Comparison of prophylactic anti-emetic effects of ondansetron and dexamethasone in women undergoing day-case gynaecological laparoscopic surgery

We aimed to determine the effect of ondansetron and dexamethasone on preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Sixty women undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery were randomized to receive ondansetron 4 mg, dexamethasone 8 mg or saline. Drugs were administered 2 min before induction of anaesthesia, and anaesthesia and post-operative analgesic regimens were standardized. The incidence of PONV in the first 24 h after the operation was 35% in the ondansetron group, 55% in dexamethasone group and 85% in the control group. A significant difference between the groups was only seen in the first 3 h post-operatively. In this period, ondansetron was significantly more effective than dexamethasone and saline, but no differences were seen between dexamethasone and saline. In all treatment groups, post-operative visual analogue scale scores, sedation scores and usage of analgesics were similar. In conclusion, ondansetron, but not dexamethasone, prevented PONV in the first 3 h after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery.     

A randomized, double-blind trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery

This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the relative efficacy of palonosetron (a new, selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 [5-HT(3)] receptor antagonist) and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Patients received either palonosetron 0.075 mg (n = 45) or ondansetron 8 mg (n = 45), intravenously, immediately before induction of general anaesthesia. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting and the severity of nausea according to a visual analogue scale were monitored immediately after the end of surgery and during the following 24 h. The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the palonosetron group compared with the ondansetron group (42.2% vs 66.7%, respectively). There were no significant statistical differences in the visual analogue scale for nausea. In conclusion, palonosetron 0.075 mg was more effective than ondansetron 8 mg in preventing PONV.     

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.     

Meclizine in combination with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a high-risk population

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is prevalent in surgical patients with known risk factors: general anesthesia, female, nonsmoker, motion sickness history, and PONV history. Common treatment involves ondansetron; however, the effects are short-lived, and supplemental medication may be required. Meclizine, a long-acting drug with a low side-effect profile, may be ideal in combination with ondansetron for at-risk patients. We randomized 77 subjects scheduled for general anesthesia and screened for 4 of 5 PONV risk factors for experimental or control group assignment. Severity of PONV was measured using a 0 to 10 verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS). Other measured variables included time to onset and incidence of PONV and total antiemetic requirements. No significant differences in demographics (excluding weight), surgical or anesthesia time, analgesic requirements, or nausea incidence in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and same-day surgery unit were noted. The meclizine group had lower VNRS scores in the PACU at 15 (P = .013) and 45 (P = .006) minutes following rescue treatment. The incidence of nausea was lower in the meclizine vs. placebo group (10% vs. 29%) following discharge (P = .038). Prophylactic meclizine resulted in lower incidence and severity of PONV in a high-risk population, especially after rescue treatment.     

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.     

A comparative analysis of isopropyl alcohol and ondansetron in the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting from the hospital setting to the home

We compared the efficacy of inhaled isopropyl alcohol (IPA) with ondansetron for the control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during a 24-hour period in 100 ASA class I-III women undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Nausea was measured postoperatively using a 0 to 10 verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS). The control group received ondansetron, 4 mg intravenously, and the experimental group inhaled IPA vapors. Breakthrough PONV was treated with 25-mg promethazine suppositories. Demographic and anesthesia characteristics were similar between groups. There was a significant difference between groups in mean +/- SD time to alleviation of PONV symptoms: for a 50% reduction in VNRS scores, 15.00 +/- 10.6 vs. 33.88 +/- 23.2 minutes was required in the experimental vs. the control group (P = .001). A total of 21 subjects (10 control; 11 experimental) reported PONV symptoms following discharge to home. The IPA treatment was successful in alleviating PONV symptoms in the home in 91% of the experimental group. We determined that using IPA after discharge from the postanesthesia care unit is a valuable method to control PONV in the hospital and at home. The results of this study suggest that IPA is much faster than ondansetron for 50% relief of nausea.     

Biphasic dosing regimen of meclizine for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a high-risk population

The purpose of this study was to determine if giving 50 mg of meclizine the night before and on the day of surgery would effectively reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for the entire 24 hours after surgery in patients identified as being at high risk for PONV Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 50 mg of oral meclizine (experimental group) or a placebo (control group) the night before and the day of surgery. All subjects were intravenously administered 4 mg of ondansetron before the conclusion of surgery. Seventy subjects (35 control; 35 experimental) were included in analysis. postoperaIn the placebo group we noted higher verbal numeric rating scale scores for nausea, a higher incidence oftive nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a common complication after general anesthesia, with the incidence ranging from 17% to 87%.15 It has been reported that PONV increased antiemetic requirements, and lower overall anesthesia satisfaction scores at all time intervals measured, compared with the experimental group, but the differences were not statistically significant until analyzed by postoperative setting. No difference in sedation or side effects was noted between groups. Based on these results, we recommend that the administration of 50 mg of oral meclizine the night before and on the day of surgery be considered effective antiemetic prophylaxis in patients identified as having a high risk for PONV.     

The search for cost-effective prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the child undergoing reconstructive burn surgery: ondansetron versus dimenhydrinate.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and unpleasant problem for children with burns who are undergoing reconstructive burn surgery. Ondansetron and dimenhydrinate have been found to be effective for the prevention of PONV in other patient populations, but they have not been directly compared in the pediatric population. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of ondansetron and dimenhydrinate was performed. One hundred patients with a mean age of 11.8 years who were undergoing reconstructive burn surgery with general anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo, 0.1 mg/kg of ondansetron, or 0.5 mg/kg of dimenhydrinate. The 3 groups were well matched for all demographic and procedural variables. The study drugs were given twice, first at the end of surgery and again 4 hours later, to ensure adequate blood levels during the 8-hour study period. Postoperatively, on the basis of the presence and amount of PONV experienced, all patients were assigned a PONV score by a blinded investigator. Statistically significant reductions in the incidence of PONV in the patients who received ondansetron or dimenhydrinate were found, as compared with the results of patients who received placebo. Postoperative vomiting was reduced from 61% in the placebo group to 29% and 40% in the ondansetron and dimenhydrinate groups, respectively, and PONV was similarly reduced from 69% to 47% and 40%, respectively. The differences between ondansetron and dimenhydrinate were not significant. The average cost to our pharmacy for the prescribed dose of ondansetron was $19.34; the cost for dimenhydrinate was $0.90. In this patient population, dimenhydrinate was as effective as ondansetron for the prevention of PONV and postoperative vomiting, and it was much less expensive.     

A comparison of granisetron,droperidol, and metoclopramide in the treatment of established nausea and vomiting after breast surgery: a double-blind,randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing breast surgery are at particular risk for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), with an incidence of emesis as high as 50% when no prophylactic antiemetic is used.OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) receptor antagonist granisetron with that of the traditional antiemetics droperidol and metoclopramide in the treatment of established PONV after breast surgery. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, patients who had undergone breast surgery and were experiencing PONV during the first 3 hours after anesthesia received either granisetron 40 microg/kg IV, droperidol 20 microg/kg IV, or metoclopramide 0.2 mg/kg IV. Patients were observed for 24 hours after administration of study drug. Emetic episodes were recorded by nursing staff who were blinded to treatment assignment. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled in the study, 25 in each treatment group. Their age ranged from 41 to 65 years. There were no significant between-group differences in patients' demographic or surgical characteristics at study entry. The number of patients who were emesis free (no nausea, retching, or vomiting) was significantly higher in patients who received granisetron (88% [2225]) than in those who received droperidol (64% [1625]; P = 0.047) or metoclopramide (56% [1425]; P = 0.013). In patients who experienced nausea (3, 8, and 9 patients in the granisetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide groups, respectively), the severity of nausea was significantly lower with granisetron compared with droperidol (P = 0.028) and metoclopramide (P = 0.025). No clinically serious adverse events were observed in any group. CONCLUSION: Granisetron was significantly more effective than the traditional antiemetics droperidol and metoclopramide for the treatment of PONV in this population of patients undergoing breast surgery.     

Influence of postoperative pain therapy on nausea and vomiting

PROBLEM: Postoperative nausea and vomiting remains an important problem. Many risk factors have been identified; however, the importance of postoperative analgesic technique and patient expectation remain poorly defined. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in four groups of randomly selected patients (n=50 per group) who received either simple analgesics, nurse-administered intravenous morphine (NAA), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine or epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl. Patients were questioned regarding any past history of PONV or motion sickness, their preoperative expectation of suffering PONV and satisfaction with their antiemetic therapy. RESULTS: The incidence of nausea was higher in both morphine groups P<0.05), women (P<0.05), those less than the median age of their group (P<0.05) and those with a past history of PONV (P<0.05) or motion sickness (P<0.05). Most patients did not expect to experience PONV (19.3%). The incidence of nausea was higher in those expecting to experience PONV than in those not expecting to suffer PONV (P<0.01). Of those who received postoperative antiemetic treatment, 23.6% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their therapy. Few patients received a prophylactic antiemetic drug (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Study results show that patient expectation is a potent predictor of postoperative nausea, a risk factor hitherto ignored in the anaesthetic literature, and that, in the provision of analgesia following major surgery, epidural analgesia is associated with less PONV than intravenous morphine.     

Efficacy of single-dose intravenous dolasetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a significant problem in surgical patients. The 5-hydroxytryptamine3-receptor antagonists ondansetron, dolasetron, and granisetron are being used to prevent PONV and avoid the adverse events associated with traditional antiemetics such as antihistaminic agents, anticholinergic agents, and dopamine antagonists. OBJECTIVE: Because practitioners have taken widely differing approaches to the selection and dosing of agents in this class, this retrospective study assessed the relative efficacy of i.v. dolasetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV when used according to their approved labeling. METHODS: The medical charts of patients who underwent total abdominal hysterectomy or laparoscopic cholecystectomy and received either dolasetron 12.5 mg or ondansetron 4 mg were reviewed. Efficacy was assessed based on the number of episodes of PONV and time to the occurrence of PONV in the 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS: Of 75 medical records reviewed, 59 met the criteria for inclusion in the efficacy analysis. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in demographic or baseline clinical characteristics. The majority of patients were obese (body mass index > or = 27 kg/m2), had no history of either PONV or motion sickness, and underwent total abdominal hysterectomy. PONV occurred in 11 of 25 (44%) patients receiving dolasetron and 18 of 34 (53%) patients receiving ondansetron. Four patients receiving dolasetron experienced PONV in the first 2 hours after surgery, compared with 7 patients receiving ondansetron. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in efficacy between single doses of i.v. dolasetron 12.5 mg and i.v. ondansetron 4 mg in the prevention of PONV.     

Effects of Ondansetron and Granisetron on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Adult Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common and potentially distressing adverse events (AEs) associated with surgery and anesthesia. In patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) without antiemetic prophylaxis, the incidence of PONV can be as high as 72%.Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the prophylactic antiemetic effects of ondansetron and granisetron in patients undergoing LC when these agents are administered before the end of surgery.Methods: Patients classified by the American Society of Anesthesiologist's physical status as I or II who were scheduled for elective LC were included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesia was induced with thiopental 5 mg/kg and fentanyl 2 μg/kg, and was maintained with isoflurane 1% to 3% in 50% oxygen and 50% nitrous oxide and fentanyl as needed. Approximately 20 to 30 minutes before the end of the surgery, the patients randomly received either IV ondansetron 100 μg/kg (group O), IV granisetron 40 μg/kg (group G), or normal saline (group P). Plasma levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were determined preoperatively and 24 hours postoperatively. The patients were observed for 24 hours for PONV and other possible AEs. Postoperative pain intensity was determined using a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Four-point satisfaction scores were determined at 24 hours.Results: Ninety patients (69 women, 21 men) participated in the study. Demographic characteristics and operative data (duration of surgery and anesthesia and amount of intraoperative fentanyl) were similar in the 3 groups. The only AE reported by patients during the 24-hour observation period was nonsevere headache. The number of patients experiencing headache was similar in group P, group O, and group G (10 [33%] patients, 6 [20%], and 10 [33%], respectively). No significant changes were found in presurgical and postsurgical plasma levels of ALT and AST in any group. The mean (SD) satisfaction scores in group O and group G (3.0 [0.4] and 3.0 [0.6], respectively) were significantly higher than those in group P (2.5 [0.5]; both, P < 0.01). Immediately after surgery (period 0), significantly more patients in the placebo group (21 [70%]) experienced PONV compared with those in the ondansetron group (9 [30%]; P < 0.05) and the granisetron group (7 [23%]; P < 0.01). During the 24-hour observation period, a significantly greater number of patients in group P (18 [60%]) required a single dose of a rescue antiemetic drug compared with those in groups O and G (9 [30%] and 6 [20%], respectively; both, P < 0.01).Conclusions: Patients administered ondansetron 100 μg/kg or granisetron 40 μg/kg 20 to 30 minutes before the end of LC had significantly higher PONV control during the 24-hour postoperative observation period than patients receiving placebo. However, there were no significant differences between the active treatment groups in the incidence of PONV, patient satisfaction, or AEs.     

A double-blind, randomised, parallel group, multinational, multicentre study comparing a single dose of ondansetron 24 mg p.o. with placebo and metoclopramide 10 mg t.d.s. p.o. in the treatment of opioid-induced nausea and emesis in cancer patients

Nausea and emesis are common side effects of opioid drugs administered for pain relief in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of ondansetron, placebo and metoclopramide in the treatment of opioid-induced nausea and emesis (OIE) in cancer patients. This was a multinational, multicentre, double-blind, parallel group study in which cancer patients who were receiving a full opioid agonist for cancer pain were randomised to receive one of oral ondansetron 24 mg once daily, metoclopramide 10 mg three times daily, or placebo. Study medication was started only if the patient experienced nausea and/or emesis following opioid administration. Efficacy and safety assessments were made over a study period of 24 h from the time of the first dose of anti-emetics/placebo. The study was terminated prematurely because of the difficulties in recruiting patients satisfying the stringent entry criteria. Ninety-two patients were included in the intent-to-treat population: 30 patients received placebo, 29 patients ondansetron and 33 patients metoclopramide. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the proportion achieving complete control of emesis (33% of patients on placebo, 48% on ondansetron and 52% on metoclopramide) or complete control of nausea (23% of patients on placebo, 17% on ondansetron and 36% on metoclopramide). Rescue anti-emetics were required in 8 of 33 patients on metoclopramide, 4 of 29 on ondansetron, and 3 of 30 on placebo. The incidence of adverse events was very low and similar in all treatment groups. Neither ondansetron 24 mg once daily nor metoclopromide 10 mg t.d.s. given orally was significantly more effective than placebo in the control of OIE in cancer patients.     

Predictive models for post-operative nausea and vomiting in patients using patient-controlled analgesia

This study identified predictive factors for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and developed five predictive model pathways to calculate the probability of PONV using decision tree analysis. The sample consisted of 1181 patients using PCA. Data were collected using: a specifically designed check-off form to collect patient-, surgery-, anaesthesia- and post-operation-related data; the Beck Anxiety Inventory to measure pre-operative anxiety; and a visual analogue scale, to measure post-operative pain. The incidence of PONV was 27.7%. Nine factors were highly predictive of PONV in our five model pathways: gender, obesity, anxiety, history of previous PONV, history of motion sickness, inhalation of nitrous oxide during operation, use of inhalational agents, starting oral fluid/food intake after operation, and post-operative pain. With these five predictive model pathways, we can predict the probability of PONV in an individual patient according to their individual characteristics.     

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparison of oral ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d., 24 mg q.d., and 32 mg q.d. in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy

The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of orally administered ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d., 24 mg q.d., and 32 mg q.d. in the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy (cisplatin > or = 50 mg/m2). This was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study conducted in North America. It was planned that all patients would receive one of the following orally administered ondansetron treatments 30 min before starting cisplatin dosing (administered over < or = 3 h): 8 mg b.i.d. with 8 h between doses (124 patients), 24 mg q.d. (116 patients), and 32 mg q.d. (117 patients). Use of prophylactic corticosteroids was not permitted. During the 24-h study period, the highest complete response rate (no emesis, rescue antiemetic therapy, or withdrawal) occurred in patients who received ondansetron 24 mg q.d.: 76/115 or 66%, as against 68/124 (55%) after ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d. and 64/117 (55%) after ondansetron 32 mg q.d. Complete control of nausea (no nausea, no rescue, no withdrawal) occurred in more patients in the ondansetron 24 mg q.d. group (64/114, 56%) than in the ondansetron 8 mg b.i.d. group (43/121, 36%) or in the ondansetron 32 mg group (55/117, 50%). These results demonstrate that following highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy (> or =2 50 mg/m2), oral ondansetron 24 mg q.d. is more effective than 8 mg b.i.d. for overall control of nausea, and at least as effective if not more effective in the control of acute vomiting than 8 mg b.i.d. or 32 mg q.d. Ondansetron 24 mg q.d. was well tolerated, and no new or unexpected adverse events were identified.     

Ondansetron versus dolasetron: a comparison study in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecological procedures

The purpose of this study was to determine if 4 mg of ondansetron and 12.5 mg of dolasetron were equally effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing gynecological procedures. While the overall incidence of PONV appears to be 25% to 35%, the incidence among this patient population is considerably higher. Patients were assigned to 1 of 2 antiemetic treatment groups. Patients in group 1 received 4 mg of ondansetron at the end of surgery, while patients in group 2 received 12.5 mg of dolasetron at the end of surgery. Data collection occurred perioperatively and in the 24 hours following surgery. chi 2 determined there was no statistical difference between groups related to emesis in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), emesis in the 24 hours following surgery, and side effects. Results of this study showed there was no statistically significant difference between 4 mg of ondansetron or 12.5 mg of dolasetron when administered at the end of surgery for preventing PONV in patients undergoing gynecological procedures. Given the cost difference between these 2 antiemetics, there is a potential for significant cost savings in this high-risk patient population.     

Intravenous ondansetron for the control of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. International S3AA3013 Study Group.

This randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial was conducted in 9 countries to assess the safety and efficacy of 2 doses of intravenous ondansetron (8 and 16 mg) for the control of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. A total of 2574 nonsurgical patients who presented with pain requiring treatment with an opioid analgesic agent participated in this trial. The most common presenting painful condition was back or neck pain, reported by approximately one third of patients. A total of 520 patients (317 females, 203 males) developed nausea or vomiting after opioid administration and were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of 1 of 3 study treatments: placebo (n = 94), ondansetron 8 mg (n = 215), or ondansetron 16 mg (n = 211). Ondansetron 8 and 16 mg led to complete control of emesis in 134 of 215 patients (62.3%) and 145 of 211 patients (68.7%), respectively. Results with both doses were significantly better than those seen with placebo (43 of 94 patients [45.7%]). Complete control of nausea was achieved in 6.8% of placebo patients, 14.8% of ondansetron 8-mg-treated patients, and 19.4% of ondansetron 16-mg treated patients; only ondansetron 16 mg was significantly better than placebo (P = 0.007). Significantly more patients who received ondansetron 8 mg than patients who received placebo were satisfied/very satisfied with their antiemetic treatment, as assessed by 4 patient-satisfaction questions. Significantly more patients who received ondansetron 16 mg compared with placebo were satisfied/very satisfied on 2 of 4 satisfaction questions. In conclusion, based on the observed incidence of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in this study, it may be more appropriate to treat symptoms on occurrence rather than administering antiemetic agents prophylactically. The results of this study demonstrate that intravenous ondansetron in doses of 8 or 16 mg is an effective antiemetic agent for the control of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting in nonsurgical patients requiring opioid analgesia for pain.     

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.     

Efficiency of using ondansetron in the surgical treatment of post-burn cicatricial deformity in children with a history of postoperative nausea and vomiting

The efficiency of using various formulations of the antiemetic ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the surgical treatment of postburn scars and deformities in children with a family history of PONV was compared. The patients were randomized into 4 representative groups. Preoperative administration of ondansetron (zofran) as lingual tablets was shown to be most effective. When the drug was used as syrup, PONV developed 2 times more frequently (PONV in 20% of the patients and 3 times more commonly when the drug was intravenously injected as jets during induction to anesthesia (PONV in 30% of the patients. When antiemetics were not given (a control group), the incidence was 7.5 times greater (75% of cases).