Effect of Prophylactic Ondansetron on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients on Preoperative Steroids Undergoing Craniotomy for Supratentorial Tumors

Predictors of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Endoscopic Skull Base Surgery

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of patient and surgical factors, including approach and reconstruction type, on postoperative nausea and vomiting episodes following endoscopic skull base surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review from July 2018 to August 2020 of 99 consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic skull base surgery at a tertiary academic skull base surgery program. All patients were treated with a standardized postoperative protocol consisting of scheduled ondansetron, along with promethazine and scopolamine for breakthrough nausea and vomiting episodes. Cumulative nausea and vomiting episodes throughout hospital stay were recorded for each patient.

RESULTS

Of the 99 patients identified, the mean number of nausea and vomiting episodes per patient were 0.4 ± 1.2 and 0.3 ± 0.7, respectively. Female sex (β = .65, P = .034) and extended surgical approach (β = .90, P = .027) were associated with increased risk for postoperative nausea. Furthermore, female sex (β = .44, P = .018), cavernous sinus dissection (β = .52, P = .002), and extended approach (β = .79, P = .025) significantly increased odds of postoperative vomiting episodes. There was no association between total operative time or total postoperative opioid dose and nausea and vomiting episodes (all Ps > .05). Neither increased nausea nor vomiting episodes significantly increased odds of prolonged hospitalization (P = .105 and .164, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This report highlights novel risk factors for patients undergoing endoscopic skull base surgery. Upfront standing antiemetic therapy may be considered when treating patients with independent predictors of postoperative nausea and vomiting, including female sex, cavernous sinus dissection, and extended surgical approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4 Laryngoscope, 132:761-768, 2022.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Craniotomy: An Evidence-based Review of General Considerations, Risk Factors, and Management

One of the most common and distressing symptoms after craniotomy is postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV could generate delayed postanesthesia care and hospitalization discharge, lower patient satisfaction, and an increase in overall hospitalization costs. The incidence of reported PONV after craniotomy is 22% to 70% without prophylaxis, and a multimodal regimen of medication has been recommended. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of the clinical evidence related to PONV prevention and management after craniotomy. All clinical trials in adult populations relevant to PONV after craniotomy available in English language and indexed in PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases from January 1997 up to September 2018 were retrieved using a combination of free-text words related to PONV in craniotomy. After screening manuscripts identified in the initial search, 23 clinical trials investigating systemic pharmacological intervention versus placebo or active control in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anesthesia met the criteria for inclusion in this comprehensive narrative review. The pathophysiology and mechanisms of PONV after craniotomy could be multifactorial in etiology. Therefore, based on current evidence, PONV management after craniotomy should focus on perioperative patient assessment, surgical, and anesthesia-related risk factors and the selection of systemic pharmacological considerations to reduce its incidence and complications. A multimodal regimen of medication targeting different chemoreceptors in the vomiting center is recommended. Ondansetron and dexamethasone, or their combination, are the most frequently used and effective agents. Further randomized clinical trials comparing different regimens that significantly reduce the incidence of PONV in craniotomy would provide relevant evidence-based data for PONV management in this patient population.

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).

Anti-emetic Drugs for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Craniotomy: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: There is uncertainty about the effect of antiemetic drugs (AED) for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of AED for PONV.

Methods and Findings: We searched online databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wiley, Elsevier Science Direct, Ovid LWW, and Springer for publications from 1985 to June 2018. Adults undergoing craniotomy with the prophylactic use of at least one AED were included. The primary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first and second day. A total of 1,433 participants from 17 clinical trials were enrolled in this Network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Compared to placebo, ramosetron was the most effective treatment for PON 24 h after surgery (OR = 0.063, 95% Crl: 0.006–0.45), with a 69.2% probability. On the other hand, for POV, droperidol was the best treatment during the first 2 h with a 71.1% probability (OR = 0.029, 95% Crl: 0.003–0.25); while fosaprepitant was the most effective treatment at 0–24 h (OR = 0.027, 95% Crl: 0.007–0.094; 66.9% probability) and 0–48 h (OR = 0.036, 95% Crl: 0.006–0.18; 56.6% probability). Besides, ramosetron showed a significantly higher incidence of complete response (OR = 29. 95% Crl: 1.4–6.5e + 02), as well as lower requirement for rescue AED (OR = 0.022, 95% Crl: 0.001–0.2). Granisetron was associated with the lowest incidence of headache and excessive sedation.

Conclusions: Compared with placebo, ramosetron appears to be the best prophylactic treatment for PON 24 h after craniotomy, with higher complete responses. Fosaprepitant appears to be the most effective prophylaxis option for POV on the first 0–24 and 0–48 h. Both may be better applied in combination with perioperative dexamethasone. These findings may guide clinicians to provide improved pharmacological prophylaxis for PONV after craniotomy with fewer adverse effects.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, and multicenter trial of prophylactic effects of ramosetronon postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy: comparison with ondansetron

Background

Craniotomy patients have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This prospective, randomized, double-blind, multi-center study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic ramosetron in preventing PONV compared with ondansetron after elective craniotomy in adult patients.

Methods

A total of 160 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II patients aged 19–65 years who were scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy for various intracranial lesions were enrolled in this study. All patients received total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups to receive ondansetron (4 mg; group A, n  =  55), ondansetron (8 mg; group B, n  =  54), or ramosetron (0.3 mg; group C, n  =  51) intravenously at the time of dural closure. The incidence of PONV, the need for rescue antiemetics, pain score, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) consumption, and adverse events were recorded 48 h postoperatively.

Results

Among the initial 160 patients, 127 completed the study and were included in the final analysis. The incidences of PONV were lower (nausea, 14% vs. 59% and 41%, respectively; P  <  0.001; vomiting, P  =  0.048) and the incidence of complete response was higher (83% vs. 37% and 59%, respectively; P  <  0.001) in group C than in groups A and B at 48 h postoperatively. There were no significant differences in the incidence of PONV or need for rescue antiemetics 0–2 h postoperatively, but significant differences were observed in the incidence of PONV and complete response among the three groups 2–48 h postoperatively. No statistically significant intergroup differences were observed in postoperative pain, PCA consumption, or adverse events.

Conclusion

Intravenous administration of ramosetron at 0.3 mg reduced the incidence of PONV and rescue antiemetic requirement in craniotomy patients. Ramosetron at 0.3 mg was more effective than ondansetron at 4 or 8 mg for preventing PONV in adult craniotomy patients.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) Identifier: KCT0000320. Registered 9 January 2012.

Is microvascular decompression surgery a high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy?

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing microvascular decompression surgery often experience postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, there is little information about the incidence of PONV after microvascular decompression. We hypothesized that microvascular decompression is an especially high-risk procedure for PONV in patients undergoing neurosurgery, and investigated risk factors related to PONV after neurosurgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent craniotomy in our institution during a period of 2 years were investigated retrospectively. Medical charts were reviewed to identify PONV during the 24-h postoperative period and related risk factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to elucidate the impact of microvascular decompression on PONV after craniotomy.

RESULTS

Among 556 craniotomy cases, 350 patients met the inclusion criteria. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that microvascular decompression was an independent risk factor for PONV after craniotomy (odds ratio 5.38, 3.02-9.60), in addition to female gender, non-smoker status, amount of intraoperative fentanyl administered, and cerebrovascular surgery.

CONCLUSION

In this retrospective study, microvascular decompression surgery was an especially high-risk factor for PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy. It may be necessary to adopt a combination of prophylactic methods to reduce the incidence of PONV after microvascular decompression.

Assessing health status in inflammatory bowel disease using a novel single-item numeric rating scale

BACKGROUND

Current instruments used to measure disease activity and health-related quality of life in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) are often cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive; although used in clinical trials, they are not convenient for clinical practice. A numeric rating scale (NRS) is a quick, inexpensive, and convenient patient-reported outcome that can capture the patient's overall perception of health.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to assess the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of an NRS and evaluate its use in clinical practice in patients with CD and UC.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated patient-reported NRS scores and measured correlations between NRS and a range of severity measures, including physician-reported NRS, Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI), Harvey-Bradshaw index (HBI), inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ), and C-reactive protein (CRP) in patients with CD. Subsequently, we evaluated the correlation between the NRS and standard measures of health status (HBI or simple colitis clinical activity index [SCCAI]) and laboratory tests (sedimentation rate [ESR], CRP, and fecal calprotectin) in patients with CD and UC.

RESULTS

The patient-reported NRS showed excellent correlation with CDAI (R (2) = 0.59, p < 0.0001), IBDQ (R (2) = 0.66, p < 0.0001), and HBI (R (2) = 0.32, p < 0.0001) in patients with CD. The NRS showed poor, but statistically significant correlation with SCCAI (R (2) = 0.25, p < 0.0001) in patients with UC. The NRS did not correlate with CRP, ESR, or calprotectin. The NRS was reliable and responsive to change.

CONCLUSIONS

The NRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive measure that may be useful to evaluate patients with CD and possibly UC.

Practice guidelines for postanesthetic care: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic Care

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients after craniotomy: incidence and risk factors

OBJECT

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy because most available data about PONV in neurosurgical patients are retrospective in nature or derive from small prospective studies.

METHODS

Postoperative nausea and vomiting was prospectively assessed within 24 hours after surgery in 229 patients requiring supratentorial or infratentorial craniotomy. To rule out the relevance of the neurosurgical procedure itself to the development of PONV, the observed incidence of vomiting was compared with the rate of vomiting predicted with a surgery-independent risk score (Apfel postoperative vomiting score).

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PONV after craniotomy was 47%. Logistic regression identified female sex as a risk factor for postoperative nausea (OR 4.25, 95% CI 2.3-7.8) and vomiting (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.4-4.9). Both the incidence of nausea (OR 3.76, 95% CI 2.06-6.88) and vomiting (OR 4.48, 95% CI 2.4-8.37) were increased in patients not receiving steroids. Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred after infratentorial as well as after supratentorial procedures. The observed incidence of vomiting within 24 hours after surgery was higher (49%) than would be predicted with the Apfel surgery-independent risk score (31%; p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of PONV within 24 hours after craniotomy was approximately 50%. One possible reason is that intracranial surgeries pose an additional and independent risk factor for vomiting, especially in female patients. Patients undergoing craniotomy should be identified as high-risk patients for PONV.

Electroacupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy

OBJECTS

We evaluated the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) at the P6 acupoint for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy.

METHODS

The study population was patients aged 20 to 60 years who underwent supratentorial craniotomy under general anesthesia. Exclusion criteria were obesity, diabetes mellitus, and a history of motion sickness, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or smoking. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: stimulation and control. In the former, transcutaneous stimulation electrodes were placed at the right P6 acupoint. In controls, electrodes were positioned at a nonacupoint site. Patients received a standard general anesthesia. Ondansetron was given as a routine antiemetic treatment for each patient before skin closure. Postoperatively, metoclopramide (10 mg, i.v.) was administered as a rescue antiemetic.

RESULT

Forty patients received TEAS and 40 were controls. In the TEAS group, 18% of patients had nausea compared with 37% of the controls. The cumulative prevalence of vomiting was 12.5% with acustimulation and 32.5% in controls (P<0.05). The prevalence of nausea, vomiting was significantly lower with TEAS at the P6 acupoint.

CONCLUSIONS

TEAS at the P6 meridian points is an effective adjunct to standard antiemetic drug therapy for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy.