Preoperative Risk Assessment to Guide Prophylaxis and Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

A Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Update: Current information on New Drugs, Old Drugs, Rescue/Treatment, Combination Therapies and Nontraditional Modalities

This article's objective is to present the latest evidence and information on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV continues to affect 30% of the surgical population causing patient dissatisfaction, extending length of stay, and increasing overall costs. This review includes the introduction of 2 new intravenous formulations of antiemetics (amisulpride, aprepitant), updates on nontraditional therapies, suggestions for combination prophylaxis, emerging data on rescue treatment, and considerations for special populations and settings. Both of the new antiemetics provide promising options for pharmacologic interventions for PONV with favorable safety profiles.

Investigating the Association Between a Risk-Directed Prophylaxis Protocol and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Validation in a Low-Income Setting

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prevention protocols in low-income countries is not well known. Different surgical procedures, available medications, and co-occurring diseases imply that existing protocols may need validation in these settings. We assessed the association of a risk-directed PONV prevention protocol on the incidence of PONV and short-term surgical outcomes in a teaching hospital in Rwanda.

METHODS

We compared the incidence of PONV during the first 48 hours postoperatively before (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2019; preintervention) and immediately after (July 1, 2019-September 30, 2019; postintervention) implementing an Apfel score-based PONV prevention strategy in 116 adult patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgery at Kigali University Teaching Hospital in Rwanda. Secondary outcomes included time to first oral intake, hospital length of stay, and rate of wound dehiscence. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to assess the associated temporal slopes of the outcome before and immediately after implementation of the risk-directed PONV prevention protocol.

RESULTS

Compared to just before the intervention, there was no change in the odds of PONV at the beginning of the postintervention period (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-1.01). There was a decreasing trend in the odds of nausea (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97) per month. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea immediately after implementation of the protocol (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.25-3.72) or in the slope between preintervention and postintervention periods (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.60-3.65). In contrast, there was no change in the odds of vomiting during the preintervention period (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.61-1.67) per month. The odds of vomiting decreased at the beginning of the postintervention period compared to just before (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.47; P = .004). Finally, there was a significant decrease in the average time to first oral intake (estimated 14 hours less; 95% CI, -25 to -3) when the protocol was first implemented, after adjusting for confounders; however, there was no difference in the slope of the average time to first oral intake between the 2 periods ( P = .44).

CONCLUSIONS

A risk-directed PONV prophylaxis protocol was associated with reduced vomiting and time to first oral intake after implementation. There was no substantial difference in the slopes of vomiting incidence and time to first oral intake before and after implementation.

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 Preoperative Risk Assessment and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Importance for Nurses

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be one of the most common postoperative complications affecting one of four patients. The aim of this study was to assess the importance of preoperative risks and PONV, and to determine the significance for nurses.

DESIGN

This was a descriptive study.

METHODS

The study was carried out with 242 patients in the surgical clinics of a university hospital. The data of the study were evaluated via a "Patient Information Form" and "Patient Evaluation Form," including Apfel and Koivuranta Nausea Vomiting Risk Scores, before and after surgery.

FINDINGS

At the end of the study, 45.9% of the patients were found to have nausea and 23.6% suffered vomiting. The average Apfel risk score of patients was 1.88 ± 1.16, and the Koivuranta risk score was 2.35 ± 1.07.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that more patients had nausea than vomiting in the postoperative period. We recommend that the risk scores used in the early determination of PONV should be evaluated by nurses and health care workers in the preoperative period. Furthermore, nursing care planning is recommended for patients identified as at risk of PONV.

Using patient self-checklist to improve the documentation of risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting: an implementation project

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common surgical complication, affecting 30-50% of patients and 80% in high risk populations. Successful prevention and management of PONV relies on accurately assessing individual risk prior to surgery. A valid and reliable Apfel score is commonly used to assess patients' risk. It is however challenging to translate this evidence into clinical practice. This evidence-based project aimed to identify the current practice of assessing and documenting the risk factors of PONV prior to surgery, and to develop strategies to improve the practice.

METHODS

The project had three phrases, including forming a team and conducting the baseline audit; identifying problems and developing strategies; and conducting a follow-up tool to assess the impact on compliance with best practice. A research team was formed. A baseline audit was conducted at a public hospital in Victoria in June 2016 to examine PONV risk assessment practice through checking medical files of surgical patients. A getting research into practice audit and feedback tool was used to identify barriers, implementation strategies, stakeholders and resources. After implementation, a second audit was conducted between June and October 2017. Audit criteria were based on a reliable and valid Apfel score.

RESULTS

At baseline, accurate PONV risk could only be calculated from 8% of patient files with no file formally recording the risk factors. The proportion of patients with three risk factors preoperatively, indicating high PONV risk, was 5.3%. Barriers identified were the perceived lack of necessity to record the risk, time constraint and too much paperwork. A self-checklist for risk assessment was developed to enable patients to check their own level of risk. Its face validity, construct validity and accuracy were examined. The checklist was then implemented for patients to complete prior to surgery. A number of strategies were used to improve the implementation. The second audit of 1308 files showed that at the end of audit period, 74% of patients had risk assessment conducted and documented postimplementation. 16.8% of the patients were identified as having high PONV risk, nearly triple the number identified at baseline.

CONCLUSION

A simple self-checklist of PONV risk was implemented. It greatly improved PONV risk assessment and documentation in a public hospital in Australia and enabled the identification of patients at high risk.