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.     

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.     

Droperidol and dimenhydrinate alone or in combination for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting after nasal surgery in male patients

Droperidol and dimenhydrinate are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Droperidol, especially, has been studied extensively, but there are no studies on the combination of both drugs for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting. One hundred and forty male hospitalized patients undergoing nasal surgery were randomized to receive one of four anti-emetic regimes: placebo, dimenhydrinate (1 mg kg-1), droperidol (15 micrograms kg-1), or the combination of both drugs (droperidol 15 micrograms kg-1 + dimenhydrinate 1 mg kg-1) administered after induction of anaesthesia. Patients in the dimenhydrinate-group and the combination-group received a second dose of dimenhydrinate 6 h after the first administration to mitigate the short half-life of the drug. For general anaesthesia a standardized technique, including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2, vecuronium, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil, was used. Post-operative analgesia and anti-emetic rescue medication were standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional anti-emetics were recorded for 24 h. The main endpoint of this study was the number of patients who were completely free of post-operative nausea and vomiting (Fisher's Exact Test). Furthermore, the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting was analysed using a standardized scoring algorithm. The incidence of patients completely free of post-operative nausea and vomiting was 62.9% in the placebo-group, 77.1% in the dimenhydrinate-group (P = 0.21), and 82.9% in the droperidol-group (P = 0.07). This increased to 94.3% in the combination-group (P = 0.0015). In all three treatment groups the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting was reduced significantly compared with placebo treatment (P = 0.0003). The incidence of side effects was similar in the four groups. Dimenhydrinate was ineffective in reducing the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting and droperidol only reduced the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting. However, the combination of both drugs significantly reduces the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting when compared with placebo treatment.     

Nausea and vomiting after dexamethasone versus droperidol following outpatient laparoscopy with a propofol-based general anesthetic

Background: The purpose of this randomized, double-blinded study was to compare the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after dexamethasone versus droperidol following gynecologic laparoscopy, a group at high risk for developing PONV.
Methods: Ninety-five patients who underwent a propofol-based general anesthetic received either dexamethasone 0.17 mg/kg IV, or droperidol 0.02 mg/kg IV, just prior to abdominal incision. Nausea, retching, vomiting, degree of sedation, and discharge times were assessed in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), and the Ambulatory Care Unit (ACU). Following hospital discharge (24 h), the patients were contacted by telephone to assess any further complications.
Results: PONV in the PACU (14.6% vs. 14.9%) and ACU (8.3% vs. 14.9%) was as common after dexamethasone as after droperidol. PONV following hospital discharge was, however, less common after dexamethasone than after droperidol (4.2% vs. 17.0%, P =0.041). Postoperatively, no complications of therapy were detected.
Conclusions: We conclude that PONV is similar with dexamethasone and droperidol, but dexamethasone may have a longer duration of action in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy.     

Efficacy of ephedrine in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Although reported in the aerospace literature and anecdotally by anesthesiologists, the putative antiemetic effect of ephedrine remains unquantitated. We therefore prospectively studied ephedrine as an antiemetic agent in the perioperative setting in 97 patients undergoing general anesthesia for outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. Patients were assigned in a double-blind randomized fashion to receive a standardized general anesthetic followed by an intramuscular dose of either ephedrine (0.5 mg/kg), droperidol (0.04 mg/kg), or saline before the conclusion of surgery. Nausea, retching, or vomiting, as well as the degree of sedation and discharge times, were assessed in the recovery room and for 24 h postoperatively. Ephedrine was found to have a significantly antiemetic effect (P less than 0.05) when compared with placebo and an antiemetic effect similar to that of droperidol. Sedation scores were also significantly less in the ephedrine group than in both placebo and droperidol groups. Finally, variations in mean arterial blood pressure among the three groups were not statistically significant. We conclude that ephedrine is an effective antiemetic agent with minimal sedative side effects in patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopy.     

Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide alone or in combination for prophylaxis of PONV

PURPOSE: Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Metoclopramide, especially, has been studied extensively in the past, but there are no studies on the combination of both drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: One hundred and sixty male inpatients undergoing endonasal surgery were randomized to receive one of four antiemetic regimens in a double-blind manner: placebo, 1 mg x kg(-1) dimenhydrinate, 0.3 mg x kg(-1) metoclopramide, or the combination of both drugs was administered after induction of anesthesia. Patients received a second dose of these drugs six hours after the first administration to mitigate their short half-life. Standardized general anesthesia included benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2 vecuronium, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil. Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic rescue medication were standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional antiemetics were recorded for 24 hr. The incidences of PONV were analyzed with Fisher's Exact test and the severity of PONV (rated by a standardized scoring algorithm) with the Jonckheere-Terpestra-test. RESULTS: The incidence of patients free from PONV was 62.5% in the placebo-group and increased to 72.5% in the metoclopramide-group (P = 0.54), 75.0% in the dimenhydrinate-group (P = 0.34), and 85.0% in the combination- group (P = 0.025). In the latter group, the severity of PONV was reduced compared with placebo treatment (P = 0.017; Jonckheere-Terpestra-test). CONCLUSION: Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide were ineffective in reducing the incidence and the severity of PONV. Their combination reduced the incidence of PONV compared with placebo.     

Transdermal scopolamine reduces nausea and vomiting after outpatient laparoscopy

The authors evaluated the effect of transdermal scopolamine on the incidence of postoperative nausea, retching, and vomiting after outpatient laparoscopy in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. A Band-Aid-like patch containing either scopolamine or placebo was placed behind the ear the night before surgery. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl (0.5-2 micrograms/kg iv), thiopental (3-5 mg/kg iv), and succinylcholine (1-1.5 mg/kg iv) and maintained with isoflurane (0.2-2%) and nitrous oxide (60%) in oxygen. Scopolamine-treated patients had less nausea, retching, and vomiting compared with placebo-treated patients (P = 0.0029). Severe nausea and/or vomiting was present in 62% of the placebo group but only 37% of those getting the scopolamine patch. Repeated episodes of retching and vomiting were also less frequent in the scopolamine group compared with the placebo group (23% vs. 41%; P = 0.0213) as was the need for additional antiemetic therapy (13% vs. 32%; P = 0.0013). Patients in the scopolamine group were also discharged from the hospital sooner (4 +/- 1.3 vs. 4.5 +/- 1.5 h; P = 0.0487). Side effects were more frequent among those patients treated with the scopolamine patch (91% vs. 45%; P less than 0.05) but were not troublesome. The authors conclude that transdermal scopolamine is a safe and effective antiemetic for outpatients undergoing laparoscopy.     

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

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

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after intrathecal morphine for Cesarean section: a randomized comparison of dexamethasone, droperidol, and a combination

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal morphine provides good analgesia after cesarean delivery but the side effects include nausea and vomiting. Low-dose droperidol (0.625 mg) combined with dexamethasone 4 mg is postulated to have an additive antiemetic effect with less side effects. We therefore compared single doses of dexamethasone and droperidol alone with a low-dose combination of the two, to prevent spinal morphine-induced nausea and vomiting after cesarean section. METHODS: In a double-blind study, 120 women undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia (using 0.5% bupivacaine 10 mg and morphine 0.2 mg) were allocated randomly to receive dexamethasone 8 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg, dexamethasone 4 mg and droperidol 0.625 mg, or placebo, before the end of surgery. The incidences of nausea and vomiting, sedative score, pain score, and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The incidence of nausea and vomiting within 6 h postoperatively was lower and incidence of no nausea and vomiting for 24 h postoperatively was significantly higher for the combination group compared to the placebo group and the dexamethasone only group. Sedation scores within 3 h postoperatively and incidence of restlessness for the combination group were significantly lower than in the droperidol only group. CONCLUSION: An additive antiemetic effect and no significant side effects were shown for the combination of dexamethasone 4 mg and droperidol 0.625 mg. This combination was more effective than either dexamethasone 8 mg or droperidol 1.25 mg alone in preventing nausea and vomiting after spinal anesthesia using 0.5% bupivacaine and morphine 0.2 mg.     

Dimenhydrinate for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting in female in-patients.

Dimenhydrinate is an inexpensive antihistaminic drug, that is frequently used as an anti-emetic during anaesthesia. The popularity of the drug is contrasted by the lack of modern studies concerning its efficacy in reducing the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting. Thus, dimenhydrinate was compared with placebo in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. One hundred and thirty-three female in-patients were studied. They were stratified according to the type of surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy, thyroid resection or knee arthroscopy) to ensure an homogeneous distribution in both groups. General anaesthesia was induced with etomidate, fentanyl, vecuronium and maintained with enflurane in N2O/O2. Neuromuscular block was reversed with pyridostigmine/atropine. Patients in the dimenhydrinate group (n = 67) received 62 mg dimenhydrinate intravenously after induction of anaesthesia. Placebo patients (n = 66) received saline. Administration of dimenhydrinate (and placebo) was repeated three times during the 48-h study to mitigate the short half-life of the drug. Post-operative analgesia and anti-emetic rescue medication was standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching and the need for additional anti-emetics were recorded. Nausea was assessed using a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Post-operative nausea and vomiting was rated as 'none', 'mild', 'moderate' and 'severe' using a fixed scoring algorithm. There were no differences between the two groups with regard to biometric data, type of surgery and distribution of risk factors for developing post-operative nausea and vomiting. In the dimenhydrinate group, more patients remained completely free from post-operative nausea and vomiting compared with placebo (dimenhydrinate: 38.8%; placebo: 15.1%; P = 0.004). The incidence of severe post-operative nausea and vomiting was also reduced from 39.4% to 14.9%. No relevant side effects were observed. Intra-operative dimenhydrinate, followed by three further administrations after surgery, reduces the incidence and the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting without side effects. However, there still remained an unacceptable high number of patients who were not prevented completely from experiencing post-operative nausea and vomiting.     

透皮东莨菪碱贴剂联合昂丹司琼对比单独应用昂丹司琼用于预防门诊手术后恶心呕吐的一项随机双盲多中心研究

背景手术后恶心、呕吐（PONV）是门诊手术常见的并发症。本试验目的是观察透皮东莨菪碱贴剂（TDS）联合静脉注射昂丹司琼（OND）对门诊患者PONV的疗效是否优于单独应用昂丹司琼。方法此项随机双盲多中心的临床试验纳入了620例接受门诊腹腔镜或隆胸手术的PONV高危女性患者,进入手术室前2小时分别给患者贴上TDS贴剂或外观相同的空白贴剂。在全麻诱导前2—5分钟给所有患者静脉注射OND4mg。手术后24~48小时评估止吐是否完善（彻底止吐标准为无呕吐或干呕,且没有追加止吐药）。同时记录发生呕吐、干呕、恶心以及追加止吐药的患者比例,记录手术后首次发生PONV的时间及离院时间,记录呕吐、干呕、恶心的发作次数与严重程度及患者对于止吐治疗的满意度。结果TDS＋OND组与OND组相比,手术后24小时恶心、呕吐的发生率显著降低,但手术后48小时两者差异无显著性。TDS＋OND组没有呕吐、干呕且未追加过止吐药的患者占48％,而OND组占39％（P〈0．02）。TDS＋OND组的彻底止吐（无恶心、呕吐或干呕,且未追加止吐药）率显著高于OND组（分别为35％和25％,P〈0．01）。TDS＋OND组手术后首次发生恶心、呕吐、干呕及追加止吐药的时间明显晚于OND组（P〈0．05）。前者不良反应的总发生率也低于后者（分别为36．7％和49％,P〈0．01）。结论与单独应用OND相比。TDS＋OND能更大程度地减少PONV,主要是通过减少不良反应而获得。     

Combination of granisetron and droperidol for the prevention of vomiting after paediatric strabismus surgery.

This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of granisetron plus droperidol with each antiemetic alone for the prevention of vomiting after paediatric strabismus surgery. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 120 ASA physical status I children, aged 4-10 years, received granisetron 40 microg.kg- 1, droperidol 50 microg.kg- 1, granisetron 40 microg.kg- 1 plus droperidol 50 microg.kg- 1 (n=40 of each) intravenously after an inhalation induction of anaesthesia. A complete response, defined as no vomiting, no retching and no need for another rescue antiemetic medication, during 0-3 h after anaesthesia was 80% with granisetron, 45% with droperidol and 98% with granisetron plus droperidol, respectively; the corresponding incidence during 3-24 h after anaesthesia was 78%, 38% and 98% (P< 0.05; overall chi-squared test with Yates continuity correction). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any of the groups. In conclusion, a combination of granisetron and droperidol was more effective than granisetron or droperidol as a sole antiemetic for the prevention of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing strabismus repair.     

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.     

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.     

Nausea and vomiting after cardiac surgery

We have undertaken a prospective, randomized study to determine the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during intensive care stay after cardiac surgery, and to study the effect of addition of droperidol to an infusion of morphine used for postoperative analgesia. Data from 398 patients were examined. The use of droperidol reduced complaints of nausea from 92 of 198 (46.5%) to 46 of 200 (23%) and episodes of retching or vomiting from 73 of 198 (36.9%) to 44 of 200 (22%). The number of patients requiring rescue antiemetic medication was also reduced significantly from 100 of 198 (50.5%) of those who did not receive droperidol to 44 of 200 (22%) of those given droperidol. Mean duration of intubation was 4.9 h and was unaffected by the use of droperidol. Droperidol had no effect on mean length of stay in the recovery unit.      

Granisetron-droperidol combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing breast surgery

We have compared the efficacy and safety of the combination granisetron- droperidol with each antiemetic alone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after breast surgery. In a randomized, double-blind study, 150 female patients received granisetron 3 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg or granisetron 3 mg with droperidol 1.25 mg (n = 50 each) i.v., immediately before induction of anaesthesia. A standard general anaesthetic technique was used. The incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after anaesthesia was 18% with granisetron, 38% with droperidol and 4% with the granisetron-droperidol combination (P < 0.05; overall Fisher's exact probability test). We conclude that the granisetron-droperidol combination was more effective than each antiemetic alone in the prevention of PONV in female patients undergoing breast surgery.      

Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia in ambulatory surgery: prophylactic nalbuphine versus nalbuphine plus droperidol

Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) is a safe, effective, and efficient anesthetic for ambulatory surgery. Unfortunately, it has a frequent incidence of pruritus and a substantial incidence of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine is effective in treating or preventing pruritus after intrathecal or epidural morphine but may or may not have a beneficial effect on nausea and vomiting. Droperidol has demonstrated antiemetic efficacy with neuraxial opiates. In this study, we examined the prophylactic use of nalbuphine alone compared with nalbuphine with droperidol after SAB(MLF). One-hundred-twenty-four patients having outpatient knee arthroscopy under SAB(MLF) with 20 mg of lidocaine 0.5% and 20 micro g of fentanyl were randomized to receive IV at the end of surgery either 4 mg of nalbuphine (Group N) or droperidol 0.625 mg plus nalbuphine 4 mg (Group ND). The incidences of early (before discharge) and late onset nausea were, respectively, 18% versus 5% and 32% versus 13%. The postoperative incidences of pruritus were 61% versus 40%, whereas 19% of patients in Group N compared with 2% of patients in Group ND requested treatment for this. Group ND had lower pain scores and had a longer delay until first use of analgesic. There were no differences in average times to discharge. The only side effect of the medications was an increased drowsiness in Group ND. In conclusion, as prophylactic medication for use in conjunction with SAB(MLF), the addition of droperidol 0.625 mg to nalbuphine 4 mg was superior to nalbuphine alone. The combination provided for reduced postoperative nausea, pruritus, and pain-benefits that persisted after discharge home. The combination also avoided isolated cases of extreme delay in discharge. IMPLICATIONS: Droperidol in combination with nalbuphine enhances analgesia and is more effective than nalbuphine alone in preventing pruritus, nausea, and vomiting after minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia.     

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.     

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.     

A comparison of ondansetron and prochlorperazine for the prevention of nàusea and vomiting after tympanoplasty

Purpose

To evaluate the effects on PONV and headache after tympanoplasty of prochlorperazine 0.2 mg·kg^?1 im, ondansetron 0.06 mg·kg^?1 iv or placebo (isotonic saline) 0.02 ml·kg^?1 iv given immediately after induction of anaesthesia prior to tracheal intubation.

Methods

The study was randomised, double blind and prospective. One hundred and forty-eight patients, aged 9–61 yr, received a standardised balanced inhalational anaesthetic with controlled ventilation and induced hypotension. Postoperatively, the frequencies of retching and vomiting in the PACU and of nausea, retching, vomiting, headache, analgesic and antiemetic requirements in the surgical ward for 24 hr were recorded.

Results

The four test groups (n = 37 each) were comparable. The incidences of vomiting in the PACU were similar. During the first 24 hr after surgery the antiemetics produced no reductions in the incidence of nausea alone or of vomiting alone. However, the combination of nausea and vomiting was reduced from 53% (placebo) to 16% (P < 0.0005), 19% (P < 0.0005) and 30% (P < 0.05) by im. prochlorperazine, iv ondansetron and iv prochlorperazine, respectively. The frequency of those experiencing no PONV was increased from 27% (placebo) by prochlorperazine im to 57% (P < 0.01), by ondansetron iv to 62% (P < 0.005) and by prochlorperazine iv to 43% (P = NS). The. onset of PONV was delayed in those given prochlorperazine im, and vomiting was less severe in those given ondansetron iv. Headache occurred with similar frequency in each group.

Conclusion

Prophylactic prochlorperazine 0.2 mg·kg^?1 im and ondansetron 0.06 mg·kg^?1 iv are similarly efficacious in reducing nausea with vomiting after tympanoplasty, while prochlorperazine 0.1 mg·kg^?1 iv is less efficacious. Neither drug given as described appeared to reduce the frequency of postoperative nausea alone or vomiting alone.