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.     

Dolasetron versus ondansetron for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

The management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a persistent problem. Despite the use of prophylactic antiemetics, breakthrough nausea and vomiting still frequently occur. There have been no published studies comparing dolasetron and ondansetron for the treatment of PONV. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult outpatient surgery patients. We screened 559 consecutive adult surgery patients, with 92 patients randomized to either ondansetron or dolasetron. The objectives of the study were 1) to determine whether treatment of PONV with ondansetron 4 mg IV or dolasetron 12.5 mg IV would result in better outcomes in patients undergoing day surgery and 2) to compare the cost of drugs used for treating PONV. Thirty-three (70%) of 47 patients given ondansetron required rescue medication, compared with 18 (40%) of 45 patients given dolasetron (P < 0.004). Dolasetron was approximately 40% less expensive than ondansetron, and the costs of the study drug plus rescue antiemetics were 30% less in the dolasetron group than in the ondansetron group. Dolasetron provided greater efficacy for antiemetic treatment because of the need for less rescue therapy. Because of the decreased use of rescue antiemetics and acquisition cost at our hospital, costs in the dolasetron group were less than costs in the ondansetron group.     

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.     

Intravenous dolasetron and ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background: Intravenous dolasetron mesilate has shown efficacy in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when administered as a single dose prior to emergence from anesthesia. This trial compared intravenous dolasetron and ondansetron for the prevention of PONV when administered at induction of anesthesia.
Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial randomized patients to one of four single IV treatments: placebo, 25 or 50 mg dolasetron, or 4 mg ondansetron. Efficacy was measured by complete response (0 emetic episodes and no rescue medication), nausea severity and patient satisfaction as measured on a visual analog scale (VAS), investigator's rating of nausea severity, and total response (complete response with no nausea [≤ mm VAS]).
Results: 514 patients at 24 sites were evaluated for efficacy. The 50 mg dolasetron and 4 mg ondansetron doses were statistically equivalent, and superior to placebo, for all efficacy measures. Complete response rates were 49%, 51%, 71% and 64% for placebo, 25 and 50 mg dolasetron, and ondansetron, respectively. Dolasetron 50 mg was statistically superior to 25 mg dolasetron for complete response, total response, VAS maximum nausea, time to first emetic episode, and patient satisfaction. The majority of adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity. Headache was the most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event with a 3%-5% incidence across treatments.
Conclusion: When given at induction of anesthesia, 50 mg intravenous dolasetron is equivalent to 4 mg ondansetron and superior to 25 mg dolasetron and placebo for the prevention of PONV. All treatments were safely administered and well tolerated.     

Timing of administration of dolasetron affects dose necessary to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if the timing of administration affects the dose of dolasetron necessary to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). DESIGN: Pooled data from 8 randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with common endpoints. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 4,587 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients, including 4,124 females undergoing primarily gynecologic procedures and 463 males undergoing various procedures (i.e., thyroidectomy or orthopedic, ophthalmologic, urologic, ENT, or laparoscopic surgery). INTERVENTIONS: Balanced general anesthesia was used during all procedures. Patients received a dose of dolasetron either for prevention of PONV (25 or 50 mg IV at induction; 25, 50, 100, or 200 mg orally 1 to 2 hours pre-induction; or 12.5, 25, 50, or 100 mg IV at end of anesthesia) or for treatment of PONV (12.5, 25, 50, or 100 mg IV). One PONV prevention study had an ondansetron (comparator) group. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome measures over a 24-hour study period included complete response (defined as no vomiting/retching and no need for rescue medication), percentage of patients without nausea [defined as nausea visual analog scale (VAS) score < 5 mm], and maximum nausea according to VAS score. MAIN RESULTS: A 12.5-mg IV dose of dolasetron resulted in a complete response rate that was statistically significantly higher than placebo and comparable to higher dolasetron doses (25 mg to 100 mg IV) when administered either near the end of anesthesia for prevention of PONV or at the onset of symptoms for treatment of PONV. In contrast, when administered at induction of anesthesia, a statistically significant treatment response was observed with dolasetron 50 mg IV, but not at a lower dose. CONCLUSIONS: When dosed near the end of anesthesia, a 12.5 mg IV dose of dolasetron was comparable to higher doses administered at or before induction of anesthesia.     

The effect of timing of dolasetron administration on its efficacy as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting

Dolasetron (12.5 mg IV) is effective in both preventing and treating postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after ambulatory surgery. However, the optimal timing of dolasetron administration and its effect on the patient's quality of life after discharge have not been established. One-hundred-five healthy, consenting women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded study. Group 1 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV 10-15 min before the induction of anesthesia; Group 2 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV at the end of the laparoscopy (79 +/- 48 min later than Group 1); and Group 3 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV at the end of anesthesia (93 +/- 52 min later than Group 1). The incidence of PONV, complete responses (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication within the 24-h period after anesthesia), recovery profiles, and patient satisfaction were recorded. In the postanesthesia care unit and during the 24-h follow-up period, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for rescue antiemetics, did not differ significantly among the three groups. The percentages of patients with complete responses to the study drug within the first postoperative 24 h were also similar in all three groups (55%, 59%, and 52% for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The early and intermediate recovery profiles, including resumption of a normal diet and patient satisfaction with the control of PONV, were not different among the three study groups. Dolasetron 12.5 mg IV administered before the induction of anesthesia is as effective as dolasetron given at the end of laparoscopy or at the end of anesthesia in preventing PONV after outpatient laparoscopy. IMPLICATIONS: The timing of dolasetron administration appears to have little effect on its efficacy when administered as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting.     

A comparison of the costs and efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron in the prophylaxis of postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients undergoing ambulatory surgery

Postoperative vomiting (POV) after ambulatory surgery remains a major problem. We designed this study to determine the smallest dose of dolasetron equivalent to the Food and Drug Administration approved dose of ondansetron 100 micro g/kg IV, for the prophylaxis of POV in children undergoing surgery. In this double-blinded controlled study, 204 healthy ASA I-II children aged 2-12 yr, undergoing superficial ambulatory (day-case) surgery, were randomized to receive either ondansetron 100 micro g/kg IV, or dolasetron 45, 175, 350, or 700 micro g/kg IV during a standardized perioperative regimen. The primary end-point was the incidence of complete response, defined as the absence of POV symptoms. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the hospital using a previously described model. The incidence of early (0-6 h) and 24-h emesis was more frequent in the dolasetron 45 micro g/kg group compared with the dolasetron 350 and 700 micro g/kg groups and with the ondansetron group. Repeated POV occurred more often when dolasetron was used in a dose <350 micro g/kg. There were no significant differences in emesis rates between the dolasetron 175, 350, and 700 micro g/kg groups or between these groups and the ondansetron 100 micro g/kg group. The smallest dose of dolasetron with acceptable equivalent efficacy and patient satisfaction scores to ondansetron 100 micro g/kg was 350 micro g/kg. Institutional costs for managing POV were less with dolasetron 350 micro g/kg than with ondansetron. IMPLICATIONS: This randomized double-blinded dose-ranging study concluded that dolasetron, 350 micro g/kg IV, was the smallest dose that provided acceptable equivalent efficacy and patient satisfaction scores to ondansetron, 100 micro g/kg IV, for the prophylaxis of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing outpatient surgery. However, with this dose, the costs to the institution for managing postoperative vomiting were less.     

Prophylactic intravenous ondansetron and dolasetron in intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

Pruritus is the most common side effect of intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relief. Activation of central 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptors is one of its possible mechanisms. The role of 5-HT3 antagonists in the prevention of pruritus has not been clearly established. In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic administration of ondansetron and dolasetron for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus. The patients were randomized into 3 groups to receive either 4 mg ondansetron IV (group O, n = 35), 12.5 mg dolasetron IV (group D, n = 35) or 5 mL placebo (group P, n = 35) 30 min before administration of spinal anesthesia with 10 to 17.5 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 0.25 mg of morphine for urologic, orthopedic, or vascular surgery. Patients were evaluated for incidence and severity of pruritus at arrival to the postanesthesia care unit and at 2, 4, 8, and 24 h postoperatively. The incidence and severity of pruritus was significantly less frequent in the ondansetron and dolasetron groups compared with placebo (34%, 20%, and 66% respectively, P < 0.01). Patients who received 5-HT3 antagonist reported significantly less total severity of pruritus compared with placebo during the first 8 h and the severe pruritus was observed only in patients within P group (P group: 4 of 35; 11%, O or D group: 0 of 35; 0%, P < 0.05). We conclude that the prophylactic use of ondansetron and dolasetron helps to reduce the incidence and severity of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus.     

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ondansetron, droperidol, or placebo

BACKGROUND: In an era of growing economic constraints on healthcare delivery, anesthesiologists are increasingly expected to understand cost analysis and evaluate clinical practices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are distressing for patients and may increase costs in an ambulatory surgical unit. The authors compared the cost-effectiveness of four prophylactic intravenous regimens for PONV: 4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo. METHODS: Adult surgical outpatients at high risk for PONV were studied. Study drugs were administered intravenously within 20 min of induction of nitrous oxide-isoflurane or enflurane anesthesia. A decision-tree analysis was used to group patients into 12 mutually exclusive subgroups based on treatment and outcome. Costs were calculated for the prevention and treatment of PONV. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for each group. RESULTS: Two thousand sixty-one patients were enrolled. Efficacy data for study drugs have been previously reported, and the database from that study was used for pharmacoeconomic analysis. The mean-median total cost per patient who received prophylactic treatment with 4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo were $112 or $16.44, $109 or $0.63, $104 or $0.51, and $164 or $51.20, respectively (P = 0.001, active treatment groups vs. placebo). The use of a prophylactic antiemetic agent significantly increased patient satisfaction (P < 0.05). Personnel costs in managing PONV and unexpected hospital admission constitute major cost components in our analysis. Exclusion of nursing labor costs from the calculation did not alter the overall conclusions regarding the relative costs of antiemetic therapy. CONCLUSION: The use of prophylactic antiemetic therapy in high-risk ambulatory surgical patients was more effective in preventing PONV and achieved greater patient satisfaction at a lower cost compared with placebo. The use of 1.25 mg droperidol intravenously was associated with greater effectiveness, lower costs, and similar patient satisfaction compared with 0.625 mg droperidol intravenously and 4 mg ondansetron intravenously.     

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic dolasétron or droperidolvs rescue therapy in the prevention of PONV in ambulatory gynecologic surgery

PURPOSE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic therapy (1.25 mg droperidol or 50 mg dolasetron i.v.) vs no prophylaxis (rescue therapy) for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) from a Canadian hospital perspective. METHODS: Design: A predictive decision analytic model using previously published clinical and economic evaluations, and costs of medical care in Canada. Subjects: Ambulatory gynecology surgery patients. Interventions: Three strategies administered prior to emergence from anesthesia were compared: 1.25 mg droperidol i.v., 50 mg dolasetron i.v.; and no prophylaxis (rescue therapy). RESULTS: The base case mean cost per patient receiving dolasetron prophylaxis was $28.08 CAN compared with $26.88 CAN per patient receiving droperidol prophylaxis, resulting in a marginal cost of $1.20 CAN. This difference translated in an additional cost of $12.00 CAN for the dolasetron strategy per adverse event avoided over the droperidol strategy. The base case mean cost per patient not receiving prophylaxis was $26.92 resulting in marginal costs of $1.16 CAN and $0.04 CAN when compared to dolasetron and droperidol, respectively. Compared with the no prophylaxis strategy, dolasetron prophylaxis resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5.82 CAN per additional PONV-free patient. The mean costs incurred per PONV-free patient were calculated to be $48.41 for the dolasetron strategy, $46.34 for the droperidol strategy and $70.83 for the no prophylaxis strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Dolasetron and droperidol given intraoperatively were more cost-effective than no prophylaxis for PONV in patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery. The difference between the two agents was small and favoured droperidol. The model was robust to plausible changes through sensitivity analyses.     

Cost-effectiveness of Prophylactic Antiemetic Therapy with Ondansetron, Droperidol, or Placebo

Background: In an era of growing economic constraints on healthcare delivery, anesthesiologists are increasingly expected to understand cost analysis and evaluate clinical practices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are distressing for patients and may increase costs in an ambulatory surgical unit. The authors compared the cost-effectiveness of four prophylactic intravenous regimens for PONV:-4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo.

Methods: Adult surgical outpatients at high risk for PONV were studied. Study drugs were administered intravenously within 20 min of induction of nitrous oxide-isoflurane or enflurane anesthesia. A decision-tree analysis was used to group patients into 12 mutually exclusive subgroups based on treatment and outcome. Costs were calculated for the prevention and treatment of PONV. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for each group.

Results: Two thousand sixty-one patients were enrolled. Efficacy data for study drugs have been previously reported, and the database from that study was used for pharmacoeconomic analysis. The mean-median total cost per patient who received prophylactic treatment with 4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo were $112 or $16.44, $109 or $0.63, $104 or $0.51, and $164 or $51.20, respectively (P = 0.001, active treatment groups vs. placebo). The use of a prophylactic antiemetic agent significantly increased patient satisfaction (P < 0.05). Personnel costs in managing PONV and unexpected hospital admission constitute major cost components in our analysis. Exclusion of nursing labor costs from the calculation did not alter the overall conclusions regarding the relative costs of antiemetic therapy.     

Prophylaxe von Übelkeit und Erbrechen nach Pelviskopien Dolasetron oder MCP im Vergleich zu Plazebo

BACKGROUND: Gynaecological surgery including laparoscopy is frequently associated with PONV. Therefore, choosing an anaesthetic with only little side effects in operations eligible for outpatient surgery is at least as important as applying anaesthetics that enable fast-tracking. STUDY GOAL: To assess the incidence and severity of PONV after balanced desflurane-N(2)O-anaesthesia and to compare the antiemetic efficacy of dolasetron or metoclopramide versus placebo. METHODS: 120 ASA physical status I and II women aged 18 to 55 scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgery were enrolled. Anaesthesia was standardized: fentanyl (2 microg/kg), etomidate (0. 25 mg/kg) and succinylcholine (1 mg/kg) for induction and desflurane 3-5% et along with 30% O(2) in N(2)O, fentanyl (max. 0.1 mg/h) and cis-atracurium for maintenance. Patients were randomly allocated to receive one of the following: dolasetron 12.5 mg (group-D), metoclopramide 10 mg (group-M) or placebo (group-P). RESULTS: Within the first 24 h, postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) were reduced significantly in group D (38%/19%) and group M (36%/27%) compared to group P (69%/56%). Furthermore, PON and POV proved to be less intense in groups D and -M compared to group P: Episodes of severe nausea were recorded 17 times in 10 patients (17/10) in group P, compared to 5/4 in group M and 5/3 in group D, episodes of repeated vomiting 13 times in 8 patients (13/8) in group P, compared to 2/2 in group M and 2/1 in group D. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the increased incidence of PONV after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery under balanced anaesthesia compared to the predicted rates. Both dolasetron and metoclopramide proved to be effective prophylactic measures. Given a PONV-incidence of 38% in group D and 39% in group M, it is doubtful, whether the anaesthetic technique chosen in this study is the most suitable regimen for ambulatory gynaecological laparoscopies.     

Prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting. Randomised comparison of dolasetron versus dolasetron plus dexamethasone

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequent complications after operations.The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of combined dolasetron plus dexamethasone versus dolasetron alone with respect to the incidence and severity of emetic symptoms and patients satisfaction. METHODS: In a prospective, randomised, double-blind study, 150 patients scheduled for hysterectomy or breast surgery were allocated to one of the following two groups: group A received 50 mg dolasetron orally and group B 50 mg dolasetron orally plus 8 mg dexamethasone intravenously.The follow-up was for 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: In group A PONV was significantly more frequent (28%) compared to group B (12.0%).The incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in patients receiving dolasetron plus dexamethasone (0%) in comparison to patients receiving dolasetron (8.0%). Furthermore,patients satisfaction was significantly higher in group B compared to group A. About 6 or 7 patients need to be treated with additional dexamethasone instead of a placebo for one patient to benefit from this intervention (i.e. to stay free from PONV) who otherwise would have suffered from PONV. CONCLUSIONS: Combining oral dolasetron with intravenous dexamethasone further improves the antiemetic efficacy of dolasetron. With a number-needed-to-treat of about 6 the additional benefit might be considered clinically relevant.     

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.     

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.     

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

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

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

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

Dexamethasone 8 mg in combination with ondansetron 4 mg appears to be the optimal dose for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

PURPOSE: The combination of antiemetic drugs could be a solution to prevent severe postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The aim of this randomized double blind, dose-ranging study was to determine the minimum single effective dose of dexamethasone combined with ondansetron for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: One hundred eighty patients were allocated randomly to one of six groups to receive saline (P group), ondansetron 4 mg (O group), or ondansetron 4 mg and dexamethasone at doses of 2 mg (OD2 group), 4 mg (OD4 group), 8 mg (OD8 group), and 16 mg (OD16 group). A standardized general anesthetic was used. All episodes of PONV during the intervals of zero to six hours, 6-12 hr and 12-24 hr after surgery were evaluated using a numeric scoring system. Mean visual analogue scale pain scores at rest and on movement, the time to first demand of analgesia, total analgesic consumption in 12 hr epochs, duration of hospital stay, and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV in the OD8 (16%) and OD16 (16%) groups was lower than in the 83% (P < 0.001) and O groups (50%) at the 12-24 hr epoch (P < 0.05). There were no differences in antiemetic effect between the O, OD2 and OD4 groups and between the OD8 and OD16 groups. Pain scores, total analgesic consumption, duration of hospital stay and side effects were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that 8 mg is the minimum dose of dexamethasone that, combined with ondansetron 4 mg will effectively prevent PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

Efficacy and costs of 3 anesthetic regimens in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy and costs associated with 3 different anesthesia regimens used in gynecologic laparoscopy. DESIGN: This was a randomized, controlled study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a university hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 150 ASA physical status I or II patients, undergoing elective gynecologic laparoscopy with general anesthesia. INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated into the following 3 groups: group P-preoperative placebo tablet, propofol induction, propofol-air/O2 maintenance; group I + O-preoperative 8-mg ondansetron tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance; group I (control)-preoperative placebo tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance. MEASUREMENTS: The frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), number needed to treat to prevent PONV, and the costs of the anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: The frequency of PONV within the 24-hour study period was lowest in group I + O (P, 38%; I + O, 33%; and I, 59%; P < 0.05 I + O vs I). The number needed to treat was 5 in group P and 4 in group I + O, compared with group I. The median costs of anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were $65 in group P and dollar 68 in group I + O, compared with group I. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in gynecologic laparoscopy, propofol-air/O2 anesthesia alone, and isoflurane-N2O anesthesia combined with an oral 8-mg dose of ondansetron had similar efficacy and costs to prevent PONV. Isoflurane-N2O anesthesia without ondansetron was less expensive, but was also less efficacious.     

Reduced resource utilization in patients treated for postoperative nausea and vomiting with dolasetron mesylate. MCPR44 Study Group.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of four different increasing increasing intravenous (i.v.) doses of dolasetron mesylate (12.5 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg) versus placebo on resource utilization in patients who experienced and were treated for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter study. PATIENTS: 620 ASA physical status I, II, and III male and female outpatients scheduled for surgery with general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients who experienced postoperative nausea (duration > or = 5 min, self-reported as moderate to severe) or vomiting (> or = 1 emetic episode) within 2 hours of arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) were given a single i.v. dose of dolasetron mesylate (12.5 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, or 100 mg) or placebo infused for at least 30 seconds. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Resource utilization in the PACU was assessed by time spent by nurses and/or doctors with patients for PONV and the use of hospital resources such as patient/bed linens and staff/emesis supplies. A significantly (p < 0.05) lower proportion of dolasetron-treated patients compared to placebo-treated patients required new patient/bed linens and staff/emesis supplies. Patients in the placebo group required the greatest amount of care from nurses and/or doctors compared to patients receiving dolasetron. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with dolasetron can significantly decrease the utilization of emesis supplies and other hospital resources, including staff/emesis supplies and patient/bed linens. In addition, patients receiving dolasetron used fewer health care resources in time spent by hospital personnel than patients who were not treated with dolasetron.