Prevention of vomiting after strabismus surgery in children: dexamethasone alone versus dexamethasone plus low-dose ondansetron

BACKGROUND: Postoperative vomiting is a common complication after strabismus surgery. The combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron decreases vomiting after strabismus surgery, while dexamethasone alone decreases vomiting after tonsillectomy in children. We compared the effect of dexamethasone alone to ondansetron plus dexamethasone on postoperative vomiting among children undergoing strabismus surgery. METHODS: Healthy children, aged 2-14 years, who were undergoing strabismus surgery were entered into this randomized, blocked and stratified study. Patients were administered 0.5 mg.kg(-1) midazolam p.o., 20-30 min preoperatively when indicated. The patients had an intravenous induction with 2.5-3.5 mg.kg(-1) propofol or an inhalation induction of anaesthesia with halothane and N2O. All patients were given 20 microg.kg(-1) atropine i.v. Study drugs were administered in a double-blind fashion. Both groups received 150 microg.kg(-1) dexamethasone i.v. Group D patients received placebo and group OD received 50 microg.kg(-1) of ondansetron i.v. Anaesthesia was maintained with halothane and N2O. Postoperative fluid, vomiting and pain management were standardized. Patients were followed for 24 h. We studied 193 patients with 111 patients in the OD group. Demographic data were similar. RESULTS: The overall incidence of vomiting was 23%; in group D and 5%; in group OD (P < 0.001). Each episode of vomiting increased the in-hospital length of stay by 29 min (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a remarkably low incidence of postoperative vomiting of 5%; with the combination of dexamethasone plus a low-dose of ondansetron which more effectively decreased vomiting after strabismus surgery in children when compared with dexamethasone alone.     

Efficacy of low-dose dexamethasone for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting following strabismus repair in children

We studied the efficacy of a range of doses of dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following strabismus repair in children in a hospital-based, prospective, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Two hundred and ten children were randomized to receive either dexamethasone in one of four dosages: 50 microg/kg (Group 1), 100 microg/kg (Group 2), 200 microg/kg (Group 3) and 250 microg/kg (Group 4) or normal saline (Group 5) prior to corrective surgery for strabismus. Anaesthesia was standardized and included nitrous oxide, pethidine, intubation and the use of muscle relaxant and reversal with neostigmine. Postoperative nausea and vomiting were evaluated in epochs of 0-2 hours, 2-6 hours and 6-24 hours after surgery. Parent satisfaction was assessed 24 hours after surgery and the operated eye was examined for wound infection and delayed healing one week later Dexamethasone was effective in preventing nausea and vomiting after strabismus repair: 57.1% children in Group 1, 42.9% in Group 2, 52.4% in Group 3, and 59.5% in Group 4 were free from postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with 7.1% in placebo group. The lowest dose of 50 microg/kg was as efficacious as the higher dosages of dexamethasone during the 24 hours studied. Of the children who developed postoperative nausea and vomiting those who received dexamethasone had significantly fewer episodes than those in the placebo group. We conclude that dexamethasone 50 microg/kg is effective for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following strabismus repair in children.     

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.     

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.     

地塞米松联合恩丹西酮对手术后病人自控镇痛相关恶心呕吐的影响

目的　观察地塞米松联合恩丹西酮对手术后病人自控镇痛 (PCA)所致恶心呕吐的防治效果。方法　随机将 2 0 0例在连续硬膜外麻醉下行下肢手术的患者分为四组 :对照 (C)组于手术切皮前 (T1)和手术结束时 (T2 )分别静脉注射生理盐水 2ml;地塞米松 (D)组于T1、T2 时分别注射地塞米松 10mg和生理盐水 2ml;恩丹西酮 (O)组于T1、T2 时分别注射生理盐水 2ml和恩丹西酮4mg ;地塞米松 +恩丹西酮 (D +O)组于T1、T2 时分别注射地塞米松 10mg和恩丹西酮 4mg。术毕均行病人自控静脉芬太尼镇痛 (PCIFA)。观察术后 2 4h内病人镇痛效果、镇静评分和恶心呕吐发生情况。结果　 5例患者因故退出此观察。组间镇痛效果、镇静评分无明显差异。C组恶心呕吐发生率为 5 2 1% ,明显高于D组 (33 3% )和O组 (32 7% ) ,P <0 0 5 ;D +O组恶心呕吐发生率为16 0 % ,与C组比较 ,P <0 0 1,与D组和O组比较 ,P <0 0 5 ;各处理组恶心程度均小于对照组 ,P <0 0 5 ;D +O组呕吐程度低于C组 ,P <0 0 5。结论　地塞米松与恩丹西酮单独应用均能有效地减少手术后PCIFA相关的恶心呕吐 ,减轻恶心程度 ;两药联合应用进一步降低患者的恶心呕吐发生率和呕吐的程度     

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

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

Comparison of oral dolasetron and ondansetron in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we compared the efficacy of oral dolasetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in children after various surgical operations. METHODS: Children were assigned randomly to one of three groups (each contained 50 children) to receive dolasetron 1.8 mg kg(-1) or ondansetron 0.15 mg kg(-1) orally, or a placebo. All children received methylene blue capsules (10 mg) orally as an indicator before the induction of anaesthesia. Postoperatively, contamination of the mouth and the endotracheal tube by methylene blue was recorded, and postoperative nausea and vomiting was recorded for 0-1, 1-24 and 0-24 h. Metoclopramide (0.1 mg kg(-1)) intravenously was used as the rescue antiemetic. RESULTS: In the 0-1 h period after operation, there were no differences between the groups. In the 1-24 h period, dolasetron was significantly better than placebo (nausea 8 versus 24%; vomiting 4 versus 20%; total nausea and vomiting scores 16 versus 48%). Over the 0-24 h period, both dolasetron and ondansetron were significantly better than placebo (nausea 16 versus 26 versus 40%), vomiting (8 versus 16 versus 30%), and total nausea and vomiting scores (32 versus 48 versus 78%). There were no significant differences between dolasetron and ondansetron. There was no important methylene blue contamination, and little use of rescue metoclopramide. There were no important adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic oral dolasetron and ondansetron were effective in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting in children.     

Haloperidol vs. ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following gynaecological surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ondansetron is widely used for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting, while haloperidol is an antiemetic that lacks recent data on efficacy and adverse effects. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study involving 93 females undergoing gynaecological procedures under general anaesthesia, we compared the efficacy and adverse effects of prophylactic haloperidol 1 mg intravenous and ondansetron 4 mg intravenous vs. placebo. RESULTS: During the overall observation period (0-24 h), in the haloperidol, ondansetron and placebo groups respectively, the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting was 40.7% (11/27), 48.2% (13/27) and 55.5% (15/27), and the need of rescue antiemetics was 22.2% (6/27), 44.4% (12/27) and 40.7% (11/27), with P values >0.05 among the three groups. During the early observation period (0-2 h), in the haloperidol, ondansetron and placebo groups respectively, the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting was 13.7% (4/29), 26.6% (8/30) and 43% (13/30), and the need for rescue antiemetics was 6.8% (2/29), 26.6% (8/30) and 36.6% (11/30). Between haloperidol and placebo groups, the P value was 0.04 for nausea and/or vomiting, and was 0.01 for rescue antiemetics, in addition to lower nausea scores (P = 0.03). During the late observation period (2-24 h), no significant difference was shown among the three groups. CONCLUSION: The prophylactic administration of 1 mg intravenous haloperidol or 4 mg ondansetron, in female patients undergoing gynaecological surgery, did not improve the overall incidence of nausea and/or vomiting vs. placebo. However, haloperidol 1 mg proved to be an effective antiemetic in the early observation period without significant adverse effects.     

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.     

The Dose-Response Relationship of Ondansetron in Preventing Postoperative Emesis in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a distressing anesthetic complication that may delay discharge after ambulatory surgery. Effective prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting can be achieved in adults with lower doses of ondansetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 receptor antagonist, compared with chemotherapy-induced emesis. However, the doses of ondansetron used in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in children are based on data from chemotherapy-induced emesis. The dose-related efficacy of intravenous ondansetron in the prophylaxis of postoperative emesis in the pediatric outpatient population was determined.

Methods: In a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study, 130 patients (mean age 5.7 plus/minus 3.4 yr) received placebo, 10, 50, or 100 micro gram/kg ondansetron during a standardized anesthetic. Episodes of postoperative vomiting or retching were recorded.

Results: Intravenous ondansetron in a dose of 50 micro gram/kg was more effective than placebo or a dose of 10 micro gram/kg in controlling the incidence and frequency of emesis in the hospital and during the first 24 postoperative hours. Increasing the dose of ondansetron to 100 micro gram/kg intravenously did not significantly reduce the incidence or frequency of emesis compared to 50 micro gram/kg intravenously.     

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.     

Ondansetron and dolasetron provide equivalent postoperative vomiting control after ambulatory tonsillectomy in dexamethasone-pretreated children

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we compared the incidence of emesis and 48-h recovery profiles after a single dose of preoperative ondansetron versus dolasetron in dexamethasone-pretreated children undergoing ambulatory tonsillectomy. One-hundred-forty-nine children, 2-12 yr old, ASA physical status I and II, completed the study. All children received standardized perioperative care, including premedication, surgical and anesthetic techniques, IV fluids, analgesics, and rescue antiemetic medications. Patients were randomized to receive ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg, maximum 4 mg (Group 1); dolasetron 0.5 mg/kg, maximum 25 mg (Group 2); or saline placebo (Group 3) IV before the initiation of surgery. In addition, all patients received dexamethasone 1 mg/kg (maximum 25 mg). Rescue antiemetics were administered for two or more episodes of retching/vomiting. The incidence of retching/vomiting before home discharge did not differ between the ondansetron and dolasetron groups and was significantly less frequent compared with the placebo group (10%, Group 1; 8%, Group 2; 30%, Group 3). Similar results were obtained at 24-48 h after discharge (6%, Groups 1 and 2; 18%, Group 3). The need for rescue antiemetics administered after the second retching/vomiting episode was significantly less in Groups 1 (4%) and 2 (6%) compared with Group 3 (22%) before home discharge. The complete response rate, defined as no retching/vomiting and no antiemetic for 48 h, was significantly increased in Groups 1 (76%) and 2 (74%) compared with Group 3 (44%). The antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and dolasetron was comparable in dexamethasone-pretreated children undergoing ambulatory tonsillectomy. IMPLICATIONS: The efficacy of a single dose of prophylactic ondansetron versus dolasetron in conjunction with dexamethasone was studied on posttonsillectomy retching/vomiting and 48-h recovery in children 2-12 yr old. Compared with placebo, ondansetron and dolasetron produced comparable reductions in the incidence of retching/vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetics.     

Comparative efficacy of acustimulation (ReliefBand) versus ondansetron (Zofran) in combination with droperidol for preventing nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic drugs are costly, are associated with variable efficacy, and can produce unwanted side effects when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. This clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation using a ReliefBand to ondansetron (Zofran) when utilized alone or in combination for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after plastic surgery. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study design was conducted to compare three prophylactic antiemetic treatment regimens in 120 outpatients undergoing plastic surgery procedures with routine low-dose droperidol prophylaxis: (1) ondansetron (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) acustimulation (n = 40), 2 ml intravenous saline and an active ReliefBand; and (3) combination (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and an active ReliefBand. The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for "rescue" antiemetics, were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. The outcome variables assessed included recovery times, quality of recovery score, time to resumption of normal diet, and patient satisfaction with the prophylactic antiemetic therapy. RESULTS: Use of the ReliefBand in combination with ondansetron significantly reduced nausea (20 vs. 50%), vomiting (0 vs. 20%), and the need for rescue antiemetics (10 vs. 37%) compared with ondansetron alone at 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, the ability to resume a normal diet (74 vs. 35%) within 24 h after surgery was significantly improved when the ReliefBand was used to supplement ondansetron (vs. ondansetron alone). Finally, the quality of recovery (90 +/- 10 vs.70 +/- 20) and patient satisfaction (94 +/- 10 vs. 75 +/- 22) scores were significantly higher in the combination group the ondansetron group. There were no significant differences between the ReliefBand and ondansetron when administered as adjuvants to droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The ReliefBand compared favorably to ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the acustimulation device enhanced the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron after plastic surgery.     

Antiemetic effect of ondansetron 0.2 mg mL-1 in PCA morphine solution

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To study the effect of 0.2 mg mL-1 of ondansetron added to morphine patient-controlled analgesia solution after a 4 mg loading dose on the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients scheduled for elective surgery, between 18 and 65 yr old, were studied. Patients who smoked, received antiemetics and hormonal therapy, had a history of motion sickness or gastrointestinal disease, a body mass index >35 or menstruation at the time of the study were excluded. Patients were assigned to the ondansetron and control groups by block randomization. At the end of anaesthesia, all patients received 4 mg of ondansetron intravenously and the same patient-controlled analgesia regimen of morphine. The ondansetron group (n = 80) received 0.2 mg of ondansetron per 1 mg of morphine. The nausea score, vomiting score and the requested ondansetron dose were evaluated at 1, 2, 6, 12 and 24 h. Patient-satisfaction for nausea/vomiting was recorded at the end of the study. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and cumulative morphine consumption were similar but ondansetron group had higher pain scores (P = 0.006). The ondansetron group had a lower nausea and vomiting scores, and more patients were free from nausea and vomiting than the control group (41 vs. 26, respectively, P = 0.025). The ondansetron group had fewer cumulative ondansetron doses than the control group and better patient satisfaction than the control group (P < 0.05).CONCLUSION(S): Ondansetron 4 mg plus 0.2 mg mL-1 given with PCA morphine can reduce nausea and vomiting thus improving patient satisfaction.     

Effect of prophylactic ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients on preoperative steroids undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial tumors

The exact incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients on steroids undergoing neurosurgical procedures is not known. This prospective randomized double-blind study was planned to know the efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in the prevention of PONV in patients on steroids as compared with placebo. Seventy adult patients of either sex who had received preoperative steroids (dexamethasone) for at least 24 hours and were scheduled to undergo craniotomy for supratentorial tumors were included. Patients were randomly allocated using a randomization chart to 1 of the 2 groups to receive either ondansetron 4 mg (group O) or 0.9% saline (group S) intravenously at the time of dural closure. Numeric Rating Scale score for nausea and pain intensity was recorded preoperatively and till 24 hours postoperatively. The 6-hour postoperative nausea score was significantly lower in group O [median, 0; interquartile range (IQR), 0 to 20] than in group S (median, 20; IQR, 0 to 20) (P<0.05). The incidence of vomiting was lower in group O (23%) than in group S (46%) (P<0.05). The total number of emetic episodes, the number of doses of rescue antiemetics given in the first 6 postoperative hours, and the total number of rescue antiemetics given were significantly lower in group O than in group S (P<0.05). Intravenous administration of 4 mg of ondansetron at the time of dural closure was effective in reducing the incidence of PONV and the rescue antiemetics requirement in patients on preoperative steroids undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial tumors.     

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.     

Combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting

We studied 100 ASA I-II females undergoing general anaesthesia for major gynaecological surgery, in a prospective, double-blind, placebo- controlled, randomized study. Patients received one of four regimens for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): ondansetron 4 mg (n = 25), dexamethasone 8 mg (n = 25), ondansetron with dexamethasone (4 mg and 8 mg, respectively, n = 25) or placebo (saline, n = 25) There were no differences in background factors or factors related to operation and anaesthesia, morphine consumption, pain or side effects between groups. The incidence of nausea and emetic episodes in the ondansetron with dexamethasone group was lower than in the placebo (P < 0.01), ondansetron (P < 0.05) and dexamethasone (P = 0.057) groups. There were no differences between ondansetron and dexamethasone, and both were more effective than placebo (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). Dexamethasone appeared to be preferable in preventing nausea than emetic episodes. Fewer patients in the ondansetron with dexamethasone group needed antimetic rescue (P < 0.01 vs placebo and P < 0.05 vs ondansetron). We conclude that prophylactic administration of combined ondansetron and dexamethasone is effective in preventing PONV.      

Ondansetron with propofol reduces the incidence of emesis in children following tonsillectomy

PURPOSE: This study tested the hypothesis that the antiemetic effects of a combination of ondansetron and propofol were superior to propofol alone in children undergoing tonsillectomy surgery. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study design was employed. Young children underwent mask induction with halothane, nitrous oxide and oxygen and then had i.v. access established: older children had i.v. induction with propofol. All patients received 0.3 mg x kg(-1) mivacurium and 2-4 microg x kg(-1) fentanyl i.v. and 30 mg x kg(-1) acetaminophen pr to a maximum dose of 650 mg. Following induction, patients received either 100 microg x kg(-1) ondansetron or placebo. Anaesthesia was maintained with 120-140 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) propofol, nitrous oxide and oxygen to maintain vital signs within 20% of baseline. After surgery, in all patients the tracheas were extubated in the operating room without use of neuromuscular reversing agents. Episodes of emesis were recorded by PACU nurses for four to six hours. A telephone interview on the following day was also used for data recovery. Groups were compared in relation to age using the Mann-Whitney test, and with respect to sex and number of episodes of vomiting using the Fisher Exact Test. RESULTS: Three of the 45 patients who received ondansetron vomited (6.7%), whereas 10 of the 45 patients who received placebo vomited (22.2%). (P = 0.035) CONCLUSION: Ondansetron in a dose of 100 microg x kg(-1), when combined with propofol for children undergoing tonsillectomy reduced the incidence of postoperative vomiting to very low levels.     

The effect of premedication with OTFC, with or without ondansetron, on postoperative agitation, and nausea and vomiting in pediatric ambulatory patients

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, in the pediatric ambulatory surgical population, the efficacy of: (i) oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC), when given preoperatively, to reduce postoperative excitement associated with sevoflurane, and (ii) intravenous ondansetron to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with OTFC. METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled study evaluated the efficacy of OTFC [normal dose (ND) = 10-15 microg x kg(-1) or low dose = 100 microg] compared with placebo in the prevention of postoperative agitation; and the efficacy of ondansetron (0.1 mg x kg(-1) to 4 mg) compared with placebo to reduce PONV associated with OTFC. RESULTS: There were 125 patients evaluated (2-10 years old, ASA class I or II and weight 10-40 kg). Preoperatively OTFC was associated with an increased likelihood of cooperation at baseline (P = 0.018). Postoperatively there was a higher incidence of vomiting in children that received OTFC. The anxiety/agitation of patients entering the PACU was significantly less in children who received OTFC ND (P < 0.001). This effect decreased over time. Patients with respiratory adverse events related to the study drug were significantly higher in groups who received OTFC, however, they were not of clinical significance. OTFC was associated with delays in time for eligibility to PACU discharge (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Even though OTFC reduced early postoperative agitation the increase in side effects, namely PONV and prolonged recovery times, limits its clinical usefulness. The study demonstrates the tradeoffs between anxiety and agitation vs vomiting, respiratory events and prolonged recovery times. Ambulatory pediatric patients undergoing procedures in which opioids would be routinely used might benefit the most from OTFC combined with ondansetron as part of the anesthetic technique.     

Comparative Efficacy of Acustimulation (ReliefBand®) versus Ondansetron (Zofran®) in Combination with Droperidol for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting

Background: Antiemetic drugs are costly, are associated with variable efficacy, and can produce unwanted side effects when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. This clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation using a ReliefBand(R) to ondansetron (Zofran(R)) when utilized alone or in combination for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after plastic surgery.

Methods: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study design was conducted to compare three prophylactic antiemetic treatment regimens in 120 outpatients undergoing plastic surgery procedures with routine low-dose droperidol prophylaxis: (1) ondansetron (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand(R); (2) acustimulation (n = 40), 2 ml intravenous saline and an active ReliefBand(R); and (3) combination (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and an active ReliefBand(R). The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for "rescue" antiemetics, were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. The outcome variables assessed included recovery times, quality of recovery score, time to resumption of normal diet, and patient satisfaction with the prophylactic antiemetic therapy.

Results: Use of the ReliefBand(R) in combination with ondansetron significantly reduced nausea (20 vs. 50%), vomiting (0 vs. 20%), and the need for rescue antiemetics (10 vs. 37%) compared with ondansetron alone at 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, the ability to resume a normal diet (74 vs. 35%) within 24 h after surgery was significantly improved when the ReliefBand(R) was used to supplement ondansetron (vs. ondansetron alone). Finally, the quality of recovery (90 +/- 10 vs. 70 +/- 20) and patient satisfaction (94 +/- 10 vs. 75 +/- 22) scores were significantly higher in the combination group versus the ondansetron group. There were no significant differences between the ReliefBand(R) and ondansetron when administered as adjuvants to droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis.