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.     

Prophylactic ondansetron is effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting but not on pruritus after cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of ondansetron for prevention of pruritus, nausea and vomiting after cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Referral center, institutional practice. PATIENTS: 100 nonbreastfeeding women undergoing elective cesarean delivery with sufentanil-morphine-bupivacaine anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: After the umbilical cord was clamped, patients in Group 1 received ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (IV) and patients in Group 2 received placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency and severity of postoperative (24-hour) pruritus, nausea and vomiting, surgical pain, and side effects related to ondansetron were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: In the ondansetron group, 38 patients had pruritus (16 mild and 22 severe) and 9 patients had nausea and vomiting (5 mild and 4 severe). In the placebo group, 41 patients had pruritus (21 mild and 20 severe) and 29 patients had nausea and vomiting (9 mild and 15 severe). The frequency and severity of the nausea and vomiting episodes were significantly reduced in the ondansetron group. Pain scores were comparable between groups. No side effects related to ondansetron were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IV ondansetron 8 mg is safe and effective in reducing the frequency and the severity of nausea and vomiting, but not pruritus, following cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine.     

Post discharge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory laparoscopy is not reduced by promethazine prophylaxis

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) following outpatient laparoscopic procedures in women, and to assess the efficacy of the prophylactic administration of promethazine prior to discharge from hospital. METHODS: Ninety-five healthy women scheduled for ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy or gynecological surgery completed this double blind, placebo controlled study. A standardized fentanyl-propofol-nitrous oxide-isoflurane anesthetic was used, and all patients received 0.5 mg droperidol i.v., intraoperatively. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.6 mg x kg(-1) promethazine or placebo i.m. prior to transfer from the post-anesthetic recovery (PAR) unit. The incidence and severity of nausea, pain, and drowsiness were documented using patient diaries at four time intervals during the first 24 hr postoperatively using four-point self-assessment scales. RESULTS: After discharge home, the overall incidence of nausea was 48%, moderate to severe nausea 30%, vomiting 17% and rescue antiemetic use 28%, with no difference between those receiving saline or promethazine. The need for antiemetics in the PAR was associated with subsequent PDNV, with those requiring PAR antiemetics being four times as likely to vomit after discharge (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Despite the prophylactic administration of 0.5 mg droperidol i.v., patients undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery reported a high incidence of nausea after discharge. Patients requiring antiemetics in the PAR were at higher risk for PDNV. The incidence of nausea was not altered by prophylactic administration of 0.6 mg x kg(-1) promethazine i.m. before discharge.     

Premedication with promethazine and transdermal scopolamine reduces the incidence of nausea and vomiting after intrathecal morphine

Intrathecal morphine provides effective postoperative pain relief in major orthopaedic surgery. Its use, however, is associated with unpleasant side effects like nausea and vomiting. The effect of different premedications on postoperative emetic sequelae induced by intrathecal morphine was studied in a prospective, double blind study. Sixty patients scheduled for arthroplasty surgery of the lower extremity were anaesthetized with spinal anaesthesia with a combination of isobaric bupivacaine 20 mg and morphine 0.3 mg. For premedication the patients were randomised to three groups of equal size. They received either oral diazepam (5 15 mg), oral promethazine (10 mg) or a combination of promethazine and transdermal scopolamine (1.5 mg).
Sixty percent of the patients with both promethazine and transdermal scopolamine were totally free from postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) symptoms compared to those premedicated with diazepam (40%) or promethazine alone (30%). Promethazine together with transdermal scopolamine reduced significantly the number of patients with vomiting (to 25%) and also vomiting episodes. This combination was also more efficient in reducing the incidence of nausea (to 25%) and nausea episodes than promethazine alone ( P <0.05). Combination also reduced the requests for additional pain relief ( P <0.05). PONV occurred in a majority of patients during the first 12 hours of the 24 hour study period and the need for additional analgesics thereafter. The incidence of itching (50–65%) and urinary catheterisation (55–70%) was similar in all groups.
In conclusion, the combination of oral promethazine and transdermal scopolamine was most effective in reducing PONV symptoms and also reduced the need for postoperative pain treatment.     

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.     

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.     

Ondansetron, orally disintegrating tablets versus intravenous injection for prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced nausea, vomiting, and pruritus in young males

In this study we compared the efficacy of orally disintegrating tablets (ODT) and IV ondansetron for preventing spinal morphine-induced pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in healthy young male patients. Patients who received bupivacaine with 0.20 mg morphine for spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned to the ODT group (ODT ondansetron 8 mg, n = 50), the IV group (4 mg ondansetron IV, n = 50), or the placebo group (n = 50). Each individual was assessed for pruritus, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pain at 0, 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 h after surgery using three distinct visual analog scales. The frequencies of postoperative nausea and vomiting and frequencies of requirement for rescue antiemetic and antipruritic were recorded. There were no significant differences among the three groups with respect to incidence or severity of PONV or postoperative pain visual analog scale scores. The incidences of pruritus in the ODT (56%) and IV (66%) groups were significantly different from that in the placebo group (86%) (P < 0.02 for both). Only the ODT group had significantly lower mean pruritus visual analog scale scores at 0, 2, 6, and 12 h postsurgery than the placebo group (P < 0.023 for all). The frequency of requirement for rescue antipruritic was significantly less in the ODT group than the placebo group (P = 0.013). Both ODT ondansetron 8 mg and IV ondansetron 4 mg are more effective than placebo for preventing spinal morphine-induced pruritus, but neither form of this agent reduces spinal morphine-induced postoperative nausea and vomiting in this patient group.     

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.     

Efficacy of repeat intravenous dosing of ondansetron in controlling postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare repeat intravenous (i.v.) dosing of ondansetron 4 mg with placebo for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients for whom prophylactic, preoperative ondansetron 4 mg i.v. was inadequate DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Ten outpatient surgical centers in the United States. PATIENTS: 2,199 male and female ASA physical status I, II, and III patients > or = 12 years old scheduled to undergo outpatient surgical procedures and receive nitrous oxide-based general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Ondansetron 4 mg i.v. was administered to all patients before induction of general anesthesia. Patients who experienced PONV or requested antiemetic therapy within 2 hours after discontinuation of inhaled anesthesia were randomized (1:1) to either a repeat i.v. ondansetron 4 mg dose or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 2,199 patients prophylactically treated with ondansetron 4 mg before anesthesia induction, 1,771 (80.5%) did not experience PONV or request antiemetic therapy during the 2 hours following discontinuation of anesthesia. Of the 428 patients who experienced PONV or requested antiemetic therapy during the same period, and were randomized to additional treatment (214 randomized to ondansetron, 214 randomized to placebo), the incidence of complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication, no study withdrawal) was similar for both ondansetron-randomized and placebo-randomized groups for the 2-hour (34% and 43%, respectively, p = 0.074) and 24-hour (28% and 32%, respectively, p = 0.342) postrandomization study periods. Repeat ondansetron dosing was not more effective than placebo in controlling either postoperative emesis or the severity/duration of postoperative nausea. The administration of an additional dose of ondansetron 4 mg postoperatively did not result in an increased incidence of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: In patients for whom preoperative prophylaxis with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. is not successful, a repeat dose of ondansetron 4 mg i.v. in the postanesthesia care unit does not appear to offer additional control of PONV.     

Ondansetron versus metoclopramide in prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective double-blind randomized study

OBJECTIVE: Patients who undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be at risk of experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting. This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the prophylactic use of metoclopramide and ondansetron for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Eighty patients were randomized into two groups. Patients received ondansetron 4 mg or metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously in a double-blind manner at the end of anaesthesia. RESULTS: The incidence of nausea was 45% for metoclopramide and 20% for ondansetron in the 24 hours postoperatively; the difference was statistically insignificant (p = 0.05). Postoperative nausea score did not show any significant difference between the two group in the first 2 hours (p = 0.3) and 4 hours (p = 0.12) but was significant between 4 and 24 hours (p = 0.02). The incidence of vomiting was 20% for metoclopramide and 2.5% for ondansetron. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Ondansetron 4 mg given intravenously at the end of surgery is effective for preventing vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.     

The effect of promethazine on postoperative pain: a comparison of preoperative, postoperative, and placebo administration in patients following total abdominal hysterectomy

BACKGROUND: Histamine receptors are involved in the development of inflammatory pain and hyperalgesia, and the use of antihistamines is advocated as an alternative for pain therapy and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We investigated the influence of timing of promethazine administration on postoperative pain outcomes. METHODS: Ninety female patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy were randomly divided into three groups. All individuals received infusions of promethazine and normal saline before anaesthesia induction, and postoperatively the Pre group received promethazine 0.1 mg kg(-1) before anaesthesia and saline postoperatively, and the Post group received saline before anaesthesia and promethazine 0.1 mg kg(-1) postoperatively, while the Control group received two equivalent volumes of saline. Patients were treated using patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA). The primary endpoint was pain intensity and morphine consumption. The secondary endpoint was postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Postoperative morphine usage was significantly lower in the Pre group (24.1 +/- 3.9 mg) relative to the Post (30.0 +/- 4.6 mg) and Control groups (32.1 +/- 4.8 mg) during the first 24 h postoperatively (P<0.05). The number and incidence of patients suffering from postoperative nausea in the first 24 h was six (21%), seven (23%), and 15 (47%) in the Pre, Post, and Control groups, respectively (P<0.05). The number and incidence of patients vomiting in the first 24 h was three (10%), two (7%), and 10 (32%) in the Pre, Post, and Control groups, respectively (P<0.05). The number of patients asking for rescue antiemetic in the first 24 h was one (3%), two (7%), and seven (22%) in the Pre, Post, and Control groups, respectively (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that preoperative administration of promethazine 0.1 mg kg(-1) reduces postoperative morphine consumption compared with postoperative and placebo administration, and that use of promethazine reduces PONV and the number of patients asking for rescue antiemetic in the first 24 h after surgery when compared with placebo.     

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.     

Ondansetron disintegrating tablets of 8 mg twice a day for 3 days did not reduce the incidence of nausea or vomiting after laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although many antiemetic drugs are available for intravenous use in the hospital setting, few are available after patient discharge. Consequently, nausea and vomiting are frequent complaints from patients at home after ambulatory surgery. We tested the hypothesis that the new 8 mg ondansetron disintegrating tablets will decrease the rate of nausea and vomiting at home after laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: Ninety-six patients were studied in a randomized double-blind study. Starting the first evening after operation and continuing every 12 h for 3 days, patients received either placebo or ondansetron 8 mg disintegrating tablets orally. The patients returned a questionnaire about postoperative nausea and vomiting, other side-effects, e.g. dizziness, headache, nightmare, anxiety and pain, as well as their overall satisfaction at 24 and 72 h after completion of surgery. RESULTS: The rates of nausea and vomiting were similar in the two groups, both during the first 24 h (28 versus 48%, placebo and ondansetron, respectively (ns) and during the 24-72 h (21 versus 35% (ns)). The incidence rate of vomiting was 8% (placebo) versus 12% (ondansetron) during the first 24 h (ns) and 9 versus 13% respectively in the 24-72 h (ns). No difference between groups was observed in overall satisfaction, incidence of postoperative pain or other side-effects. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ondansetron disintegrating tablets of 8 mg twice a day for 3 days did not reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopic surgery.     

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.     

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.     

Olanzapine as an add-on,pre-operative anti-emetic drug for postoperative nausea or vomiting: a randomised controlled trial

Postoperative nausea or vomiting occurs in up to 40% in patients with multiple risk factors, despite prophylaxis. Olanzapine is an antipsychotic drug that is used to prevent nausea and vomiting in palliative care and to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This study aimed to examine whether pre-operative olanzapine, as a prophylactic anti-emetic added to intra-operative dexamethasone, ondansetron and total intravenous anaesthesia, reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting. We performed a multiply-blinded randomised controlled trial in patients aged 18–60 years with cancer at high risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting (three or four risk factors according to the Apfel criteria) plus a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Patients were allocated at random to receive 10 mg olanzapine or placebo orally 1 h before surgery in addition to a two-drug regimen (dexamethasone and ondansetron) and propofol anaesthesia to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery. In total, 100 patients were enrolled; 47 in the olanzapine group and 49 in the control group completed the study. The baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. The incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 h after surgery was lower in the olanzapine group (12/47, 26%) than in the control group (31/49, 63%) (p = 0.008, RR 0.40 (95%CI 0.21–0.79)). Adding pre-operative oral olanzapine to intra-operative dexamethasone and ondansetron was highly effective in reducing the risk of postoperative nausea or vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery in patients with a previous history of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and at least three Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea or vomiting.     

Comparison of ondansetron, metoclopramide and placebo as premedicants to reduce nausea and vomiting after major surgery

In a randomised, double-blind study, we have compared the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in 124 patients undergoing major lower limb orthopaedic surgery following oral premedication with temazapam and ondansetron 8 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg or placebo. They received a standardised epidural and general anaesthetic. An epidural mixture containing bupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl 10 mg.ml⁻¹ was infused postoperatively. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting was assessed every 4 h for 24 h. The incidence of vomiting significantly decreased from 55% and 43% in the placebo and metoclopramide groups, respectively, to 26% in the ondansetron group (p = 0.03). The incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients who had previously suffered was also significantly reduced from 67% and 68% in the placebo and metoclopramide groups, respectively, to 29% in the ondansetron group (p = 0.035). We conclude that oral premedication with ondansetron 8 mg was superior to metoclopramide 10 mg and placebo in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting following major orthopaedic surgery in patients given epidural opioid analgesia.     

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.     

Patient-controlled analgesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting: efficacy of a continuous infusion of ondansetron

A continuous infusion of ondansetron was compared with a placebo infusion in 80 patients undergoing major breast reconstructive surgery. All patients received a standard anaesthetic and a bolus dose of ondansetron after induction. They were then randomly allocated to receive an intravenous infusion of ondansetron or a placebo infusion for 24 h in a double-blind fashion. Postoperative analgesia was provided by patient-controlled subcutaneous diamorphine. In the ondansetron group, the severity of nausea, measured by a 10-point verbal rating scale, was reduced (p = 0.01) and fewer patients stated at postoperative interview that nausea and vomiting was a problem (p = 0.01).