A randomized comparison of a multimodal management strategy versus combination antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

A multimodal management strategy for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) appears to be superior to single-drug prophylaxis. We tested the hypothesis that a multimodal PONV prophylaxis regimen incorporating total IV anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and a combination of ondansetron and droperidol is more effective than a combination of these antiemetics in the presence of an inhaled anesthetic. Ninety patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to one of three groups. Group 1 (multimodal group) received TIVA with propofol, droperidol, and ondansetron. Group 2 (combination group) received droperidol and ondansetron with isoflurane and nitrous oxide for the maintenance of anesthesia. Group 3 (TIVA group) received propofol for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The complete response rate (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic) at 2 h after surgery was 90%, 63%, and 66% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.05, Group 1 versus Group 2). At 24 h, the complete response rate was 80%, 63%, and 43% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.05, Group 1 versus Group 3). Patient satisfaction was also greater in the multimodal group than in the other two groups in the postanesthesia care unit (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the multimodal management strategy for PONV was associated with a higher complete response rate and greater patient satisfaction when compared with similar antiemetic prophylaxis with inhaled anesthesia or TIVA with propofol.     

地塞米松联合恩丹西酮对手术后病人自控镇痛相关恶心呕吐的影响

目的　观察地塞米松联合恩丹西酮对手术后病人自控镇痛 (PCA)所致恶心呕吐的防治效果。方法　随机将 2 0 0例在连续硬膜外麻醉下行下肢手术的患者分为四组 :对照 (C)组于手术切皮前 (T1)和手术结束时 (T2 )分别静脉注射生理盐水 2ml;地塞米松 (D)组于T1、T2 时分别注射地塞米松 10mg和生理盐水 2ml;恩丹西酮 (O)组于T1、T2 时分别注射生理盐水 2ml和恩丹西酮4mg ;地塞米松 +恩丹西酮 (D +O)组于T1、T2 时分别注射地塞米松 10mg和恩丹西酮 4mg。术毕均行病人自控静脉芬太尼镇痛 (PCIFA)。观察术后 2 4h内病人镇痛效果、镇静评分和恶心呕吐发生情况。结果　 5例患者因故退出此观察。组间镇痛效果、镇静评分无明显差异。C组恶心呕吐发生率为 5 2 1% ,明显高于D组 (33 3% )和O组 (32 7% ) ,P <0 0 5 ;D +O组恶心呕吐发生率为16 0 % ,与C组比较 ,P <0 0 1,与D组和O组比较 ,P <0 0 5 ;各处理组恶心程度均小于对照组 ,P <0 0 5 ;D +O组呕吐程度低于C组 ,P <0 0 5。结论　地塞米松与恩丹西酮单独应用均能有效地减少手术后PCIFA相关的恶心呕吐 ,减轻恶心程度 ;两药联合应用进一步降低患者的恶心呕吐发生率和呕吐的程度     

Dexamethasone is as effective as ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following breast surgery

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting remain a common problem following breast surgery. This study assesses whether dexamethasone is as effective as ondansetron in the control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Eighty ASA I-III patients undergoing breast surgery for carcinoma of the breast were included in the study. Following premedication with diazepam 5-10 mg, patients were induced with fentanyl 50 micro g and propofol 2-2.5 mg kg-1. A larynx mask was inserted and anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane in oxygen and nitrous oxide. Patients were then randomly divided into two groups: Group D (dexamethasone) was given 4 mg dexamethasone i.v. after induction and Group O (ondansetron) was given 4 mg ondansetron at the same time point. Postoperatively, nausea, vomiting and pain were recorded at 1-h intervals during 4 h, and thereafter every 4 h during 24 h. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV during 24 h was 37% and 33% in Group D and Group O, respectively (NS). No differences were found between the groups in the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting or pain at the different time intervals. No differences were found in the incidence of PONV in smokers vs. non-smokers. No side-effects of these drugs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron 4 mg or dexamethasone 4 mg are equally effective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following breast surgery. Other factors being similar, the difference in cost between these drugs would favor the use of dexamethasone instead of ondansetron when monotherapy against PONV is used.     

A randomized, double-blind comparison of ondansetron versus placebo for prevention of nausea and vomiting after infratentorial craniotomy

Ondansetron was compared with placebo for nausea and vomiting prophylaxis after fentanyl/isoflurane/relaxant anesthesia and infratentorial craniotomy. Eight milligrams intravenous ondansetron or vehicle was administered at skin closure. Nausea, emesis, and antiemetic use were recorded at 0, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours. There were no significant intergroup differences for nausea incidence at any interval, but cumulatively the placebo group was 3.2 times more likely to develop nausea during the first 12 hours (P = .04). Nausea incidence was bimodal in both groups, peaking during the first 1 to 4 hours. A nadir occurred at 8 to 12 hours, but nausea increased during the next 36 hours. By 48 hours, approximately 40% of patients in both groups were still nauseated. Reduced vomiting frequency was seen with ondansetron at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours (P < .05). Despite rescue antiemetics, emesis occurred in an irregular pattern with episodes still observed in 35% of placebo patients at 48 hours. For ondansetron, emesis was infrequent for the first 12 hours but then a persistent increase was observed (48 hours, 22%). The incidence of rescue antiemetic use was 65% for both groups. There was no effect of gender. Nausea and vomiting are frequent and protracted after infratentorial craniotomy. Administration of single-dose ondansetron (8 mg intravenously) at wound closure was partially effective in reducing acute nausea and vomiting but had little delayed benefit. Scheduled prophylactic administration of antiemetic therapy during the first 48 hours after infratentorial craniotomy should be evaluated for efficacy and safety.     

Ondansetron given before induction of anesthesia reduces shivering after general anesthesia

The neurotransmitter pathways involved in the mechanism of postanesthetic shivering (PAS) are poorly understood. Meperidine, clonidine, and physostigmine are all effective treatments, indicating that opioid, alpha(2)-adrenergic, and anticholinergic systems are probably involved. We investigated the effect of ondansetron, a 5-HT(3) antagonist used to treat postoperative nausea and vomiting, on intraoperative core and peripheral temperatures and PAS. Eighty-two patients (age, 18-60 yr) undergoing orthopedic, general, or urological surgery were randomized into three groups in this double-blinded, placebo-controlled, study: Group O4 (n = 27) received ondansetron 4 mg IV, Group O8 (n = 27) received ondansetron 8 mg IV, and Group C (n = 28) received saline IV immediately before the anesthetic induction. Core (tympanic) and fingertip temperature (dorsum of middle finger) were recorded. Anesthesia was induced with IV fentanyl 1 microg/kg and propofol 2.0-2.5 mg/kg and maintained with 1 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration isoflurane in 70% nitrous oxide/oxygen. The occurrence of shivering was documented clinically during recovery by nursing staff, who were unaware of the group assignment. PAS occurred in 16 of 28 (57%) patients in Group C, compared with 9 of 27 (33%) in Group O4 (P = 0.13) and 4 of 27 (15%) patients in Group O8 (P = 0.003). Within each group, core temperature decreased and peripheral temperature increased significantly, but there were no significant differences among the groups at any time interval. We conclude that ondansetron 8 mg IV given during the induction of anesthesia prevents PAS without affecting the core-to-peripheral redistribution of heat during general anesthesia. This suggests that serotonergic pathways have a role in the regulation of PAS. Implications: In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, clinical study, ondansetron 8 mg IV, given just before the induction, reduced the incidence of postanesthetic shivering compared with saline. The anticipated core-to-peripheral redistribution of body temperature during general anesthesia was not affected. This implies that ondansetron probably acts by a central inhibitory mechanism, and that 5-hydroxytryptaminergic pathways have a role in regulating postanesthetic shivering.     

Comparison of the effectiveness of metoclopramide, ondansetron, and granisetron on the prevention of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: A relatively high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs in patients undergoing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Prophylaxis of PONV is usually achieved with a single-dose antiemetic drug administered during the surgical procedure. The aim of the current study was to compare the antiemetic activity of different 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists with that of metoclopramide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a randomised, double-blind study, 75 patients received the following: Group M, 10 mg metoclopramide; Group K, 40 mcg . kg(-1) granisetron; and Group Z, 15 mcg . kg(-1) ondansetron intravenously (IV) diluted in 20 cc 0.9% NaCl (n = 25 of each) i.v. immediately before the induction of anesthesia. The standard general anesthetic technique, which consisted of sevoflurane in air-oxygen and a fentanyl perfusion, was used. Nausea, vomiting, and safety assessments were performed continuously during the first 24 hours after anesthesia. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences for demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA), operation duration, or anesthesia time among the three groups (P > 0.05). Evaluated nausea and vomiting scores in the first 3-hour period revealed that each of the drugs had a similar antiemetic effect (P > 0.05). Nausea and vomiting scores, evaluated between the 4-24 hours, also revealed that the group M scores were obviously higher than groups K and Z (P < 0.001). A comparison of incidences of dose administrations were statistically not significant among the groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Granisetron, when given prophylactically, resulted in a significantly lower incidence of PONV than metoclopramide and ondansetron, whereas metoclopramide was ineffective. Garnisetron may be an effective treatment in the proflaxy of PONV.     

A comparison of the effects of droperidol and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of the combination of ondansetron and droperidol with that of droperidol alone in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind controlled trial.University affiliated teaching hospital after induction of standardized general anesthesia. PATIENTS: 64 ASA physical status I or II patients aged 18 to 80 years, undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. INTERVENTION: Following induction of general anesthesia, patients received either droperidol 1.25 mg intravenously (IV; n = 30; Group D) or the combination of droperidol 1.25 mg IV and ondansetron 4 mg IV (n = 34; Group D+O). MEASUREMENTS: Number and severity of nausea episodes, number of emetic episodes, total analgesic consumption, and rescue antiemetic administration were assessed at 1, 3, and 24 hours after admission to the recovery room. Data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact test and unpaired Student's t-test; a p-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The proportions of patients who experienced nausea (70% and 53% for D and D+O groups, respectively) and vomiting (30% and 19% for D and D+O groups, respectively) were similar in the two groups. The frequency of moderate and severe nausea (requiring administration of antiemetic) was less in group D + O (7%) compared with group D (19%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received the combination of droperidol and ondansetron experienced less severe nausea compared with patients who received droperidol alone.     

异丙酚对腹腔镜胆囊切除病人术后恶心呕吐的防治作用

目的 探讨异丙酚的镇吐作用及可能的作用机制。方法 60例ASAⅠ－Ⅱ级行择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者,随机分为三组;对照组（C组）行常规气管插管吸入全麻,恩丹西酮组（O组）入室后静脉注射恩丹西酮4mg,其他处理C组,异丙酚组（P组）诱导插管同C组,麻醉维持用异丙酚微泵静滴。分别测定入室（基础值）、气管插管后、术毕、术后6h血浆胃动素的水平,并观察术后恶心呕吐程度及发生率。结果 C组20例中9例发生Ⅱ－Ⅲ级恶心、呕吐,发生率为56．7％,O组为4例,P组为3例,发生率分别为20％、13．3％。围术期胃动素水平：C组术毕明显高于基础值（P＞0．01）,术后P明显低于C组及O组。结论 异丙酚静脉麻醉能降低腹腔镜胆囊切除术后恶心呕吐发生率,可能与抑制血浆胃动素合成及分泌有关。     

Prophylactic use of droperidol for postoperative nausea and vomiting following gynecological laparoscopic surgery under total intravenous anesthesia

BACKGROUND: Propofol and droperidol decrease the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We investigated the incidence of PONV after total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol alone versus combined use of droperidol and propofol. METHODS: Eighty three patients, who had undergone laparoscopic gynecologic surgery with TIVA using propofol and fentanyl, were retrospectively evaluated whether droperidol had affected the incidence of early (up to six hours postoperatively) and late (6-24 hours postoperatively) PONV. Group D (46 patients) received droperidol intravenously at the end of surgery. Group N (37 patients) received no droperidol. RESULTS: The incidences of early nausea were 27% in Group N and 4% in Group D (P<0.01). The incidences of early vomiting were 0% in Group N and 8% in Group D. The incidences of late nausea were 14% in Group N and 13% in Group D. The incidences of late vomiting were 3% in Group N and 7% in Group D. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol was useful in reducing the incidence of early nausea and vomiting after total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and fentanyl in the patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.     

Comparison of ondansetron, dimenhydrinate versus placebo as PONV prophylaxis for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy

This is a study comparing ondansetron, dimenhydrinate versus placebo as PONV prophylaxis for outpatient gynecologic laparascopy. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is very common following ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy if safe, effective and affordable may reduce the incidence of PONV, expedite hospital discharge and improve patient satisfaction. After institutional review board approval, informed written consent was obtained form 87 ASA I–II women undergoing ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy. In a random and double blind fashion the women were divided into three groups receiving either ondansetron 8 mg, dimenhydrinate 50 mg or placebo. A standard anesthetic technique with propofol, fentanyl, mivacurium, nitrous oxide and isoflurane was used. Measurements of nausea, emesis, pain, drowsiness, and satisfaction and recovery milestones were recorded. Psychomotor recovery was evaluated using p deletion and digit symbol substitution (DSS) test. There was no difference in the groups with respect to demographic data. Dimenhydrinate prolonged immediate recovery and impaired psychomotor recovery, but there was no difference in postanesthesia care unit (PACU) or hospital discharge. The incidence of PONV was minimal. The visual analogue score (VAS) for nausea was only 1 on a scale from 0–10 cm in all groups. Only one patient in the placebo group experienced PACU emesis. The incidence and severity of PONV was so low, even in the placebo group that the use of prophylactic antiemetic therapy cannot be justified.     

Omission of Nitrous Oxide from a Propofol-based Anesthetic Does Not Affect the Recovery of Women Undergoing Outpatient Gynecologic Surgery

Background: Although nitrous oxide (N2O) is used commonly during anesthesia, clinically relevant advantages-disadvantages of using this agent are not well established in the ambulatory setting. This study in women undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery compares outcomes in patients administered total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus the propofol plus N2O. The primary outcome was the time to home readiness. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postanesthetic adverse events.

Methods: Women presenting for elective ambulatory termination of pregnancy or gynecologic laparoscopy were induced with an intravenous sleep dose of propofol and fentanyl. After induction, subjects were randomly allocated to maintenance anesthesia with propofol alone or propofol plus 65% N2O. Patients were assessed by a blinded observer in the postanesthetic care unit at 20-min intervals to determine home readiness. Postoperative pain and nausea were measured with visual analog scales. Postoperative analgesics and antiemetics were recorded. The incidence of adverse events occurring after hospital discharge was assessed by a telephone interview 24 h postoperatively.

Results: A total of 740 patients received propofol alone, and 750 patients received propofol plus N2O. Mean home readiness times were not significantly different between treatment groups. There were no significant differences between groups in pain scores, nausea scores, analgesia administration, or antiemetic administration before discharge. There were no significant differences in the frequency of adverse events for 24 h after discharge from hospital.     

Comparing the efficacy of prophylactic metoclopramide, ondansetron, and placebo in cesarean section patients given epidural anesthesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of prophylactic metoclopramide, ondansetron, and placebo in nonemergent cesarean section patients given epidural anesthesia intraoperatively and for the first 24-hour period after delivery. DESIGN: Randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Inpatient obstetric unit at a university hospital center. PATIENTS: 164 nonemergent cesarean section patients given epidural anesthesia. INTERVENTION: At time of umbilical cord clamp, patients received intravenously (IV) either 4 mg ondansetron (Group O) or 10 mg metoclopramide (Group M) or 10 mL normal saline (Group P). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Episodes and severity of nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic requirement, patient satisfaction, and side effects were recorded. The frequency of intraoperative nausea were 24%, 43%, and 57% for Group O, Group M, and Group P, respectively (p < 0.03). The frequency of nausea for the 24-hour study period were 26%, 51% and 71% for Groups O, M, and P respectively (p < 0.03). The frequency of intraoperative and postoperative vomiting were similar between Group O and Group M, but significantly higher in Group P (p < 0.05). Overall patient satisfaction was highest in Group O compared with Groups P and M (p < 0.05). Maximum analog sedation score was higher in Group M compared to Groups O and P (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In cesarean section patients given epidural anesthesia, prophylactic ondansetron, 4 mg IV, is more efficacious and has a higher patient satisfaction than that with metoclopramide, 10 mg IV, or placebo in preventing nausea and achieving complete responses during intraoperative period and the first 24-hour postdelivery period. However, there is no difference between ondansetron and metoclopramide in reducing frequency of vomiting. Prophylactic ondansetron 4 mg IV is more effective in preventing nausea than vomiting.     

Effect of prophylactic ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective craniotomy.

This prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron, a 5-HT3 antagonist, in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after elective craniotomy in adult patients. The authors also tried to discover certain predictors for postcraniotomy nausea and vomiting. We studied 170 ASA physical status I and II patients, aged 15 to 70 years, undergoing elective craniotomy for resecting various intracranial tumors and vascular lesions. A standardized anesthesia technique and postoperative analgesia were used for all patients. Patients were divided into two groups and received either saline placebo (Group 1) or ondansetron 4 mg (Group 2) intravenously at the time of dural closure. Patients were extubated at the end of surgery and episodes of nausea and vomiting were noted for 24 hours postoperatively in the neurosurgical intensive care unit. Demographic data, duration of surgery, and anesthesia and analgesic requirements were comparable in both groups. Overall, a 24-hour incidence of postoperative emesis was significantly reduced in patients who received ondansetron compared with those who received a saline placebo (39% in Group 1 and 11% in Group 2, P = .001). There was a significant reduction in the frequency of emetic episodes and rescue antiemetic requirement in patients treated with ondansetron; however, ondansetron did not significantly reduce the incidence of nausea alone (14% in Group 2 vs 5% in Group 1, P = .065). Prophylactic ondansetron had a favorable influence on PONV outcome measures such as patient satisfaction and number needed to prevent emesis (3.5). Side effects were similar in both groups. We conclude that ondansetron 4 mg given at the time of dural closure is safe and effective in preventing emetic episodes after elective craniotomy in adult patients.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in children and adolescents undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation: a randomized comparison of propofol- and isoflurane-based anesthetics

In children, radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is typically performed under general anesthesia. With the use of volatile anesthetics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common, with an incidence of emesis as frequent as 60%. We tested the hypothesis that a propofol (PRO)-based anesthetic would have a less frequent incidence of PONV than an isoflurane (ISO)-based anesthetic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either an ISO- or PRO-based anesthetic. Prophylactic ondansetron was given to all patients and droperidol was used as a rescue antiemetic postoperatively while PONV was monitored postoperatively for 18 h. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, use of rescue antiemetic drugs, and sedation scores were recorded. The cost for the anesthetic was also calculated. Fifty-six subjects were included in this study. The cumulative incidence of PONV was significantly more frequent in group ISO (63% nausea/55% emesis) compared with group PRO (21% nausea/6% emesis). After the administration of droperidol, further vomiting occurred in 70% of the patients in group ISO versus 0% of the patients in group PRO. We conclude that RFCA using ISO has a high PONV risk and the prophylactic use of ondansetron as well as antiemetic therapy with droperidol are ineffective. In contrast, a PRO-based anesthetic is highly effective in preventing PONV in children undergoing RFCA. IMPLICATIONS: In children undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation and receiving prophylactic ondansetron, a frequent incidence (60%) of postoperative vomiting was observed under an isoflurane-based anesthetic, whereas the incidence was significantly reduced to a very low level (5%) under a propofol-based anesthetic.     

Posttonsillectomy vomiting. Ondansetron or metoclopramide during paediatric tonsillectomy: are two doses better than one?

This randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled, prospective study compared the antiemetic efficacy of one preoperative dose of metoclopramide 0.25 mg·kg^?1 intravenously or ondansetron 0.15 mg·kg^?1 intravenously with two doses of the same drugs (second dose administered one h postoperatively) in 200 preadolescent children undergoing tonsillectomy with either isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia. The incidence of posttonsillectomy vomiting was significantly reduced (P < 0.005) by two doses of either metoclopramide or ondansetron (18% and 8%, respectively) compared with placebo (50%). No difference in posttonsillectomy vomiting exists between the children who received isoflurane and those who received a propofol infusion. Our results suggest that two doses of metoclopramide 0.25 mg·kg^?1 intravenously, like two doses of ondansetron 0.15 mg·kg^?1, are effective in reducing vomiting after tonsillectomy in children who have received either isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia.     

Ondansetron in the treatment of postoperative vomiting: a randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol and metoclopramide.

The prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol and metoclopramide in 66 patients undergoing general anesthesia for dilatation and curettage. Ten minutes before induction of anesthesia, 22 patients received a single intravenous dose of 8 mg of ondansetron, 22 others received 1.25 mg of droperidol, and the remaining 22 received 10 mg of metoclopramide. Anesthesia was induced with 3.3-5 mg/kg of intravenous thiopental and maintained with 65% nitrous oxide in oxygen and 2%-3% enflurane. Postoperatively, the incidence of vomiting was 13% with ondansetron, 45% with droperidol, and 54% with metoclopramide (P less than 0.05; overall chi 2 test). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea among the groups. Postoperative sedation and well-being scores were not significantly different among the groups. We conclude that preoperative prophylactic administration of ondansetron is superior to droperidol or metoclopramide in the prevention of emetic sequelae after general anesthesia for dilatation and curettage.     

全凭静脉麻醉妇科腹腔镜术后恶心呕吐的临床观察

目的观察妇科腹腔镜手术患者丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉（TIVA）术后恶心呕吐的发生率。方法138例妇科腹腔镜手术随机分为七氟烷（Sev）组、七氟烷-恩丹西酮（Sev-O）组及丙泊酚TIVA组,每组46例。Sev组和Sev-O组：术中以持续吸入50%N2O和七氟烷维持麻醉,Sev-O组手术结束前30min静脉给予恩丹西酮8mg;TIVA组：术中以丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼靶控输注维持麻醉。记录术后24h内发生恶心呕吐及额外需要止吐药情况。结果TIVA组术后0～2h恶心呕吐发生率[22%（10/46）]低于Sev组[54%（25/46）,χ^2=10.376,P=0.001]和Sev-O组[50%（23/46）,χ^2=7.986,P=0.005]。Sev-O组术后2～6h恶心呕吐发生率低于Sev组[22%（10/46）vs46%（21/46）,χ^2=5.887,P=0.015]。TIVA组术后0～24h恶心呕吐发生率低于Sev组[57%（26/46）vs80%（37/46）,χ^2=6.093,P=0.014）。3组分别有13例（28%）、6例（13%）、6例（13%）术后需要额外止吐药。结论与七氟烷吸入麻醉比较,丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉可降低妇科腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的发生率。     

Intrathecal fentanyl is superior to intravenous ondansetron for the prevention of perioperative nausea during cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia

This study compares intrathecal (IT) fentanyl with IV ondansetron for preventing intraoperative nausea and vomiting during cesarean deliveries performed with spinal anesthesia. Thirty healthy parturients presenting for elective cesarean delivery with standardized bupivacaine spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive 20 microg IT fentanyl (Group F) or 4 mg IV ondansetron (Group O) by using double-blinded methodology. At eight specific intervals during the surgery, a blinded observer questioned the patient about nausea (1 = nausea, 0 = no nausea), observed for the presence of retching or vomiting (1 = vomiting or retching, 0 = no vomiting or retching), and recorded a verbal pain score (0-10, 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Cumulative nausea, vomiting, and pain scores were calculated as the sum of the eight measurements. Intraoperative nausea was decreased in the IT fentanyl group compared with the IV ondansetron group: the median (interquartile range) difference in nausea scores was 1 (1, 2), P = 0.03. The incidence of vomiting and treatment for vomiting was not different (P = 0.7). The IT fentanyl group had a lower cumulative perioperative pain score than the IV ondansetron group; the median difference in the cumulative pain score was 12 (8, 16) (P = 0.0007). The IT fentanyl group required less supplementary intraoperative analgesia. The median difference in the cumulative fentanyl dose was 100 (75, 100) microg fentanyl, (P = 0.0002).     

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.     

A singleiv dose of ondansetron 8 mg prior to induction of anaesthesia reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynaecological patients

The effect of a single intravenous dose of ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and emesis (retching and vomiting) (PONV) was investigated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, international study. Women of ASA class I–III, requiring gynaecological laparotomy, vaginal hysterectomy, or major vaginal surgery were selected for study. Two hundred and thirty-five received placebo, 231 received 1 mg ondansetron, 228 received 8 mg ondansetron and 229 received 16 mg ondansetron, as an infusion over five minutes before the induction of anaesthesia. A standardized balanced anaesthetic technique was employed. This consisted of premedication with either diazepam or temazepam, thiopentone induction, maintenance with nitrous oxide in oxygen supplemented with enflurane or isoflurane, intraoperative analgesia with fentanyl, neuromuscular blockade with any choice of agent and reversal with neostigmine and atropine. Postoperative analgesia was achieved with morphine, and prochlorperazine or metoclopramide were given if a rescue antiemetic was required. A greater percentage of patients in the 8 mg and 16 mg ondansetron groups experienced no postoperative emesis (44% and 39% respectively) than in the placebo and 1 mg ondansetron groups (29% and 28% respectively) for the first 24 hr postoperative period (8 mg vs placebo and 1 mg: P ≤ 0.001; 16 mg vs placebo: P < 0.05; 16 mg vs 1 mg: P < 0.05). Similarly, the percentage of patients who did not experience postoperative nausea were 20%, 26%, 31% and 28% for the placebo, 1 mg, 8 mg and 16 mg ondansetron treatment groups, respectively (8 mg and 16 mg vs placebo P < 0.05). Overall, the incidences of adverse events in the ondansetron and placebo groups were similar. It is concluded that intravenous ondansetron, at doses of 8 mg and 16 mg, is both well tolerated and effective in preventing postoperative nausea and emesis, and no greater benefit was observed with the 16 mg dose in comparison with the 8 mg dose.