Who Is at Risk for Postdischarge Nausea and Vomiting after Ambulatory Surgery?

BACKGROUND:: About one in four patients suffers from postoperative nausea and vomiting. Fortunately, risk scores have been developed to better manage this outcome in hospitalized patients, but there is currently no risk score for postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) in ambulatory surgical patients. METHODS:: We conducted a prospective multicenter study of 2,170 adults undergoing general anesthesia at ambulatory surgery centers in the United States from 2007 to 2008. PDNV was assessed from discharge until the end of the second postoperative day. Logistic regression analysis was applied to a development dataset and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated in a validation dataset. RESULTS:: The overall incidence of PDNV was 37%. Logistic regression analysis of the development dataset (n = 1,913) identified five independent predictors (odds ratio; 95% CI): female gender (1.54; 1.22 to 1.94), age less than 50 yr (2.17; 1.75 to 2.69), history of nausea and/or vomiting after previous anesthesia (1.50; 1.19 to 1.88), opioid administration in the postanesthesia care unit (1.93; 1.53 to 2.43), and nausea in the postanesthesia care unit (3.14; 2.44-4.04). In the validation dataset (n = 257), zero, one, two, three, four, and five of these factors were associated with a PDNV incidence of 7%, 20%, 28%, 53%, 60%, and 89%, respectively, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 (0.69 to 0.73). CONCLUSIONS:: PDNV affects a substantial number of patients after ambulatory surgery. We developed and validated a simplified risk score to identify patients who would benefit from long-acting prophylactic antiemetics at discharge from the ambulatory care center.     

Efficacy and adverse effects of prophylactic antiemetics during patient-controlled analgesia therapy: a quantitative systematic review.

Nausea and vomiting are frequent adverse effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids. To identify the optimal prophylactic antiemetic intervention in this setting, we performed a systematic search for randomized trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, reference lists, hand-searching, no language restriction) published up to May 1998 that compared prophylactic antiemetic interventions with placebo or no treatment in the postoperative PCA-setting with opioids. Fourteen placebo-controlled trials (1117 patients) with different regimens of droperidol, ondansetron, hyoscine TTS, tropisetron, metoclopramide, propofol, and promethazine were analyzed. One PCA was with tramadol, all others were with morphine. At 24 h, the cumulative incidence of nausea and vomiting without antiemetics was approximately 50%. Droperidol 0.017-0.17 mg/mg of morphine (0.5-11 mg/d droperidol) was statistically significantly more effective than placebo without evidence of dose-responsiveness; the number needed to treat to prevent nausea compared with placebo was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8-5.2), and that to prevent vomiting was 3.1 (2.3-4.8). Compared with placebo, the incidence of minor adverse effects with droperidol was increased with doses >4 mg/d. IMPLICATIONS: Of 100 patients treated with droperidol added in a patient-controlled analgesia pump with morphine, 30 who would have vomited or been nauseated had they not received droperidol will not suffer these effects. There is no evidence of dose-responsiveness for efficacy with droperidol, but the risk of adverse effects is dose-dependent. There is a lack of evidence for other antiemetics.     

Low-dose haloperidol prevents post-operative nausea and vomiting after ambulatory laparoscopic surgery

Background: We evaluated the prophylactic effect of low-dose haloperidol (1 mg) on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery. Droperidol (0.625 mg) and saline were controls.
Methods: One hundred and fifty women undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery under general anaesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study. After tracheal intubation, the haloperidol group ( n =50) received intravenous haloperidol (1 mg), the droperidol group ( n =50) received intravenous droperidol (0.625 mg), and the saline group ( n =50) received intravenous saline.
Results: Haloperidol- and droperidol-group patients reported a lower incidence of PONV [24% and 23% vs. 49% (saline group); P <0.05] and requested fewer doses of rescue antiemetics [13% and 16% vs. 38% (saline group); P <0.05] during the first four post-operative hours. During the 24-h post-operative period, haloperidol- and droperidol-group patients also reported a lower incidence of PONV [31% and 32% vs. 62% (saline group); P <0.01]. No differences were found between the haloperidol and droperidol groups.
Conclusion: Like droperidol (0.625 mg), prophylactic intravenous haloperidol (1 mg) significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in women undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery.     

Comparison of ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery in women

Background : Women undergoing laparoscopic surgery are susceptible to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Ondansetron and droperidol are useful antiemetics. This study was designed to ascertain primarily the relative difference in efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol and secondarily between these drugs and placebo in the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods : The prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol was compared in a prospective, randomised, double–blind, placebo–controlled trial of 439 female inpatients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery. During induction of standardised general anaesthesia the patients received intravenously either ondansetron 8 mg (n=195), droperidol 1.25 mg (n=193) or placebo (n=51). The occurrence of nausea, vomiting, sideeffects and the need for rescue antiemetic medication were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. Results : The proportion of patients with nausea was 48%, 50% and 67% in the ondansetron, droperidol and placebo groups, respectively; with a significant difference when both ondansetron (P=0.02) and droperidol (P=0.04) were compared with placebo. Vomiting occurred in 18%, 26% and 37% of the patients in the three groups, respectively (P=0.05 between ondansetron and droperidol, P=0.004 between ondansetron and placebo, P=0.16 between droperidol and placebo). The proportion of patients given rescue medication was 34%, 28% and 49%, respectively (P=0.23 for ondansetron and droperidol, P=0.07 for ondansetron and placebo, P=0.007 for droperidol and placebo). During early recovery the patients treated with ondansetron were significantly more alert than after droperidol. Serious side–effects were not observed. Headache was significantly more common after ondansetron than after droperidol treatment. Conclusions : The efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and droperidol in reducing postoperative nausea associated with laparoscopic surgery in female inpatients was similar, but ondansetron appeared to be slightly more efficient than droperidol in preventing vomiting. Ondansetron and droperidol were both significantly better than placebo in the prophylaxis of PONV.     

The effectiveness of rescue antiemetics after failure of prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol: a preliminary report

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of treating established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with an antiemetic acting at a different receptor with that of treating PONV with the antiemetic used for prophylaxis. DESIGN: Analysis of data collected in a previously published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Outpatient surgical procedures from 50 institutions in North America. PATIENTS: Patients (N = 2061) undergoing outpatient surgical procedures planned to last no more than 2 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 1.25, droperidol 0.625 mg, or placebo. In the postoperative anesthesia care unit, patients who developed PONV received rescue antiemetics at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist. The following antiemetics were used for rescue: ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg, and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg. MEASUREMENTS: The complete response rate (no nausea, no emesis, and no need for further rescue) after administration of the rescue antiemetic in patients with established PONV was calculated. The complete response rate after administration of each of the different rescue antiemetics was compared with that after administration of the same antiemetic used for PONV prophylaxis. MAIN RESULTS: In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron 4 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher (P = .02) after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (78%) than after rescue with ondansetron 4 mg (46%). In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol 0.625 and 1.25 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (77%; P = .02) and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg (78%; P = .04) than after rescue with droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg (56%). CONCLUSION: In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol, promethazine was significantly more effective than the agent used for prophylaxis for the treatment of PONV. In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol, dimenhydrinate was also more effective than droperidol for the treatment of established PONV in the postoperative anesthesia care unit.     

Small-dose droperidol effectively reduces nausea in a general surgical adult patient population

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study, we (1) determined whether 0.625 mg of IV droperidol given 30 min before emergence from general anesthesia reduces the incidence of immediate and delayed postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in a general surgical adult patient population, and (2) compared the efficacy of droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine for the rescue treatment of PONV. One hundred fifty adult patients receiving general anesthesia for >2 h received either droperidol (0.625 mg IV) or a placebo before emergence. Patients requiring treatment for PONV in the postanesthesia care unit were randomized to receive either droperidol (0.625 mg IV), ondansetron (4 mg IV), or promethazine (12. 5 mg IV). Droperidol effectively prevented PONV (6.8% in droperidol-treated patients versus 40.8% in placebo-treated patients, P: < 0.001). Droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine were equally effective in treating established PONV, without significant differences in side effects or time to postanesthesia care unit discharge. Implications: Droperidol 0.625 mg IV before emergence from general anesthesia effectively reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the general surgical population. Our randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study demonstrated a reduction in PONV from 41% to 7%. Droperidol is a safe and inexpensive alternative to ondansetron. Droperidol, ondansetron, and promethazine are also equally effective in treating PONV in the postanesthesia care unit.     

COMPARISON OF THE USE OF DOMPERIDONE, DROPERIDOL AND METOCLOPRAMIDE IN THE PREVENTION OF NAUSEA AND VOMITING FOLLOWING GYNAECOLOGICAL SURGERY IN DAY CASES

The efficacy of domperidone 20 mg, droperidol 2.5 mg, metoclopramide10 mg or placebo (saline) administered i.v. before inductionof anaesthesia, was studied in 199 women undergoing gynaecologicalsurgery as day cases. Following a standardized general anaesthetictechnique, droperidol or metoclopramide significantly reducedthe incidence of nausea and vomiting; domperidone decreasedthe incidence of postoperative nausea alone. The occurrenceof extrapyramidal reactions was similar in all groups. Patientstreated with antiemetics were no more sedated than those givenplacebo. Those receiving droperidol complained of significantlyless postoperative pain than those who had received domperidoneor metoclopramide.     

Ondansetron versus droperidol or placebo to prevent nausea and vomiting after otologic surgery

This study compares the preoperative administration of ondansetron with that of droperidol or saline solution for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in otologic surgery patients. A total of 120 otherwise healthy individuals were randomly assigned to receive either saline solution, ondansetron (4 mg intravenously), or droperidol (25 μg/kg intravenously) before anesthetic induction. Intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit times were recorded along with incidence of nausea, vomiting, pain, nausea and recovery scores, and the administration of rescue antiemetics. Similar assessments were made during the next 24 hours. Demographics were similar, but more males received ondansetron. Anesthetic recovery scores were lower after administration of droperidol than after ondansetron. Incidence of nausea was similar between groups, but severity was greater with placebo and droperidol than with ondansetron. More vomiting occurred with placebo than with ondansetron or droperidol. No intergroup differences in rescue antiemetic administration were noted, however. Twenty-four hours later, more patients receiving placebo had nausea or vomited than patients receiving droperidol or ondansetron. Fewer women in the ondansetron group vomited than in the other two groups. Ondansetron 4 mg intravenously is as effective as droperidol and better than saline solution in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing otologic surgery. No cost advantage as determined by lower use of rescue antiemetics or shorter postanesthesia care unit times was noted after ondansetron therapy. (Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998;118:785-9.)     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting with special reference to risk factors and prevention in laparoscopic surgery

The current incidence, risk factors and prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were prospectively evaluated in 1703 inpatients. The objectives of the study were: 1) to create a predictive model based on patient characteristics in order to enable the estimation of the risk for PONV, 2) to ascertain the antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic intravenous ondansetron in comparison with droperidol and placebo against PONV following laparoscopic surgery, and 3) to evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness of combining ondansetron with a low dose of droperidol in high-risk inpatients. The incidence of nausea and vomiting after common surgical procedures was high. In the recovery room, the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 18% and 5%, respectively, and over the whole 24-h observation period the respective figures were 52% and 25%. The most significant predictive factors associated with an increased risk for the symptoms were female sex, a previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a history of motion sickness, a longer duration of surgery and non-smoking. Based on these five items, a risk score predicting nausea and vomiting was constructed with a moderately good discriminating power, as judged from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Intravenous ondansetron 4 mg was ineffective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A higher dose of prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg effectively reduced the incidence and alleviated the intensity of PONV in women scheduled to have laparoscopy for gynaecological and general surgical procedures, as compared with placebo. The antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg and droperidol 1.25 mg was similar as for overall nausea during the 24-h observation period, but ondansetron seemed to be slightly more efficacious in preventing vomiting. Both ondansetron and droperidol were well-tolerated with only minor side-effects. In a high-risk, female, inpatient laparoscopic population, with a mean estimated risk of 65% for PONV, prophylactically administered ondansetron 8 mg in combination with either a 0.75 mg or 1.25 mg dose of droperidol reduced the incidence of post-operative nausea to 35% and that of vomiting to 15% during the first 24 h after surgery. Of these drug combinations, the smaller dose of droperidol resulted in less postoperative sedation than the higher dose; both combinations being otherwise equally well-tolerated without serious adverse events. These results indicate that postoperative nausea and vomiting can, to some extent, be predicted by a few patient characteristics, and in laparoscopic surgery - which is associated with an increased risk for PONV - the incidence can be reduced with either a single dose of ondansetron or droperidol or a combination of these drugs.     

Low-dose dexamethasone effectively prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting after ambulatory laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prophylactic effect of low-dose dexamethasone (5 mg) on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery. Metoclopramide and saline served as controls. METHODS: One hundred twenty women (n=40 in each of the three groups) undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic tubal ligation under general anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. After tracheal intubation, group I received i.v. dexamethasone 5 mg, whereas groups II and III received i.v. metoclopramide 10 mg and saline, respectively. RESULTS: Patients in group I reported a lower incidence of PONV and requested less rescue antiemetics than those in group III during the first four postoperative hours (P <0.01). Patients in group I reported a lower incidence of PONV than those in groups II (P <0.05) and III (P <0.01) during the 24-hr postoperative period. Groups II and III did not differ from each other in the incidence of PONV and the proportion of patients who requested rescue antiemetics. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic iv dexamethasone 5 mg significantly reduces the incidence of PONV in women undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic tubal ligation. At this dose, dexamethasone is more effective than metoclopramide 10 mg or placebo.     

The prophylactic effect of dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing thyroidectomy: a comparison of droperidol with saline.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prophylactic effect of dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing thyroidectomy. Droperidol and saline served as controls. One hundred twenty women (n = 40 in each of three groups) undergoing thyroidectomy under general anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Immediately before the induction of anesthesia, Group 1 received IV dexamethasone 10 mg, whereas Groups 2 and 3 received IV droperidol 1.25 mg and saline, respectively. We found that both dexamethasone and droperidol significantly decreased the total incidence of PONV compared with saline, with an incidence of 32%, 35%, and 76%, respectively (P<0.01; Group 1 versus Group 3, Group 2 versus Group 3). Patients who received droperidol, however, reported a higher intensity of sore throat and a more frequent incidence of restlessness than those who received dexamethasone. We conclude that, although both dexamethasone and droperidol are effective as prophylactic antiemetics in women undergoing thyroidectomy, droperidol produces more side effects. IMPLICATIONS: We compared the prophylactic administration of dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting with droperidol and saline in women undergoing thyroidectomy. Both dexamethasone and droperidol significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, but droperidol produced more side effects, which suggests that dexamethasone is a useful treatment in these patients.     

The use of oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: the effect on emetic symptoms and quality of recovery

Based on comparative studies in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, it has been suggested that granisetron would be more effective than ondansetron for the prevention of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). However, there have been no direct comparisons of these two popular 5-HT3 antagonists with respect to PDNV and quality of recovery. We designed this randomized, double-blind study to compare the antiemetic efficacy of oral granisetron (1 mg) to a standard IV dose of ondansetron (4 mg) when administered for antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in a laparoscopic surgical population. A total of 220 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this prospective study at two major medical centers. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two prophylactic treatment groups: the control (ondansetron) group received an oral placebo 1 h before surgery and ondansetron, 4 mg IV, at the end of the surgery, and the granisetron group received granisetron, 1 mg per os, 1 h before surgery, and normal saline, 2 mL IV, at the end of the surgery. The early recovery profiles, requirement for rescue antiemetics, incidence of PDNV, and the side effects were recorded over the 48 h study period. In addition, nausea scores were assessed using an 11-point verbal rating scale at specific intervals in the postoperative period. The quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores were recorded at 48 h after surgery. The demographic characteristics were similar in the two prophylaxis treatment groups, as well as the recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, and hospital discharge. The incidences of PDNV, requirements for rescue antiemetics, and quality of recovery did not differ between the two study groups. The antiemetic drug acquisition costs to achieve comparable patient satisfaction with ondansetron and granisetron were US 25.65 dollars and 47.05 dollars, respectively. Therefore, ondansetron (4 mg IV) was more cost-effective than granisetron (1 mg per os) for routine antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in patients undergoing either outpatient or inpatient laparoscopic surgery.     

Ondansetron/promethazine combination or promethazine alone reduces nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting when a combination of ondansetron and promethazine is given prophylactically, and to ascertain the effect of postoperative nausea and vomiting on recovery room duration and patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. SETTING: University-affiliated tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: 87 ASA physical status I and II adult patients scheduled for middle ear surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the following interventions intravenously: ondansetron 4 mg (Group 1), promethazine 25 mg (Group 2), ondansetron 2 mg plus promethazine 12.5 mg (Group 3, combination), or placebo (Group 4). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Independent, study blinded observers recorded complaints of nausea and number of episodes of vomiting for 24 hours following the patient's first response to commands. All patients were contacted the day after discharge to inquire about nausea and vomiting. The awakening time, postanesthesia care unit and day surgery unit durations, opioid use, and side effects were recorded. At the end of the 24-hour period, the study blinded observers asked patients for an overall assessment of their global anesthesia experience using an 11-point scale. During the 24-hour period, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was reduced from 74% (placebo) to 39% (promethazine; p = 0.03) and 29% (combination; p = 0.003). Compared with placebo, the severity of vomiting was significantly less in the combination group (p = 0.04). The number of very satisfied patients correlated negatively with the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (p < 0.0001) and with the severity of vomiting (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The prophylactic use of an antiemetic with middle ear surgery may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting over 24 hours, and the ondansetron/promethazine combination or promethazine alone are cost-effective choices. Finally, the combination reduced significantly the severity of vomiting.     

Double-blind comparison of granisetron, promethazine, or a combination of both for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in females undergoing outpatient laparoscopies

Purpose

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are common problems after surgery. Prophylactic combination antiemetic therapy is recommended for patients at high risk for developing PONV and PDNV. Granisetron, a serotonin antagonist, is an effective antiemetic that is devoid of sedative side effect. Although promethazine is effective, commonly used doses are associated with sedation. This study investigates the combination of low doses of granisetron and promethazine for the prevention of PONV.

Methods

Women undergoing ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy were enrolled. A standard general anesthetic regimen was prescribed. Fifteen minutes before the expected end of surgery, the patients were randomly assigned to receive granisetron 0.1 mg iv, promethazine 6.25 mg iv, or a combination of the two drugs. Prophylaxis with oral promethazine 12.5 mg, granisetron 1 mg, or both was started in the respective groups 12 hr after the end of surgery and continued every 12 hr until postoperative day 3 (a total of five oral doses). The following outcomes were recorded: total response rate (defined as no vomiting, no more than mild nausea, and no use of rescue antiemetic); incidence of nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue antiemetics; severity of nausea; patient activity level; and patient satisfaction with PONV management.

Results

Patients in the combination group had a higher total response rate at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hr after surgery compared with those who received promethazine alone (at 24 hr, Combination 69.6%, Promethazine 36.2%, Granisetron 53.3%; P = 0.0079). The maximum nausea scores were also lower in the combination group at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hr (Combination 1.7 ± 2.2, Promethazine 4.0 ± 3.6, Granisetron 3.1 ± 3.2 at 24 hr; P < 0.05). There was no difference in the sedation scores, incidence of drowsiness, patient activity level, and satisfaction with PONV management.

Conclusions

Low-dose granisetron and promethazine combination was more effective in reducing PONV and PDNV than promethazine monotherapy. The combination also reduced the severity of nausea.     

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

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

Small-dose dexamethasone reduces nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison of tropisetron with saline

Dexamethasone is an effective antiemetic drug, but the efficacy of small-dose dexamethasone 5 mg on the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not been evaluated. We, therefore, evaluated the prophylactic effect of small-dose dexamethasone (5 mg) on PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Tropisetron and saline served as controls. One-hundred-twenty patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were enrolled in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. At the induction of anesthesia, the Dexamethasone group received IV dexamethasone 5 mg, the Tropisetron group received IV tropisetron 2 mg, and the Placebo group received IV saline. We found that both dexamethasone and tropisetron significantly decreased the following variables: the total incidence of PONV (P < 0.01), more than four vomiting episodes (P < 0.05), and the proportions of patients requiring rescue antiemetics (P < 0.05). The differences between the Dexamethasone and Tropisetron groups were not significant. We conclude that prophylactic IV dexamethasone 5 mg significantly reduces the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. At this dose, dexamethasone is as effective as tropisetron 2 mg and is more effective than placebo. IMPLICATIONS: We evaluated the prophylactic effect of small-dose dexamethasone (5 mg) on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Tropisetron (2 mg) and saline served as controls. We found that dexamethasone 5 mg (IV) significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in these patients, and, at this dose, dexamethasone was as effective as tropisetron and was more effective than placebo.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast surgery: efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and droperidol in a randomized placebo-controlled study

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse phenomenon following breast surgery. The efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol in preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing breast surgery was compared in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Altogether 207 women were randomly assigned to receive either a single intravenous dose of droperidol (1.25 mg) (n = 69), ondansetron (8 mg) (n = 67) or saline (n = 71) immediately after induction of general anaesthesia with thiopental, fentanyl, atracurium, nitrous oxide in oxygen and isoflurane. Complaints of nausea, vomiting and requests for rescue antiemetics were recorded during a 24-h period postoperatively. During the initial 2 h in the postanaesthesia care unit, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 15%, 6% and 12% in the placebo, droperidol and ondansetron groups, respectively (NS). The incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h was 61%, 48% and 45% in the placebo, droperidol and ondansetron treatment groups, respectively (NS). Postoperative analgesic requirements and the length of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit were equal in all three treatment groups. It is concluded that the intravenous pretreatment with single doses of ondansetron or droperidol did not substantially prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast surgery.     

Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron in laparoscopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anaesthesiaA randomised, double-blind comparison with droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo

The prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy and safety of pre-operative intravenous ondansetron was evaluated in a randomised, double-blind, comparison with droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo in 160 ASA grade 1 and 2 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anaesthesia. The patients were randomly allocated to receive ondansetron (4 mg), droperidol (1.25 mg), metoclopramide (10 mg) or placebo given as a single intravenous dose immediately before induction of a standardised general anaesthetic. There were no significant differences between the four study groups with regard to the demographic and anaesthetic data, postoperative analgesia, postoperative sedation scores, duration of postoperative hospital stay and incidence of adverse events. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower (p < 0.05) between 1 h and 4 h after surgery in the ondansetron group compared with the droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo groups. The incidence of nausea was similar in the four groups in the other study periods: 0-1 h and 4-24 h. The incidence of vomiting was lower in the ondansetron, droperidol and metoclopramide groups than in the placebo group between 1 and 4 h but was the same between 4 and 24 h. As a result of the lower incidence of nausea and vomiting between 1 h and 4 h in the ondansetron group, the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower during the first 24 h after surgery in this group than in the other three groups.     

Prevention of nausea and vomiting with granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Nausea and vomiting during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section are distressing to the patient. This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of granisetron, droperidol and metoclopramide for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in parturients undergoing caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.
Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 120 patients received granisetron 3 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg or placebo (saline) ( n =30 of each) i. v. immediately after clamping of the foetal umbilical cord. Nausea, vomiting and safety assessments were performed during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Results: The incidence of intraoperative, post-delivery nausea and vomiting was 13%, 17%, 20% and 63% after administration of granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo, respectively; the corresponding incidence during 0–3 h after surgery was 7%, 27%, 27% and 43%; the corresponding incidence during 3–24 h after surgery was 7%, 20%, 23% and 37% ( P <0.05; overall Fisher's exact probability test). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any of the groups.
Conclusion: Granisetron is highly effective for preventing nausea and vomiting during and after spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. Droperidol and metoclopramide are effective for the prevention of intraoperative, post-delivery emesis, but are ineffective for the reduction of the incidence of postoperative emesis.     

Metoclopramide versus ondansetron in prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting are significant problems in laparoscopic surgery. This double-blind, randomized, prospective trial compares the prophylactic use of metoclopramide, ondansetron, and placebo for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-two patients aged 18 to 73 years were randomized into three groups. Patients received intravenously 10 mg of metoclopramide, 4 mg of ondansetron, or placebo in a double-blinded manner prior to surgery. RESULTS: The incidence of nausea was 32% for metoclopramide, 45% for ondansetron, and 44% for placebo in the postanesthesia care unit or day surgery, which was not statistically significant. The incidence of vomiting was 8% for metoclopramide, 4% for ondansetron, and 22% for placebo in the postanesthesia care unit or day surgery. These differences were statistically significant when comparing both drugs to placebo but not when comparing both drugs to each other. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic administration of metoclopramide or ondansetron significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative vomiting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, but neither drug was found to be significantly more effective than the other. Metoclopramide is a more cost-effective treatment.