Meta-analysis of trials comparing postoperative recovery after anesthesia with sevoflurane or desflurane.

PURPOSE: Results of published, randomized controlled trials comparing sevoflurane and desflurane were pooled to measure differences in times until patients obeyed commands, were extubated, were oriented, were discharged from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and were ready to be discharged to home, as well as the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: We reviewed all randomized clinical trials in MEDLINE through December 18, 2003, with a title or abstract containing the words sevoflurane and desflurane. Two reviewers independently extracted study data from papers that met inclusion criteria. Endpoints were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-two reports of 25 studies (3 reports each described 2 studies) met our inclusion criteria. A total of 746 patients received sevoflurane, and 752 received desflurane. Patients receiving desflurane recovered 1-2 minutes quicker in the operating room than patients receiving sevoflurane. They obeyed commands 1.7 minutes sooner (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-2.7 minutes), were extubated 1.3 minutes sooner (p = 0.003; 95% CI, 0.4-2.2 minutes), and were oriented 1.8 minutes sooner (p < 0.001; 95% CI, 0.7-2.9 minutes). No significant differences were detected in the phase I or II PACU recovery times or in the rate of PONV. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of studies in which the duration of anesthesia was up to 3.1 hours indicated that patients receiving either desflurane or sevoflurane did not have significant differences in PACU time or PONV frequency. Patients receiving desflurane followed commands, were extubated, and were oriented 1.0-1.2 minutes earlier than patients receiving sevoflurane.     

Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Pain, nausea and vomiting are frequently listed by patients as their most important perioperative concerns. With the change in emphasis from an inpatient to outpatient hospital and office-based medical/surgical environment, there has been increased interest in the 'big little problem' of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Currently, the overall incidence of PONV is estimated to be 25 to 30%, with severe, intractable PONV estimated to occur in approximately 0.18% of all patients undergoing surgery. PONV can lead to delayed postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) recovery room discharge and unanticipated hospital admission, thereby increasing medical costs. The aetiology and consequences of PONV are complex and multifactorial, with patient-, medical- and surgery-related factors. A thorough understanding of these factors, as well as the neuropharmacology of multiple emetic receptors [dopaminergic, muscarinic, cholinergic, opioid, histamine, serotonin (5-hydroxy-tryptamine; 5-HT)] and physiology [cranial nerves VIII (acoustic-vestibular), IX (glossopharyngeal) and X (vagus), gastrointestinal reflex] relating to PONV are necessary to most effectively manage PONV. Commonly used older, traditional antiemetics for PONV include the anticholinergics (scopolamine), phenothiazines (promethazine), antihistamines (diphenhydramine), butyrophenones (droperidol) and benzamides (metoclopramide). These antiemetics have adverse effects such as dry mouth, sedation, hypotension, extrapyramidal symptoms, dystonic effects and restlessness. The newest class of antiemetics used for the prevention and treatment of PONV are the serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron). These antiemetics do not have the adverse effects of the older, traditional antiemetics. Headache and dizziness are the main adverse effects of the serotonin receptor antagonists in the dosages used for PONV. The serotonin receptor antagonists have improved antiemetic effectiveness but are not as completely efficacious for PONV as they are for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Older, traditional antiemetics (such as droperidol) compare favourably with the serotonin receptor antagonists regarding efficacy for PONV prevention. Combination antiemetic therapy improves efficacy for PONV prevention and treatment. In the difficult-to-treat PONV patient (as in the chemotherapy patient), suppression of numerous emetogenic peripheral stimuli and central neuroemetic receptors may be necessary. This multimodal PONV management approach includes use of: (i) multiple different antiemetic medications (double or triple combination antiemetic therapy acting at different neuroreceptor sites); (ii) less emetogenic anaesthesia techniques; (iii) adequate intravenous hydration; and (iv) adequate pain control.     

Pharmacotherapy of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are two of the most common and unpleasant side effects following anaesthesia and surgery. Despite the development of new anti-emetics and a vast amount of published research, PONV continues to be a problem, especially in high-risk patients. Recent interest has focused on the use of a combination of agents, acting on different receptors and the adoption of a multimodal approach to tackle this problem. The search for the most cost-effective strategy has also been a major goal. This article will discuss the risk factors and physiology of PONV, currently available therapies, the use of a multimodal approach and the cost-effectiveness of PONV management. Finally, recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of PONV will be discussed.     

Efficacy of a single-dose ondansetron for preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with sevoflurane and remifentanil infusion anaesthesia

In this randomized study we compared the efficacy of ondansetron 4 mg with ondansetron 8 mg for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with sevoflurane and remifentanil infusion anaesthesia. Sixty patients were randomized to receive ondansetron 8 mg (30 pts) or ondansetron 4 mg (30 pts) before the induction of anaesthesia with thiopental and remifentanil. Anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane (0.5 MAC), oxygen and remifentanil infusion (0.25, 0.35, 0.5 microg/kg/min). Postoperative analgesia was provided by intravenous ketorolac 60 mg. The incidence of PONV, the pain score, and the analgesic requirement were recorded for 24 hours. There was no difference among groups in patient characteristics, risk factors for PONV, or side effects. During the first 6 h postoperatively, the incidence of PONV after ondansetron 4 mg and 8 mg were similar (p < 0.001). After 6 h the incidence of PONV increased significantly in patients who had received ondansetron 4 mg (p = 0.01) and was greater than that in patients who had received ondansetron 8 mg (p = 0.001). We conclude that single-dose ondansetron 8 mg is more effective than ondansetron 4 mg in the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A single dose of IV ondansetron 8 mg is well tolerated and decrease the number of nausea and vomiting episodes after surgery.     

Evaluation of antiemetic effect of intravenous palonosetron versus intravenous ondansetron in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial

Objectives:

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), without active intervention, following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unacceptably high. We evaluated the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) palonosetron in counteracting PONV during the first 24hrs following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, using ondansetron as the comparator drug.

Materials and Methods:

In a randomized, controlled, single blind, parallel group trial, single pre-induction IV doses of palonosetron (75mcg) or ondansetron (4mg) were administered to adult patients of either sex undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were 49 subjects per group. The pre-anesthetic regimen, anesthesia procedure and laparoscopic technique were uniform. The primary effectiveness measure was total number of PONV episodes in the 24 hrs period following end of surgery. The frequencies of individual nausea, retching and vomiting episodes, visual analog scale (VAS) score for nausea at 2, 6 and 24hrs, use of rescue antiemetic (metoclopramide), number of complete responders (no PONV or use of rescue in 24 hrs) and adverse events were secondary measures.

Results:

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in primary outcome. Similarly, the frequencies of nausea, retching and vomiting episodes, when considered individually, did not show significant difference. Nausea score was comparable at all time points. With palonosetron, 14 subjects (28.6%) required rescue medication while 13 (26.5%) did so with ondansetron. The number of complete responders was 14 (28.6%) and 16 (32.7%), respectively. Adverse events were few and mild. QT_c prolongation was not encountered.

Conclusion:

Palonosetron is comparable to ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy when administered as single pre-induction dose.KEY WORDS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, ondansetron, palonosetron, postoperative nausea and vomiting, randomized controlled trial     

地塞米松对矫形术后患者吗啡自控镇痛引起恶心呕吐的影响

目的:研究静注地塞米松10 mg对矫形术后患者吗啡自控镇痛(PCA)相关的恶心呕吐的影响.方法:87名女性矫形手术患者随机分成静注地塞米松10 mg组和静注 0.9%氯化钠注射液组,观察术后24 h内恶心呕吐和对抗吐药需求、反应情况.结果:静注地塞米松组非常显著地减轻了由PCA引起的恶心呕吐(P<0.001)和对抗吐药的需求(P<0.01),并且抗吐药对病人比 0.9%氯化钠注射液组有显著性疗效 (无恶心呕吐和术后24 h不再需求应用抗吐药)(P<0.05).结论:在女性矫形手术后24 h,地塞米松10 mg可用于预防PCA相关的恶心呕吐.     

盐酸帕洛诺司琼预防术后恶心呕吐有效性与安全性的随机对照研究

目的：观察不同剂量盐酸帕洛诺司琼预防术后恶心呕吐的有效性及安全性。方法：采用多中心、随机、双盲双模拟、安慰剂对照、多剂量平行组设计,择期手术患者共330例,年龄18～65岁,ASA分级Ⅰ～Ⅱ级,具有2个以上恶心呕吐的危险因素。随机分为生理盐水对照组（A组）,盐酸帕洛诺司琼0.15 mg高剂量试验组（B组）,盐酸帕洛诺司琼0.075 mg低剂量试验组（C组）。分别观察3组的完全有效率、完全控制率以及不良事件发生情况。结果：24 h内,B组和C组的呕吐完全有效率及完全控制率均高于A组（P<0.05）,B、C两组间疗效相当（P>0.05）。24～72 h,3组差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。3组安全性指标差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：盐酸帕洛诺司琼注射液用于预防术后恶心呕吐是有效和安全的,推荐临床剂量为0.075 mg。     

甲强龙和地塞米松预防剖宫产术后恶心呕吐的疗效对比分析

目的比较甲强龙和地塞米松预防剖宫产术后恶心呕吐的临床疗效。方法择期剖宫产手术患者135例,按照随机数字表将患者随机分为3组,每组45例。M组:术毕静注甲强龙40 mg(2 mL);D组:术毕静注地塞米松8 mg(2 mL);N组:术毕静注生理盐水(2 mL)。观察术后24 h内恶心呕吐及救援止吐的情况。结果术后24 h内M组、D组、N组的PONV发生率分别为30.2%、34.9%、61.4%,M组、D组明显低于N组(P<0.05),但M组与D组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),M组、D组、N组术后救援止吐率分别为9.3%、11.6%、34.1%,M组、D组明显低于N组(P<0.05),但M组与D组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论甲强龙、地塞米松单独使用均能有效预防剖宫产术后恶心呕吐的发生率,降低术后救援止吐率。     

不同剂量地塞米松对腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后恶心呕吐预防效果的临床观察

目的探讨地塞米松预防腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的效果,并寻找应用地塞米松的最小有效剂量。方法选择150例患者,随机分为5组(n=30)。分别于麻醉诱导前即刻静脉注射地塞米松0.05mg/kg(D0.05组)、地塞米松0.1mg/kg(D0.1组)、地塞米松0.2mg/kg(D0.2组)、恩丹西酮4mg(O组)和同容积生理盐水(S组)。观察记录手术后0～24h内患者PONV情况、抗恶心呕吐药物使用情况。结果 D0.1组、D0.2组与S组比较:术后0～24h内总的PONV的发生率明显降低,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01),总需要抗恶心呕吐药物治疗的患者比例亦降低,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。D0.1组与D0.2组比较差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05)。D0.05组S组比较差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05)。D0.1组与D0.05组比较,术后0～24h时内总的PONV的发生率明显降低,差异具有有统计学意义(P<0.01),需要抗恶心呕吐药物治疗的患者比例亦降低,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。D0.1组与O组比较:术后0～24h内PONV发生率降低(P<0.05)。结论静脉注射地塞米松0.1mg/kg能有效地预防LC后PONV发生。     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron and prochlorperazine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 antiemetic agents, ondansetron and prochlorperazine, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement procedures. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis model was applied to data derived from a previous clinical study conducted in 1995 and 1996. This study involved 78 adult patients (62.8% female and 37.2% male) undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement procedures. Patients were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind manner to receive either ondansetron 4 mg intrvenously (n=37) or prochlorperazine 10 mg intramuscularly (n=41) immediately upon completion of surgery and were monitored for occurrences of PONV during the subsequent 48 hours. In our analysis, we measured the cost-effectiveness ratio (C/E ratio), defined as the cost per successfully treated patient, for each antiemetic agent using the clinical data obtained from the previous study. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV and use of rescue antiemetics was significantly greater in the ondansetron group compared with the prochlorperazine group. The mean total costs of PONV management per patient in the prochlorperazine and ondansetron groups were dollar 13.99 and dollar 51.98, respectively (based on 2004 average wholesale prices [AWP]). The cost of successfully treating one patient with prochlorperazine and ondansetron was dollar 31.87 and dollar 275.01, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed adjusting the percent efficacy rate of each antiemetic and the drug cost of ondansetron (up to a 50% reduction in AWP). Prochlorperazine remained the dominant strategy across each scenario. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that prochlorperazine is a more cost-effective antiemetic compared with ondansetron for the prevention of PONV in a mixed gender, adult inpatient population undergoing total joint arthroplasty.     

Hospital health care resource utilization and costs of colorectal cancer during the first 3-year period following diagnosis in Switzerland

BACKGROUND: In industrialized countries, colorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Decisions on colorectal cancer screening are based on cost-effectiveness analyses that rely on colorectal cancer cost studies. Additionally, the study of the resource utilization pattern may lead to cost-saving strategies in the care of colorectal cancer. AIM: To estimate hospital resource utilization, the use of various therapy modalities and costs of colorectal cancer cases undergoing surgery during the first 3 years following the diagnosis at a Swiss university hospital. METHODS: Consecutive colorectal cancer patients from 1997 to 1998 were identified using the surgery database of the University Hospital of Basel and followed for a period of 3 years. In-hospital resource utilization and costs were retrieved from the computerized administrative records. Treatment outside of the hospital during the study period constituted an exclusion criterion. RESULTS: Eighty-three (94%) of 89 patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer were included in the study, 58 with colon cancer and 25 with rectal cancer. The average ages were 70.3 and 63.6 years, respectively. Overall, 59% of the patients were treated with surgery alone, 27% also had chemotherapy and 15% received additional chemoradiotherapy. These percentages and resource utilization varied broadly between the two colorectal cancer groups. On average, patients were admitted to the hospital 2.7 times and the hospital length of stay amounted to 35 days. They were visited by doctors 69 times, and examined with colonoscopy, ultrasonography and computerized tomography 2.7, 3.2 and 2.4 times, respectively. Mean costs incurred for rectal cancer (US dollars 40,230) were about 22% higher than for colon cancer patients (US dollars 33,079). Hospitalization and surgical therapy generated the greatest costs. Expenses were highest for the first year and with more severe disease stages at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer is an expensive disease. Economic analyses on screening should take into account the large resource utilization and cost variability by performing sensitivity analysis on broad cost ranges. Furthermore, they should consider stage shifting at diagnosis and include stage-specific costs.     

The evaluation of domperidone and metoclopramide as antiemetics in day care abortion patients.

A randomised double-blind investigation was undertaken to assess the value of domperidone and metoclopramide as prophylactic anti-emetics in unpremedicated patients undergoing general anaesthesia for therapeutic abortion on a day care basis. Sixty patients were divided into three groups, and received, at induction, one of three drugs intravenously. The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting were 35% in the group receiving normal saline as placebo, 30% in the group receiving 10 mg domperidone and 25% in the group receiving 10 mg metoclopramide; these were not statistically significantly different. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting as influenced by age, weight, length of gestation, anaesthetic time and a history of nausea and vomiting during the pregnancy.     

Transcutaneous nicotine does not prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

There is empirical evidence that smokers are less likely to suffer from postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We sought to investigate whether transcutaneus nicotine prevents PONV.

METHODS

Non-smokers receiving general anaesthesia for surgery were randomly allocated to Nicotinell® Patch 10 cm² (TTS 10), containing 17.5 mg of nicotine (average delivery rate, 7 mg 24 h⁻¹) or matching placebo patch. Patches were applied 1 h before surgery and were left in situ until 24 h after surgery (or until the first PONV symptoms occurred).

RESULTS

We randomized 90 patients (45 nicotine, 45 placebo). In the post-anaesthetic care unit, the incidence of nausea was 22.2% with nicotine and 24.4% with placebo (P= 0.80), and the incidence of vomiting was 20.0% with nicotine and 17.8% with placebo (P= 0.78). Cumulative 24 h incidence of nausea was 42.2% with nicotine and 40.0% with placebo (P= 0.83), and of vomiting was 31.1% with nicotine and 28.9% with placebo (P= 0.81). PONV episodes tended to occur earlier in the nicotine group. Postoperative headache occurred in 17.8% of patients treated with nicotine and in 15.6% with placebo (P= 0.49). More patients receiving nicotine reported a low quality of sleep during the first postoperative night (26.7% vs. 6.8% with placebo; P= 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-smokers receiving a prophylactic nicotine patch had a similar incidence of PONV during the first 24 h and tended to develop PONV symptoms earlier compared with controls. They had a significantly increased risk of insomnia during the first postoperative night.     

昂丹司琼和甲氧氯普胺预防食管癌术后恶心呕吐的疗效观察

目的探讨昂丹司琼联合甲氧氯普胺预防食管癌术后恶心呕吐（postoperative nausea and vomiting，PONV）的疗效。方法选择64例食管癌术后恶心呕吐患者，随机分成两组，A组应用甲氧氯普胺，B组在使用甲氧氯普胺的基础上加用昂丹司琼。结果两组效果B组优于A组，差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论昂丹司琼联合甲氧氯普胺对食管癌术后恶心呕吐的预防作用优于单用甲氧路普安。     

Impact of antiemetic selection on postoperative nausea and vomiting and patient satisfaction

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of antiemetic selection on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and patient satisfaction after ambulatory surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Ambulatory surgery center in an academic medical center. PATIENTS: Five hundred fifty-four consecutive patients undergoing ambulatory surgical procedures of any kind. INTERVENTION: Data on antiemetic utilization, occurrence of PONV, and patient satisfaction were collected perioperatively. Multiple regression analyses for antiemetic choice were performed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy was administered to 292 (52.7%) patients, most often with droperidol (200 patients), metoclopramide (134), or dexamethasone (55). Forty-one (7.4%) patients had an episode of emesis in the postanesthesia care unit. Choice of antiemetic was not a significant predictor of PONV. Patient satisfaction for all patients was 9.5 on a 10-point scale, with no agent more or less successful than any other. CONCLUSION: As choice of antiemetic drug given for prophylaxis had little impact on clinical outcome or patient satisfaction, traditional agents should form the core of antiemetics used for PONV prophylaxis in ambulatory surgery patients.     

Stroke rehabilitation services to accelerate hospital discharge and provide home-based care: an overview and cost analysis

BACKGROUND: Limited information exists on the best way to organise stroke rehabilitation after hospital discharge and the relative costs of such services. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence of the cost effectiveness of services that accelerate hospital discharge and provide home-based rehabilitation for patients with acute stroke. METHODS: A systematic review with economic analysis of published randomised clinical trials (available to March 2001) comparing early hospital discharge and domiciliary rehabilitation with usual care in patients with stroke was conducted. From included studies, data were extracted on study quality; major clinical outcomes including hospital stay, death, institutionalisation, disability, and readmission rates; and resource use associated with hospital stay, rehabilitation, and community services. The resources were priced using Australian dollars ($A) healthcare costs. The outcomes and costs of the new intervention were compared with standard care. RESULTS: Seven published trials involving 1277 patients (54% men; mean age 73 years) were identified. The pooled data showed that overall, a policy of early hospital discharge and domiciliary rehabilitation reduced total length of stay by 13 days [95% confidence interval (CI): -19 to -7 days]. There was no significant effect on mortality (odds ratio = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.38) or other clinical outcomes making a cost minimisation analysis for the economic analysis appropriate. The overall mean costs were approximately 15% lower for the early discharge intervention [$A16 016 ($US9941) versus $A18 350] ($US11 390)] compared with standard care. CONCLUSIONS: A policy of early hospital discharge and home-based rehabilitation for patients with stroke may reduce the use of hospital beds without compromising clinical outcomes. Our analysis shows this service to be a cost saving alternative to conventional in-hospital stroke rehabilitation for an important subgroup of patients with stroke-related disability.     

Evaluation of the effective drugs for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by morphine used for postoperative pain: a quantitative systematic review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with morphine therapy develops in more than 60% of patients after surgery, markedly reducing patient QOL. The prophylactic effect of several antiemetics has already been studied, but evaluations, and even those using the same drug, are not uniform. The present research involved a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on prophylactic drug therapy for PONV in patients receiving morphine for the treatment of postoperative pain. The efficacy of the prophylactic administration of the drugs was examined. As a result, meta-analysis of five drugs was possible and the evidence of efficacy was shown for three drugs ranked in order of an increasing odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI): dexamethasone (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.15-0.35, p < 0.00001), droperidol (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.00001), and metoclopramide (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.75, p < 0.001). These results suggest that the three drugs are effective in prophylactic treatment for PONV. Of them, dexamethasone used as a prophylactic drug for PONV provided the best results. Dexamethasone was shown to reduce the incidence of PONV from 66-80% to 16-50% with a dose of 1.25 to 10 mg and to be suitable as a first drug of choice.     

Fosaprepitant for the Treatment of Refractory Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a debilitating condition that occurs in approximately 30% of patients undergoing general anesthesia. Premedication with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and glucocorticoids is effective in clinical practice; however, 10% to 20% of patients still develop PONV. Currently, little is known about the treatment of refractory PONV. We present a case that illustrates the use of fosaprepitant for the treatment of refractory postoperative nausea and vomiting.Key Words: breakthrough, Emend, fosaprepitant, nausea, postoperative, refractory, vomitingPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs in approximately 30% of patients undergoing general anesthesia without antiemetic prophylaxis.¹ With antiemetic prophylaxis, 10% to 20% of patients experience PONV. With placebo, 65% to 86% of patients experience emetic symptoms after the first incident of PONV.² The prevention of PONV has been well studied; however, there is little knowledge available for the treatment of PONV. The main pharmacological classes of drugs used in the treatment of PONV as single agents or combination therapy include 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, glucocorticoids, antihistamines, cholinergic antagonists, butyrophenone, phenothiazines, and benzamides.³ In general, a drug possessing a different mechanism of action from the prophylactic regimen should be used for the treatment of PONV. As demonstrated by Kovac and colleagues, in patients who received ondansetron for the prevention of PONV, additional ondansetron for the treatment of PONV was ineffective.⁴ Furthermore, less is known about the treatment of refractory PONV, and it has yet to be studied. We present a case of fosaprepitant used in the treatment of refractory PONV.     

High-dose alizapride versus high-dose domperidone: a double-blind comparative study in the management of cis-platinum-induced emesis

A double-blind, randomized crossover trial was carried out in 44 cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with cis-platinum to compare the anti-emetic effectiveness and tolerance of alizapride and domperidone given in high dosage. Patients received 5 administrations of either 4 mg alizapride/kg body weight or 0.6 mg domperidone/kg during a chemotherapy session and then the alternative anti-emetic during the next session. Treatment order was randomized. Patients were followed-up for 12 hours and details recorded of the total time during which there was some nausea, the duration of mild and severe nausea, and the number of episodes of mild and severe vomiting. A note was also made of the duration of mild and moderate sedation, and the incidence and severity of any other side-effects either probably or possibly related to anti-emetic medication. The investigator gave an overall assessment of the severity of nausea and vomiting experienced during each chemotherapy session and an opinion on the comparative effectiveness of the two anti-emetics. At the end of the two sessions, patients were asked to state a preference, if any, for one or other treatment and to select which they would like to have for their next chemotherapy session. The results showed that whilst both alizapride and domperidone appeared to be equally effective in limiting mild nausea, alizapride was significantly better in preventing severe nausea and episodes of vomiting. In those cases where a positive choice between treatments was made, alizapride was considered to be significantly better than domperidone by the investigator and more patients preferred alizapride and would select it for their next session.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)