Antiemetic prophylaxis for office-based surgery: are the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists beneficial?

BACKGROUND: Office-based surgery has become increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential. However, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can delay patient discharge. Prophylaxis using a combination of antiemetic drugs has been suggested as an effective strategy for minimizing PONV. The authors designed this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron when administered in combination with droperidol and dexamethasone for routine antiemetic prophylaxis against PONV in the office-based surgery setting. METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, 135 consenting outpatients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III who were undergoing superficial surgical procedures lasting 20-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three antiemetic treatment groups. Propofol was administered for induction of anesthesia, followed by 2-4% desflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Desflurane was subsequently adjusted to maintain a clinically adequate depth of anesthesia with an electroencephalographic Bispectral Index value between 50 and 60. All patients received 0.625 mg intravenous droperidol and 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone after induction of anesthesia. The study medication, containing normal saline (control), 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron, or 4 mg intravenous ondansetron, was administered prior to the end of surgery. All patients received local anesthetics at the incisional site and 30 mg intravenous ketolorac to minimize postoperative pain. Recovery profiles, incidence of PONV, requirement for rescue antiemetic drugs, complete response rates, and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: The recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, ambulation, and actual discharge did not differ among the three groups. The incidence of PONV, nausea scores, and requirement for rescue antiemetics were also similar in all three groups during the 24-h study period. In addition, the complete response rates to the prophylactic antiemetics (96-98%) and percentages of very satisfied patients (93-98%) were equally high in all three groups. However, the antiemetic drug acquisition costs were US $2.50, $15.50, and $18.50 in the control, dolasetron, and ondansetron groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: The addition of dolasetron (12.5 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg) failed to improve the antiemetic efficacy of droperidol (0.625 mg intravenous) and dexamethasone (4 mg intravenous) when they were used for routine prophylaxis in the office-based surgery setting.     

Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Office-based Surgery: Are the 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists Beneficial?

Background: Office-based surgery has become increasingly popular because of its cost-saving potential. However, the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can delay patient discharge. Prophylaxis using a combination of antiemetic drugs has been suggested as an effective strategy for minimizing PONV. The authors designed this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron when administered in combination with droperidol and dexamethasone for routine antiemetic prophylaxis against PONV in the office-based surgery setting.

Methods: Following institutional review board approval, 135 consenting outpatients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III who were undergoing superficial surgical procedures lasting 20-40 min were randomly assigned to one of three antiemetic treatment groups. Propofol was administered for induction of anesthesia, followed by 2-4% desflurane with 67% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Desflurane was subsequently adjusted to maintain a clinically adequate depth of anesthesia with an electroencephalographic Bispectral Index value between 50 and 60. All patients received 0.625 mg intravenous droperidol and 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone after induction of anesthesia. The study medication, containing normal saline (control), 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron, or 4 mg intravenous ondansetron, was administered prior to the end of surgery. All patients received local anesthetics at the incisional site and 30 mg intravenous ketolorac to minimize postoperative pain. Recovery profiles, incidence of PONV, requirement for rescue antiemetic drugs, complete response rates, and patient satisfaction were assessed.

Results: The recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, ambulation, and actual discharge did not differ among the three groups. The incidence of PONV, nausea scores, and requirement for rescue antiemetics were also similar in all three groups during the 24-h study period. In addition, the complete response rates to the prophylactic antiemetics (96-98%) and percentages of very satisfied patients (93-98%) were equally high in all three groups. However, the antiemetic drug acquisition costs were US $2.50, $15.50, and $18.50 in the control, dolasetron, and ondansetron groups, respectively.     

Individualized outcome feedback produces voluntary antiemetic prescribing practice changes.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of individualized outcome feedback on antiemetic prescribing practices and compare outcomes of a cost-effective, standardized antiemetic protocol (PROT) to that of customized antiemetic therapy (NONPROT). DESIGN: Prospective, observational study with randomized component. SETTING: Postanesthesia care unit (PACU) of an academic medical center. PATIENTS: 3027 consecutive ASA physical status I, II, and III patients receiving general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 0.625 mg droperidol or 4 mg ondansetron for postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) from a protocol, or received customized antiemetic therapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Incidence of PACU PONV, selection of PROT versus NONPROT, patient satisfaction, and use of PONV prophylaxis were measured and indexed by an attending anesthesiologist in a monthly report for 4 months. Monthly expenditures for antiemetic therapy prior to, during, and after the study were collected. Literature on PONV outcomes, appropriate timing, and selection of PONV prophylaxis was distributed. The NONPROT group was slightly older than the PROT group; otherwise, demographics were similar between all groups. The incidence of PONV did not differ between the PROT and NONPROT groups (11% vs. 10%), and the incidence of PONV in patients receiving prophylaxis was higher in both groups (17% PROT vs. 15% NONPROT). Patients receiving ondansetron as a first-line drug required rescue therapy less often (5%) than those receiving droperidol (14%); however, patient satisfaction was indistinguishable among all groups. During the study, the use of prophylaxis decreased 47% without an increase in PONV, and PROT selection increased 54%. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized outcome feedback produced a 48% reduction in monthly expenditures for ondansetron and droperidol, which was sustained after the study. Patients satisfaction between ondansetron 4 mg and droperidol 0.625 mg given in the PACU did not differ in spite of a slightly greater efficacy of ondansetron as a first-line drug.     

Oral ondansetron,tropisetron or metoclopramide to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a comparison in high-risk patients undergoing thyroid or parathyroid surgery

BACKGROUND: Oral antiemetic prophylaxis may be a practical alternative to intravenous administration. Intravenous ondansetron and tropisetron prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) at least as efficiently as traditional antiemetics, droperidol and metoclopramide. We tested the hypothesis that the incidence of PONV after oral ondansetron or tropisetron prophylaxis is lower compared with metoclopramide among high-risk patients. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind study we studied 179 high-risk patients who received either ondansetron 16 mg, tropisetron 5 mg, or metoclopramide 10 mg orally 1 h before the operation. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. The incidence of PONV and the need for rescue antiemetic medication was recorded for 24 h. RESULTS: In the postanesthesia care unit, the incidence of PONV was lower after premedication with tropisetron compared with ondansetron and metoclopramide (15%, 32% and 39%, respectively). The incidence of PONV during 0-24 h was the same in each group (68%, 58% and 75% in the ondansetron, tropisetron and metoclopramide group, respectively), but the incidence of vomiting was significantly lower after ondansetron (34%) and tropisetron (22%) prophylaxis compared with metoclopramide (53%). The need for additional antiemetics was significantly lower after tropisetron prophylaxis compared with metoclopramide. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher after tropisetron than after metoclopramide. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial period, the incidence of PONV was lower after premedication with oral tropisetron than after ondansetron or metoclopramide. Considering the entire 24-h postoperative period, the incidence of PONV was the same after all three premedications, but the incidence of vomiting was lower after oral ondansetron and tropisetron than after metoclopramide.     

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 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.     

Comparison of Acustimulation and Ondansetron for the Treatment of Established Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Background: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand(R) compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery.

Methods: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand(R); (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand(R); and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand(R). A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery.

Results: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73%vs. 40%, P < 0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores.     

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

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

Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand; and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. RESULTS: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs.40%, P <0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. CONCLUSIONS: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.     

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The common and distressing complications of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the main concern of 40–70% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The first step in preventing PONV after LC is to reduce the risk factors involving patient characteristics, surgical procedure, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care. Particularly, the use of propofol-based anesthesia can reduce the incidence of PONV after LC. Second, prophylactic antiemetics including antihistamines (dimenhydrinate), phenothiazines (perphenazine), butyrophenones (droperidol), benzamides (metoclopramide), dexamethasone, and serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, and ramosetron) are available for preventing PONV after LC. Third, antiemetic therapy combined with a serotonin receptor antagonist (ondansetron, granisetron) and droperidol or dexamethasone is highly effective in the prevention of PONV after LC. Fourth, acupressure at the P6 point is a nonpharmacologic technique that is as effective as ondansetron for preventing PONV after LC. Knowledge regarding the risk factors for PONV and antiemetics is needed for the management of PONV after LC.     

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

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

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

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

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.     

A comparison of three antiemetic combinations for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of three antiemetic combinations in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Ninety ASA status I-II women, aged 18-65 yr, undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery, were included in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. A standardized anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia (intrathecal morphine plus IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine) were used in all patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 4 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 1, n = 30), dexamethasone 8 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 2, n = 30), or ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg after the induction of anesthesia and placebo 12 h later (Group 3, n = 30). A complete response, defined as no PONV in 48 h, occurred in 80% of patients in Group 1, 70% in Group 3, and 40% in Group 2 (P = 0.004 versus Groups 1 and 3). The incidences of side effects and other variables that could modify the incidence of PONV were similar among groups. In conclusion, ondansetron, in combination with droperidol or dexamethasone, is more effective than dexamethasone in combination with droperidol in women undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery with intrathecal morphine plus IV PCA with morphine for postoperative analgesia. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone or droperidol was significantly better than the combination of dexamethasone plus droperidol in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery, with intrathecal and IV morphine (patient-controlled analgesia) for management of postoperative pain.     

Treating "rebound" emesis following outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy: the efficacy of a two-dose regimen of droperidol and ondansetron.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a two-dose combination of droperidol and ondansetron as compared with single-dose droperidol alone, single-dose combined droperidol and ondansetron, and two-dose droperidol alone, for management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) among gynecologic laparoscopy outpatients. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind comparison trial. SETTING: Tertiary outpatient gynecologic unit. PATIENTS: A total of 120 female patients scheduled for gynecologic laparoscopy were enrolled. Patients who had experienced nausea or vomiting, or who had taken drugs with antiemetic action in the 24-hour period prior to the study, as well as breast-feeding mothers, were excluded from participation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to four treatment groups: i) single dose of droperidol 1.25 mg, ii) two doses of droperidol 1.25 mg, iii) single dose of droperidol 1.25 mg and ondansetron 4 mg in combination, and iv) two doses of droperidol 1.25 mg and ondansetron 4 mg in combination. The first dose of antiemetic was administered prior to induction and the second dose was given by infusion 4 hours later, prior to discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A visual analogue scale (VAS, 10 cm) was used to obtain patients' experience of nausea, vomiting, and pain at 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 hours after arrival at the postanesthetic care unit (PACU). Following discharge, approximately 24 hours after arrival at the PACU, the same measures were obtained by a follow-up interview using a verbal 10-point scale. No significant differences in incidence of PONV were noted among the four treatment groups (p = 0.419). However, both single- and two-dose droperidol and ondansetron combination therapy demonstrated attenuation of PONV severity in the 3.5- to 24-hour postinduction period (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that prophylactic two-dose combined ondansetron and droperidol offers no added benefit over single-dose therapy for routine use in the gynecologic outpatient population.     

Additive anti-emetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron with droperidol in out-patient gynecological laparoscopy

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol, alone and in combination, administered for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing general anesthesia for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. METHODS: Following Institutional Ethics Board approval and patient consent, 160 female out- patients scheduled for laparoscopy were randomly allotted in a double-blind fashion to receive: i) saline (placebo), ii) 4 mg ondansetron, iii) 1.25 mg droperidol, or iv) 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol combination intravenously on induction. Following a standardized general anesthesia, patients were interviewed and assessed for PONV at various times. RESULTS: During the first 24 hr after surgery, the incidence of PONV in the placebo group was 71%. This was reduced to 61% with droperidol alone (P = 0.334), to 46% with ondansetron alone (P = 0.027), and to 23% with the combination group (P<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between combination and droperidol (P<0.001) and between combination and ondansetron (P = 0.036). There were fewer requests for rescue medication from the combination group (7.7%) than from the ondansetron and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the combination of 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol is more efficacious as a prophylactic anti-emetic than either agent alone during the 24 hr post-surgery. This additive effect may be due to the different mechanisms of action of ondansetron and droperidol.     

东莨菪碱透皮贴剂：可替代昂丹司琼和氟哌利多用于预防手术后呕吐症状的新制剂

背景鉴于对使用氟哌利多的争议和5-HT3受体拮抗剂的高昂价格，人们期望出现一种效价合理、可常规用于预防呕吐的药物来替代它们。我们设计了两个平行、随机、双盲、空白和安慰剂对照研究来比较东莨菪碱透皮贴剂（TDS）1．5mg和静脉注射昂丹司琼4mg及氟哌利多1．25mg作为多模式给药方案的一部分，对手术后呕吐“高危”人群早期和晚期的止吐效果及其副作用。方法150例患者参与本研究，其中包括腹腔镜手术（n=80）和整形外科手术（n=70）。患者入手术室前60分钟接受一枚有效的TDS贴剂（含东莨菪碱1．5mg）或一个外表相同的空白贴片。所有患者均接受标准全身麻醉。第2次给药是在手术接近结束时给予患者静脉注射2ml生理盐水（TDS贴剂的两组）、氟哌利多1．25mg或昂丹司琼4mg（空白贴片组）。记录患者手术后恶心、呕吐／干呕的发生率、是否需要止吐药物治疗、用药后的完全有效率（即用药后既无迁延性恶心亦无反复发生呕吐，无需使用止吐药物进行治疗）。此外，对手术后72小时之内的视觉紊乱、口干、昏睡和烦躁不安等不良反应进行记录。结果手术后72小时内，TDS贴剂组、氟哌利多组和昂丹司琼组患者呕吐和需要止吐药物治疗的患者差异无显著性。各治疗组中完全有效率为41％-51％，各组间差异无显著性。TDS组口干的发生率显著高于氟哌利多组和昂丹司琼组（21％vs3％）。结论TDS贴剂作为手术前给药用于预防手术后早期和晚期恶心、呕吐与氟哌利多1．25mg或昂丹司琼4mg效果相同，但是TDS贴剂更易引起口干。     

Antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) vs ondansetron (Zofran)

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate (Dramamine) is as effective as the use of ondansetron (Zofran) in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective double-blind randomized study was performed in a tertiary care referral center. METHODS: For this study, 128 American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical statuses I, II, and III patients were randomly assigned to receive either ondansetron 4 mg intravenously (IV) at $17 per dose (group 1) or dimenhydrinate 50 mg IV at $2.50 per dose (group 2) before induction of anesthesia. The end points evaluated were frequency of PONV, need for rescue antiemetics, need for overnight hospitalization secondary to persistent nausea and vomiting, and frequency PONV 24 h after discharge. RESULTS: Chi-square tests and student's t-test were used to determine the significance of differences among groups. Of the 128 patients enrolled in this study, 20 were excluded: 15 patients received an additional antiemetic preoperative; 4 were converted to open cholecystectomies; and 1 procedure was aborted due to carcinomatosis. Of the 108 remaining participants, 50 received ondansetron (group 1) and 58 received dimenhydrinate (group 2). Both groups were well matched for demographics including gender, ASA class, and history of motion sickness. The need for rescue antiemetics occurred in 34% of group 1 and 29% of Group 2 (p = 0.376), postoperative vomiting in 6% of group 1 and 12% of group 2 (p = 0.228), and postoperative nausea in 42% of group 1 and 34% of group 2 (p = 0.422). One group 1 patient and two group 2 patients required overnight hospitalization for persistent nausea, a difference that was not significant. Rates of PONV 24 h after discharge were similar between groups 1 and 2 (10% vs 14%, p = 0.397 and 2% vs 5%, p = 0.375, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate is as effective as the use of ondansetron in preventing PONV in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dimenhydrinate is the preferred drug because it is less expensive. With more than 500, 000 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed in the United States each year, the potential drug cost savings from the prophylactic administration of dimenhydrinate instead of ondansetron exceed $7.25 million per year.     

Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting with oral, long-acting dimenhydrinate in gynecologic outpatient laparoscopy

Dimenhydrinate is an inexpensive antiemetic with few side effects available as an oral, long-acting (LA) formulation (Gravol L/A) containing 25 mg of immediate and 50 mg of sustained release drug. We designed this double-blind comparison trial to assess the efficacy of dimenhydrinate LA versus droperidol alone and the combination for prophylaxis of nausea, vomiting, and retching in outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. One-hundred-forty-one women were randomized into 3 groups: 1) droperidol (placebo capsule preoperatively and IV droperidol 0.625 mg before induction), 2) dimenhydrinate LA preoperatively and IV placebo before induction, or 3) combination. Information regarding nausea, vomiting, retching, pain, and sedation was recorded in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and collected by telephone for the presence of symptoms: on arrival home; at bedtime; upon arising, and at lunchtime the following day. The overall incidence of complete treatment failure (rescue medication in PACU or nausea, vomiting, or retching at any time point) was 28 of 46 (61%), 28 of 48 (58%), and 22 of 47 (47%); and for treatment failure vomiting (rescue medication in PACU or vomiting or retching at any time point) was 16 of 46 (35%), 11 of 48 (23%), and 5 of 47 (11%), for the droperidol, dimenhydrinate, and combination groups, respectively (P = 0.007 for droperidol versus combination). There were no differences in sedation or pain. Preoperative administration of an oral dose of LA dimenhydrinate in combination with droperidol when compared with droperidol alone effectively reduced the incidence of vomiting but not nausea in women undergoing elective outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. IMPLICATIONS: Dimenhydrinate is an inexpensive antiemetic with few side effects available as a long-acting oral formulation. Women undergoing outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy were given droperidol, an effective antiemetic, dimenhydrinate alone, or the combination of the two drugs. Dimenhydrinate plus droperidol significantly reduced the overall incidence of vomiting, but not nausea, when compared with droperidol alone.     

Comparative efficacy of acustimulation (ReliefBand) versus ondansetron (Zofran) in combination with droperidol for preventing nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic drugs are costly, are associated with variable efficacy, and can produce unwanted side effects when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. This clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation using a ReliefBand to ondansetron (Zofran) when utilized alone or in combination for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after plastic surgery. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study design was conducted to compare three prophylactic antiemetic treatment regimens in 120 outpatients undergoing plastic surgery procedures with routine low-dose droperidol prophylaxis: (1) ondansetron (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) acustimulation (n = 40), 2 ml intravenous saline and an active ReliefBand; and (3) combination (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and an active ReliefBand. The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for "rescue" antiemetics, were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. The outcome variables assessed included recovery times, quality of recovery score, time to resumption of normal diet, and patient satisfaction with the prophylactic antiemetic therapy. RESULTS: Use of the ReliefBand in combination with ondansetron significantly reduced nausea (20 vs. 50%), vomiting (0 vs. 20%), and the need for rescue antiemetics (10 vs. 37%) compared with ondansetron alone at 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, the ability to resume a normal diet (74 vs. 35%) within 24 h after surgery was significantly improved when the ReliefBand was used to supplement ondansetron (vs. ondansetron alone). Finally, the quality of recovery (90 +/- 10 vs.70 +/- 20) and patient satisfaction (94 +/- 10 vs. 75 +/- 22) scores were significantly higher in the combination group the ondansetron group. There were no significant differences between the ReliefBand and ondansetron when administered as adjuvants to droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The ReliefBand compared favorably to ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the acustimulation device enhanced the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron after plastic surgery.     

Superior prolonged antiemetic prophylaxis with a four-drug multimodal regimen - comparison with propofol or placebo

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a low-dose propofol infusion with a four-drug multimodal regimen for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: : PONV was studied in two patient groups with a known high incidence. Through a stratified randomization, 60 patients undergoing breast surgery and 120 patients undergoing abdominal surgery were randomized to three groups of equal size: the propofol group (P), the multidrug group (M) and the control group (C). All patients received general anesthesia, induction with propofol and maintenance with sevoflurane. After induction, patients in the P group received a continuous infusion of propofol 1 mg/kg/h during the operation and the first 4 postoperative h. Patients in the M group received dexamethasone 4 mg and three antiemetics, ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg and metoclopramide 10 mg i.v. In the control group no prophylaxis was given. Nausea and pain were evaluated by incidence and a visual analog scale (0-10 cm). All emetic episodes were noted by the staff during the first 4 h and by the patients during the next 20 h. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the M group (24%) than in the P group (49%) (P<0.01) or the C group (70%) (P<0.001). The incidence of PONV increased significantly both in patients undergoing breast surgery and abdominal surgery after termination of propofol. The number of patients who vomited was significantly lower in the M group, both in breast surgery patients (5%) and abdominal surgery patients (3%) compared to patients in the propofol groups (breast 16% NS; abdominal 29%, P<0.05) and in the control groups (breast 37%, P<0.01; abdominal 29%, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: The incidence of PONV is very high in patients undergoing breast and abdominal surgery. In the present study antiemetic prophylaxis with a combination of droperidol, ondansetron, metoclopramide and dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV, especially vomiting, than a postoperative low-dose infusion of propofol, which had a short lasting effect.