Superior prolonged antiemetic prophylaxis with a four-drug multimodal regimen - comparison with propofol or placebo

Effect of preoperative ondansetron on postoperative nausea in healthy dogs undergoing laparoscopic gastropexy and castration

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if preoperative ondansetron reduces postoperative nausea associated with laparoscopic gastropexy and castration in dogs.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective clinical study.

ANIMALS

Twenty client-owned, healthy male dogs.

METHODS

Dogs were premedicated with dexmedetomidine (2-5 mcg kg-1) and methadone (0.2-0.5 mg kg-1) intramuscularly. General anesthesia was induced with propofol and maintained with an inhalant anesthetic agent. Dogs were randomized into group S (saline 0.1 mL kg-1, intravenously) or group O (ondansetron 0.2 mg kg-1, intravenously). Plasma and serum were collected before premedication and 3 hours postextubation to measure arginine vasopressin (AVP) and cortisol concentrations. Nausea scoring occurred before and 10 minutes after premedication, immediately after extubation, and at 1, 2 and 3 hours postextubation. Data were analyzed by mixed and split-plot anova with Bonferroni adjustment for the number of group comparisons. Significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Nausea scores increased over time at 1 (p = 0.01) and 2 (p < 0.001) hours postextubation in both groups compared with before premedication. Median nausea score (0-100 mm) for groups S and O before premedication were 2.5 and 0.5 mm, respectively. At 1 and 2 hours postextubation, group S scored 7.5 and 4.0 mm and group O scored 6.0 and 5.0 mm, respectively. No significant differences in nausea scores within or between groups were observed before premedication and 3 hours postextubation. Cortisol concentrations increased significantly 3 hours postextubation in both groups (p < 0.001) compared with before premedication, with no differences between groups. AVP concentrations showed no significant differences within or between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Preoperative intravenous administration of ondansetron (0.2 mg kg-1) did not impact postoperative nausea after laparoscopic gastropexy and castration. Investigation of higher doses of ondansetron on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in dogs after surgery is warranted.

Comparison of Performance Characteristics and Efficacy of Bilateral Thoracic Paravertebral Blocks in Obese and Non-Obese Patients Undergoing Reduction Mammaplasty Surgery: A Historical Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Although ultrasound (US)-guided regional anesthesia techniques are advantageous in the management of obese patients; the procedures can still be associated with technical difficulties and greater failure rates. The aim of this study is to compare the performance properties and analgesic efficacy of US-guided bilateral thoracic paravertebral blocks (TPVBs) in obese and non-obese patients.

METHODS

Data of 82 patients, who underwent bilateral reduction mammaplasty under general anesthesia with adjunctive TPVB analgesia between December 2016 and February 2020, were reviewed. Patients were allocated into two groups with respect to their BMI scores (Group NO: BMI < 30 and Group O: BMI ≥ 30). Demographics, ideal US visualization time, total bilateral TPVB procedure time, needle tip visualization and performance difficulties, number of needle maneuvers, surgical, anesthetic and analgesic follow-up parameters, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), sleep duration, length of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and hospital stay, and patient/surgeon satisfaction scores were investigated.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients' data were complete. Ideal US visualization and total TPVB performance times were shorter, number of needle maneuvers were fewer and length of PACU stay was shorter in Group NO (p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores were generally similar within first 24 h (p > 0.05). Time to postoperative pain, total analgesic requirements, incidence of PONV, sleep duration, length of hospital stay were comparable (p > 0.05). Satisfaction was slightly higher in Group NO (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

US-guided TPVB performances in obese patients might be more challenging and take longer time. However, it is still successful providing good acute pain control in patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

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 .

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04596787.

Perioperative intravenous dexamethasone for patients undergoing colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone is a glucocorticoid that is often administered intraoperatively as prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined its use in colorectal surgery. This systematic review aims to assess the postoperative impacts of dexamethasone use in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to January 2023. Articles were included if they compared perioperative intravenous dexamethasone to a control group in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery in terms of postoperative morbidity. The primary outcomes were prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) and PONV. Secondary outcomes included postoperative infectious morbidity and return of bowel function. A pair-wise meta-analysis and GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence were performed.

RESULTS

After reviewing 3476 relevant citations, seven articles (five RCTs, two retrospective cohorts) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 1568 patients received perioperative dexamethasone and 1459 patients received a control. Patients receiving perioperative dexamethasone experienced significantly less PPOI based on moderate-quality evidence (three studies, OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.28-0.74, p < 0.01). Time to first flatus was significantly reduced with intravenous dexamethasone. There was no difference between groups in terms of PONV (four studies, OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.64-1.27, p = 0.55), postoperative morbidity (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.63-1.39, p = 0.74), or rate of postoperative infectious complications (seven studies, OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.55-1.01, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

This review presents moderate-quality evidence that perioperative intravenous dexamethasone may reduce PPOI and enhance the return of bowel function following elective colorectal surgery. There was no significant observed effect on PONV or postoperative infectious complications.

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.

What is the impact of dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing general anaesthesia for elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analysis of heterogeneous surgical cohorts demonstrated reduction in postoperative pain with perioperative intravenous dexamethasone, but none have addressed adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of intravenous perioperative dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia.

METHODS

This review was prospectively registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020176202). Electronic databases Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Exerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), (CINAHL) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and trial registries were searched to January 28 2021 for randomised controlled trials, comparing dexamethasone to placebo or alternative antiemetic, that reported pain. The primary outcome was pain score, and secondary outcomes were time to first analgesia, opioid requirements and time to post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies (5768 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Pain scores ≤ 4 hour (h) were reduced in patients who received dexamethasone at rest (mean difference (MD), - 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.72 to - 0.35, I2 = 81%) and on movement (MD - 0.42, 95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.22, I2 = 35). In the dexamethasone group, 4-24 h pain scores were less at rest (MD - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.47 to - 0.14, I2 = 96) and on movement (MD - 0.26, 95% CI - 0.39 to - 0.13, I2 = 29) and pain scores ≥ 24 h were reduced at rest (MD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.24, I2 = 88) and on movement (MD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.65 to - 0.11, I2 = 71). Time to first analgesia (minutes) was increased (MD 22.92, 95% CI 11.09 to 34.75, I2 = 98), opioid requirements (mg oral morphine) decreased (MD - 6.66, 95% CI - 9.38 to - 3.93, I2 = 88) and no difference in time to PACU discharge (MD - 3.82, 95% CI - 10.87 to 3.23, I2 = 59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving dexamethasone had reduced pain scores, postoperative opioid requirements and longer time to first analgesia. Dexamethasone is an effective analgesic adjunct for patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

Safety and efficacy of single-dose preoperative intravenous dexamethasone on post-operative nausea and vomiting following breast surgery at Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital

Objectives

Dexamethasone has beneficial effects on postoperative nausea and vomiting, however, many clinicians have raised legitimate concerns regarding its effect on blood glucose concentrations. This study determined the safety and efficacy of a single pre-operative dose of dexamethasone for PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing breast surgery.

Design

Prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting

Surgical wards of the Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital, Accra, Ghana.

Participants

The study was conducted among breast surgery patients. They were consecutively recruited and randomized into two groups: dexamethasone (n = 47) and placebo (n = 47).

Interventions

Patients in the dexamethasone group received 8mg (2mls of 4mg/ml) dexamethasone while those in the placebo group received 2mls of saline intravenously. PONV impact scores and blood glucose levels were recorded at 4, 8 and 24 hours postoperatively.

Main outcome measures

Incidence of PONV and blood glucose levels.

Results

The incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) was lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the placebo group (12.8% vs. 29.8%; p-value= 0.044). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative vomiting (POV) and PONV between the two groups. Blood glucose levels were higher in the dexamethasone group throughout the study period and significant at 8 and 24 hours postoperatively (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of clinically significant hyperglycemia between the groups (p-value = 0.169).

Conclusion

A preoperative intravenous dexamethasone 8mg, reduces PON but not POV or PONV in breast surgery without clinically significant postoperative hyperglycemia.

Funding

Non declared.

Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in Breast Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Pain control during and after breast surgery is still a challenging task. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is considered as a sedative agent that is widely used perineurally or intravenously as an adjuvant in general anesthesia and critical care medicine practice. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of perineural DEX and intravenous (IV) DEX and their effects on postoperative complications in breast surgeries.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The present study systematically reviewed all identified randomized controlled trials for efficacy and safety of IV and perineural use of DEX in breast surgeries. Databases were searched for articles published before October 2019.

FINDINGS

Twelve trials were identified including 803 patients undergoing breast surgery. Although administration of IV DEX and its use with pectoral nerve (Pecs) block significantly postponed time for first analgesic request and decreased pain score at 1 and 12 hours after surgery, paravertebral use of DEX had no statistically significant effect. Pooled data about perineural DEX showed no significant effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), whereas IV DEX significantly reduced PONV. Pooled analysis also showed that DEX administration did not significantly affect postoperative complications, such as postoperative itching, bradycardia, and pneumothorax in patients undergoing breast surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that unlike paravertebral DEX, both DEX use with Pecs blocks and IV DEX were effective in control of postoperative pain in patients undergoing breast surgeries. Unlike perineural DEX, IV DEX significantly reduced PONV.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of a preoperative single-dose steroid on pulmonary function and postoperative symptoms after modified radical mastectomy: results of a randomized clinical trial

Background

Evidence suggests that a preoperative single-dose steroid improves lung function and decreases the incidence of postoperative symptoms; however, this has not been sufficiently proved in modified radical mastectomy for cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative single-dose steroid administration for postoperative lung function and postoperative symptoms in women undergoing modified radical mastectomy for breast cancer.

Methods

In this controlled clinical trial, conducted between June 2014 and October 2018, we examined 81 patients. Patients received a preoperative single dose of 8 mg dexamethasone (n=41; treatment group) or placebo (sterile injectable water; n=40; control group). We obtained data on postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain intensity and performed spirometry 1 h before and 1, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. The use of additional analgesic or antiemetic drugs was recorded. We followed up patients 30 days after discharge and recorded any surgical or medical complications.

Results

The age distribution and anthropometric variables of the two groups were similar. Almost 50% of the patients in each group also underwent breast reconstruction. In the treatment group, pain intensity was always lower, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was lower at 6, 12, and 24 h, and additional analgesics or antiemetics were required less frequently (P<0.05 for all). Both treatment and control groups demonstrated a restrictive ventilatory pattern immediately after surgery, which in the treatment group was reversed after 24 h. However, the reconstructed patients had a more intense and prolonged restrictive pattern (P<0.05). Surgical morbidity included one seroma observed in the control group. No infections occurred at the surgical site or at any other level, and no patient developed any metabolic disorder. No mortality was observed in either group.

Conclusions

This study establishes that a single preoperative dose of dexamethasone markedly decreased the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain, improved respiratory parameters, and decreased the need for additional postoperative analgesic or antiemetic drugs.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02305173).

Poor preoperative sleep quality is a risk factor for severe postoperative pain after breast cancer surgery: A prospective cohort study

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of preoperative sleep quality on acute postoperative pain in breast cancer patients.The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire (PSQI) was used to assess the overall sleep status of women scheduled for unilateral modified radical mastectomy in the past month. Based on the responses, patients were allocated to good sleep group or poor sleep group. Postoperatively, acute pain was assessed using the numerical rating score in the first 24 hours; in addition, the requirement of analgesics and the incidence of postoperative complications were recorded.A total of 108 breast surgery patients were enrolled. Based on the PSQI results, 55 (51%) patients were allocated to poor sleep group and 53 (49%) to good sleep group. Pain scores were similar in the 2 groups at the end of surgery (P = .589); however, poor sleep group reported higher postoperative pain scores than the good sleep group at 2 (P = .002), 6 (P < .001), 12 (P < .001), and 24 (P = .002) hours after surgery. The incidence of severe pain in the poor sleep group was higher than that in the good sleep group (27% vs 8%, P = .018), and the ratio of participants who required rescued analgesics was greater in the poor sleep group (52% vs 22%, P = .002). In addition, patients with poor sleep quality had more postoperative complications and longer hospital stay.In this study, breast cancer patients with poor preoperative sleep quality reported more severe postoperative pain, required more analgesics, experienced more complications, and had longer hospital stay.

Antiemetic efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus dexmedetomidine-dexamethasone combination in patients undergoing breast surgery

Objective

To compare the antiemetic efficacy of dexmedetomidine alone versus combined dexmedetomidine–dexamethasone on incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing breast surgery.

Methods

A total of 149 patients (aged 20–65 years) were assigned to receive normal saline (control group, n = 50), dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg (DEX group, n = 49), or a combination of dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg/kg and dexamethasone 5 mg (dual group, n = 50) at 30 minutes prior to the end of surgery. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PONV in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU).

Results

During the first 24 hours after surgery, the incidence of PONV was significantly higher in the control group than in the DEX and dual groups (70% vs. 20% and 12%, respectively), with no intergroup difference observed between the DEX and dual groups. In the PACU, the incidence of PONV differed significantly among the control, DEX, and dual groups (12%, 4%, and 3%, respectively).

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine alone and in combination with dexamethasone significantly reduced PONV with similar antiemetic efficacies in female patients during the first 24 hours after breast surgery.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 02550795).

Improved analgesia and reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for total mastectomy

Background

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown in multiple surgical disciplines to improve outcomes, including reduced opioid consumption, length of stay, and post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, very few studies describe the application of ERAS to breast surgery and even fewer describe ERAS for outpatient surgery. We describe the implementation and efficacy of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway for total skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate reconstruction in an outpatient setting.

Methods

We implemented an evidence-based, multimodal ERAS pathway for all patients undergoing total skin-sparing mastectomy surgery with immediate reconstruction at a single 23-h stay surgery center. Highlights of the ERAS pathway included: preoperative acetaminophen, gabapentin, and scopolamine; regional anesthesia for the breast (Pectoral blocks type 1 and 2 or paravertebral block); and intraoperative dexamethasone and ondansetron. This retrospective study included all American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Class 1–3 patients undergoing total skin-sparing mastectomy surgery with immediate reconstruction between July 2013 and April 2016. We compared 96 patients who were in the ERAS pathway (ERAS group) to a retrospective cohort of 276 patients (Pre group). The primary outcome was total perioperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes were highest postoperative pain scores, incidence of PONV, and length of stay.

Results

Patients in the ERAS group had significantly lower total perioperative opioid consumption compared to the Pre group (mean (SD): 111.4 mg (46.0) vs. 163.8 mg (73.2) oral morphine equivalents, p < 0.001). Patients in the ERAS group also had a lower incidence of PONV (28% vs. 50%, p < 0.001). Patients in the ERAS group reported less pain in the recovery room, with a two-point decrease in highest pain score (median [interquartile range (IQR)]: 4 [2,6] in ERAS group vs. 6 [4,7] in Pre group, p < 0.001). There was no clinically significant difference in length of stay (median [IQR]: 1144 min [992, 1259] in ERAS group vs. 1188 [1058, 1344] in Pre group, p = 0.006).

Conclusion

Implementation of an ERAS pathway for total skin-sparing mastectomy with reconstruction that incorporates regional anesthesia is feasible in a 23-h-stay hospital. Patients in the ERAS pathway had improved post-operative analgesia and reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0505-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of preoperative dexamethasone on postoperative pain, nausea, vomiting and respiratory function in women undergoing conservative breast surgery for cancer: Results of a controlled clinical trial

The objective was to evaluate whether preoperative administration of dexamethasone improved postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain and respiratory function tests in women undergoing conservative surgery for breast cancer. This was a controlled clinical trial conducted between June 2013 and October 2014. Eighty patients were evaluated. Patients received a preoperative dose of 8 mg of dexamethasone (n = 40) or placebo (n = 40). The data on PONV and pain intensity was obtained and forced spirometry tests were performed, 1 hr before and at 1, 6, 12 and 24 hr after surgery. Any use of additional analgesic/antiemetic drugs was recorded. Patients were followed until 30 days after surgery for any surgical or medical complications. The pain intensity was lower in the treatment group for all periods; PONV was lower at 6, 12 and 24 hr; Additional analgesics/antiemetics were required less frequently (all p < .05). Both groups exhibited a restrictive ventilatory pattern immediately after surgery, which was reversed in the following hours. However, spirometric values were higher in the dexamethasone group. There were no pulmonary or metabolic complications after surgery. Our conclusions were that dexamethasone significantly reduced the incidences of PONV, pain and improved respiratory parameters, and reduced the need for additional postoperative analgesic and antiemetic drugs.

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.

Risk of severe and refractory postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing diep flap breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are commonly feared after general anesthesia and can impact results. The primary aim of our study was to examine incidence and severity of PONV by investigating complete response, or absence of PONV, to prophylaxis used in patients undergoing DIEP flaps. Our secondary aims were definition of the magnitude of risk, state of the art of interventions, clinical sequelae of PONV, and interaction between these variables, specifically for DIEP patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review occurred for 29 patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction from September 2007 to February 2008. We assessed known patient and procedure-specific risks for PONV after DIEPs, prophylactic antiemetic regimens, incidence, and severity of PONV, postoperative antiemetic rescues, and effects of risks and treatments on symptoms.

RESULTS

Three or more established risks existed in all patients, with up to seven risks per patient. Although 90% of patients received diverse prophylaxis, 76% of patients experienced PONV, and 66% experienced its severe form, emesis. Early PONV (73%) was frequent; symptoms were long lasting (average 20 hours for nausea and emesis); and multiple rescue medications were frequently required (55% for nausea, 58% for emesis). Length of surgery and nonsmoking statistically significantly impacted PONV.

CONCLUSION

We identify previously undocumented high risks for PONV in DIEP patients. High frequency, severity, and refractoriness of PONV occur despite standard prophylaxis. Plastic surgeons and anesthesiologists should further investigate methods to optimize PONV prophylaxis and treatment in DIEP flap patients.

The antiemetic effect of midazolam or/and ondansetron added to intravenous patient controlled analgesia in patients of pelviscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

We made a comparative study on the antiemetic effect of midazolam and ondansetron added to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) using fentanyl with gynecologic patients undergoing pelviscopic surgery.

METHODS

The PCA using 20 µg/kg of fentanyl was started in all groups postoperatively. A dose of 16 mg of ondansetron was added to the PCA of group O (n = 30). A dose of 5 mg of midazolam was added to the PCA of group M (n = 30). While 16 mg of ondansetron and 5 mg of midazolam were added to the PCA of group MO (n = 30). Total volume of the PCA was 60 ml, and the PCA system was programmed to deliver 0.5 ml/h of continuous doses and a 0.5 ml bolus on demand, with a 15 minutes lockout interval. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), sedation score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and rescue drug dose for PONV were investigated at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), 6 hours, and 24 hours after recovery.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV in group MO was significantly lower than in group O at PACU, 24 hours after recovery (P < 0.05). The sedation score and VAS pain score showed no differences among all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam added to PCA using fentanyl proved more effective than ondansetron in preventing PONV without adverse effects.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women scheduled for breast cancer surgery

Breast cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A number of approaches are available for the management of PONV after breast cancer surgery. First, the risk factors related to patient characteristics, surgical procedure, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care can be reduced. More specifically, the use of propofol-based anesthesia can reduce the incidence of PONV. Secondly, a wide range of prophylactic antiemetics, including butyrophenones (droperidol), benzamides (metoclopramide), glucocorticoids (dexamethasone), clonidine, a small dose of propofol, and serotonin receptor (SR) antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, and palonosetron), are available for preventing PONV. Thirdly, antiemetic therapy combined with granisetron and droperidol or dexamethasone, and a multimodal management strategy which includes a package consisting of dexamethasone, total intravenous anesthesia with propofol, and ondansetron are highly effective in preventing PONV. Unfortunately, the use of glucocorticoids and SR antagonists for preventing PONV is not permitted in Japan according to national health insurance guidelines. Fourth, electro-acupoint stimulation at the P6 point (Nei-Guwan) as a non-pharmacologic therapy is as effective as ondansetron for preventing PONV. Knowledge of the risk factors for PONV, antiemetics, and a non-pharmacologic approach are needed for the management of PONV in women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

Preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting following mastectomy for breast cancer

Background

Dexamethasone has been reported to reduce postoperative symptoms after different surgical procedures. We evaluated the efficacy of preoperative dexamethasone in ameliorating postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and pain after mastectomy.

Methods

In this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 70 patients scheduled for mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection were analyzed after randomization to treatment with 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone (n = 35) or placebo (n = 35). All patients underwent standardized procedures for general anesthesia and surgery. Episodes of PONV and pain score were recorded on a visual analogue scale. Analgesic and antiemetic requirements were also recorded.

Results

Demographic and medical variables were similar between groups. The incidence of PONV was lower in the dexamethasone group at the early postoperative evaluation (28.6% vs. 60%; p = 0.02) and at 6 h (17.2% vs. 45.8%; p = 0.03). More patients in the placebo group required additional antiemetic medication (21 vs. 8; p = 0.01). Dexamethasone treatment significantly reduced postoperative pain just after surgery (VAS score, 4.54 ± 1.55 vs. 5.83 ± 2.00; p = 0.004), at 6 h (3.03 ± 1.20 vs. 4.17 ± 1.24; p < 0.0005) and at 12 h (2.09 ± 0.85 vs. 2.54 ± 0.98; p = 0.04). Analgesics were required in more patients of the control group (21 vs. 10; p = 0.008). There were no adverse events, morbidity or mortality.

Conclusions

Preoperative intravenous dexamethasone (8 mg) can significantly reduce the incidence of PONV and pain in patients undergoing mastectomy with axillary dissection for breast cancer.

Trial registration number

NCT01116713

Recent advances, trends and economic considerations in the risk assessment, prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

During the last two decades there have been considerable achievements regarding the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Due to the importance of these symptoms in the aim to streamline clinical processes and to improve patient satisfaction, the debate on the best strategies and also research that focuses on PONV continues. This review summarises the recent developments with respect to the management of PONV. Following a brief review on what is already known on the risk assessment, prevention and treatment of PONV, newer trends in the pharmacological prevention (dexamethasone, neurokinin-1 antagonists, multimodal prevention) will be discussed as well as new insights regarding the value of algorithms for the prevention of PONV. Further, pharmacogenetically based algorithms (according to the metaboliser status) as well as new treatment strategies (dexamethasone, multimodal treatment) will be covered. No drug so far can achieve a reduction of PONV of more than one third. Furthermore, all clinical studies consistently demonstrated that a combination treatment has a simple additive effect without any relevant interaction between different drugs or classes of drugs. The relative reduction of approximately 30% can also be expected from dexamethasone and it is likely that the substances presently in development and in an early clinical use (e.g., neurokinin-1 antagonists) will not represent the new panacea. However, they will probably replenish the existing antiemetic portfolio to better cope with high risk patients. Stratified prevention using pharmacogenetic knowledge is still in the early stages. Algorithms need to be customized to the local settings in order to prove efficient. Treatment remains a most important pillar and there is evidence that the principles of combining antiemetics to prolong effects and improve protection can be similarly applied to treatment. Recent developments in the area of PONV are more related to implementing the already existing evidence than based on the introduction of new molecules. New molecules replenish the pharmacological antiemetic portfolio, which is needed due to the limited efficacy of any single agent available so far. The new neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, and the long lasting 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist palonosetron are the latest developments in this context. Treatment is most important and can also be regarded as a secondary prevention. Due to limited efficacy of single treatment interventions, combination therapy may gain more widespread use in the future.

Day case breast augmentation under paravertebral blockade: a prospective study of 100 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

An increasing trend toward day surgery management requires plastic surgeons not only to be cognizant of block techniques, but also to assess their safety and efficacy objectively. Paravertebral block offers benefits by enhancing surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of paravertebral block for day patients undergoing submuscular breast augmentation. The primary outcome measure was the rate of block failure. The secondary outcome measures included recovery room stay, pain management, and block complications. On the basis of a literature review and audit results, the study objective also aimed to propose safe guidelines for ambulatory paravertebral block patients undergoing breast surgery.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients undergoing 172 single-level paravertebral blocks (72 bilateral blocks) and sedation for submuscular breast augmentation were studied prospectively. A single-injection paravertebral block was performed at the T4 level using a loss of resistance technique. Surgical, anesthetic, and recovery room details were recorded. Analyses were performed to determine the association between recovery room times, body mass index, pain scores, and requirements for opioids, antiemetics, and vasopressors.

RESULTS

The findings showed that 87% of the blocks were successful for surgical anesthesia and 94% of the blocks were successful for postoperative analgesia. The pain score for 74% of the subjects was 3 or less. Antiemetics were given for 10% of the patients with significantly longer recovery room times. Vasopressors were required for 6% of the patients. A surgically caused pneumothorax resulted in the only unplanned admission.

CONCLUSION

The study findings suggest that paravertebral block is a safe and effective technique for day case submuscular breast augmentation.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Prevention of nausea and vomiting following breast surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of nausea and vomiting in women following breast surgery (PONV) under general anesthesia (GA), before and after the introduction of a standardized prophylactic anti-emetic (AE) regimen.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of eligible patients, between July 2001 and March 2003. Patients operated on before September 2002 had standard preoperative care (old cohort [OC]); patients operated on after September 2002 were treated prophylactically with oral dronabinol 5 mg and rectal prochlorperazine 25 mg (new cohort [NC]). Data were collected from hospital records regarding age, diagnosis, comorbid conditions, previous anesthesia history, anesthesia and operative details, episodes PONV, and use of AE. The rate and severity of PONV was calculated for both cohorts.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-two patients were studied: 127 patients in the OC and 115 patients in the NC. The median age was 56 years (range 32 to 65). The rate of nausea and vomiting were significantly better in the patients treated prophylactically with dronabinol and prochlorperazine (59% vs. 15%, P < .0001 and 29% vs. 3%, P < .0001). Twenty patients in the OC were given some prophylactic AE treatment and 12 (60%) of them required further treatment; only 12 of 109 patients (11%) in the NC required further AE treatment (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

PONV is a significant problem in breast surgical patients. Preoperative treatment with dronabinol and prochlorperazine significantly reduced the number and severity of episodes of PONV.

Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Scheduled for Breast Surgery

Breast surgery performed under general anaesthesia is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Between 60% and 80% of patients undergoing mastectomy (with axillary dissection) experience PONV. Pharmacological approaches have been investigated to reduce PONV after breast surgery. Traditional antiemetics (droperidol and metoclopramide) are frequently used for the prevention of PONV during the first 24 hours after anaesthesia. The available non-traditional antiemetics that have been shown to be effective for prophylaxis against PONV are dexamethasone, clonidine, propofol and supplemental oxygen. Antiserotonins (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron and ramosetron) are highly effective for preventing PONV for 24 hours postoperatively, compared with traditional antiemetics. Ramosetron is effective for the long-term (up to 48 hours) prevention of PONV. Better results can be obtained by combining antiemetics, because they have different sites of action. Combination antiemetic therapy is often effective for preventing PONV after breast surgery. Combinations of an antiserotonin (granisetron or dolasetron) and droperidol or dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy with antiserotonins. A non-pharmacological technique is acupuncture at the P6 (Nei-Kuan) point. Overall, these pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches reduce the incidence of PONV following breast surgery. Most of the published trials indicate improved prophylaxis of PONV following breast surgery by avoiding risk factors, and by using effective antiemetic agents in women scheduled for mastectomy (with axillary dissection). The clinician must weigh the benefits of using pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches for PONV against the risk of occurrence of adverse events.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting are strongly influenced by postoperative opioid use in a dose-related manner

We prospectively examined the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in a group of 193 elderly surgical inpatients receiving no postoperative antiemetic prophylaxis. Risk factors for PONV and detailed data on postoperative opioid use were recorded. The overall postoperative vomiting (POV) rate was 23.8%, whereas postoperative nausea (PON) was 51.3%. Opioid use (P = 0.025), and female gender (P = 0.038) were identified as significantly influencing POV in this relatively small population. There was a strong logarithmic dose-response relationship between postoperative opioid dose and POV (r2= 0.98, P < 0.01), as well as PON (r2= 0.98, P = 0.01). Use of patient-controlled analgesia or epidural analgesia was a marker for large-dose opioid use (P < 0.001) and was associated with POV in the 24-h postoperative period of 41% and 31% respectively, compared with 11% for other patients (P < 0.001). Future studies defining risk factors for POV should treat postoperative opioid use as a continuous variable, rather than treat it as a dichotomous variable.

Single-Injection Paravertebral Block Before General Anesthesia Enhances Analgesia After Breast Cancer Surgery With and Without Associated Lymph Node Biopsy

Paravertebral block (PVB) seems to decrease postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after breast surgery, but the studies have not been placebo controlled. We studied 60 patients scheduled for breast cancer surgery randomly given single-injection PVB at T3 with bupivacaine 5 mg/mL (1.5 mg/kg) or saline before general anesthesia. The patient and attending investigators were blinded; the PVB or the sham block was performed behind a curtain by an anesthesiologist not involved in the study. The patients given PVB with bupivacaine needed 40% less IV opioid medication (primary outcome variable) in the postanesthesia care unit, had a longer latency to the first opioid dose, and had less pain at rest after 24 h than the control patients (P < 0.01). They also had less PONV in the postanesthesia care unit (P < 0.05), were less sedated until 90 min (P < 0.05), and performed better in the digit symbol substitution test at 90 min and the ocular coordination test 60-120 min after surgery (P < 0.05). The average peak bupivacaine plasma concentration was 750 ng/mL. One patient had bilateral convulsions immediately after bupivacaine injection. We conclude that PVB before general anesthesia for breast cancer surgery reduced postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and occurrence of PONV and improved recovery from anesthesia.

A risk score-dependent antiemetic approach effectively reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting--a continuous quality improvement initiative

PURPOSE

In a previous survey, patients at risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were best identified by a simplified risk score. Consequently, we investigated whether a risk score-dependent antiemetic strategy could effectively reduce the incidence of PONV in our department.

METHODS

Adult in-patients (n = 428) scheduled for throat, thyroid, breast or gynecological surgery under general anesthesia were prospectively classified in three risk groups (L = low, M = medium, H = high) by using a simplified risk score. Patients in the L group did not receive any antiemetic prophylaxis. Patients in the M group received volatile anesthesia with 0.625 mg droperidol or an iv propofol anesthesia without droperidol. Patients in the H group received iv anesthesia supplemented with 4 mg dexamethasone and 0.625 mg droperidol.

RESULTS

Compared with the data from our previous survey, the overall incidence of PONV decreased from 49.5% to 14.3% (P < 0.001). The incidence decreased from 34% to 13.2% (P < 0.001) in the M group and from 64.3% to 15.5% (P < 0.001) in the H group. Mean postanesthesia care unit time decreased from 99 to 82 min (P < 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This is the first survey which suggests that the departmental incidence of PONV can be significantly lowered by a risk score-dependent antiemetic strategy through a quality improvement initiative.

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

PURPOSE

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

SOURCE

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

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Dexamethasone is as effective as ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following breast surgery

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting remain a common problem following breast surgery. This study assesses whether dexamethasone is as effective as ondansetron in the control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Eighty ASA I-III patients undergoing breast surgery for carcinoma of the breast were included in the study. Following premedication with diazepam 5-10 mg, patients were induced with fentanyl 50 micro g and propofol 2-2.5 mg kg-1. A larynx mask was inserted and anesthesia maintained with sevoflurane in oxygen and nitrous oxide. Patients were then randomly divided into two groups: Group D (dexamethasone) was given 4 mg dexamethasone i.v. after induction and Group O (ondansetron) was given 4 mg ondansetron at the same time point. Postoperatively, nausea, vomiting and pain were recorded at 1-h intervals during 4 h, and thereafter every 4 h during 24 h.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during 24 h was 37% and 33% in Group D and Group O, respectively (NS). No differences were found between the groups in the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting or pain at the different time intervals. No differences were found in the incidence of PONV in smokers vs. non-smokers. No side-effects of these drugs were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Ondansetron 4 mg or dexamethasone 4 mg are equally effective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following breast surgery. Other factors being similar, the difference in cost between these drugs would favor the use of dexamethasone instead of ondansetron when monotherapy against PONV is used.

Comparison of granisetron with granisetron plus droperidol combination prophylaxis in post-operative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of granisetron and granisetron plus droperidol combination therapy on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in 60 patients who had undergone elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Induction of anaesthesia was achieved using 5 mg/kg thiopentone, 2 micrograms/kg fentanyl and 0.5 mg/kg atracurium, and anaesthesia was maintained with 2-2.5% sevoflurane. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups: group G (granisetron) (n = 30) patients received 3 mg granisetron and group GD (granisetron plus droperidol) (n = 30) patients received 3 mg granisetron and 1.25 mg droperidol shortly before the induction of anaesthesia. PONV incidence was recorded post-operatively at 15 min, 30 min, 60 min, 2 h, 4 h, 12 h and 24 h. While PONV prophylaxis provided almost complete emetic control in patients who received the granisetron plus droperidol combination, patients who received granisetron prophylaxis alone experienced PONV more frequently at 30 min and 60 min post-operatively. We conclude that addition of a low dose of droperidol to granisetron prophylaxis is more effective than granisetron prophylaxis alone for successful control of PONV.

Perioperative gastric emptying is not a predictor of early postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

It is not known whether patients with postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have delayed gastric emptying compared with patients without PONV. We compared the perioperative rate of gastric emptying in patients experiencing PONV with the rate in those without PONV immediately after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Gastric emptying was studied by the acetaminophen method. Acetaminophen is not absorbed from the stomach but is rapidly absorbed from the small intestine, and the rate of gastric emptying therefore determines the rate of absorption of acetaminophen administered into the stomach. Forty patients (ASA physical status I and II) were included in the study. After the induction of anesthesia, a gastric tube was positioned in the stomach and 1.5 g of acetaminophen dissolved in 200 mL of water was administered. Venous blood samples for the determination of serum acetaminophen concentrations were taken before and at 15-min intervals during a period of 180 min after the administration of acetaminophen. Twenty-six patients experienced nausea during the first 4 h postoperatively. The other 14 patients had no nausea. There were no statistically significant differences in the maximal acetaminophen concentration, the time taken to reach the maximal concentration, or the area under the serum acetaminophen concentration time curves from 0 to 60, 0-120, and 0-180 min between the groups of patients with or without PONV. We did not find any relationship between postoperative gastric emptying and PONV, and therefore gastric emptying is not a predictor of PONV.

IMPLICATIONS

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting is frequent after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study has shown that perioperative gastric emptying is not a predictor of early postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.