Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in elective breast surgery

Less use of rescue morphine when a combined PSP/IPP-block is used for postoperative analgesia in breast cancer surgery: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Surgery for breast cancer is common, and intravenous opioids are often used to control postoperative pain. Recently, pectoralis-2 (PECS-2) block has emerged as a promising regional anaesthetic alternative. With nomenclature recently proposed, this block is termed combined PSP/IPP-block (pectoserratus plane block/interpectoral plane block).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the need for postoperative rescue morphine between the intervention group that received a pre-operative combined PSP/IPP-block and a control group that received peri-operative long-acting opioids for postoperative analgesia.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled study.

SETTING

Operating theatres of two Swedish hospitals. The patients were recruited between May 2017 and October 2020.

PATIENTS

Among the 199 women scheduled to undergo breast cancer surgery (sector resection or radical mastectomy) who were enrolled in the study, 185 were available for follow up.

INTERVENTION

All patients received general anaesthesia. The intervention group received a combined PSP/IPP-block before surgery. The control group received intravenous morphine 30 min before emergence from anaesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary endpoint was the cumulative need for intravenous rescue morphine to reach a predefined level of pain control (visual analogue scale score <40 mm) during the first 48 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Data from 92 and 93 patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively, were analysed. The amount of rescue morphine administered in the 48 h after surgery was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (median: 2.25 vs 3.0 mg, P  = 0.021). The first measured pain score was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (35 vs. 40 mm, P  = 0.035). There was no significant difference in the incidence of nausea between the groups (8.7 vs. 12.9%, P  = 0.357).

CONCLUSION

The use of a combined PSP/IPP-block block before breast cancer surgery reduces the need for postoperative rescue morphine, even when compared with the use of intra-operative morphine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03117894.

Risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting following ambulatory surgery: A retrospective case-control study

Objective

To explore potential risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following ambulatory surgery.

Method

Clinical data of 1670 cases receiving ambulatory surgery in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School from September 2017 to December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. They were categorized to PONV group and non-PONV group, and perioperative data in both groups were analyzed for assessing risk factors of PONV following ambulatory laparoscopy.

Results

There were 156/1,670 (9.3%) PONV cases, and the female and male incidence in recruited cases was 12.0% and 6.0%, respectively. Analyses on perioperative data of them identified that female gender [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.060, P < 0.001], operation time >1 h (aOR = 1.554, P = 0.011), postoperative pain at rest (aOR = 1.909, P = 0.013) and postoperative pain during activities (aOR = 3.512, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors of PONV following ambulatory surgery. Furthermore, postoperative pain at rest and during activities were linearly, positively correlated to the incidence of PONV.

Conclusion

Female gender, operation time >1 h and postoperative pain are closely related with the incidence of PONV following ambulatory surgery. Alleviating postoperative pain properly is one of the methods to reduce risk factors of PONV following ambulatory surgery.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Breast and Gynecological Surgery: A Narrative Review of Risk Factors and Prophylaxis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have been widely studied as a multifactorial entity, being of female gender the strongest risk factor. Reported PONV incidence in female surgical populations is extremely variable among randomized clinical trials. In this narrative review, we intend to summarize the incidence, independent predictors, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for PONV reported in recently published clinical trials carried out in female patients undergoing breast and gynecologic surgery, as well as the implications of the anesthetic agents on the incidence of PONV. A literature search of manuscripts describing PONV management in female surgical populations (breast surgery and gynecologic surgery) was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence were highly variable in patients receiving placebo or no prophylaxis among RCTs whereas consistent results were observed in patients receiving 1 or 2 prophylactic interventions for PONV. Despite efforts made, a considerable number of female patients still experienced significant PONV. It is critical for the anesthesia provider to be aware that the coexistence of independent risk factors such as the level of sex hormones (pre- and postmenopausal), preoperative anxiety or depression, pharmacogenomic pleomorphisms, and ethnicity further enhances the probability of experiencing PONV in female patients. Future RCTs should closely assess the overall risk of PONV in female patients considering patient- and surgery-related factors, and the level of compliance with current guidelines for prevention and management of PONV.

Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Thoracic Paravertebral Block Using Ropivacaine and Balanced General Anesthesia in Breast Surgeries

Background and Aims

Despite the latest advances in breast surgery, the procedure is frequently associated with postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting, which leads not only to increased patient's suffering but also to a prolongation of hospital stays and related costs. Thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) has been successfully used to provide analgesia for multiple thoracic and abdominal procedures in both children and adults.

Methods

Forty patients were allocated for this observational, comparative study and divided into two groups of 20 each, namely thoracic paravertebral group (Group P) study group and general anesthesia (GA) group (Group G), control group, and observations made for duration of procedure, visual analog score, rescue analgesia, surgeon and patient's satisfaction, postoperative complications, and duration of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) stay in both the groups.

Results

We found that there was a statistically significant difference in duration of procedure, more time was taken in performing TPVB. Pain was better controlled in Group P and requirement of rescue analgesia was higher in Group G patients, postoperative complications such as shivering, nausea, vomiting, and duration of PACU stay were more in patients receiving GA.

Conclusion

Hence, we conclude that ultrasound-guided TPVB appears to be safe, reliable, and effective technique for breast surgeries with several advantages over GA in terms of long-lasting pain relief, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stay.

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).

Early complications in delayed breast reconstruction: A prospective, randomized study comparing different reconstructive methods in radiated and non-radiated patients

BACKGROUND

There is little high-quality scientific evidence identifying the best and safest methods for delayed breast reconstruction, with most previous studies retrospective in nature. The primary aim was to compare early complication rates for two different breast-reconstructive methods in radiated and non-radiated patients, using a validated scale. The secondary aim was to identify predictors for complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study represents a clinical, randomized, prospective trial (ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier: NCT03963427), where the patients were divided into two study arms: non-radiated and radiated. In the non-radiated arm, patients were randomized to a one-stage lateral thoracodorsal flap with an implant or two-stage expander reconstruction. In the radiated arm, patients were randomized to a latissimus dorsi reconstruction combined with an implant or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) reconstruction. All adverse events were classified according to Clavien-Dindo and summarization of overall morbidity was performed by calculating the Comprehensive Complication Index score. The study was conducted from 2008 to 2020.

RESULTS

The complication frequencies were similar for the two surgical methods within each arm. In the non-radiated arm, risk factors for any complication were any comorbidities, and in the radiated arm, factors were a high body mass index and a contralateral operation.

CONCLUSIONS

The usage of the Clavien-Dindo scale in reconstructive surgery is feasible, but further validation is needed. In non-radiated patients, the frequencies of short-term complications were similar for lateral thoracodorsal flap and expander reconstruction, whereas in radiated patients, they were similar for DIEP and latissimus dorsi. The complication profile of the methods varied.

Paravertebral blocks in immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain remains a major challenge following immediate breast reconstruction with 40% of patients experiencing acute pain and up to 60% developing chronic pain. Paravertebral blocks (PVB's) have emerged as a promising adjunct to standard analgesic protocols. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of PVB's in immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy was performed. The primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by total oral morphine equivalent usage and self reported pain scores and secondary outcomes were length of stay in the PACU, complications, and OR delay.

RESULTS

Of 298 patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction, 112(38%) underwent standard analgesic protocols and 186(62%) underwent PVB in addition to the standard protocol. PVB's were associated with reductions in average postoperative pain scores (2.8 vs 3.3, P = 0.002), total opiate consumption (52 units vs 63 units, P = 0.038) and time spent in the PACU 92 vs 142 minutes, P = 0.0228) compared to patients who had general anesthesia alone. The overall complication rate was 3.7% (7/186 patients), all which were minor complications such as headache, bloody tap, vasovagal episode and temporary weakness. The use of PVBs delayed the OR start time on average by 15 minutes (34 vs 49 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study offers one of the largest retrospective cohort studies to date evaluating the utility of PVB's in immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy. We demonstrate that, PVB's in immediate breast reconstruction are associated with reductions in postoperative pain, narcotic usage and length of stay in PACU, but are associated with delays to the start time of the case. Anesthesiologists, plastic surgeons and hospital administrators must continue to work together to ensure this important and necessary service is administered in an efficient and cost effective manner.

Epidural Nerve Blocks Increase Intraoperative Vasopressor Consumption and Delay Surgical Start Time in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Free Flap Breast Reconstruction

Background:

Epidural nerve blocks (EA) have been widely used in abdominal and thoracic surgery as an adjunct to general anesthesia (GA). The role for EA in microsurgical free flap breast reconstruction remains unclear with concerns regarding its impact on flap survival and operating room efficiency. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of epidural blocks in patients undergoing deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction under GA alone was compared with those receiving EA/GA. Electronic records were analyzed for patient demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes. The primary outcome was 48-hour narcotic usage and secondary outcomes were intraoperative vasopressor consumption, surgical delay, and safety profile.

Results:

Sixty-one patients underwent DIEP reconstruction, 46 (75%) underwent EA/GA and 15 (25%) underwent GA alone. Epidural blocks were associated with a significant delay in operating room start time (67.8 min versus 45.6 min; P = 0.0004.) Patients in the EA/GA group also had a significant increase in vasopressor use (n = 38 versus n = 8; P = 0.037); however, there was no difference in flap complication rate [1 (2%) versus 2 (13%); P = 0.15]. Postoperatively, patients who received an epidural block had a reduced average pain score (1.1 versus 2.2; P = 0.0235), but there was no difference in 48-hour narcotic usage.

Conclusions:

Although epidural blocks reduce postoperative pain following DIEP flap breast reconstruction, they increase intraoperative vasopressor use and delay the start time of the case. Further studies are required to elucidate whether the benefits of improved pain control outweigh the potential risk for increased surgical complications and increased health care costs.

Pectoral nerve block (Pecs block) with sedation for breast conserving surgery without general anesthesia

Most regional anesthesia in breast surgeries is performed as postoperative pain management under general anesthesia, and not as the primary anesthesia. Regional anesthesia has very few cardiovascular or pulmonary side-effects, as compared with general anesthesia. Pectoral nerve block is a relatively new technique, with fewer complications than other regional anesthesia. We performed Pecs I and Pec II block simultaneously as primary anesthesia under moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine for breast conserving surgery in a 49-year-old female patient with invasive ductal carcinoma. Block was uneventful and showed no complications. Thus, Pecs block with sedation could be an alternative to general anesthesia for breast surgeries.

A low dose of droperidol decreases the desflurane concentration needed during breast cancer surgery: a randomized double-blinded study

BACKGROUND

Droperidol (DHB) reportedly reduces the dose of propofol needed to achieve hypnosis when anesthesia is induced and decreases the bispectral index (BIS) in propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia. We reported previously that supplemental DHB decreased the BIS after the administration of sevoflurane and remifentanil. This study investigated the effect of DHB on desflurane (DES) consumption in a clinical setting.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized double-blinded study of 35 women with American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status I or II who underwent a mastectomy. Either DHB (20 µg/kg) or a saline placebo was administered to patients 30 min after the induction of anesthesia. A blinded anesthesiologist maintained a BIS value of 50 during anesthesia by modulating inhaled DES concentrations that changed 0.5% at 2.5 min intervals and maintained analgesia via the constant administration of remifentanil by referring to vital signs. The primary endpoint was the effect of DHB on DES consumption. The secondary endpoints included blood circulatory parameters, the time from the end of surgery to extubation, and discharge time between the groups.

RESULTS

The characteristics of the patients did not differ between the groups. The DHB group used a mean of 27.2 ± 6.0 ml of DES compared with 41.4 ± 9.5 ml by the placebo group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A small dose of DHB reduced the DES concentration needed to maintain a BIS of 50. Our results show that DHB reduced the consumption of DES without adverse effects.

Nausea and Vomiting following Balanced Xenon Anesthesia Compared to Sevoflurane: A Post-Hoc Explorative Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Like other inhalational anesthetics xenon seems to be associated with post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We assessed nausea incidence following balanced xenon anesthesia compared to sevoflurane, and dexamethasone for its prophylaxis in a randomized controlled trial with post-hoc explorative analysis.

Methods

220 subjects with elevated PONV risk (Apfel score ≥2) undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomized to receive xenon or sevoflurane anesthesia and dexamethasone or placebo after written informed consent. 93 subjects in the xenon group and 94 subjects in the sevoflurane group completed the trial. General anesthesia was maintained with 60% xenon or 2.0% sevoflurane. Dexamethasone 4mg or placebo was administered in the first hour. Subjects were analyzed for nausea and vomiting in predefined intervals during a 24h post-anesthesia follow-up.

Results

Logistic regression, controlled for dexamethasone and anesthesia/dexamethasone interaction, showed a significant risk to develop nausea following xenon anesthesia (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.02–5.19, p = 0.044). Early-onset nausea incidence was 46% after xenon and 35% after sevoflurane anesthesia (p = 0.138). After xenon, nausea occurred significantly earlier (p = 0.014), was more frequent and rated worse in the beginning. Dexamethasone did not markedly reduce nausea occurrence in both groups. Late-onset nausea showed no considerable difference between the groups.

Conclusion

In our study setting, xenon anesthesia was associated with an elevated risk to develop nausea in sensitive subjects. Dexamethasone 4mg was not effective preventing nausea in our study. Group size or dosage might have been too small, and change of statistical analysis parameters in the post-hoc evaluation might have further contributed to a limitation of our results. Further trials will be needed to address prophylaxis of xenon-induced nausea.

Trial Registration

EU Clinical Trials EudraCT-2008-004132-20

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00793663

The efficacy of P6 acupressure with sea-band in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a multifactorial problem after general anesthesia. Despite antiemetic prophylaxis and improved anesthetic techniques, PONV still occurs frequently after craniotomies. P6 stimulation is described as an alternative method for preventing PONV. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether P6 acupressure with Sea-Band could reduce postoperative nausea after elective craniotomy. Secondary aims were to investigate whether the frequency of vomiting and the need for antiemetics could be reduced.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, patients were randomized into either a P6 acupressure group (n=43) or a sham group (n=52). Bands were applied unilaterally at the end of surgery, and all patients were administered prophylactic ondansetron. Postoperative nausea was evaluated with a Numerical Rating Scale, 0 to10, and the frequency of vomiting was recorded for 48 hours.

RESULTS

We found no significant effect from P6 acupressure with Sea-Band on postoperative nausea or vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy. Nor was there any difference in the need for rescue antiemetics. Altogether, 67% experienced PONV, and this was especially an issue at >24 hours in patients recovering from infratentorial surgery compared with supratentorial surgery (55% vs. 26%; P=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral P6 acupressure with Sea-Band applied at the end of surgery together with prophylactic ondansetron did not significantly reduce PONV or the need for rescue antiemetics in patients undergoing craniotomy. Our study confirmed that PONV is a common issue after craniotomy, especially after infratentorial surgery.

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.

Paravertebral blocks in patients undergoing mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction provides improved pain control and decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Mastectomy is associated with postoperative nausea and pain. We evaluated whether paravertebral block (PVB) use altered opioid use, antiemetic use, and length of stay in patients undergoing mastectomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of all patients who underwent mastectomy with or without PVB from 2008 to 2010. Patient demographics, operative procedure, intraoperative medications, postoperative opioid and antiemetic use, and length of stay were reviewed. Statistical analysis included univariable and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 605 patients were identified, of whom 526 patients were evaluable. A total of 294 patients underwent mastectomy without PVB (132 bilateral), and 232 patients underwent mastectomy with PVB (148 bilateral). Immediate reconstruction was performed in 203 (39 %) patients. Need for any postoperative antiemetic was less frequent in the PVB group (39 vs. 57 %, p < 0.0001). Day of surgery opioid use was lower in the PVB group than the non-PVB group (mean ± SD 40.1 ± 15.2 vs. 47.6 ± 17.7 morphine equivalents, p < 0.0001). Decreased opioid use was seen in unilateral mastectomy without reconstruction and bilateral mastectomy with and without immediate reconstruction. The proportion of patients discharged within 36 h of surgery was significantly higher in the PVB group (55 vs. 42 %, p = 0.0031). On multivariable analysis controlling for year of surgery, patient age and surgeon, PVB use affected antiemetic use and opioid use but not hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

PVB results in decreased opioid use and decreased need for postoperative antiemetic medication in patients undergoing mastectomy. The greatest benefit is seen in patients undergoing bilateral mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction.

Prophylaxis of intra- and postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients during cesarean section in spinal anesthesia

Background

This paper describes a randomized prospective study conducted in 308 patients undergoing caesarean section in spinal anaesthesia at a single hospital between 2010 and 2012 to find a suitable anti-emetic strategy for these patients.

Material/Methods

Spinal anesthesia was performed in left prone position, at L3/L4 with hyperbaric 0.5% Bupivacaine according to a cc/cm body height ratio. There were no opioids given peri-operatively. The patients received either no prophylaxis (Group I) or tropisetron and metoclopramide (Group II) or dimenhydrinate and dexamethasone (Group III), or tropisetron as a single medication (Group IV). The primary outcome was nausea and/or vomiting (NV) in the intraoperative, early (0–2 h) or late (2–24 h) postoperative period.

Multivariate statistical analysis was conducted with a regression analysis and a backward elimination of factors without significant correlation.

Results

All prophylactic agents significantly reduced NV incidence intraoperatively. Relative risk reduction for NV by prophylaxis was most effective (59.5%) in Group II (tropisetron and metoclopramide). In Group III (dimenhydrinate and dexamethasone), NV risk was reduced by 29.9% and by 28.7% in Group IV (tropisetron mono-therapy). The incidence of NV in the early (0–2 h) and the late (2–24 h) postoperative period was low all over (7.8%), but the relative risk reduction of NV in the early postoperative period was 54.1% (Group IV), 45.1% (Group III), and 34.8% (Group II), respectively. In the late postoperative period, there was no significant difference between the 4 groups.

Conclusions

We recommend a prophylactic medication with tropisetron 2 mg and metoclopramide 20 mg for patients during caesarean section. These agents are safe, reasonably priced, and highly efficient in preventing nausea and vomiting.

Desflurane: a clinical update of a third-generation inhaled anaesthetic

Available volatile anaesthetics are safe and efficacious; however, their varying pharmacology provides small but potentially clinically important differences. Desflurane is one of the third-generation inhaled anaesthetics. It is the halogenated inhaled anaesthetic with the lowest blood and tissue solubilities, which promotes its rapid equilibration and its rapid elimination following cessation of administration at the end of anaesthesia. The low fat solubility of desflurane provides pharmacological benefits, especially in overweight patients and in longer procedures by reducing slow compartment accumulation. A decade of clinical use has provided evidence for desflurane's safe and efficacious use as a general anaesthetic. Its benefits include rapid and predictable emergence, and early recovery. In addition, the use of desflurane promotes early and predictable extubation, and the ability to rapidly transfer patients from the operating theatre to the recovery area, which has a positive impact on patient turnover. Desflurane also increases the likelihood of patients, including obese patients, recovering their protective airway reflexes and awakening to a degree sufficient to minimise the stay in the high dependency recovery area. The potential impact of the rapid early recovery from desflurane anaesthesia on intermediate and late recovery and resumption of activities of daily living requires further study.