystectomies

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron has a well documented antiemetic prophylactic effect, whereas in most studies of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), metoclopramide is less efficacious. This can be attributed to the short-lasting effect of metoclopramide when a low dose is given at the beginning of surgery. We wanted to test a 20-mg dose of metoclopramide given at the end of surgery, using ondansetron 8 mg as a reference. METHODS: 122 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were studied in a randomized, double-blind study design. At the end of the procedure, the patients received either metoclopramide 20 mg or ondansetron 8 mg intravenously. The patients were observed for 24 h for PONV, pain, side-effects and need for rescue antiemetic medication. RESULTS: No significant differences in the incidence of PONV or need for rescue antiemetic treatment was observed in the 0-24 h postoperative study period. The overall incidence of PONV was 43% in the ondansetron group and 47% in the metoclopramide group. The ondansetron patients had a significantly higher incidence of moderate or strong pain during the postoperative observation period (61% vs. 35% in the metoclopramide group) (P < 0.05). No significant differences in side-effects between the groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Metoclopramide 20 mg i.v. given at the end of laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in a similar incidence of PONV compared with ondansetron 8 mg. The patients receiving metoclopramide had less pain than the patients receiving ondansetron.     

Comparison of domperidone, droperidol, and metoclopramide in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting after balanced general anesthesia

Women (185) undergoing elective orthopedic surgery under balanced general anesthesia were given 5 or 10 mg of domperidone, 1.25 mg of droperidol, 10 mg of metoclopramide, or a saline placebo intravenously in a double-blind random fashion 5 minutes before the end of anesthesia to prevent postoperative vomiting. Administration of the same antiemetic was repeated intramuscularly during the first 24 hours postoperatively if the patient complained of nausea or retched or vomited. Sigificantly (p less than 0.05 to p less than 0.001), fewer of the patients given droperidol were nauseated (25%) or vomited (17%) in comparison with patients given saline (incidence of nausea was 55% and vomiting 40%). Incidences of nausea and vomiting were similar in patients given domperidone, metoclopramide, or saline. Furthermore, 39 to 45% of the patients given domperidone, metoclopramide, or saline needed additional doses of the same drug, whereas only 22% of the patient given droperidol required a second dose. It is concluded that droperidol is effective in the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting after balanced general anesthesia but that domperidone or metoclopramide are not.     

A comparison of prophylactic ondansetron and metoclopramide administration in patients undergoing major neurosurgical procedures

In a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial, we assessed the relative efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and metoclopramide administration in the reduction of postoperative nausea and vomiting in 60 patients undergoing routine major neurosurgical procedures. The patients were randomly allocated into one of two groups. Both groups received a standardised anaesthetic. When the dura mater was closed, patients in group A received an intravenous injection of metoclopramide 10 mg whilst group B received ondansetron 8 mg intravenously. Patients who received metoclopramide experienced less postoperative nausea and vomiting than those who received ondansetron in the 48 h following surgery (17 (56%) versus 9 (30%) p = 0.038). In the light of these findings, we believe that ondansetron is an inappropriate agent for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the neurosurgical population.     

Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand; and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. RESULTS: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs.40%, P <0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. CONCLUSIONS: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.     

Prophylactic anti-emetic therapy with granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide in female patients undergoing middle ear surgery

The efficacy of granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing middle ear surgery was compared. In a randomised, double-blind study, 180 patients received granisetron 40 micrograms.kg-1, droperidol 20 micrograms.kg-1 or metoclopramide 0.2 mg.kg-1 given intravenously immediately before induction of anaesthesia (n = 60 for each). A standardised general anaesthetic technique was employed throughout. A complete response, defined as no postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for another rescue anti-emetic, during the first 3 h after anaesthesia was achieved in 83%, 58% and 55% of patients who had received granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide, respectively. The corresponding incidence during the next 21 h after anaesthesia was 85%, 54% and 47% (p < 0.05). No clinically important adverse effects were observed in any of the groups. We conclude that prophylactic therapy with granisetron is superior to droperidol or metoclopramide in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery.     

Comparison of ondansetron and tropisetron combined with droperidol for the prevention of emesis in women with a history of post-operative nausea and vomiting.

The anti-emetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and tropisetron in combination with a low dose of droperidol in patients with high probability for post-operative nausea and vomiting undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy was compared. Patients were randomly allocated in a double-blind manner to receive either ondansetron 8 mg (n = 45) or tropisetron 5 mg (n = 43) at the end of surgery. A standardized general anaesthetic technique was used, including droperidol 0.75 mg. The incidence of nausea was 36% and 49% (P = 0.28), and vomiting occurred in 13% and 14% of the patients in the ondansetron and tropisetron groups, respectively. The onset time for rescue medication was significantly sooner after tropisetron than ondansetron (3 h 18 min vs. 6 h 25 min; P = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences in efficacy between prophylactic ondansetron and tropisetron combined with droperidol in a high-risk population. However, ondansetron appeared to be more effective in preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting in the early hours after surgery compared with tropisetron.     

Comparison of Acustimulation and Ondansetron for the Treatment of Established Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Background: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand(R) compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery.

Methods: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand(R); (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand(R); and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand(R). A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery.

Results: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73%vs. 40%, P < 0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores.     

Small doses of propofol, droperidol, and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of small doses of propofol, droperidol, and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after thyroidectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. SETTING: University-affiliated teaching hospital. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blinded study, 90 patients (75 females) received propofol 0.5 mg/kg, droperidol 20 microg/kg, or metoclopramide 0.2 mg/kg intravenously (n = 30 in each group) at the end of surgery. A standardized general anesthetic technique was used. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV during the first 24 hours after anesthesia was recorded in 13%, 47%, and 50% of patients who had received propofol, droperidol, and metoclopramide, respectively (P < 0.05; overall Fisher exact probability test). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any of the groups. CONCLUSION: Small dose (0.5 mg/kg) of propofol is more effective than droperidol or metoclopramide for the prevention of PONV after thyroidectomy.     

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients during menstruation: comparison of droperidol, metoclopramide and granisetron

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is high in women during menstruation. We have compared the efficacy of droperidol, metoclopramide and granisetron in the prevention of PONV in female patients during menstruation undergoing major gynaecological surgery. In a randomized, double-blind study, 120 patients received droperidol 25 micrograms kg-1, metoclopramide 0.2 mg kg-1 or granisetron 40 micrograms kg-1 (n = 40 in each group) i.v. immediately before induction of anaesthesia. A standard general anaesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used throughout. There was a complete response, defined as no PONV and no administration of rescue medication, during the 24-h observation period in 45% of patients in the droperidol group, 38% in the metoclopramide group and 70% in the granisetron group (P = 0.021 vs droperidol, P = 0.003 vs metoclopramide). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups. We conclude that the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of granisetron was superior to that of droperidol or metoclopramide for prevention of PONV in women during menstruation.      

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.     

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.