Efficacy of ondansetron and prochlorperazine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after total hip replacement or total knee replacement procedures: a randomized, double-blind, comparative trial

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Effect of periarticular morphine injection for total hip arthroplasty: a randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

The periarticular multimodal cocktail injection is currently commonly used to treat postoperative pain after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Despite its analgesic effect, it is frequently reported to cause nausea and vomiting, which are adverse effects of opioids. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of morphine as a component of a multimodal cocktail injection for providing postoperative analgesia and alleviating swelling in patients who underwent THA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled trial involving 100 patients scheduled for unilateral THA. A mixture of steroids, local anaesthetics, NSAIDs, and epinephrine with or without morphine (0.1 mg/kg), was injected into randomly assigned patients. Postoperative assessment was performed with all attending personnel and patients blind to group assignment. Visual analogue scale (VAS) of pain, range of motion (ROM), nausea numerical rating scale (NRS), the total dose of antiemetic drugs used and thigh swelling were compared between groups on postoperative days.

RESULTS

Pain VAS scores both at rest and on motion did not differ between the 2 groups at any postoperative time-point. The nausea NRS scores during the postoperative period from 0 minutes to 1 hour and the total dose of antiemetic drugs administered were significantly higher in the morphine group. The thigh girth showed no difference between groups on any of the postoperative days.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggested that addition of morphine to the multimodal cocktail injection after THA is not effective for relieving postoperative pain, alleviating swelling, or improving ROM, and results in nausea and vomiting. Randomised controlled trial registration number UMIN000022668.

The Effects of Peri-Operative Dexamethasone on Patients Undergoing Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: Is It Safe for Diabetics?

BACKGROUND

Peri-operative dexamethasone has been shown to effectively reduce post-operative nausea and vomiting and aide in analgesia after total joint arthroplasty (TJA); however, systemic glucocorticoid therapy has many adverse effects. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of dexamethasone on prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and blood glucose levels in patients undergoing TJA.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all patients receiving primary TJA from 2011 to 2015 (n = 2317) was conducted. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: dexamethasone (n = 1426) and no dexamethasone (n = 891); these groups were subdivided into diabetic and non-diabetic patients. The primary outcome was PJI; secondary measures included glucose levels and pre-operative hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values. Statistics were carried out using logistic and regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 2317 joints, 1.12% developed PJI; this was not affected by dexamethasone (P = .166). Diabetics were found to have higher rate of infection (P < .001); however, diabetics who received dexamethasone were not found to have a significantly higher infection rate that non-diabetics (P = .646). Blood glucose levels were found to increase post-operatively, and dexamethasone did not increase this change (P = .537). Diabetes (P < .001) and increasing hemoglobin A1c (P < .001) were also associated with increased serum glucose levels; however, this was not influenced by dexamethasone (P = .595).

CONCLUSION

Although diabetic patients were found to have a higher infection rate overall, this was not affected by administration of intravenous dexamethasone, nor was the post-operative elevation in serum glucose levels. In this study population, peri-operative intravenous dexamethasone did not increase the rate of PJI and was safe to administer in patients undergoing TJA.

Perioperative multiple low-dose Dexamethasones improves postoperative clinical outcomes after Total knee arthroplasty

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of multiple low-dose dexamethasones in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

One hundred fifty patients were equally randomized into 3 groups: Group A (n = 50) received 2 doses of normal saline only; Group B (n = 50) received with 1 dose of intravenous dexamethasone and 1 dose of normal saline; Group C (n = 50) received with 2 doses of intravenous dexamethasone. The clinical outcomes and complications were assessed.

Results

The CRP and IL-6 were significantly lower in Group C and B than Group A at 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively (P < 0.001 for all). The intensity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in Group C was lower than Group A at 24 (P < 0.001, P = 0.002), 48 (P = 0.005, P = 0.041) and 72 h (P = 0.017, P = 0.031) postoperatively and Group B at 24 h (P = 0.027, P = 0.019) postoperatively. Pain were significantly less in Group C than Group A at 24 (P < 0.001), 48 h (P = 0.037) postoperatively and Group B 24 h (P = 0.030) postoperatively. Patients in Group C had better range of motion (ROM) and satisfaction than Group A (P < 0.001, P = 0.002) and B (P = 0.001, P = 0.043). No differences were found in complications.

Conclusions

The administration of 10 mg dexamethasone 1 h before the surgery, and repeated at 6 h postoperatively can significantly reduce the level of postoperative CRP and IL-6 and the incidence of PONV, relieve pain, achieve an additional analgesic effect, and improve the early ROM compared with the other two groups in TKA.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level I.

Trial registration

The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800017036). Registered on July 9, 2018.

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Effect of Periarticular Morphine Injection for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

BACKGROUND

The periarticular multimodal cocktail injection including morphine is currently commonly used to treat postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite its analgesic effect, it is frequently reported to cause nausea and vomiting, which are adverse effects of opioids. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of morphine as a component of a multimodal cocktail injection for providing postoperative analgesia and alleviating swelling in patients who underwent TKA.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial involving 102 patients scheduled for unilateral TKA. A mixture of steroids, local anesthetics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and epinephrine with or without morphine (10 mg) was injected to randomly assigned patients. Postoperative assessment was performed with all attending personnel and patients blinded to group assignment. Visual analog scale of pain, range of motion, nausea numerical rating scale, number of patients with vomiting, total dose of antiemetic drugs used, thigh swelling, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, and adverse outcomes were compared between groups on postoperative days.

RESULTS

Visual analog scale scores did not differ between the 2 groups at any postoperative time point. The nausea numerical rating scale scores during the postoperative period from 30 min to 9 h, the number of vomiting episodes, and the total dose of antiemetic drugs administered were significantly higher in the morphine group. The thigh girth, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the incidence of complications were not different between groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggested that addition of morphine to the multimodal cocktail injection is not effective for relieving postoperative pain, alleviating swelling, or improving range of motion, and results in nausea and vomiting.

Perioperative intravenous glucocorticoids can decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain in total joint arthroplasty: A meta-analysis and trial sequence analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of intravenous glucocorticoids for reducing pain intensity and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and Google databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous glucocorticoids versus no intravenous glucocorticoids or sham for patients undergoing TJA. Outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) pain at 12, 24, and 48 hours; the occurrence of PONV; length of hospital stay; the occurrence of infection; and blood glucose levels after surgery. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and the weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Trial sequential analysis was also used to verify the pooled results.

RESULTS

Thirteen clinical trials involving 821 patients were ultimately included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that intravenous steroids can decrease VAS at 12 hours (WMD = -8.54, 95% CI -11.55 to -5.53, P = 0.000; I = 35.1%), 24 hours (WMD = -7.48, 95% CI -13.38 to -1.59, P = 0.013; I = 91.8%), and 48 hours (WMD = -1.90, 95% CI -3.75 to -0.05, P = 0.044; I = 84.5%). Intravenous steroids can decrease the occurrence of PONV (RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.73, P = 0.000; I = 33.1%). There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay, occurrence of infection, and blood glucose levels after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous glucocorticoids not only alleviate early pain intensity but also decrease PONV after TJA. More high-quality RCTs are required to determine the safety of glucocorticoids before making final recommendations.

Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Objective:

To review the literature on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in adults.

Data Sources:

Literature retrieval was accessed through MEDLINE (1966–December 2006) using the terms postoperative nausea and vomiting, prevention and treatment. Article references were hand-searched for additional relevant articles and abstracts.

Study Selection And Data Extraction:

All studies published in English were evaluated. Those dealing with prevention and treatment of PONV in adults were included in the review.

Data Synthesis:

Evidence suggests that providing prophylactic antiemetic medications in high-risk surgical patients is warranted. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are widely used, with no one agent being clearly superior. However, studies have shown other types of agents to ho more cost-effective.

Conclusions:

The first step in the prevention of PONV is assessment and reduction of risk factors. Although nonpharmacologic therapies may play a role in the treatment of PONV, the mainstay of therapy for PONV is pharmacologic modalities. Patients at moderate to high risk for PONV need prophylactic antiemetic therapy. High-risk patients may require combination therapy with 2 or 3 agents from different antiemetic classes. Rescue antiemetic therapy is needed by patients who actually develop PONV. The agents of choice in such cases should be from antiemetic classes different from those used for prophylaxis of PONV.

Effects of Modification of Pain Protocol on Incidence of Post Operative Nausea and Vomiting

Background:

A Perioperative Surgical Home (PSH) care model applies a standardized multidisciplinary approach to patient care using evidence-based medicine to modify and improve protocols. Analysis of patient outcome measures, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), allows for refinement of existing protocols to improve patient care. We aim to compare the incidence of PONV in patients who underwent primary total joint arthroplasty before and after modification of our PSH pain protocol.

Methods:

All total joint replacement PSH (TJR-PSH) patients who underwent primary THA (n=149) or TKA (n=212) in the study period were included. The modified protocol added a single dose of intravenous (IV) ketorolac given in the operating room and oxycodone immediate release orally instead of IV Hydromorphone in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). The outcomes were (1) incidence of PONV and (2) average pain score in the PACU. We also examined the effect of primary anesthetic (spinal vs. GA) on these outcomes. The groups were compared using chi-square tests of proportions.

Results:

The incidence of post-operative nausea in the PACU decreased significantly with the modified protocol (27.4% vs. 38.1%, p=0.0442). There was no difference in PONV based on choice of anesthetic or procedure. Average PACU pain scores did not differ significantly between the two protocols.

Conclusion:

Simple modifications to TJR-PSH multimodal pain management protocol, with decrease in IV narcotic use, resulted in a lower incidence of postoperative nausea, without compromising average PACU pain scores. This report demonstrates the need for continuous monitoring of PSH pathways and implementation of revisions as needed.

Are newer, more expensive pharmacotherapy options associated with superior symptom control compared to less costly agents used in a collaborative practice setting?

Innovative approaches to care may be necessary to provide the most effective symptom management to hospice patients. One approach is prescribing newer pharmacotherapy options with the potential to improve symptom management in hospice. Such therapies are sometimes prescribed outside of Food and Drug Administration indications and are typically more costly than older agents usedfor the same symptoms. Another approach is the collaborative practice (CP) care model, whereby clinical pharmacists are given prescriptive authority according to evidence-based protocols and algorithms within boundaries approved by a physician. The agents typically included in CPprotocols are those with wide therapeutic indices and with substantial evidence to support their use. The purpose of this study was to examine both approaches to management ofpain, insomnia, and nausea, comparing symptom scores for those patients who received noncollaborative drug therapies (transdermal fentanyl, zolpidem, and ondansetron) to those who received agents under CP (oral sustained-release opioids, temazepam, andprochlorperazine). The object of the study was to investigate outcomes associated with newer drug therapy options as compared to older agents for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea. A secondary goal is to compare symptom outcomes for patients receiving pharmaceutical care under CP and non-CP models. The study design was retrospective with a cohort. A total of 50 patients were randomly selected for each cohort of the pain and insomnia study arms. Only 45 patients prescribed oral ondansetron met inclusion criteriafor the nausea group; 45 patients prescribed prochlorperazine were randomly selected as the comparator group. Patients were compared on their degree of response to the prescribed therapy. Response was classified as complete, partial, no improvement from baseline, worsened, or unknown. A complete response was defined as the symptom score improving to a 0 of 10, regardless of the previous value documented. A partial response was defined as any improvement in score that did not result in a 0 of 10. No improvement from baseline reflected a lack of overall change in score throughout the series of data points collected. A worsened response was any score found to be higher than the score documented at the time of dispense. The unknown category reflects any set of scores that had an “NIA” documented at the time of medication dispense or when documented for both attempts subsequent to dispensing the medication. A complete response was present in 14 of 50 (24 percent) of the patients prescribed fentanyl as compared with 12 of 50 (28 percent) of those prescribed oral therapy (p = .82). Responses defined as partial, no improvement over baseline, worsened, and unknown were also comparable between the two cohorts. A complete response was seen in 26 patients prescribed temazepam (52 percent), whereas only 11 (22 percent) of patients initially prescribed zolpidem achieved the same response (p = .003 7). Both groups had a similar distribution of partial, no improvement over baseline, and worsened responses. For the nausea arm of the study, a difference was found in the number of complete responses, favoring prochlorperazine (22 of 45, 48.9 percent for prochlorperazine, 12 of 45, 26.7 percent for ondansetron, p =. 0504), as well as an increased number of worse responses seen with ondansetron patients (p = .0513); however, neither difference was statistically significant. Newer pharmacotherapy options for the management of pain, insomnia, and nausea were not found to be superior when compared to older agents prescribed under CR

Phenothiazine vs 5HT3 antagonist prophylactic regimens to prevent Post-Anesthesia Care Unit rescue antiemetic: an observational study

PURPOSE

Our practitioners are asked to consider a patient's postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) risk profile when developing their prophylactic antiemetic strategy. There is wide variation in employed strategies, and we have yet to determine the most effective PONV prophylactic regimen. The objective of this study is to compare prophylactic antiemetic regimens containing: phenothiazines to 5HT3 antagonists for effectiveness at reducing the incidence of Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) rescue antiemetic administration.

METHODS

This is an observational study of 4,392 nonsmoking women who underwent general anesthesia for breast surgery from 1/1/2009 through 6/30/2012. Previous history of PONV or motion sickness (HxPONV/MS) and the use of PACU opioids were recorded. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy was left to the discretion of the anesthesia care team. We compared phenothiazines and 5HT3 antagonists alone and with a glucocorticoid to determine the most effective treatment regimen in our practice for the prevention of the administration of PACU rescue antiemetics.

RESULTS

Patients who received a phenothiazine regimen compared to a 5HT3 antagonist regimen were less likely to have an antiemetic administered in the PACU (p=0.0100) and this significant difference in rates holds in a logistic regression model adjusted for HxPONV/MS and PACU Opioid use (p=0.0103).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings our clinicians are encouraged to administer a combination of a phenothiazine and a glucocorticoid in female, nonsmoking surgical breast patients for the prevention of PACU rescue antiemetic administration.

Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Preemptive low-dose dexamethasone reduces postoperative emesis and pain after TKA: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone is a potent analgesic and antiemetic. However, the benefit of dexamethasone after TKA is unclear, as is the efficacy in a current multimodal regime.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined (1) whether the addition of dexamethasone to a protocol including ramosetron further reduces postoperative emesis compared with ramosetron alone; (2) whether it reduces postoperative pain; and (3) whether it increases the risk for wound complications in a current multimodal regime after TKA.

METHODS

We randomized 269 patients undergoing TKAs to receive dexamethasone (10 mg) 1 hour before surgery and ramosetron immediately after surgery (Dexa-Ra group, n = 135), or ramosetron alone (Ra group, n = 134). We recorded the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), severity of nausea, incidence of antiemetic requirement, complete response, pain level, and opioid consumption. Patients were assessed 0 to 6, 6 to 24, 24 to 48, and 48 to 72 hours postoperatively. In addition, patients were evaluated for wound complications and periprosthetic joint infections at a minimum of 1 year after surgery.

RESULTS

The Dexa-Ra group had a lower incidence of PONV during the entire 72-hour evaluation period and experienced less severe nausea for the first 6 hours after TKA, although not between 6 to 72 hours. Overall use of a rescue antiemetic was less frequent, and complete response was more frequent in the Dexa-Ra group. Patients in the Dexa-Ra group experienced lower pain and consumed less opioids during the 6- to 24-hour period and during the overall study period. No differences were found in wound complications between the groups, and each group had one case of periprosthetic joint infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received prophylactic dexamethasone in addition to ramosetron had reduced postoperative emesis and pain without increased risks for wound complications, compared with patients who received ramosetron alone in patients managed using a multimodal regimen after TKA.

Does ramosetron reduce postoperative emesis and pain after TKA?

BACKGROUND

Current pain management protocols involving many anesthetic and analgesic drugs reportedly provide adequate analgesia after TKA. However, control of emetic events associated with the drugs used in current multimodal pain management remains challenging.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined (1) whether ramosetron prophylaxis reduces postoperative emetic events; and (2) whether it influences pain levels and opioid consumption in patients managed with a current multimodal pain management protocol after TKA.

METHODS

We randomized 119 patients undergoing TKA to receive either ramosetron (experimental group, n = 60) or no prophylaxis (control group, n = 59). All patients received regional anesthesia, preemptive analgesic medication, continuous femoral nerve block, periarticular injection, and fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. We recorded the incidence of emetic events, rescue antiemetic requirements, complete response, pain level, and opioid consumption during three periods (0-6, 6-24, and 24-48 hours postoperatively). The severity of nausea was evaluated using a 0 to 10 VAS.

RESULTS

The ramosetron group tended to have a lower incidence of nausea with a higher complete response and tended to have less severe nausea and fewer rescue antiemetic requirements during the 6- to 24-hour period. However, the overall incidences of emetic events, rescue antiemetic requirements, and complete response were similar in both groups. We found no differences in pain level or opioid consumption between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramosetron reduced postoperative emetic events only during the 6- to 24-hour postoperative period and did not affect pain relief. More efficient measures to reduce emetic events after TKA should be explored.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparing the preventive effect of midazolam and midazolam-dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting in elective middle ear surgery

Background:

Nausea and vomiting are common postoperative complications with incidence of 20–80% depends on the surgery type, anesthetic drugs, age, sex, etc. This complication may lead to patient discomfort, intraocular, and intracerebral pressures increase, sutures rupture, esophageal injury, and rarely death. Many studies reported that midazolam and dexamethasone alone can decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but their combination has never been studied yet. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of midazolam and midazolam-dexamethasone on PONV after middle ear surgery.

Materials and Methods:

66 ASA I and II patients aged 15–65 year scheduled for elective middle ear surgery under general anesthesia randomly divided into two groups. Immediately after induction of the anesthesia group one (M) received midazolam 0.075 mg/kg and group two (M+D) received combination of midazolam (0.075 mg/kg) plus dexamethasone (0.05 mg/kg). Then the severity of nausea was measured by visual analog scales 0–10 (VAS) in recovery room at 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Metoclopramid (0.1 mg/kg) was administrated I.V. slowly if nausea score was above 3 or patient had vomiting. The postoperative need for antiemetics and the duration of stay in recovery room were recorded. Values of P<0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results:

There were no significant differences in age, gender, and weight between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the mean nausea scores between two groups except after 12 h postoperatively (1.39 ± 3.19 in M group vs. 0.42 ± 1.71 in M+D group). The mean vomiting frequency was significantly less in midazolam-dexamethasone group in the recovery room (0.9 ± 0.29 vs. 0 ± 0) and at 6–12 h (1.09 ± 2.41 vs. 0.3 ± 0.8), and 12–24 h (0.42 ± 1.32 vs. 0.03 ± 0.17) postoperatively. During the first 24 h postoperatively, the metoclopramid consumption was significantly less in combination therapy (6.48 ± 9.54) than in the midazolam group (12.9 ± 23.44) (Value<0.5).

Conclusion:

The combination of midazolam-dexametazone is more effective than midazolam alone in prevention of postoperative vomiting after middle ear surgery. Therefore, we recommend combination therapy for patients who are prone to PONV.

Antiemesis after total joint arthroplasty: does a single preoperative dose of aprepitant reduce nausea and vomiting?

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is frequent after joint arthroplasty; in addition to causing patient distress, it interferes with early mobilization and hospital discharge. Various antiemetic agents reduce PONV, but their action is limited by a short half-life. Aprepitant, an antiemetic developed for patients receiving chemotherapy, has a duration of action much longer than other antiemetics.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked whether a single dose of preoperative aprepitant (40 mg orally) reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting after THA or TKA.

METHODS

Fifty patients who received a preoperative dose of aprepitant (study group) were matched demographically to 50 patients who did not receive aprepitant (control group) from a group of patients undergoing THA or TKA. Patients' charts were reviewed to identify episodes of PONV, number of doses of antiemetics needed for breakthrough PONV, and length of stay. Aprepitant side effects, and complications.

RESULTS

Aprepitant reduced the percentage of patients with PONV (39% of study and 70% of control patients). Moderate or severe PONV occurred in 22% of study and 40% of control patients. The number of episodes of PONV during hospitalization was 2.9 for the control group and 1.6 for the study group. Postoperatively, the control group required on average 1.3 doses of ondansetron compared with 0.6 doses for the study group. Hospital length of stay was reduced from 3.3 days for the control group and to 2.3 days for the study group.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest a single preoperative dose of aprepitant reduces the number of episodes and severity of PONV, the need for additional antiemetics, and the length of stay.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prognostic study. See guidelines for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting and postdischarge nausea and vomiting in ambulatory surgery

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be one of the most common complaints following surgery, occurring in more than 30% of surgeries, or as high as 70% to 80% in certain high-risk populations without prophylaxis. The 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists continue to be the mainstay of antiemetic therapy, but newer approaches, such as neurokinin-1 antagonists, a longer-acting serotonin receptor antagonist, multimodal management, and novel techniques for managing high-risk patients are gaining prominence. The related problem of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) has received increasing attention from health care providers. The issues of PONV and PDNV are especially significant in the context of ambulatory surgeries, which comprise more than 60% of the combined 56.4 million ambulatory and inpatient surgery visits in the United States. Because of the relatively brief period that ambulatory patients spend in health care facilities, it is particularly important to prevent and treat PONV and PDNV swiftly and effectively.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and promethazine in adults

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess whether ondansetron has superior nausea reduction compared with metoclopramide, promethazine, or saline placebo in emergency department (ED) adults.

METHODS

This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded superiority trial was intended to enroll a convenience sample of 600 patients. Nausea was evaluated on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and 30 minutes after treatment. Patients with a minimum preenrollment VAS of 40 mm were randomized to intravenous ondansetron 4 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 12.5 mg, or saline placebo. A 12-mm VAS improvement in nausea severity was deemed clinically important. We measured potential drug adverse effects at baseline and 30 minutes. Patients received approximately 500 mL of saline hydration during the initial 30 minutes.

RESULTS

Of 180 subjects who consented, 163 completed the study. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 23-47), and 68% were female. The median 30-minute VAS reductions (95% confidence intervals) and saline volume given for ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -22 (-32 to -15), -30 (-38 to -25.5), -29 (-40 to -21), and -16 (-25 to -3), and 500, 500, 500, and 450, respectively. The median 30-minute VAS differences (95% confidence intervals) between ondansetron and metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -8 (-18.5 to 3), -7 (-21 to -5.5), and 6 (-7 to 20), respectively. We compared the antiemetic efficacy across all treatments with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows no evidence that ondansetron is superior to metoclopramide and promethazine in reducing nausea in ED adults. Early study termination may have limited detection of ondansetron's superior nausea reduction over saline.

Evidence-based review of the black-box warning for droperidol

PURPOSE

Data collected from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Freedom of Information Act are presented to help clinicians understand the data prompting the black-box warning for droperidol and to make educated decisions regarding the use of droperidol and alternative agents.

SUMMARY

A written request was submitted to FDA to provide a report of any and all reports of cardiovascular adverse events related to droperidol that were part of the decision to add a black-box warning to the label of droperidol. The report listed 277 cases of adverse effects associated with droperidol since its introduction to the market in 1970. Many of the reports were duplicates, leaving a total of 65 individual cases. Of these cases, only 2 described adverse effects possibly caused by droperidol in dosages commonly used in the United States. In addition to these reports, the results of two European studies prompted FDA to make the decision for the black-box warning. Both studies used droperidol doses 50-100 times higher than those used in the United States.

CONCLUSION

Studies show that there is a dose-dependent increase in the rate of adverse cardiovascular events when droperidol is used either alone or in combination with other medications that cause Q-T interval prolongation. At this time, there does not appear to be significant evidence to suggest that serotonin type 3-receptor (5-HT(3)) antagonists are safer than droperidol with regard to Q-T interval prolongation. More studies are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of droperidol when used in doses of 0.625-1.25 mg compared with the 5-HT(3) antagonists.

Pharmacological Prophylaxis and Management of Adult Postoperative/Postdischarge Nausea and Vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a relatively common complication that can adversely affect the quality of a patient's postoperative recovery. Factors to consider when determining a patient's risk for developing PONV include female gender, history of PONV, history of motion sickness, nonsmoking status, postoperative use of opioids, use of inhaled anesthetic agents, and use of nitrous oxide. Receptors that, when activated, can cause PONV include dopamine type-2, serotonin type-3, histamine type-1, muscarinic cholinergic type-1, and neurokinin type-1. Patients with a moderate-to-high risk of developing PONV will benefit from the administration of a prophylactic antiemetic agent that blocks one or more of these receptors. Effective agents for prophylaxis include transdermal scopolamine, prochlorperazine, promethazine, droperidol, ondansetron, dolasetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and aprepitant. In the highest-risk patients, combining two or more prophylactic antiemetics with different mechanisms of action has been shown to be more effective than a single agent. In addition, the patient's risk could be reduced by considering the use of regional anesthesia, maintaining general anesthesia with propofol rather than with inhaled anesthetic agents, ensuring good intravenous hydration, and providing effective pain management using a multimodal approach (eg, minimizing the use of opioids). If PONV does occur in the immediate postoperative period, it is best treated with an antiemetic agent from a different pharmacologic class than the agent that was administered for prophylaxis. Once a patient is discharged, alternative formulations of antiemetics such as ondansetron oral or dissolving tablets or promethazine tablets or suppositories can be used.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Therapeutic options for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a pharmacoeconomic review

Even with the development of the serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists in recent years, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a significant concern for clinicians and patients. For the selection of an appropriate antiemetic strategy for PONV, economic considerations should be taken into account. A literature search covering the period from September 1996 to August 2005 yielded 16 economic evaluations on antiemetics used for the prevention or treatment of PONV. In these studies, a variety of different antiemetic regimens were evaluated, with different doses and timing of administration, in many different populations, for various types of surgery, and in different settings. In addition, there were many differences in the design of these economic evaluations in terms of the extent of the costs considered and the decision rules used when forming conclusions. Therefore, despite the availability of economic evaluations on antiemetics in PONV, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions with such disparate information. In spite of these limitations, key learning can be drawn from these economic evaluations. From studies where a placebo was used as a comparator, we can conclude that there is clinical benefit in using an antiemetic for the prevention of PONV versus no therapy. The dose of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist seems more important in determining cost effectiveness than the selection of the agent itself, and less expensive agents such as droperidol, dexamethasone and prochlorperazine may also represent cost-effective alternatives to 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists. In an additional six studies where a willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid or reduce the incidence of PONV was estimated, the average WTP amounts varied from $US29 to $US117. Many questions remain unanswered about the cost effectiveness of existing antiemetics and their regimens, and little is known about the impact of new agents, such as the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, in the control of PONV.

Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

The physiology, risk factors, and prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are discussed.

SUMMARY

Factors to consider when determining a patient's risk for PONV include sex, history of PONV, history of motion sickness, smoking status, duration of anesthesia, use of opioids, and type of surgery. Receptors that, when activated, can cause nausea or vomiting or both include dopamine type 2, serotonin type 3, histamine type 1, and muscarinic cholinergic type 1 receptors. Patients at moderate to high risk for PONV benefit from the administration of a prophylactic antiemetic agent that blocks one or more of these receptors. Effective agents include transdermal scopolamine, prochlorperazine, promethazine, droperidol, ondansetron, dolasetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone. In high-risk patients, combining two or more antiemetics with different mechanisms of action has been shown to be more effective than using a single agent. In addition to administering a prophylactic antiemetic, it is important to reduce the patient's risk by considering regional anesthesia, considering inducing and maintaining general anesthesia with propofol, ensuring good intravenous hydration, avoiding hypotension, and providing effective analgesia. If PONV occurs in the immediate postoperative period, it is best treated with an antiemetic agent from a pharmacologic class different from that of the prophylactic agent.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic antiemetic therapy for PONV is effective, but combinations of agents may be necessary for high-risk patients. Nonpharmacologic strategies are also important.

Technological advances in cancer and future spending by the elderly

This paper forecasts the consequences of scientific progress in cancer for total Medicare spending between 2005 and 2030. Because technological advance is uncertain, widely varying scenarios are modeled. A baseline scenario assumes that year 2000 technology stays frozen. A second scenario incorporates recent cancer treatment advances and their attendant discomfort. Optimistic scenarios analyzed include the discovery of an inexpensive cure, a vaccine that prevents cancer, and vastly improved screening techniques. Applying the Future Elderly Model, we find that no scenario holds major promise for guaranteeing the future financial health of Medicare.

Evidence-based management of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

SOURCE

Literature from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, logistic regression analyses and expert opinion in the management of PONV.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The etiology of PONV is multifactorial. Patient, anesthesia, and surgery related risk factors have been identified. Universal PONV prophylaxis is not cost-effective. Identification of patients at high-risk of PONV allows targeting prophylaxis to those who will benefit most from it. No prophylaxis is needed for patients at low risk for PONV. For patients at moderate risk for PONV, prophylaxis using a single antiemetic or a combination of two agents should be considered. Double and triple antiemetic combinations should be considered for patients at high risk for PONV. Furthermore, a multimodal approach should be adopted incorporating steps to keep the baseline risk of PONV low. The optimum cost-effective approach to the management of PONV will differ between an ambulatory centre and an inpatient hospital setting. For the treatment of established PONV in patients who failed prophylaxis, patients should not receive a repeat dose of the prophylactic antiemetic. Rather, a drug acting at a different receptor should be used. Beyond six hours after surgery, patients can be treated with any of the agents used for prophylaxis, except dexamethasone and transdermal scopolamine.

CONCLUSION

PONV are common after anesthesia and surgery. We provided evidence-based guidelines for the management of this problem based on the available literature.

A comparison of dexamethasone, ondansetron, and dexamethasone plus ondansetron as prophylactic antiemetic and antipruritic therapy in patients receiving intrathecal morphine for major orthopedic surgery

In a prospective, double-blinded, randomized trial, we evaluated the efficacy of IV (a) dexamethasone 8 mg, (b) ondansetron 8 mg, and (c) dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg for the prevention of postoperative nausea, vomiting (PONV), and pruritus in 130 (ASA physical status I to III) patients undergoing elective major orthopedic surgery after spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine and intrathecal morphine. After spinal anesthesia, patients were randomized to one of three groups. Failure of PONV prophylaxis in the 24-h postoperative period occurred more frequently in patients who received dexamethasone alone (29 of 40; 73%) compared with those who received either ondansetron alone (23 of 47; 49%) (P = 0.02) or dexamethasone plus ondansetron together (19 of 43; 44%)(P = 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of failure of prophylaxis of pruritus (70%, 72%, and 70% in dexamethasone 8 mg, ondansetron 8 mg, and dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg, respectively) (P > 0.1) in the 24-h postoperative period. We conclude that the administration of dexamethasone 8 mg with ondansetron 4 mg has no added benefit compared with ondansetron 8 mg alone in the prophylaxis of PONV and pruritus.

IMPLICATIONS

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pruritus are common side effects after spinal opioid administration. In this study, dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg was as effective as ondansetron 8 mg. The administration of dexamethasone alone was associated with a frequent incidence of PONV, demonstrating a lack of efficacy. This has important cost implications.

Consensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting

IMPLICATIONS

We present evidence-based guidelines developed by an international panel of experts for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Postoperative nausea management and patient-controlled analgesia

Following the establishment of an acute pain service in one UK acute NHS trust, including the introduction of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), pain scoring, and a rationalization of the use of simple analgesics, attention was drawn to an apparent increase in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) among women given PCA following abdominal hysterectomy. Audits were conducted into clinical practice and patient satisfaction and it was agreed that an evaluation of the evidence should be conducted to ensure that the correct direction for development in the management of PONV could be established. This article discusses the evidence surrounding the issues regarding the management of PONV in patients who have been given PCA. The possibility of adding antiemetics to the analgesic solution, and the choice of antiemetic drugs, are investigated. Other factors that can affect the incidence of PONV in patients with PCA are also discussed, and an auditable framework for the evaluation of clinically effective practice is suggested.

Diphenhydramine for the prevention of akathisia induced by prochlorperazine: a randomized, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The utility of intravenous prochlorperazine as an antiemetic agent and abortive therapy for headache may be limited by the frequent occurrence of akathisia, the distressing effects of which have been shown to disrupt patient care. We tested the hypothesis that adjuvant diphenhydramine reduces the incidence of akathisia induced by prochlorperazine.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in the emergency department of an academic tertiary care medical center with an annual census of 95,000 emergency patient visits. We enrolled a convenience sample of 100 adult patients who received 10 mg of intravenous prochlorperazine for the treatment of nausea/vomiting or headache. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive a 2-minute infusion of prochlorperazine with either 50 mg of diphenhydramine or placebo. The incidence of akathisia at 1 hour was measured by using explicit diagnostic criteria. To measure the influence of treatment on sedation, the subjects noted, on a 100-mm visual analog scale, their degree of sedation before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Akathisia developed in 18 (36%) of 50 subjects in the control group and in 7 (14%) of 50 subjects in the diphenhydramine group, a 61% relative reduction. The addition of adjunct diphenhydramine resulted in an absolute reduction of 22% in the incidence of akathisia (95% confidence interval [CI] 6% to 38%; P = .01). The odds ratio for akathisia with the use of adjuvant diphenhydramine was 0.39 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.85). Mean sedation scores increased 12 mm after infusion of prochlorperazine alone (95% CI 3 to 21 mm) compared with a 33-mm increase after infusion of prochlorperazine with adjuvant diphenhydramine (95% CI 24 to 42 mm). The 12-mm difference between the groups was statistically significant (95% CI 9 to 34 mm, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant diphenhydramine reduces the incidence of akathisia induced by prochlorperazine and is associated with an increase in sedation.

Slow infusion for the prevention of akathisia induced by prochlorperazine: a randomized controlled trial

The utility of intravenous prochlorperazine (PCZ) in the treatment of nausea, vomiting, and headache may be limited by the akathisia that occurs frequently with the recommended 2-min infusion rate. We tested the hypothesis that decreasing the rate of PCZ infusion to 15 min reduces the incidence of akathisia at 1 hour. This double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in the Emergency Department of an academic tertiary-care medical center with an annual census of 95,000 emergency patient visits. We enrolled a convenience sample of adult patients who received 10 mg i.v. PCZ for the treatment of nausea, vomiting, or headache. Subjects were randomized to receive either a 2-min infusion of PCZ (10 mg) followed by a 15-min infusion of saline, or a 2-min infusion of saline followed by a 15-min infusion of prochlorperazine. The incidence of akathisia at 1 hour was measured by using explicit diagnostic criteria. One hundred sixty patients were randomly enrolled into two groups, which were comparable with respect to age, gender, weight, and complaint. Akathisia developed in 31 of 84 patients (36.9%) who received the 2-min infusion of PCZ and in 18 of 76 patients (23.7%) who received the 15-min infusion of PCZ (p = 0.07), a 36% (95% CI, -5% to 61%) relative reduction. The delta from pre-infusion to postinfusion scores between the two groups was not significant (p = 0.19). We conclude that slowing the rate of PCZ infusion does not decrease akathisia.

5-HT3 receptor antagonists vs traditional agents for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Numerous antiemetics have been studied for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) including traditional agents (metoclopramide, perphenazine, prochlorperazine, cyclizine and droperidol) and the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (ondansetron, dolasetron, granisetron and tropisetron). The results have been divergent and inconsistent. The purpose of this quantitative systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of 5HT3 receptor antagonists compared to traditional antiemetics for the prevention of PONV METHODS: A systematic search of the English language literature using computerized MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Pre-MEDLINE databases from 1966 to October 1999 and a manual search of references from retrieved articles were performed. Individual efficacy and adverse effect data was extracted from each of the studies according to a predefined protocol. The summary odds ratios were calculated using the Dersimonian and Laird method under a random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 41 trials met our pre-defined inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis. Results in the 32 studies examining PONV indicated a 46% reduction in the odds of PONV in the 5-HT3-treated group (0.54 [95% CI 0.42-0.71], P < 0.001). Evaluation of PONV by traditional antiemetic agent demonstrated a 39% reduction compared with droperidol (0.61 [95% CI 0.42-0.89], P < 0.001) and a 56% reduction compared with metoclopramide (0.44 [95% CI 0.31-0.62], P < 0.001). Results in the 34 studies examining vomiting indicated a 38% reduction in the odds of vomiting in the 5-HT3-treated group (0.62 [95% CI 0.48-0.81], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are superior to traditional antiemetic agents for the prevention of PONV and vomiting. The reduction in the odds of PONV and vomiting is significant in the overall analysis and the subgroup analyses comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with droperidol and metoclopramide.

Prochlorperazine versus promethazine for uncomplicated nausea and vomiting in the emergency department: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Nausea and vomiting related to gastritis or gastroenteritis are common complaints in the emergency department. The most effective antiemetic agent is yet undetermined. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of prochlorperazine versus promethazine for uncomplicated nausea and vomiting in the ED.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, double-blind comparison of prochlorperazine (Compazine) and promethazine (Phenergan) for acute ED treatment of gastritis or gastroenteritis. We studied patients 18 years or older with presumed uncomplicated gastritis or gastroenteritis who presented to 2 academic EDs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either prochlorperazine, 10 mg intravenously, or promethazine, 25 mg intravenously. Visual analog scale readings of patient comfort were obtained at baseline and at 30- and 60-minute intervals. The primary endpoint was degree of relief at 30 and 60 minutes. Secondary endpoints were time to complete relief, need for further antiemetic medication (treatment failures), and side effects. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test for nonparametric analysis and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were enrolled in the study; 42 received prochlorperazine and 42 received promethazine. There were no differences in demographics in the 2 groups. At baseline (time 0), there was no difference in symptoms (P =.23). At 30 and 60 minutes after receiving medication, prochlorperazine worked significantly better than promethazine (P =.004 and P <.001 using nonparametric analysis). Using repeated-measures ANOVA, there was a significant difference in symptoms over time for both groups (P <.001) and a significant difference in prochlorperazine versus promethazine (P =.002). Time to complete relief was significantly shorter with prochlorperazine (P =.021). There were significantly fewer treatment failures with prochlorperazine (P =.03, 9.5% versus 31%; difference 21%, 95% confidence interval 5 to 38). There was no difference in incidence of extrapyramidal effects. Prochlorperazine caused significantly fewer complaints of sleepiness (P =.002, 38% versus 71%; difference 33%, 95% confidence interval 13 to 53; P =.002).

CONCLUSION

Prochlorperazine works significantly better than promethazine for relieving symptoms of nausea and vomiting more quickly and completely in ED patients with uncomplicated nausea and vomiting.

Outpatient uterine artery embolization for symptomatic uterine fibroids: experience in 49 patients

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility of performing uterine artery embolization as an outpatient treatment for symptomatic uterine fibroids.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-nine consecutive patients (mean age, 44.5 years; range, 28-54 years) underwent uterine artery embolization during a 12-month period. Embolization was performed with 350-500 microm polyvinyl alcohol particles (44 of 49) or Gelfoam pledgets (five of 49). At discharge, patients were given instructions regarding the constitutional symptoms to expect after embolization. A specific medication regimen consisting of prochlorperazine, ketorolac, meperidine, and hydrocodone was prescribed for relief of these symptoms. All patients were telephoned within 24 hours of discharge. During long-term follow-up, a questionnaire was administered to all patients to evaluate the periprocedural experience. Three-month clinical follow-up was available in 26 patients and 6-month imaging follow-up was available in 16 patients.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients presented with menorrhagia, six had bulk-related symptoms (abdominal distension, stress incontinence, pelvic pain), and 29 had both. Technical success for bilateral embolization was 98%. Forty-seven of 49 patients were discharged to home 6-8 hours after the procedure; two patients required overnight observation in an ambulatory unit (one because of postprocedure hypertension and one because of a late procedure completion time). At the first follow-up phone call, reported symptoms included pelvic pain/cramping in 83.7% (41 of 49), fatigue in 75.5% (37 of 49), nausea/vomiting in 46.9% (23 of 49), and a nonpurulent vaginal discharge in 18.4% (nine of 49). These symptoms were satisfactorily controlled with discharge medications in 48 of 49 patients. No patients returned to the hospital or visited an emergency room during the first 48 hours after discharge. Forty-six of 49 patients were satisfied with the decision for home discharge. The average uterine volume reduction in 16 patients with 6-month imaging follow-up was 47.5%; 88.5%, of patients (23 of 26) with 3-month clinical follow-up reported improvement or elimination of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

With defined telephone follow-up, staff availability, and a protocol designed to alleviate the postprocedure constitutional symptoms, uterine artery embolization is both safe and effective when performed as an outpatient procedure.