Effects of prophylactic dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting in scoliosis correction surgery: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Efficacy of Dexamethasone in Reducing Pain and Inflammation and Accelerating Total Hip Arthroplasty Postoperative Recovery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone in reducing pain and accelerating recovery after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

DESIGN

A prospective randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

A total of 98 patients who underwent THA received either low-dose (10 mg) dexamethasone (dexa group) or isotonic saline (placebo group). C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 levels were recorded at 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) score at rest and walking, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), nausea VAS score, postoperative identity-consequence fatigue scale rating, antiemetic use, postoperative length of stay (PLOS), and complications were also recorded and compared.

FINDINGS

Inflammatory marker (C-reactive protein and interleukin-6) levels at 24, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively in the dexa group were lower than that in the placebo group (P < .05). After 24 hours of rest, the dynamic pain VAS scores in the dexa group were lower than those in the placebo group (P < .05). The incidence of PONV, nausea VAS score, and identity-consequence fatigue scale score in the dexa group were lower than those in the placebo group (P < .05), and the dosages of analgesics and antiemetics were also lower (P < .05). In addition, PLOS in the dexa group was shorter than that in the placebo group (P < .05). No significant difference in perioperative complications between the two groups was observed (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose dexamethasone in the THA perioperative period can effectively reduce inflammatory marker levels, pain, nausea, postoperative fatigue, opioid analgesic use, and shorten PLOS without increasing complications.

Nausea and Vomiting After Posterior Spinal Fusion in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic and Critical Analysis Review

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects patient satisfaction, health care costs, and hospital stay by complicating the postoperative recovery period after adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) spinal fusion surgery. Our goal was to identify recommendations for optimal management of PONV in AIS patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (PSF).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review in June 2022, searching the PubMed and Embase electronic databases using search terms "(Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis) AND (Postoperative) AND (Nausea) AND (Vomiting)." Three authors reviewed the 402 abstracts identified from January 1991 to June 2022. Studies that included adolescents or young adults (<21 years) with AIS undergoing PSF were selected for full-text review by consensus. We identified 34 studies reporting on incidence of PONV. Only 6 studies examined PONV as the primary outcome, whereas remaining were reported PONV as a secondary outcome. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Grades of recommendation were assigned to potential interventions or clinical practice influencing incidence of PONV with respect to operative period (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative period) on the basis that potential guidelines/interventions for PONV can be targeted at those periods.

RESULTS

A total of 11 factors were graded, 5 of which were related to intervention and 6 were clinical practice-related. Eight factors could be classified into the operative period-1 in the intraoperative period and 7 in the postoperative period, whereas the remaining 3 recommendations had overlapping periods. The majority of grades of recommendations given were inconclusive or conflicting. The statement that neuraxial and postoperative systemic-only opioid therapy have a similar incidence of PONV was supported by good (Grade A) evidence. There was fair (Grade B) and poor evidence (Grade C) to avoid opioid antagonists and nonopioid local analgesia using wound catheters as PONV-reducing measures.

CONCLUSION

Although outcomes after spinal fusion for AIS have been studied extensively, the literature on PONV outcomes is scarce and incomplete. PONV is most commonly included as a secondary outcome in studies related to pain management. This study is the first to specifically identify evidence and recommendations for interventions or clinical practice that influence PONV in AIS patients undergoing PSF. Most interventions and clinical practices have conflicting or limited data to support them, whereas others have low-level evidence as to whether the intervention/clinical practice influences the incidence of PONV. We have identified the need for expanded research using PONV as a primary outcome in patients with AIS undergoing spinal fusion surgery.

Is PONV still a problem in pediatric surgery: a prospective study of what children tell us

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an unpleasant complication after surgery that commonly co-occurs with pain. Considering the high prevalence among pediatric patients, it is important to explore the main risk factors leading to PONV in order to optimize treatment strategies. The objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to determine the prevalence of PONV on the day of surgery by conducting interviews with pediatric patients, (2) to assess PONV prevalence in the recovery room and on the ward by analyzing nursing records, and (3) to collect information on PONV risk factors on the day of surgery and the following postoperative days. We wanted to investigate real-life scenarios rather than relying on artificially designed studies.

Methods

A prospective analysis [according to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines] of PONV on the day of surgery and the following postoperative days was conducted by evaluating demographic and procedural parameters, as well as conducting interviews with the children under study. A total of 626 children and adolescents, ranging in age from 4 to 18 years, were interviewed on the ward following their surgery. The interviews were conducted using a questionnaire, as children aged 4 and above can participate in an outcome-based survey.

Results

On the day of surgery, several multivariable independent predictors were identified for PONV. The type of surgery was found to be a significant factor (p = 0.040) with the highest odds ratio (OR) in patients with procedural investigations [OR 5.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-19.2], followed by abdominal surgery (OR 3.1, 95% CI: 0.9-11.1) when inguinal surgery was used as the reference category. In addition, the study identified several predictors, including the amount of fentanyl administered during anesthesia (µg/kg body weight) (OR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.8), intraoperative use of piritramide (OR 2.6, 95% CI: 1.5-4.4) and diclofenac (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1. 3-3.1), opioid administration in the recovery room (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 1.9-4.7), and piritramide use on the ward (OR 4.5, 95% CI: 1.7-11.6).

Conclusions

The main risk factors for PONV include the intraoperative administration of opioids during the recovery room stay and at the ward, the intraoperative use of non-opioids (diclofenac), and the specific type of surgical procedure. Real-life data demonstrated that in clinical praxis, there is a gap between the adherence to established guidelines and the use of antiemetic prophylaxis in surgeries that are generally not associated with a high PONV prevalence. Further efforts are needed to improve the existing procedures and thus improve the overall outcome.

Risk factors for discontinuation of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after general surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Identifying patients at risk for developing side effects secondary to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) and making the necessary adjustments in pain management are crucial. We investigated the risk factors of discontinuing IV PCA due to side effects following general surgery; adult patients who received IV PCA after general surgery (2020-2022) were included. Data on postoperative pain intensity, PCA pain relief, side effects, continuity of PCA use, and PCA pump settings were collected from the records of the acute pain management team. The primary outcome was identifying the risk factors associated with PCA discontinuation due to side effects. Of the 8745 patients included, 94.95% used opioid-containing PCA, and 5.05% used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-only PCA; 600 patients discontinued PCA due to side effects. Female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.74-4.01), hepato-pancreatic-biliary surgery (aOR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.94) and background infusion of PCA (aOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.04, 1.94) were associated with an increased likelihood of PCA discontinuation. Preoperative opioid use (aOR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.85) was linked with a decreased likelihood of PCA discontinuation. These findings highlight the importance of individualized pain management, considering patient characteristics and surgical procedures.

Application of dexamethasone combined with tranexamic acid in perioperative period of total hip arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone (DEXA) combined with tranexamic acid (TXA) in the perioperative period of total hip arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 100 cases were randomly divided into 2 groups (50 cases per group). All patients were given 15 mg/kg TXA before skin incision and 3 hours later. Patients in the intervention group (TXA + DEXA group) were given 20 mg dexamethasone intravenously after the onset of anesthesia, and the same dose of DEXA was administered again 24 hours later. Patients in the placebo group (TXA group) were only given the same dose of normal saline. Postoperative c-reactive protein and interleukin-6, postoperative nausea and vomiting, fatigue visual analogue scale score, postoperative length of stay, range of motion, and consumption of analgesic and antiemetics were statistically analyzed in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The levels of c-reactive protein and interleukin-6 in the TXA + DEXA group were lower than those in the TXA group at 24, 48, 72 hours post-operatively (P < .001). Walking pain scores in the TXA + DEXA group were also significantly lower than those in the TXA group at 24 and 48 hours (P < .001); rest pain scores were lower at 24 hours (P < .001). Compared with the TXA group, the incidence of nausea VAS, postoperative nausea and vomiting, fatigue, analgesia and antiemetics consumption, postoperative length of stay, and range of motion were lower in the TXA + DEXA group (all P < .05), while there were no significant differences in postoperative hematocrit, total blood loss, and complications (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of TXA (15 mg/kg; before skin incision and 3 hours later) and DEX (20 mg dexamethasone intravenously after the onset of anesthesia, and again 24 hours later) is an effective and safe strategy for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

The therapeutic antiemetic and hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine, ephedrine, and dexamethasone in combination with midazolam on laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients: A randomised clinical trial

Objective:

The objective was to compare the hemodynamic and antiemetic effects of the combination of midazolam with ephedrine, dexamethasone, and dexmedetomidine in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgical patients.

Materials and Methods:

This randomised, parallel-group, double-blind clinical trial was conducted by enrollment of 96 patients who were referred for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients assigned into three equal-sized intervention arms having received anaesthesia induction with midazolam-ephedrine, midazolam-dexamethasone, and midazolam-dexmedetomidine using a block randomisation method. Frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting were observed from recovery to 24 h later, adverse events, and sedation on Ramsay sedation scale at recovery, 1, 2, and 4 h postoperatively. Data were recorded and analysed at a significance level lower than 0.05 in SPSS software.

Results:

The clinical parameters including mean blood pressure at all times and heart rate in 60–90 min were lower in the dexmedetomidine group when compared with other groups. The lowest severity of postsurgery nausea occurrence was observed in the midazolam-dexamethasone group and those receiving midazolam-dexmedetomidine from 4 to 24 h. In addition, vomiting scores were lower throughout recovery up to postoperative 4 h in the dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine groups (all P < 0.05). The highest sedation score was observed in the dexmedetomidine group during recovery up to 2 h (P = 0.001), reflecting a more clinically superior effect than dexamethasone (P = 0.01).

Conclusions:

A positive implication of dexmedetomidine was observed in attenuating postoperative nausea and vomiting and potentiating sedation. Nevertheless, it is providing a drop in the blood pressure and heart rate. Lending support to the potent adjuvant efficacy of dexamethasone following dexmedetomidine, consequently, a hypothesis can be put forward, stating that the dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone as adjuvants to midazolam are expected to bring the advantages of avoiding the adverse events and improving postoperative sedation.

Clinical utility of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways in pediatric spinal deformity surgery: systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

More than 7500 children undergo surgery for scoliosis each year, at an estimated annual cost to the health system of $1.1 billion. There is significant interest among patients, parents, providers, and payors in identifying methods for delivering quality outcomes at lower costs. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been suggested as one possible solution. Here the authors conducted a systematic review of the literature describing the clinical and economic benefits of ERAS protocols in pediatric spinal deformity surgery.

METHODS

The authors identified all English-language articles on ERAS protocol use in pediatric spinal deformity surgery by using the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, EMBASE, CINAHL, and OVID MEDLINE. Quantitative analyses of comparative articles using random effects were performed for the following clinical outcomes: 1) length of stay (LOS); 2) complication rate; 3) wound infection rate; 4) 30-day readmission rate; 5) reoperation rate; and 6) postoperative pain scores.

RESULTS

Of 950 articles reviewed, 7 were included in the qualitative analysis and 6 were included in the quantitative analysis. The most frequently cited benefits of ERAS protocols were shorter LOS, earlier urinary catheter removal, and earlier discontinuation of patient-controlled analgesia pumps. Quantitative analyses showed ERAS protocols to be associated with shorter LOS (mean difference -1.12 days; 95% CI -1.51, -0.74; p < 0.001), fewer postoperative complications (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.20, 0.68; p = 0.001), and lower pain scores on postoperative day (POD) 0 (mean -0.92; 95% CI -1.29, -0.56; p < 0.001) and POD 2 (-0.61; 95% CI -0.75, -0.47; p < 0.001). There were no differences in reoperation rate or POD 1 pain scores. ERAS-treated patients had a trend toward higher 30-day readmission rates and earlier discontinuation of patient-controlled analgesia (both p = 0.06). Insufficient data existed to reach a conclusion about cost differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review suggest that ERAS protocols may shorten hospitalizations, reduce postoperative complication rates, and reduce postoperative pain scores in children undergoing scoliosis surgery. Publication biases exist, and therefore larger, prospective, multicenter data are needed to validate these results.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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