Comparison of Dexamethasone-Dimenhydrinate and Dexamethasone-Ondansetron in Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Postoperative Patients

Nonpharmacological Nursing Interventions in Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the impact of nonpharmacological nursing interventions on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DESIGN

This is a systematic review.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Tübitak-ULAKBİM, and TRDizin databases were searched for the following search terms, including "Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting," "Nurse," "Nursing," and "Nonpharmacological Interventions" to identify nonpharmacological nursing interventions for PONV. A systematic review of English and Turkish articles published in the period between January 1, 2012 and June 1, 2023 was conducted. The PICOT-SD method was used to determine the compatibility of the pieces with the eligibility criteria.

FINDINGS

Fifty-eight of 3,874 articles obtained from databases fulfilled the eligibility criteria. This study demonstrated that acupuncture, aromatherapy, the oral intake of ginger, listening to music, education, and visits to patients decreased the incidence of nausea and vomiting and increased the quality of life. Additionally, it was found that patients' quality of life tended to improve along with reductions in postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support previous findings in the literature and demonstrate that nonpharmacological nursing interventions help reduce and prevent PONV. Based on our results, we suggest that nonpharmacological nursing interventions can be employed for the management of PONV in patients undergoing surgery.

Efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopy: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Intraperitoneal dexamethasone has been reported to be effective to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, this meta-analysis will analyse the efficacy and safety of intraperitoneal dexamethasone on PONV following laparoscopy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Electronic databases (eg, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Web of Science, National Institute of Informatics, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and clinical trial registries will be systematically searched from their inception to 1 October 2022. After the study and data collection processes, we will identify randomised controlled trials that reported details of intraperitoneal dexamethasone on PONV following laparoscopy to conduct a meta-analysis. We will perform the study process and data collection separately. The collected data will be statistically analysed using Review Manager 5.4 software. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty assessment, and a trial sequential analysis will be conducted to ensure the accuracy of this meta-analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval and patient consent are not required since this study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings of this meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022362924.

Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Background

Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004.

Methods

The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the ‘Cochrane Risk of bias’ assessment tool 1.0.

Results

In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36% (27/75) were pro- and 64% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32%), a new primary outcome (26%), and different outcome assessment times (26%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as ‘overall low risk of bias’ compared to non-registered trials (64% vs 28%).

Conclusions

In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w.

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).

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Evaluation of emergence agitation after general anaesthesia in rhinoplasty patients: Inhalation anaesthesia versus total intravenous anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Emergence agitation (EA) is a clinical condition that occurs early in recovery from general anaesthesia, and reduces patient comfort. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of low-flow sevoflurane anaesthesia and total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on agitation in rhinoplasty patients, and to determine the frequency of EA in low flow sevoflurane anaesthesia after rhinoplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 90 rhinoplasty patients, under general anaesthesia were included in this prospective randomised study. After induction of anaesthesia, propofol infusion was initiated in the TIVA group (n = 45), and sevoflurane was administered in the SEVO group with a fresh gas flow of 1 l/min and MAC (minimum alveolar concentration) 1-1.1 (n = 45). Early emergence times, Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS), Boezaart scale, Likert scale and incidences of nausea/vomiting were recorded at the end of surgery.

RESULTS

Early emergence time was significantly shorter in the TIVA group, than in the SEVO group (p < 0.001). İntraoperative bleeding was significantly lower in the TIVA group, than in the SEVO group (p = 0.005), and surgical field image quality and surgeon satisfaction were better in the TIVA group (p = 0.016, p < 0.001). The ratio of patients with RASS > +1 for all patients was 35.6% at 0 min, postoperatively. This rate was 12.2% (n = 11) in the TIVA group, and 23.3% (n = 21) in the SEVO group (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

In rhinoplasty, TIVA caused shorter early emergence times, less bleeding, high surgeon satisfaction, and lower EA scores when compared with low flow sevoflurane anaesthesia.

Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Comparative studies have shown little statistical difference in outcomes following rhinoplasty, demonstrating near equivalent results across all surgical techniques. Cross-study comparisons of these trials are difficult because variation in outcome reporting prevents statistical pooling and analysis.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to identify all outcomes and outcome measures used to evaluate postoperative results in rhinoplasty.

METHODS

An extensive computerized database search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed; all trials involving n ≥ 20 patients, aged 18 years and older undergoing a primary, open rhinoplasty procedure, were included for review.

RESULTS

Of the 3235 citations initially screened, 72 studies met the stated inclusion criteria. A total of 53 unique outcomes and 55 postoperative outcome measures were identified. Outcomes were divided into 6 unique domains: objective signs, subjective symptom severity, physical function related to activities of daily living, patient satisfaction, surgeon satisfaction, and quality of life. The identified outcome measures consisted of 5 nasal-specific, author-reported instruments; 5 nasal specific, patient-reported instruments; 5 patient-reported, generic instruments; and 40 author-generated instruments. Of the outcome measures identified, the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22, and FACE-Q were the only instruments to demonstrate adequate validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change in patients who underwent a rhinoplasty procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

There is heterogeneity in the outcomes and outcome measures employed to assess postsurgical outcomes following rhinoplasty. A standardized core outcome set is urgently needed to make it possible for future investigators to compare results of various techniques in rhinoplasty surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Paediatric Anaesthesia

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication in paediatric anaesthesia and is a source of significant morbidity. Various independent risk factors have been implicated in the development of paediatric PONV, including higher pain scores postoperatively, the use of opioids for pain management and the use of volatile anaesthetics for the maintenance of anaesthesia. This review of the current literature regarding the prevention and treatment of paediatric PONV is based on a search of the PubMed database, which identified published clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. While the occurrence of PONV in many cases is difficult to avoid entirely, the risk can be mitigated by the use of multimodal nonopioid analgesic regimens, total intravenous drugs in favour of volatile anaesthetics and an appropriate regimen of prophylactic pharmacotherapy. Frequently administered drug classes for the prevention of PONV include corticosteroids, 5HT3 antagonists and anticholinergics. The clinical use of the findings in the literature may help to reduce the occurrence of PONV in children. In this review, we provide comprehensive and updated information on the risk factors contributing the occurrence of PONV in children, outline the current opinion on the drugs that are commonly used for management and provide an overview of the guidelines that are used to help establish the prophylaxis and treatment of paediatric PONV.

The Relationship Between the Preoperative Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Septorhinoplasty Surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common complications during the postoperative period. In the literature, there are many factors associated with PONV risk, but it is claimed that inflammation increases this risk. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a cheap parameter to use in the diagnosis and follow-up of systemic inflammatory diseases. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether the preoperative NLR was a marker for PONV and to determine its relation with antiemetic use.

METHODS

Eighty patients who were planned to undergo elective septorhinoplasty and were in ASA I-II were prospectively included in the study. The NLR value was calculated by dividing the number of neutrophils by the number of lymphocytes obtained from the preoperative complete blood count. The patients were divided into two groups of 40 patients: patients with an NLR < 2 (group 1) and patients with an NLR > 2 (group 2). Nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h in the recovery room and in the related clinic and antiemetic requirement were recorded.

RESULTS

The rate of nausea-vomiting in the recovery room and in the postoperative 24-h period in group 1 was significantly lower than in group 2 (p < 0.05). The rate of use of antiemetics in the recovery room and in the postoperative 24-h period in group 1 was significantly lower than in group 2 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

NLR values above 2 calculated in the preoperative period may be an indicator of PONV risk. Antiemetic prophylaxis may be given according to this value.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Effect of the Dexamethasone-Ondansetron Combination Versus Dexamethasone-Aprepitant Combination to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem associated with general anaesthesia. The incidence can be as high as 80% in high-risk patients. Our primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron and dexamethasone-aprepitant in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Seventy 18 to 60 years old patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. Sixty-seven patients completed the study. Patients in the dexamethasone-aprepitant group (group DA, n=35) received 40 mg of aprepitant orally 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 2 mL saline intravenously (iv) within the last 30 minutes of surgery; patients in the dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO, n=35) received oral placebo identical to aprepitant 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 4 mg ondansetron iv within the last 30 minutes of surgery. All patients received 8 mg dexamethasone iv after the induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was a complete response (no postoperative nausea, retching and vomiting and no need for rescue antiemetic); the secondary outcomes were the incidence of nausea, retching, vomiting, the need of rescue antiemetic and opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery.

Results

A complete response was not significantly different between the groups (group DO: 67%, DA: 69%) at 24 hours (p=0.93). The incidence of PONV and postoperative opioid consumption was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

The study was designed to evaluate whether the combination of dexamethasone-aprepitant is better than the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron regarding the complete response for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The results however showed that dexamethasone-aprepitant has not improved the complete response for PONV compared to dexamethasone-ondansetron.

Effect of the Dexamethasone-Ondansetron Combination Versus Dexamethasone-Aprepitant Combination to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem associated with general anaesthesia. The incidence can be as high as 80% in high-risk patients. Our primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron and dexamethasone-aprepitant in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Seventy 18 to 60 years old patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. Sixty-seven patients completed the study. Patients in the dexamethasone-aprepitant group (group DA, n=35) received 40 mg of aprepitant orally 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 2 mL saline intravenously (iv) within the last 30 minutes of surgery; patients in the dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO, n=35) received oral placebo identical to aprepitant 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 4 mg ondansetron iv within the last 30 minutes of surgery. All patients received 8 mg dexamethasone iv after the induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was a complete response (no postoperative nausea, retching and vomiting and no need for rescue antiemetic); the secondary outcomes were the incidence of nausea, retching, vomiting, the need of rescue antiemetic and opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery.

Results

A complete response was not significantly different between the groups (group DO: 67%, DA: 69%) at 24 hours (p=0.93). The incidence of PONV and postoperative opioid consumption was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

The study was designed to evaluate whether the combination of dexamethasone-aprepitant is better than the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron regarding the complete response for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The results however showed that dexamethasone-aprepitant has not improved the complete response for PONV compared to dexamethasone-ondansetron.

Comparison Effect of Promethazine/Dexamethasone and Metoclopramide /Dexamethasone on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparascopic Gastric Placation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Laparoscopic gastric plication (LGP) is a technique in the restrictive category of bariatric procedures that reduces the gastric volume and increases intragastric pressure. Nausea and vomiting are the most common complications after this procedure. The goal of this research is to compare the combined effect of promethazine/dexamethasone versus Metoclopramide/ dexamethasone on the prevention of nausea and vomiting after LGP.

Methods

In recovery, the patients were divided into two groups, the Metoclopramide group which was given Metoclopramide 10 mg plus dexamethasone 4 mg/8 hours intravenous for 48 hours, and the promethazine group which was given promethazine 50 mg /12 hours, intramuscular for the first 24 hours and then promethazine 25 mg/12 hours for the next 24 hours plus dexamethasone 4 mg/8 hours intravenous for 48 hours. The frequency of nausea and vomiting, number of reflux episodes, frequency of epigastric fullness, and the duration of walking around q12 hours were recorded in the first 48 hours post-operation.

Results

Eighty patients were enrolled into the study. Promethazine group were found to significantly reduce the incidence of PONV in the first 24 hours compared with the other group (41% vs. 97.5%), relative risk = 0.042 [95% CI = 0.006, 0.299]. The mean numbers of epigastric fullness and severity of epigastria pain were lower in the promethazine group (P = 0.01) and the total opioid requirement was also reduced in promethazine group (32.1 ± 2.6 VS .68.5 ± 4.6 mg). However, the patients in the promethazine group were more sedated, which caused the duration of walking q12 hours in this group to decrease.

Conclusions

In morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic gastric plication, promethazine/dexametasone was more effective than Metoclopramide/dexametasone in preventing and reducing the incidence of nausea, epigastric fullness, and reflux. That combination was also more effective than Metoclopramide in reducing the severity of epigastric pain.