Aprepitant vs. Multimodal Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting following Extended‐Release Epidural Morphine

Background: Extended‐release epidural morphine (EREM) is an effective option for postoperative analgesia following major orthopedic surgery; however, postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) is a recognized limitation. The incidence of PONV following prophylactic aprepitant, a neurokinin‐1 antagonist, was compared with prophylactic multimodal antiemetic therapy in patients receiving EREM for postoperative analgesia following unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: Prospectively collected quality assurance data were examined with Institutional Review Board approval. A sequential, open‐label, active matched case‐control study compared PONV following EREM in patients receiving ondansetron and dexamethasone, and either metoclopramide, diphenhydramine, or prochlorperazine every 6 hours for the 48‐hour study period, to patients receiving aprepitant 40 mg given as a single oral dose in the preoperative holding area. Cases were matched for procedure (TKA), age, epidural morphine dose, and known major risk factors for PONV (sex, smoking, previous PONV/motion sickness). Results: Twelve consecutive patients (3 male; 9 female) receiving aprepitant prior to EREM were matched to 12 patients of the same sex of similar age (range 51 to 84 years.) and EREM dose (range 5 to 12.5 mg) receiving the multimodal regime. The incidence of PONV was significantly less for the aprepitant group where 3 of 12 (25%) had PONV compared with 9 of 12 (75%) in the multimodal group (P = 0.039, Fisher's Exact Test; odds ratio = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.018 to 0.706, P = 0.03). Conclusion: While aprepitant significantly reduced the incidence of PONV compared with a multimodal antiemetic regime, used alone it did not eliminate PONV.     

地塞米松对术后硬膜外吗啡引起恶心呕吐的预防作用

目的:评价地塞米松对硬膜外吗啡引起恶心呕吐的预防效果。方法:妇科肿瘤择期手术病人120例,随机双盲分为地塞米松(A)组、恩丹西酮(B)组、生理盐水(C)组三组,每组40人。当手术开始时,随机给予地塞米松10 mg或者恩丹西酮8 mg或者生理盐水2 mL。所有病人在手术结束前1 h均接受硬膜外吗啡2 mg,然后以0.125％布比卡因100 mL和吗啡0.12mg/kg维持硬膜外术后止痛48 h,评价镇痛效果、恶心呕吐。结果:A组和B组早期和晚期恶心呕吐发生率低于C组(P<0.05),而A组和B组无差别(P>0.05)。结论:地塞米松和恩丹西酮均能降低硬膜外吗啡引起的恶心呕吐,地塞米松对术后硬膜外吗啡引起的恶心呕吐有预防作用。     

布托啡诺联合恩丹西酮在直肠癌根治术后硬膜外吗啡镇痛中的抗瘙痒以及抗恶心呕吐作用

目的：考察术前联合应用恩丹西酮和布托啡诺,对接受硬膜外吗啡镇痛患者术后瘙痒及恶心呕吐的预防作用是否优于单药应用。方法：选择限期直肠癌根治手术的患者120例,随机分为4组。依据分组,手术消毒时,组1患者硬膜外注入吗啡2mg＋0.9%氯化钠液（共5mL）,组2硬膜外注入吗啡2mg＋布托啡诺1mg＋0.9%氯化钠液（共5mL）,组3硬膜外注入吗啡2mg＋0.9%氯化钠液（共5mL）,同时静脉给予恩丹西酮8mg,组4硬膜外注入吗啡2mg＋布托啡诺1mg＋0.9%氯化钠液（共5mL）,同时静脉给予恩丹西酮8mg。术后予患者自控硬膜卡镇痛（PCEA）持续镇痛,评定患者术后48h内的视觉模拟疼痛（VAS评分）、舒适度（BCS评分）、镇静（Ramesay评分）以及瘙痒、恶心呕吐的发生情况。结果：4组患者之间VAS、BCS及Ramesay评分均无显著差异（P〉0.05）,但组2,组3,组4出现需要治疗的瘙痒及恶心呕吐的发生率显著低于组1（P〈0.05）;另外,组4患者恶心呕吐的发生率显著低于组2（P〈0.05）,而且组4患者瘙痒的发生率显著低于组3（P〈0.05）。结论：布托啡诺联合恩丹西酮在不影响吗啡镇痛效果的同时,可以显著减少直肠癌患者根治术后恶心呕吐以及瘙痒的发生率,其效果明显优于单独用布托啡诺或者恩丹西酮,从而提高患者的满意度。     

不同剂量纳洛酮对术后舒芬太尼镇痛的影响

目的:观察不同剂量纳洛酮对术后采用患者静脉自控镇痛(patient-controlled intravenous analgesia,PCIA)方式给予舒芬太尼的镇痛效果的影响及对患者术后恶心呕吐的影响。方法:选择美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)分级Ⅰ~Ⅱ级、在全身麻醉联合硬膜外麻醉下行全子宫或者全子宫加双附件切除术的患者100例,按照随机数字表将患者随机分为C组、N1组、N2组、N3组,每组25例。C组硬膜外注射0.9%氯化钠液4 mL,N1、N2、N3组分别硬膜外注射5、10、20μg/mL的纳络酮4 mL,静脉注射舒芬太尼0.1μg/kg作为负荷剂量的镇痛药物后应用舒芬太尼静脉镇痛泵(4mL/h)。手术后6、12、24 h观察患者的视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)及恶心呕吐评分等不良反应。结果:(1)与C组比较,N1组术后6、12 h内静息和活动时的VAS评分均较低(P0.05),N3组术后6 h内静息和活动时的VAS评分较高(P0.05)。N2组与C组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。N2组、N3组术后6、12 h内静息和活动时的VAS评分明显高于N1组(P0.05/0.01);(2)与C组比较,N1组、N2组、N3组恶心或呕吐发生率较低(P0.05),恶心或呕吐的评分较低(P0.05/0.01)。与C组比较,N1组、N2组、N3组观察期间需要应用昂丹斯琼的患者例数较少(P0.05)。4组患者均无其他不良事件发生。结论:硬膜外应用小剂量纳络酮可以有效地减少术后舒芬太尼PCIA所引起的恶心呕吐,5μg/mL的纳络酮同时还可增强舒芬太尼的镇痛效能。     

地塞米松不同给药途径对吗啡硬膜外镇痛术后恶心呕吐的影响

目的 :研究地塞米松静脉给药与硬膜外给药对降低术后吗啡硬膜外镇痛恶心呕吐 (PONV)的作用是否存在不同。方法 :选择 15 0例硬膜外麻醉的妇科手术病例 ,随机分为 3组 ,手术结束前A组硬膜外腔注射 10mg地塞米松 ,B组静脉给予 10mg地塞米松 ,而C组不用地塞米松 (对照组 )。术毕所有病例均行吗啡联合小剂量氟哌利多硬膜外镇痛。观察 4 8h内恶心呕吐的发生率和严重程度 ,随访伤口感染或延迟愈合等情况。结果 :PONV发生率A组为 16 % ,B组为 8% ,两组无显著差异 (P >0 .0 5 ) ,均明显低于C组 (4 8% ) ,两组与C组相比均有显著差异 (P <0 .0 1)。未发生伤口感染或延迟愈合的病例。结论 :地塞米松10mg无论静脉给药还是硬膜外给药均能显著降低妇科手术后吗啡镇痛患者PONV的发生率 ,且单次给药无明显的不良反应     

Pain relief after arthroscopic knee surgery: intravenous morphine, epidural morphine, and intra-articular morphine

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and side effects of intravenous (IV), epidural, and intra-articular (IA) morphine after arthroscopic knee surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical investigation. SETTING: Medical center, university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Inpatients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II who were scheduled for elective arthroscopic knee surgery. INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOME MEASURES: A total of 75 patients scheduled for arthroscopic knee surgery under epidural anesthesia were randomly divided into three groups (n = 25 in each group). At the end of surgery, patients in group 1 received 3 mg of IV morphine, patients in group 2 received 3 mg of epidural morphine, and patients in group 3 received 3 mg of IA morphine. Patients were then observed for 24 hours. During the observation period, the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesia with intramuscular diclofenac in each group was calculated and the occurrence of morphine-related side effects was recorded. RESULTS: We found that patients who received IV morphine requested more rescue analgesia than those who received either epidural or IA morphine. The proportions of patients requiring rescue analgesia in the IV, epidural, and IA groups were 65%, 13%, and 9%, respectively (p < 0.01 in group 1 vs. group 2 and in group 1 vs. group 3). Epidural morphine was associated with higher incidences of nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention than IA morphine (range, p < 0.05-0.01 in group 2 vs. group 3). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received IA morphine consumed less rescue analgesia than those who received IV morphine. They also reported fewer side effects than those patients who received epidural morphine. Intra-articular morphine may be the method of choice for pain relief after arthroscopic knee surgery.     

A baseline audit of the efficacy and safety of an acute pain service (APS) for cesarean section patients

This study was conducted as a baseline audit to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an acute pain service (APS) using recent new postoperative analgesic techniques for Chinese patients undergoing cesarean delivery, against which to assess future practice. This was a prospective study conducted in a 12-month period on ASA one to two women presenting at term for elective or emergency cesarean section in our hospital. All patients received a standard general anaesthesia, spinal or epidural anaesthesia for surgery deemed suitable by the attending anaesthetist. The patients were allocated to either receive intrathecal morphine or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine for postoperative analgesia. Intrathecal morphine was given to patients that received spinal anaesthesia and patient approval. The rest of the patients received a PCA. In addition, all patients were given non-opioid analgesics, for postoperative analgesia. Postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, adverse effects and complications were assessed. Four hundred and sixty-five patients were treated with patient-controlled analgesia (244 patients) or intrathecal morphine (221 patients). The mean age was 31 (17–44) years and body weight 67 (46–101) kg. Method of anaesthesia included general anaesthesia (45 patients), spinal anaesthesia (305 patients) and epidural anaesthesia (115 patients). Pain control was good: less than 1.3% of patients complained of severe postoperative pain. Complete patient satisfaction with the method of analgesia was 92.2%; partial satisfaction 7.3% and less than 0.5% was dissatisfied. Adverse effects and complications included nausea and vomiting (11%), pruritus (29%), sedation (0.2%), dizziness (10%), urinary retention (51%), postdural puncture headache (0.4%) and wound infection (2%). Our experience provides a useful baseline audit data in the Chinese population against which to assess and improve future practice.     

术后镇痛对剖宫产病人胃肠道动力的影响

目的 :研究不同药液对剖宫产术后镇痛病人胃肠道动力的影响。方法 :随机选择剖宫产术后硬膜外腔镇痛病人 90例。按术后镇痛所用不同药液随机分为 6组 ,每组 15例 ,测定术毕即刻 ,术毕 6h及 4 8h血浆胃动素 ,同时观察术后 4 8小时内恶心呕吐程度、频率及肛门首次排气时间。结果 :大剂量吗啡组术毕 6h胃动素水平明显高于其他组 (P <0 .0 5 ) ;其他组术后恶心呕吐程度及发生率明显低于大剂量吗啡组 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,加用胃复安两组间相比无明显差别 (C、D组 ) ,但与氟哌啶组 (A、B组 )相比 ,肛门排气时间明显缩短 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :吗啡术后镇痛引起消化道并发症可能与促进胃动素的合成及释放增加从而诱导胃体十二指肠不同步运动有关。     

心外科术后吗啡与芬太尼患者自控镇痛效果观察

目的观察吗啡和芬太尼患者自控镇痛 (PCIA)用于心外科术后疼痛康复的疗效和安全性。方法将 70例心脏手术患者随机分为吗啡组和芬太尼组 ,术后在ICU病房用PCIA进行疼痛康复 ,观察镇痛起效时间、效果及满意率 ,以及 2 4h、48h和 72h生命体征及恶心、呕吐等副作用。结果两组患者的镇痛效果及满意率无显著性差异 ,生命体征均平稳 ,但芬太尼组的起效时间明显短于吗啡组 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,患者的恶心、呕吐次数明显少于吗啡组 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论吗啡和芬太尼PCIA均能安全地用于心外科术后患者急性疼痛的康复治疗 ,但芬太尼PCIA明显比吗啡PCIA起效快 ,恶心、呕吐副作用少。     

The role of prophylactic anti-emetic therapy in emergency department patients receiving intravenous morphine for musculoskeletal trauma

Objective : To determine if there is benefit in routine administration of the anti-emetic metoclopramide to patients receiving intravenous morphine for musculoskeletal trauma. Method : A randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial using 214 patients who presented to Dunedin Hospital Emergency Department with musculoskeletal trauma, requiring intravenous morphine for analgesia. Those recruited were randomized to two groups. Group one received placebo prior to morphine while those in group two received metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously, prior to morphine. Any vomiting or severe nausea within 2 h of receiving intravenous morphine was recorded. Results : The two groups were evenly matched for age, sex and morphine dose. Overall, 3.7% of patients in the study vomited (1.9% in the group receiving placebo and 5.4% in the group receiving metoclopramide). This difference was not significant (P = 0.17). The mean age was 78.5 years in the group that did vomit compared with a mean age of 46.0 years in those not vomiting. This difference was highly significant (P = 0.0009). Conclusion : The incidence of vomiting in patients receiving intravenous morphine for musculoskeletal trauma is low and the routine use of an anti-emetic in these patients is not justified. Intravenous metoclopramide in these patients does not reduce the incidence of vomiting.     

The Effect of Intraoperative Body Temperature on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

PurposePediatric patients are at greater risk for both perioperative hypothermia and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The primary aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a relationship between intraoperative body temperature and PONV in children undergoing anesthesia. The secondary aim was to investigate the relationship between PONV and intraoperative fentanyl use, age and duration of operation.DesignA prospective cohort studyMethodsThe study included 80 children who were undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Body temperature was monitored after routine preoperative preparation and standard induction. Analgesic and antiemetic requirements and the presence of nausea and vomiting were assessed postoperatively on the 30th minute and the 6th, 12th and 24th hour.FindingsThe children with or without PONV were compared. At the postoperative 6th hour, the incidence of nausea was statistically significant in the children with a mean body temperature below 36°C (P = 0.044; P < 0.05). The mean duration of the surgery was statistically significant longer in the children with PONV (P = 0.001; P = 0.004; P <0.05). Mean body temperature was not statistically significant when comparing children with and without vomiting(P > 0.05).ConclusionWhile a body temperature below 36°C increases the incidence of postoperative nausea, it does not cause an increase in the incidence of vomiting. A long operation time in pediatric patients causes an increase in the incidence of PONV. Although not statistically significant, PONV is encountered more than twice as much in patients receiving intraoperative fentanyl administration.     

硬膜外吗啡－氟哌啶术后镇痛效果及并发症影响因素观察

目的 :探讨硬膜外吗啡—氟哌啶术后镇痛效果及并发症影响因素。方法 :57例硬膜外阻滞下施术病人 ,于手术结束时经硬膜外腔导管注入吗啡—氟哌啶混合液。术后随访72h ,观察不现年龄、性别、术式、给药部位对24h镇痛率(镇痛时间>24h)、48h肠蠕动恢复率(48h内排气)和恶心呕吐发生率的影响。结果 :随年龄增长24h镇痛率增高(P<0.01) ,48h肠蠕动恢复率低(P<0.05) ;女性呕吐发生率高于男性(P<0.05) ;腹部手术48h肠蠕动恢复率低于非腹部手术 ;中低位硬外组48h肠蠕动恢复率低于高位硬外组。结论 :年龄影响吗啡—氟哌啶术后镇痛效果 ;年龄、术式、给药部位影响肠蠕动恢复 ;性别影响恶心呕吐发生率。     

A randomized controlled trial of two different interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol and remifentanil versus prophylactic palonosetron with inhalational anaesthesia using sevoflurane-nitrous oxide

Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) can reduce the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) almost as much as a single antiemetic. This study compared TIVA (using propofol and remifentanil) with prophylactic palonosetron (a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonist) combined with inhalation anaesthesia using sevoflurane in 50% nitrous oxide, for the prevention of PONV. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two prophylactic interventions: (i) palonosetron 0.075 mg, intravenously before induction of inhalation anaesthesia (palonosetron group); and (ii) TIVA (propofol target blood concentration 2.5-6.0 μg/ml; remifentanil target blood concentration 2.5-6.0 ng/ml; TIVA group). Nausea/vomiting occurrence and severity were monitored immediately after the end of surgery for 24 h. The incidence of PONV was around 50% in both groups and the severity of nausea was similar in both groups. Prophylactic palonosetron with inhalational anaesthesia using sevoflurane in 50% nitrous oxide reduced the incidence of PONV after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery almost as much as TIVA using propofol and remifentanil.     

The effectiveness of inhalation isopropyl alcohol vs. granisetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

We evaluated preemptive treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with intravenous (IV) granisetron, 0.1 mg, introoperatively as compared with the use of 70% inhalation isopropyl alcohol and a control group for the prevention of PONV. We randomly assigned 57 women, 18 to 50 years old, undergoing laparoscopic procedures to 1 of 3 groups: (1) inhalation of 70% isopropyl alcohol, (2) 0.1 mg granisetron IV, and (3) no prophylactic treatment control. Participants were asked to rate their nausea and vomiting preoperatively, on arrival to postanesthesia care unit (PACU), at discharge from PACU, 6 hours after extubation, and 24 hours after extubation and any occurrence of nausea and vomiting using the numeric rating scale (NRS), 0 to 10. Group 1 experienced more PONV episodes than groups 2 and 3 during the 6- to 24-hour postsurgical timeframe (P = .02). There were no significant differences among the 3 groups in demographics, first episode of PONV, total number of episodes in 24 hours, NRS rating at rescue, and anesthetic duration. PONV and menstrual cycle phase had no positive correlation (P > .05). History of smoking, PONV, and motion sickness had no significant difference against any measure of PONV (P > .05).     

Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are potential complications in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Combination antiemetic therapy often is effective for preventing PONV in patients undergoing LC, and combinations of antiemetics targeting different sites of activity may be more effective than monotherapy.

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the administration of a subhypnotic dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone with one of propofol combined with metoclopramide to prevent PONV after LC.

Methods

Sixty adult patients scheduled for LC were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. The patients in group 1 received 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus 8 mg dexamethasone, and those in group 2 received 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus 0.2 mg/kg metoclopramide. The number of patients experiencing nausea and vomiting at 0 to 4, 4 to 12, and 12 to 24 hours postoperatively and as well as additional use of rescue antiemetics were recorded.

Results

The total PONV rates up to 24 hours postanesthesia were 23.3% and 50% for group 1 and group 2, respectively. Comparisons of the data revealed that at 0 to 4 hours, the number of patients experiencing vomiting was 6 (20%) in group 1 and14 (46.7%) in group 2 (P = 0.028). The frequency of vomiting in group 1 was significantly lower than that for group 2 (P = 0.028), and the rate of rescue antiemetic use in group 2 was higher than that in group 1 (20% vs 46.7%; P = 0.028). In the evaluation of PONV based on the nausea and vomiting scale scores, the mean PONV score was 0.4 (0.2) in group 1 compared with 1.0 (0.2) in group 2 (P = 0.017). There were no significant differences between the values at 4 to 12 hours and at 12 to 24 hours. The frequency of adverse reactions (respiratory depression: 1.3%, 1.3%; laryngospasm: 1.3%, 0%; cough: 1.3%, 0%; hiccup: 1.3%, 0%;) was not significantly different in the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Administration of a subhypnotic dose of 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus 8 mg dexamethasone at the end of surgery was more effective than administration of 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus metoclopramide in preventing PONV in the early postoperative period in adult patients undergoing LC.     

术后硬膜外应用小剂量氯胺酮对吗啡静脉镇痛的影响

目的:探讨硬膜外应用小剂量氯胺酮对吗啡静脉镇痛效果及不良反应的影响。方法:选择美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)I~II级且择期行肝脏切除手术的患者45例,随机分为对照组(C组)、实验组1(K组)、实验组2(KN组),每组15例。C组患者术后硬膜外应用0.9%氯化钠注射液4 mL;K组应用含0.1 mg/kg氯胺酮的0.9%氯化钠注射液4mL;KN组应用含0.1mg/kg氯胺酮和5μg/kg纳洛酮混合液的0.9%氯化钠注射液4 mL。硬膜外给药后,3组均开始应用吗啡静脉镇痛泵,并记录和比较3组术后3 h、6 h、12 h、24 h的吗啡消耗量、视觉模拟评分法(visual analogue scale/score,VAS)评分、恶心/呕吐次数、呼吸抑制、深度镇静及晕眩情况。结果:K组和KN组患者术后3 h的VAS评分与C组比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);K组和KN组术后6 h、12 h、24 h的VAS评分低于C组(P0.05)。K组和KN组患者术后3 h吗啡消耗量与C组相比差异无统计学意义(P0.05);K组和KN组术后6 h、12 h、24 h吗啡消耗量低于C组(P0.05)。K组术后12 h的恶心呕吐发生次数少于C组(P0.05);KN组术后3 h、6 h、12 h、24 h的恶心/呕吐次数均少于C组(P0.05)。各组患者在观察期间均未出现呼吸抑制和深度镇静,晕眩病例散发。结论:术后硬膜外应用小剂量氯胺酮可增强吗啡的静脉镇痛效果,减少吗啡消耗量及患者的恶心呕吐次数。     

Antiemetic effects of midazolam added to fentanyl-ropivacaine patient-controlled epidural analgesia after subtotal gastrectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Background: Nausea and vomiting are frequent adverse effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with opioids.Objective: This study was designed to assess the antiemetic effect of midazolam added to fentanyl—ropivacaine PCEA.Methods: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, smoking patients with gastric cancer undergoing elective subtotal gastrectomy were evenly allocated to 1 of 2 treatment groups to manage postoperative pain: 0.2% ropivacaine mixed with fentanyl 4 μg/mL and midazolam 0.2 mg/mL (test group) or 0.2% ropivacaine mixed with fentanyl 4 μg/mL (control group). The PCEA infusion was set to deliver 4 μL/h of the study solution, with a bolus of 2 mL per demand and a 15-minute lockout time. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain intensity, sedation score, usage of rescue analgesia and rescue antiemetic, respiratory depression, urinary retention, and pruritus were recorded at 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Total infused volume of PCEA at 72 hours after surgery was measured.Results: A total of 60 patients were approached and randomized to treatment. No patients were excluded by exclusion criteria and all enrolled patients completed this study. Incidence of nausea (7% vs 33%; P = 0.02) in the test group was significantly lower than in the control group. The overall frequency of PONV in the test group was significantly less than that of the control group (7% vs 40%; P = 0.006). In addition, the mean (SD) infused volume of PCEA in the test group was significantly lower than that in the control group (392.3 [68.9] vs 351.2 [49.8] mL; P = 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in pain intensity, usage of rescue antiemetics and rescue analgesics, and mild pruritus between groups. No patient reported moderate or severe sedation, respiratory depression, or hypoxemia. In addition, there were no severe adverse events.Conclusions: Midazolam added to fentanyl-ropivacaine PCEA was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of PONV compared with fentanyl-ropivacaine alone, and a significant decrease in the amount of PCEA administered without a significant increase in adverse events in these patients who underwent subtotal gastrectomy.     

Pharmacological Prophylaxis and Management of Adult Postoperative/Postdischarge Nausea and Vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a relatively common complication that can adversely affect the quality of a patient's postoperative recovery. Factors to consider when determining a patient's risk for developing PONV include female gender, history of PONV, history of motion sickness, nonsmoking status, postoperative use of opioids, use of inhaled anesthetic agents, and use of nitrous oxide. Receptors that, when activated, can cause PONV include dopamine type-2, serotonin type-3, histamine type-1, muscarinic cholinergic type-1, and neurokinin type-1. Patients with a moderate-to-high risk of developing PONV will benefit from the administration of a prophylactic antiemetic agent that blocks one or more of these receptors. Effective agents for prophylaxis include transdermal scopolamine, prochlorperazine, promethazine, droperidol, ondansetron, dolasetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and aprepitant. In the highest-risk patients, combining two or more prophylactic antiemetics with different mechanisms of action has been shown to be more effective than a single agent. In addition, the patient's risk could be reduced by considering the use of regional anesthesia, maintaining general anesthesia with propofol rather than with inhaled anesthetic agents, ensuring good intravenous hydration, and providing effective pain management using a multimodal approach (eg, minimizing the use of opioids). If PONV does occur in the immediate postoperative period, it is best treated with an antiemetic agent from a different pharmacologic class than the agent that was administered for prophylaxis. Once a patient is discharged, alternative formulations of antiemetics such as ondansetron oral or dissolving tablets or promethazine tablets or suppositories can be used.     

Antagonistic Effects of Ondansetron and Tramadol? A Randomized Placebo and Active Drug Controlled Study

Opposing effects of ondansetron and tramadol on the serotonin pathway have been suggested which possibly increase tramadol consumption and emesis when co-administered. In a randomized, double-blinded study, 179 patients received intravenous ondansetron, metoclopramide, or placebo for emesis prophylaxis. Analgesic regimen consisted of tramadol intraoperative loading and subsequent patient-controlled analgesia. Tramadol consumption and response to antiemetic treatment were compared. Additionally, plasma concentrations of ondansetron and (+)O-demethyltramadol and CYP2D6 genetic variants were analyzed as possible confounders influencing analgesic and antiemetic efficacy. Tramadol consumption did not differ between the groups. Response rate to antiemetic prophylaxis was superior in patients receiving ondansetron (85.0%) compared with placebo (66.7%, P = .046), with no difference to metoclopramide (69.5%). Less vomiting was reported in the immediate postoperative hours in the verum groups (ondansetron 5.0%, metoclopramide 5.1%) compared with placebo (18.6%; P = .01). Whereas plasma concentrations of (+)O-demethyltramadol were significantly correlated to CYP2D6 genotype, no influence was detected for ondansetron. Co-administration of ondansetron neither increased tramadol consumption nor frequency of PONV in this postoperative setting.