Antiemetic Therapy for Nausea and Vomiting in the Emergency Department

Single intravenous dose ondansetron induces QT prolongation in adult emergency department patients: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Ondansetron is one of the most commonly used drugs in the emergency department (ED) for treating nausea and vomiting, particularly in intravenous (IV) form. Nevertheless, it has been shown to prolong QT interval and increase the risk of ventricular dysrhythmias. This study evaluated the associations between single IV ondansetron dosage and subsequent QTc prolongation in the ED.

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, a total number of 106 patients presenting to the ED in a 3-month period with nausea and vomiting treated with IV ondansetron were enrolled. QT and QTc intervals were measured at baseline (QT0 and QTc0), and 60 min (QT60 and QTc60) following a single-dose administration of ondansetron at 4 or 8 mg doses. To evaluate the predictive ability of these variables, we employed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses.

RESULTS

The predictive models for QTc prolongation 1-hour post-ondansetron administration showed the following: at baseline, the area under curve of 0.70 for QT, 0.71 for QTc, and 0.64 for dosage. Conversely, a QTc0 = 375 msec indicated a QTc60 > 480 msec with a specificity of 97%. Additionally, a QTc0 of 400 msec had a sensitivity of 100% in predicting a QTc60 < 480 msec, while a QTc0 > 460 msec predicted a QTc60 > 480 msec with a specificity of 98%. Moreover, 8 mg doses were associated with higher rates of QTc60 prolongation, while 4 mg doses favored maintaining QTc60 within normal limits.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates the predictive capacity of QT0, QTc0, and ondansetron dosage in forecasting QTc60 prolongation (> 480 msec) post-ondansetron administration. These findings advocate for their incorporation into clinical protocols to enhance safety monitoring in adult ED patients.

Comparative Analysis of Oral Ondansetron, Metoclopramide, and Domperidone for Managing Vomiting in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis

Background Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) is a major health concern in pediatric populations because of its associated vomiting, which worsens dehydration and the severity of illness. Objective The purpose of the research was to compare the relative effectiveness of oral ondansetron in treating AGE in children's vomiting when compared to oral domperidone and oral metoclopramide. Methodology A clinical investigation involving 120 pediatric patients diagnosed with AGE was conducted in Pakistan from November 2022 to April 2023 using a single-blind randomized design and convenience sampling. The participants received oral suspensions of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and domperidone, with doses of 0.15 mg/kg, 0.1-0.2 mg/kg, and 0.5 mg/kg, respectively, adjusted according to their body weight. The outcome in different groups was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 20.0; IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY). Results At six hours, vomiting cessation rates were 80.0% for ondansetron (n=32), 72.5% for domperidone (n=29), and 67.5% for metoclopramide (n=27; p=0.29). By 24 hours, ondansetron exhibited significantly higher efficacy (92.5%; n=37) compared to domperidone (82.5%; n=33) and metoclopramide (77.5%; n=31; p=0.03). Adverse effects were minimal and comparable across groups. Conclusion Oral ondansetron demonstrated superior efficacy in managing AGE-related vomiting in children within 24 hours compared to metoclopramide and domperidone.

QT prolongation, torsades des pointes, and cardiac arrest after 4 mg of IV ondansetron

Ondansetron is a commonly used antiemetic in the emergency department despite a 2011 FDA warning regarding dose-related QTc prolongation and torsades des pointes (TdP). Cases of TdP from small ondansetron doses administered in the emergency department are lacking. A 41-year-old-woman with alcohol use disorder on no medications or supplements presented to an emergency department with one day of nausea, vomiting, and epigastric pain. Examination revealed a pulse of 77 beats/min and epigastric tenderness. The patient received 4 mg IV ondansetron, 30 mg IV ketorolac, and was placed on cardiac monitoring. ECG obtained one minute after ondansetron demonstrated premature ventricular contractions with QTc = 653 ms. Thirteen minutes after receiving ondansetron she suffered TdP and cardiac arrest. She received immediate CPR and IV epinephrine with successful defibrillation at one minute. She then received IV magnesium. Post-arrest ECGs demonstrated persistent QTc prolongation immediately and at three hours post-arrest. Laboratory studies, drawn prior to arrest, demonstrated hypokalemia (3.2 mEq/L), hypomagnesemia (1.3 mg/dL), and elevated lipase (4918 IU/L). She received no additional QT-prolonging agents. Transthoracic echocardiogram and troponins were normal; ECG intervals completely normalized within 12 h and she was discharged neurologically intact. The patient returned 18 months later with recurrent pancreatitis and similar electrolyte abnormalities; QT-prolonging drugs were avoided at that time and her course was uncomplicated. QT prolongation with subsequent torsades des pointes and cardiac arrest may occur in high-risk patients receiving small doses of ondansetron. Further studies are warranted to determine the safest antiemetic for use in the emergency department.

Droperidol versus ondansetron for nausea treatment within the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

A randomised single-blind trial was undertaken in an adult ED population, comparing the effectiveness of droperidol 2.5 mg IV with ondansetron 8 mg IV for the treatment of nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to receive droperidol (n = 60) or ondansetron (n = 60). Patients rated their nausea severity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) immediately before and 30 min after drug administration. The primary outcome was of symptom improvement, defined by a VAS change ≥-8 mm 30 min post-treatment. Mean VAS change and percentage experiencing desired effect were secondary outcomes compared.

RESULTS

Of 120 study patients, 60 (50%) received droperidol or ondansetron. Symptom improvement occurred in 93% (56 of 60) and 87% (52 of 60), respectively (P = 0.362). Mean VAS change was -38 mm and -29 mm, respectively (P = 0.031). Percentage of patients indicating desired effect was 85% and 63%, respectively (P = 0.006). Additional antiemetics were required for 16% and 37% of subjects, respectively (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of symptom improvement between droperidol and ondansetron. Secondary outcomes which favour droperidol warrant further exploration.

Ondansetron versus metoclopramide for managing hyperemesis gravidarum: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This investigation examined the efficacy of ondansetron (intervention) versus metoclopramide (control) in managing parturient females with hyperemesis gravidarum (HG), by pooling data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a meta-analysis approach. From inception until January 2022, five information sources were screened: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. Quality assessment was done through the Cochrane Risk of Bias (version 2) assessment tool. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to summarize the continuous data in a fixed- or random-effects model, depending on the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Five RCTs were included, comprising a total of 695 patients (355 and 340 females were assigned to ondansetron and metoclopramide, respectively). Four RCTs had an overall “low” risk of bias, whereas one RCT had an overall “some concerns” due to lack of sufficient information about randomization. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the pregnancy-unique quantification of emesis and nausea score [MD=0.23, 95% CI (-0.42, 0.88), p=0.49], length of hospital stay [MD=-0.17 days, 95% CI (-0.35, 0.02), p=0.08], the number of doses of drug received [MD=0.45, 95% CI (-0.08, 0.98), p=0.10], and duration of intravenous fluids [MD=-1.73 hours, 95% CI (-5.79, 2.33), p=0.40]. Among parturient females with HG, there was no substantial difference in efficacy between both agents. Nevertheless, ondansetron is favored over metoclopramide in view of its trending therapeutic efficacy and better safety profile.

Patients treated for acute headache with intranasal droperidol spend less time in the emergency department: A retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

Headache is a common presenting complaint to the ED. Using time from the first provider to discharge as a surrogate for effectiveness, we aimed to determine if intranasal (IN) droperidol is as beneficial as usual treatment for acute headache in the ED.

METHODS

There were 1213 consecutive presentations of adults with acute headache over a 42-month period. Electronic records for each event were interrogated, 406 events met pre-determined exclusion criteria. Of the remaining 805 eligible patient events, 139 received IN droperidol, whereas 666 were given usual therapy.

RESULTS

There was a 20 min reduction of mean and median ED length of stay (LOS) for the group that got treated with IN droperidol.

CONCLUSIONS

IN droperidol reduced LOS in the ED. There are potential cost savings of this effective treatment via this novel route. A prospective multi-centre study of the use of IN droperidol for the treatment of acute headache in the ED is recommended.

The effect of oral ondansetron on QT interval in children with acute gastroenteritis; a retrospective observational study

Background

In mildly to moderately dehydrated patients with acute gastroenteritis (AGE), oral rehydration therapy (ORT) is the treatment of choice. Though ondansetron is a very effective antiemetics and leads to succeed ORT, there have been reports QT prolongation in patients using it. We investigated the effect of oral ondansetron on QT interval in mildly to moderately dehydrated children with AGE.

Methods

This retrospective observational study was conducted in a single pediatric emergency department (ED) of a tertiary university hospital. We collected the medical records of patients with a primary diagnosis of AGE who received oral ondansetron and underwent an electrocardiogram between January 2017 and June 2018. A pediatric emergency physician calculated the corrected QT interval (QTc) by Bazett’s method, and the calculations were reviewed by a pediatric cardiologist. QTc values before (preQTc) and after (postQTc) ondansetron administration were analyzed. ΔQTc was calculated as the change from preQTc to postQTc. We also investigated any cardiac complications from oral ondansetron.

Results

Total 80 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 53.31 ± 32.42 months, and 45% were male. The mean dose of oral ondansetron was 0.18 ± 0.04 mg/kg. The mean interval from administration of ondansetron to performance of the electrocardiogram was 65 ± 26 min. The mean preQTc was 403.3 ± 24.0 ms, and the mean postQTc was 407.2 ± 26.7 ms. Two patients had a preQTc ≥460 ms, and one patient had a postQTc ≥460 ms. ΔQTc was ≥30 ms in seven patients (8.8%). No ΔQTc was ≥60 ms. No pre- or postQTc was ≥500 ms. No patient had a fatal cardiac arrhythmia after taking ondansetron.

Conclusion

Oral administration of a single dose of ondansetron in children with AGE did not cause high-risk QTc prolongation or fatal arrhythmia.

Investigation role of ondansetron on long QT interval among non-cardiac patients

Background

Ondansetron is one of the commonly prescribed anti-emetic in emergency department however, high dose of the drug is associated with prolonged QT interval. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of ondansetron on prolongation of QT interval among patients referred to our emergency department.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study patients referred to the emergency department of Imam Reza hospital from June 2019 to December 2019 were included. Before the administration of ondansetron 12-lead electrocardiography was performed in all the patients. 4 mg of i.v. ondansetron was administered to these patients and ECG was obtained again. QT interval was calculated automatically from the system from these electrocardiographs. Demographic data of these patients along with QT interval findings was recorded in the questionnaire and analyzed statistically using SPSS software.

Results

A total of 55 patients were included with the mean age of 58 ± 13 years, where 36 were females (65.5%) and 19 were males (34.5%). The mean QT interval before and after injection of 4 mg intravenous ondansetron was not statistically significant, p-value = 0.073. Similarly, QT interval before and after the administration of the drugs was also not significantly different among females and males, p = 0.479 and p = 0.078, respectively. The age of the patients was also not associated with prolonged QT interval, p = 0.948.

Conclusions

The findings of our study indicated that 4 mg i.v. administration of ondansetron among non-cardiac patients referred to emergency department is not associated with QT interval prolongation.

•

Ondansetron is one of the commonly prescribed anti-emetic in emergency department.

•

High dose of the drug is associated with prolonged QT interval.

•

The findings indicated that 4 mg i.v. administration of ondansetron among non-cardiac patients.

Medical and surgical management of gastroparesis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Gastroparesis (GPS) is a rare disease with multiple etiologies that results in delayed gastric emptying. Diagnosis of GPS can be challenging due to its rather complex clinical presentation. Pharmacologic refractory cases require surgical interventions, all of which have yet to be standardized and characterized.

OBJECTIVES

We present a review of the literature and provide an update of current therapies for patients with GPS.

SETTING

Department of General Surgery, Academic Hospital, United States.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase of English-written articles published in the last 38 years, with an advance title search of "gastroparesis management." Other keywords included: "surgical management" and "refractory gastroparesis." Further references were obtained through cross-reference.

RESULTS

A total of 12,250 articles were selected after eliminating duplicates. Following thorough screening of selection criteria, 68 full-text articles were included for review.

CONCLUSION

GPS is a challenging disease to manage. Nutritional support must remain the primary approach, followed by either medical or surgical treatment modalities if necessary. In patients with refractory gastroparesis, adjunctive therapies have been proposed as promising long-term options.

Fifty-eight-year-old female with abdominal migraine: A rare cause of episodic gastrointestinal disturbance in adults

Abdominal migraine (AM) is a predominantly pediatric condition characterized by erratic episodes of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting with spontaneous periodic relief. It should be considered as a differential diagnosis in symptomatic adults.

PC-FACS

PC-FACS(FastArticleCriticalSummaries for Clinicians inPalliativeCare) provides hospice and palliative care clinicians with concise summaries of the most important findings from more than 100 medical and scientific journals. If you have colleagues who would benefit from receiving PC-FACS, please encourage them to join the AAHPM at aahpm.org. Comments from readers are welcomed at pc-facs@aahpm.org.

Aromatherapy Versus Oral Ondansetron for Antiemetic Therapy Among Adult Emergency Department Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We compare aromatherapy with inhaled isopropyl alcohol versus oral ondansetron for treating nausea among emergency department (ED) patients not requiring immediate intravenous access.

METHODS

In a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of adults presenting to an urban tertiary care ED with chief complaints including nausea or vomiting. We randomized subjects to 1 of 3 arms: inhaled isopropyl alcohol and 4 mg oral ondansetron, inhaled isopropyl alcohol and oral placebo, and inhaled saline solution placebo and 4 mg oral ondansetron. The primary outcome was mean nausea reduction measured by a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale from enrollment to 30 minutes postintervention. Secondary outcomes included receipt of rescue antiemetic medications and adverse events.

RESULTS

We enrolled 122 subjects, of whom 120 (98.3%) completed the study. Of randomized subjects, 40 received inhaled isopropyl alcohol and oral ondansetron, 41 received inhaled isopropyl alcohol and oral placebo, and 41 received inhaled saline solution placebo and oral ondansetron. The mean decrease in nausea visual analog scale score in each arm was 30 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 22 to 37 mm), 32 mm (95% CI 25 to 39 mm), and 9 mm (95% CI 5 to 14 mm), respectively. The proportions of subjects who received rescue antiemetic therapy in each arm were 27.5% (95% CI 14.6% to 43.9%), 25.0% (95% CI 12.7% to 41.2%), and 45.0% (95% CI 29.3% to 61.5%), respectively. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Among ED patients with acute nausea and not requiring immediate intravenous access, aromatherapy with or without oral ondansetron provides greater nausea relief than oral ondansetron alone.

Antiemetic Use in the Emergency Department

Nausea and vomiting are 2 of the most common complaints of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). In addition, antiemetics are the most commonly prescribed medications in the ED behind analgesics. Treating these conditions can be complex, especially as one considers that nausea and/or vomiting could be the primary presenting illness or simply a symptom of a more complex etiology. Although there is a wide variety of pharmacotherapeutic options in the armamentarium to treat these conditions, very few consensus recommendations exist to help guide the use of antiemetic agents in the ED, leading to wide variability in medication use. Contributing to these variations in practice is the extended spectrum of etiologies and potential physiological factors that contribute to the development of nausea or vomiting. A thorough understanding of the pharmacology and administration of these agents can help practitioners devise tailored antiemetic regimens based upon the underlying etiology.

Oligoantiemesis or Inadequate Prescription of Antiemetics in the Emergency Department: A Local and National Perspective

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common, but prevalence of antiemetic use in ED patients is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We determined the use of antiemetics in emergency department (ED) patients presenting with nausea and vomiting (NV).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of ED patients presenting to a local ED with NV and analyzed data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Care Survey for similar patients to determine the frequency of administration of antiemetics in the ED.

RESULTS

Of 3876 patients presenting to a local ED with NV in 2014, 2637 (68% [95% confidence interval (CI) 67-69%]) received an antiemetic. Of an estimated 11.3 million U.S. ED visits for NV in 2011 (the latest year available), antiemetics were prescribed in 56% (95% CI 53-59%). Females, older patients, and those with vomiting were more likely to receive antiemetics. Use of antiemetics was associated with reduced admissions in the single institution (odds ratio [OR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.52-0.74), but not in the national database (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74-1.60).

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients presenting with NV do not receive antiemetics while in the ED. Effort should be made to further study and reduce the phenomenon of undertreatment of nausea or vomiting, coined "oligoantiemesis."

Intravenous Ondansetron and the QT Interval in Adult Emergency Department Patients: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

Ondansetron is known to cause QT interval prolongation, but this effect and clinical significance has not been prospectively studied in adult emergency department (ED) patients. The primary objective was to determine the mean maximal corrected QT interval (QTc) prolongation after intravenous (IV) administration of 4 mg of ondansetron. The secondary objective was to report any serious adverse cardiac electrical events.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational, single-center cohort study conducted between 2012 and 2013 in an academic, military hospital ED. Adult patients ordered to receive 4 mg of IV ondansetron were eligible for the study. A six-lead electrocardiogram was recorded at baseline and every 2 minutes after ondansetron administration for 20 minutes. The QTc was calculated using the Bazett formula. Serious adverse cardiac electrical events (nonsinus rhythm, severe bradycardia, and sudden cardiac death) were also recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-two adult ED patients were enrolled. Ondansetron caused a mean prolongation of the QTc by 20 ms (95% confidence interval [CI] = 14 to 26 ms), with a mean proportion change from baseline of 5.2% (95% CI = 3.8% to 6.6%). There were zero (95% CI = 0 to 13%) reported serious adverse cardiac electrical events.

CONCLUSIONS

While QTc prolongation does occur in adult ED patients receiving IV ondansetron, the clinical impact is questionable.

Droperidol for treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2010, on droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal illness and can be very unpleasant and distressing. There are several different types of antiemetic treatments that can be used to control these symptoms. Droperidol is an antipsychotic drug and has been used and studied as an antiemetic in the management of postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE (1950-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1981-) and AMED (1985-), using relevant search terms and synonyms. The basic search strategy was ("droperidol" OR "butyrophenone") AND ("nausea" OR "vomiting"), modified for each database. We updated the search on 2 December 2009. We performed updated searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and AMED 2009 to 2013 on 19 November 2013 and of CINAHL on 20 November 2013. We also searched trial registers (metaRegister of controlled trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct), clinicaltrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/)) on 22 November 2013, using the keyword "droperidol".

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of droperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We judged the potential relevance of studies based on their titles and abstracts, and obtained studies that we anticipated might meet the inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently reviewed the abstracts for the initial review and four review authors reviewed the abstracts for the update to assess suitability for inclusion. We discussed discrepancies to achieve consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2010 search strategy identified 1664 abstracts (and 827 duplicates) of which we obtained 23 studies in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.The updated searches carried out in November 2013 identified 304 abstracts (261 excluding duplicates) of which we obtained 18 references in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria, therefore there were no included studies in this review.We found no registered trials of droperidol for the management of nausea or vomiting in palliative care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since first publication of this review, no new studies were found. There is insufficient evidence to advise on the use of droperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Studies of antiemetics in palliative care settings are needed to identify which agents are most effective, with minimum side effects.

Chloral hydrate, chloral hydrate--promethazine and chloral hydrate -hydroxyzine efficacy in electroencephalography sedation

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety of chloral hydrate (CH), chloral hydrate and promethazine (CH + P) and chloral hydrate and hydroxyzine (CH + H) in electroencephalography (EEG) sedation.

METHODS

In a parallel single-blinded randomized clinical trial, ninety 1-7 y-old uncooperative kids who were referred to Pediatric Neurology Clinic of Shahid Sadoughi University, Yazd, Iran from April through August 2012, were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate or 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate and 1 mg/kg of promethazine or 40 mg/kg of chloral hydrate and 2 mg/kg of hydroxyzine. The primary endpoint was efficacy in sufficient sedation (obtaining four Ramsay sedation score) and successful completion of EEG. Secondary endpoint was clinical adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty nine girls (43.3 %) and 51 boys (56.7 %) with mean age of 3.34 ± 1.47 y were assessed. Sufficient sedation and completion of EEG were achieved in 70 % (N = 21) of chloral hydrate group, in 83.3 % (N = 25) of CH + H group and in 96.7 % (N = 29) of CH + P group (p = 0.02). Mild clinical adverse events including vomiting [16.7 % (N = 5) in CH, 6.7 % (N = 2) in CH + P, 6.7 % (N = 2) in CH + H], agitation in 3.3 % of CH + P (N = 1) group and mild transient hypotension in 3.3 % of CH + H (N = 1) group occurred. Safety of these three sedation regimens was not statistically significant different (p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination of chloral hydrate-antihistamines can be used as the most effective and safe sedation regimen in drug induced sleep electroencephalography of kids.

Drug utilization in emergency medicine department at a tertiary care teaching hospital: A prospective study

Background and Objectives:

The practice of emergency medicine has the primary mission of evaluating, managing and providing treatment to those patients with unexpected injury or illness. Instituting appropriate therapy is necessary for safety of the patients and to decrease mortality and morbidity. The objectives were to study the drug utilization pattern and direct cost of therapy in emergency medicine department of a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Materials and Methods:

Data of the patients admitted to emergency medicine department was collected prospectively for 48 h from the time of admission over 2 months. The prescriptions were analyzed for drug use pattern and direct cost of therapy was calculated.

Results:

A total of 156 patients received 1635 drugs with the mean of 9.99 ± 2.55 drugs/patient. Most common diagnosis was acute coronary syndrome 35 (21.79%). Ondansetron 135 (86.53%) was most frequently prescribed drug followed by pantoprazole 133 (85.25%) and furosemide 68 (43.58%). Amongst antimicrobials ceftriaxone 51 (32.69%) was the most commonly prescribed drug. Direct cost of treatment per patient for the first 48 h was र 4051 ± 1641.

Conclusion:

Ondansetron and pantoprazole were the most commonly prescribed drugs in the emergency department. However, their use in all patients was not justified. Polypharmacy was prevalent. A closer look at the rationality of therapy would help in highlighting issues involved and would be helpful to authorities in deciding prescribing policies.

Clinical guideline: management of gastroparesis

This guideline presents recommendations for the evaluation and management of patients with gastroparesis. Gastroparesis is identified in clinical practice through the recognition of the clinical symptoms and documentation of delayed gastric emptying. Symptoms from gastroparesis include nausea, vomiting, early satiety, postprandial fullness, bloating, and upper abdominal pain. Management of gastroparesis should include assessment and correction of nutritional state, relief of symptoms, improvement of gastric emptying and, in diabetics, glycemic control. Patient nutritional state should be managed by oral dietary modifications. If oral intake is not adequate, then enteral nutrition via jejunostomy tube needs to be considered. Parenteral nutrition is rarely required when hydration and nutritional state cannot be maintained. Medical treatment entails use of prokinetic and antiemetic therapies. Current approved treatment options, including metoclopramide and gastric electrical stimulation (GES, approved on a humanitarian device exemption), do not adequately address clinical need. Antiemetics have not been specifically tested in gastroparesis, but they may relieve nausea and vomiting. Other medications aimed at symptom relief include unapproved medications or off-label indications, and include domperidone, erythromycin (primarily over a short term), and centrally acting antidepressants used as symptom modulators. GES may relieve symptoms, including weekly vomiting frequency, and the need for nutritional supplementation, based on open-label studies. Second-line approaches include venting gastrostomy or feeding jejunostomy; intrapyloric botulinum toxin injection was not effective in randomized controlled trials. Most of these treatments are based on open-label treatment trials and small numbers. Partial gastrectomy and pyloroplasty should be used rarely, only in carefully selected patients. Attention should be given to the development of new effective therapies for symptomatic control.

Ondansetron oral dissolving tablets are superior to normal saline alone for prehospital nausea

BACKGROUND

Antiemetics have been shown to be effective in multiple hospital settings, but few studies have been done in the prehospital environment.

OBJECTIVES

Our hypotheses were 1) that the amount of normal saline administered during an emergency medical services (EMS) transport was not related to a change in nausea and vomiting and 2) that the addition of the ondansetron orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) would decrease the degree of nausea.

METHODS

This was a pre-post study of two cohorts of consecutive patients with nausea in the prehospital setting. During phase 1 of the study, our local EMS agency adopted a protocol form to complete whenever a patient with nausea and/or vomiting was assessed and transported to one of the area hospitals. Patients were asked to rate their nausea on a visual analog scale (VAS) and a Likert scale, and saline administration and active vomiting were documented. During phase 2, our EMS system adopted the use of ondansetron ODT for nausea and continued to complete the same forms. The nausea forms completed by EMS during phase 1 (saline only) and phase 2 (ondansetron ODT) were evaluated and compared. For both phases, the primary outcome measures were the change in VAS nausea rating (0 = no nausea, 100 = most nausea imaginable) from beginning to end of the transport and the results on the Likert scale completed at the end of the transport. Relationships were considered significant if p < 0.01.

RESULTS

Data were collected from 274 transports in phase 1 and 372 transports in phase 2. The average patient age was 50 ± 12 years. In phase 1 of the study, 178 of 274 patients (65%) received normal saline (mean volume ± standard deviation = 265 ± 192 mL). There was no significant correlation between the VAS change and the amount of fluid administration in either phase of the study. Conversely, during phase 2, patients receiving ondansetron ODT showed significant improvement in both measures of nausea. The difference in nausea improvement between phase 1 and phase 2 was significant (difference in VAS change: 24.6; 95% confidence interval 20.9, 28.3).

CONCLUSION

There was no improvement in patient nausea related to quantity of saline alone during an EMS transport. The addition of ondansetron ODT resulted in a significant improvement in degree of nausea.

Evaluation of Drug Utilization Patterns during Initial Treatment in the Emergency Room: A Retroprospective Pharmacoepidemiological Study

Background. We assessed the prescribing trends, average number of drugs per prescription, and cost per prescription during the initial contact of the patient with the physician in emergency room. Methods. This retro-prospective study was conducted over a period of six months. Medical records of two hundred patients were reviewed for prescribing patterns. Results. 52 different types of drugs (996 drugs) were prescribed in total 200 prescriptions during the mean time spent in emergency room of 2.8 ± 1.4 hours. The average number of drugs per prescription was 4.2 ± 1.2. 95% of drugs were prescribed by trade name. Average drugs cost per prescription was 784 ± 134 rupees (17USD). Conclusion. Polypharmacy remains the main form of irrational prescribing. Prescribing patterns of drugs were knowledge based rather than WHO criteria for rational use of drugs.

Vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis

Diseases that cause vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis are major problems for populations worldwide. Patients, particularly infants, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, may present at any point in a wide spectrum of disease states, underscoring the need for the clinician to treat these ailments aggressively. Several promising new treatment modalities, from oral rehydration solutions to antiemetic therapies, have been introduced over the past decade. Future directions include the use of probiotic agents and better tolerated rehydration solutions. Gastrointestinal disease will continue to be a focus worldwide in the search for better ways to cure illnesses associated with vomiting and diarrhea.

A trial of midazolam vs diphenhydramine in prophylaxis of metoclopramide-induced akathisia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate the effects of midazolam and diphenhydramine for the prevention of metoclopramide-induced akathisia.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, and controlled trial aimed to investigate coadministered midazolam vs diphenhydramine in the prophylaxis of metoclopramide-induced akathisia. Patients 18 to 65 years of age who presented to the emergency department with primary or secondary complaints of nausea and/or moderate to severe vascular-type headache were eligible for this study. Patients were randomized to one of the fallowing 3 groups: (1) metoclopramide 10 mg + midazolam 1.5 mg; (2) metoclopramide 10 mg + diphenhydramine 20 mg; (3) metoclopramide 10 mg + placebo. Metoclopramide was administered as a 2-minute bolus infusion. Midazolam, diphenhydramine, and normal saline solution were administered as a 15-minute slow infusion. The whole procedure was observed; and akathisia and sedation scores and vital changes were recorded.

RESULTS

There were significant differences among groups with respect to akathisia (P = .016) and sedation (P < .001). The midazolam group showed the lowest mean akathisia score but the highest mean sedation score. Akathisia scores of the diphenhydramine group were not different from placebo. There were significant differences among groups in terms of changes in mean vital findings such as respiration rates, pulse rates, and systolic blood pressures (P < .05). There were no significant difference among groups in terms of changes in mean diastolic blood pressures (P = .09).

CONCLUSION

Coadministered midazolam reduced the incidence of akathisia induced by metoclopramide compared to placebo but increased the rate of sedation. No difference was detected from diphenhydramine. Routine coadministered 20 mg diphenhydramine did not prevent metoclopramide-induced akathisia.