An investigation of the potential morphine sparing effect of midazolam

The effect of perioperative benzodiazepine administration on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite recent systematic reviews suggesting their benefit for postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both (PONV) prevention, benzodiazepines have not been incorporated into guidelines for PONV prophylaxis because of concerns about possible adverse effects. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to inform future practice guidelines.

METHODS

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all languages comparing benzodiazepines with non-benzodiazepine comparators in adults undergoing inpatient surgery. Our outcomes were postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both. We assessed risk of bias for RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We pooled data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

We screened 31 413 abstracts and 950 full texts. We included 119 RCTs; 104 were included in quantitative synthesis. Based on moderate certainty evidence, we found that perioperative benzodiazepine administration reduced the incidence of PONV (52 studies, n=5086, relative risk [RR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.89; number needed to treat [NNT] 16; moderate certainty), postoperative nausea (55 studies, n=5916, RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.83; NNT 21; moderate certainty), and postoperative vomiting (52 studies, n=5909, RR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91; NNT 55; moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence shows that perioperative benzodiazepine administration decreases the incidence of PONV. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will inform future clinical practice guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

The protocol for this systematic review was pre-registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361088) and published in BMJ Open (PMID 31831540).

Comparison of palonosetron with combined palonosetron and midazolam for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an undesirable complication in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Combination therapy via different mechanisms of action for antiemetic prophylaxis has been warranted for effective treatment of PONV. This study was designed to compare the prophylactic antiemetic effect between midazolam combined with palonosetron (group MP) and palonosetron alone (group P) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was investigated in non-smoking female. Eighty-eight patients were randomly divided into 2 groups with 44 patients each. Group MP received 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam intravenously before induction of anesthesia whereas group P received the same volume of normal saline. Immediately after anesthetic induction, 0.075 mg of palonosetron was administered to both the groups. The incidence and severity of PONV were assessed during 2 time intervals (0-2 hours, 2-24 hours), postoperatively.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during 24 hours after surgery was lower in group MP as compared to group P. There was also a significant difference in the use of rescue antiemetics. The severity of nausea was significantly lower in group MP as compared to group P, in the initial 2 hours after surgery. The incidence of side effects was similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

In the prevention of PONV, midazolam combined with palonosetron, administered during induction of anesthesia was more effective as compared to palonosetron alone.

Preemptive analgesia for postoperative hysterectomy pain control: systematic review and clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of preemptive analgesia at pain control in women undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy.

DATA SOURCES

Eligible studies, published through May 31, 2016, were retrieved through Medline, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

We included randomized controlled trials with the primary outcome of pain control in women receiving a preemptive medication prior to total abdominal hysterectomy. Comparators were placebo, different doses of the same medication as intervention, or other nonnarcotic or narcotic medication.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Study data were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by a second reviewer. For each outcome we graded the quality of the evidence. Studies were classified by the type of medication used and by outcome type.

RESULTS

Eighty-four trials met eligibility, with 69 included. Among nonnarcotic medications, paracetamol, gabapentin, and rofecoxib combined with gabapentin resulted in improvements in pain assessment compared with placebo and other nonnarcotic medications. Patient satisfaction was higher in patients who were given gabapentin combined with paracetamol compared with gabapentin alone. Use of preemptive paracetamol, gabapentin, bupivacaine, and phenothiazine resulted in less narcotic usage than placebo. All narcotics (ketamine, morphine, fentanyl) resulted in improved pain control compared with placebo. Narcotics had a greater reduction in pain assessment scores compared with nonnarcotics, and their use resulted in lower total narcotic usage.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive nonnarcotic and narcotic medications prior to abdominal hysterectomy decrease total narcotic requirements and improve patient postoperative pain assessment and satisfaction scores.

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.

Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm

As most critically ill or injured patients will require some degree of sedation, the goal of this paper was to comprehensively review the literature associated with use of sedative agents in the intensive care unit (ICU). The first and selected latter portions of this article present a narrative overview of the shifting paradigm in ICU sedation practices, indications for uninterrupted or prolonged ICU sedation, and the pharmacology of sedative agents. In the second portion, we conducted a structured, although not entirely systematic, review of the available evidence associated with use of alternative sedative agents in critically ill or injured adults. Data sources for this review were derived by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed from their first available date until May 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Advances in the technology of mechanical ventilation have permitted clinicians to limit the use of sedation among the critically ill through daily sedative interruptions or other means. These practices have been reported to result in improved mortality, a decreased length of ICU and hospital stay and a lower risk of drug-associated delirium. However, in some cases, prolonged or uninterrupted sedation may still be indicated, such as when patients develop intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury. The pharmacokinetics of sedative agents have clinical importance and may be altered by critical illness or injury, co-morbid conditions and/or drug-drug interactions. Although use of validated sedation scales to monitor depth of sedation is likely to reduce adverse events, they have no utility for patients receiving neuromuscular receptor blocking agents. Depth of sedation monitoring devices such as the Bispectral Index (BIS©) also have limitations. Among existing RCTs, no sedative agent has been reported to improve the risk of mortality among the critically ill or injured. Moreover, although propofol may be associated with a shorter time to tracheal extubation and recovery from sedation than midazolam, the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia and hypotension is higher with propofol. Despite dexmedetomidine being linked with a lower risk of drug-associated delirium than alternative sedative agents, this drug increases risk of bradycardia and hypotension. Among adults with severe traumatic brain injury, there are insufficient data to suggest that any single sedative agent decreases the risk of subsequent poor neurological outcomes or mortality. The lack of examination of confounders, including the type of healthcare system in which the investigation was conducted, is a major limitation of existing pharmacoeconomic analyses, which likely limits generalizability of their results.

Preemptive analgesic effects of midazolam and diclofenac in rat model

The aim of the present study was to investigate the preemptive analgesic effects of intraperitoneally administrated midazolam and diclofenac, before acute and inflammatory induced pain in rat model. One hundred twenty-eight (n=8 in each group) male Sprague Dawley rats were included in the study. Paw movements in response to thermal stimulation or paw flinching in response to formalin injection were compared after midazolam (0.1, 1, 5 and 10 mg/kg) and diclofenac (10 mg/kg), intraperitoneal administration. Saline was used as a control. Preemptive analgesic effect was significant in both tests when diclofenac and midazolam was administrated before the pain stimuli (p<0.01 and p<0.001). Intraperitoneal injection of midazolam in doses 5 and 10 mg/kg, increase the response time in hot plate test and decrease the number of flinches in formalin test (p<0.01 vs. p<0.001). ED50 of midazolam (with diclofenac) in hot plate test was 2.02 mg/kg (CI95% =-3.47-5.03 mg); and, 0.9 mg/kg (CI95% =-0.87-4.09 mg) in phase I and 0.7 mg/kg (CI95% = 0.48-6.63 mg) in phase II, in formalin test.Intraperitoneally administered midazolam and diclofenac had preemptive analgesic effects on acute thermal, and inflammatory induced pain in rats.

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.

Sedation during mechanical ventilation: A trial of benzodiazepine and opiate in combination*

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of continuous intravenous sedation with midazolam alone vs. midazolam plus fentanyl ("co-sedation") during mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN

A randomized, prospective, controlled trial.

SETTING

A ten-bed medical intensive care unit at a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Thirty patients with respiratory failure who were expected to require >48 hrs of mechanical ventilation and who were receiving a sedative regimen that did not include opiate pain control.

INTERVENTIONS

An intravenous infusion of either midazolam alone or co-sedation was administered by a nurse-implemented protocol to achieve a target Ramsay Sedation Score set by the patient's physician. Study duration was 3 days, with a brief daily "wake-up."

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We recorded the number of hours/day that patients were "off-target" with their Ramsay Sedation Scores, the number of dose titrations per day, the incidence of patient-ventilator asynchrony, and the time required to achieve adequate sedation as measures of sedative efficacy. We also recorded sedative cost in U.S. dollars and adverse events including hypotension, hypoventilation, ileus, and coma. Compared with the midazolam-only group, the co-sedation group had fewer hours per day with an "off-target" Ramsay Score (4.2 +/- 2.4 and 9.1 +/- 4.9, respectively, p < .002). Fewer episodes per day of patient-ventilator asynchrony were noted in the co-sedation group compared with midazolam-only (0.4 +/- 0.1 and 1.0 +/- 0.2, respectively, p < .05). Co-sedation also showed nonsignificant trends toward a shorter time to achieve sedation, a need for fewer dose titrations per day, and a lower total sedative drug cost. There was a trend toward more episodes of ileus with co-sedation compared with midazolam-only (2 vs. 0).

CONCLUSIONS

In mechanically ventilated patients, co-sedation with midazolam and fentanyl by constant infusion provides more reliable sedation and is easier to titrate than midazolam alone, without significant difference in the rate of adverse events.

Midazolam as adjunct therapy to morphine in the alleviation of severe dyspnea perception in patients with advanced cancer

The mainstay of dyspnea palliation remains altering its central perception. Morphine is the main drug and anxiolytics have a less established role. This trial assessed the role of midazolam as adjunct therapy to morphine in the alleviation of severe dyspnea perception in terminally ill cancer patients. One hundred and one patients with severe dyspnea were randomized to receive around-the-clock morphine (2.5 mg every 4 hours for opioid-naïve patients or a 25% increment over the daily dose for those receiving baseline opioids) with midazolam rescue doses (5 mg) in case of breakthrough dyspnea (BD) (Group Mo); around-the-clock midazolam (5 mg every 4 hours) with morphine rescues (2.5 mg) in case of BD (Group Mi); or around-the-clock morphine (2.5 mg every 4 hours for opioid-naïve patients or a 25% increment over the daily dose for those receiving baseline opioids) plus midazolam (5 mg every 4 hours) with morphine rescue doses (2.5 mg) in case of BD (Group MM). All drugs were given subcutaneously in a single-blinded way. Thirty-five patients were entered in Group Mo, 33 entered in Mi, and 33 entered in MM. At 24 hours, patients who experienced dyspnea relief were 69%, 46%, and 92% in the Mo, Mi, and MM groups, respectively (P = 0.0004 and P = 0.03 for MM vs. Mi and MM vs. Mo, respectively). At 48 hours, those with no dyspnea relief (no controlled dyspnea) were 12.5%, 26%, and 4% for the Mo, Mi, and MM groups, respectively (P = 0.04 for MM vs. Mi). During the first day, patients with BD for the groups Mo, Mi, and MM were 34.3%, 36.4%, and 21.2%, respectively (P = NS or not significant), whereas during the second day, these percentages were 38%, 38.5%, and 24%, respectively (P = NS). The data demonstrate that the beneficial effects of morphine in controlling baseline levels of dyspnea could be improved with the addition of midazolam to the treatment.

Sedation with Midazolam Leads to Reduced Pain After Dental Surgery

Our principal objective in this study was to evaluate the potential pain reducing effect of i.v. midazolam in patients undergoing oral surgery. One-hundred-twenty-five patients with impacted mandibular third molars requiring removal under local anesthetic were randomized into 2 groups. The first group (n = 64) was administered i.v. midazolam by titration until a clinical end-point of conscious sedation followed by local anesthetic before surgery; the second group (n = 61) was the control and was administered only local anesthetic before surgery. The surgery was performed in a standardized manner in both groups by the same surgeon. Outcome measures were four primary end-points: pain intensity as assessed by a 100-mm visual analogue scale and a 4-point categorized scale hourly for 8 h, time to first analgesic, total analgesic (ibuprofen) consumption over the first 48 h, and a 5-point categorical patient global assessment scale (0 = poor, 1 = fair, 2 = good, 3 = very good, and 4 = excellent). Throughout the 8-h investigation period, patients in the midazolam group reported significantly lower pain intensity scores than those in the control group (19.0 +/- 13.2 mm versus 28.1 +/- 12.8 mm, P < 0.05). The patients in the midazolam group also reported significantly longer time to first analgesic (165.5 +/- 56.5 min versus 202.2 +/- 79.0 min, P < 0.05), less analgesic consumption (1275 +/- 364 mg versus 1688 +/- 407 mg, P < 0.001) and better patient global assessment (3.34 +/- 0.8 versus 2.4 +/- 0.9, P < 0.001). We conclude that systemically administered midazolam is effective in reducing postoperative pain after third molar surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

In this observer blinded study, we found that i.v. midazolam treatment (0.09 mg/kg) has a pain-reducing effect after third molar surgery, thus improving postoperative pain management.

Adaptation to the Intensive Care Environment (ATICE): Development and validation of a new sedation assessment instrument

OBJECTIVE

To develop a valid, reliable, and responsive bedside instrument assessing Adaptation to the Intensive Care Environment (ATICE) in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

DESIGN

Instrument development and prospective clinimetric evaluation.

SETTING

University-affiliated medical ICU.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with expected mechanical ventilation of >/=12 hrs.

INTERVENTIONS

Administration of ATICE.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Item generation for the ATICE involved focus groups and literature review. The ATICE consists of five items: Awakeness and Comprehension combined in a Consciousness domain, and Calmness, Ventilator Synchrony, and Face Relaxation combined in a Tolerance domain. Clinical sensibility of the ATICE assessed by ten ICU physicians and 20 ICU nurses not involved in the development of the ATICE was rated highly (median values 5-7 on a 7-point scale). The ATICE was administered to 80 patients during a total of 152 assessments. Each assessment was performed by three raters (ICU physician, ICU nurse, research nurse), concomitantly with independent scoring of four scales (Ramsay Scale, Riker Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Comfort Scale) and six visual analog scales. Internal consistency was high, as reflected by Cronbach's alpha for the Consciousness and Tolerance domains of .87 and .67, respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficients for the Consciousness and the Tolerance domains ranged from .92 to .99, indicating high interrater reliability. Cross-sectional and longitudinal validity was confirmed for the overall ATICE and the Consciousness and Tolerance domains, as reflected by strong correlations between ATICE and the relevant items or domains of the Ramsay Scale, Riker Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, Comfort Scale, each of the visual analog scales, and the amounts of sedatives and analgesics administered.

CONCLUSIONS

The ATICE measures the adaptation of mechanically ventilated patients to the ICU environment. After rigorous multidisciplinary development, we demonstrated high reliability, validity, and responsiveness of this instrument.

Sedative and analgesic practice in the intensive care unit: the results of a European survey

Sedation and analgesia are important aspects of patient care on the intensive care unit (ICU), yet relatively little information is available on common sedative and analgesic practice. We sought to assess international differences in the prescription of sedative and analgesic drugs in western European ICUs by means of a short, self-administered questionnaire. Six hundred and forty-seven intensive care physicians from 16 western European countries replied to the questionnaire. Midazolam was used as a sedative often or always by 63% of respondents and propofol by 35%. There were considerable international variations, with midazolam being preferred over propofol in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Austria. For analgesia, the drugs most commonly used were morphine (33%), fentanyl (33%) and sufentanil (24%). Morphine was preferred over fentanyl and sufentanil in Norway, UK and Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Spain and Portugal. Fentanyl was preferred in France, Germany and Italy. Sufentanil was preferred in Belgium and Luxemburg and in Austria. Multivariate analysis showed that the combination of midazolam with fentanyl was most often used in France; propofol with morphine in Sweden, the UK and Ireland, and Switzerland; midazolam with morphine in Norway; and propofol with sufentanil in Belgium and Luxemburg, Germany and Italy. The use of a sedation scale varied from 72% in the UK and Ireland to 18% in Austria. When used, the most common sedation scale was the Ramsay scale. This study demonstrates substantial international differences in sedative and analgesic practices in western European ICUs.

Ketamine-fentanyl-midazolam infusion for the control of symptoms in terminal life care

In this report, we describe nine terminally ill patients with metastatic cancer who were treated with an intravenous infusion consisting of ketamine (2 mg/ml)/fentanyl (5 micrograms/ml)/midazolam (0.1 mg/ml) (K/F/M) to control pain after traditional analgesic therapies were unsuccessful. In addition to pain, all patients exhibited some symptoms of cognitive compromise and agitation. After initiation of the K/F/M infusion, all patients exhibited some degree of qualitative improvement in these symptoms as well as in overall pain control. We feel that these observations warrant reporting of the efficacy of this infusion for the treatment of uncontrolled pain and agitation in terminally ill patients when the traditional methods of pain control are inadequate.

Sedation in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To describe the goals of sedative use in the intensive care unit and review the pharmacology of commonly used sedative drugs as well as to review pertinent publications in the literature concerning the comparative pharmacology of these drugs, with emphasis on outcomes related to sedation and comparative pharmacoeconomics.

DATA SOURCES

Publications in the scientific literature.

DATA EXTRACTION

Computer search of the literature with selection of representative articles.

SYNTHESIS

Proper choice and use of sedative drugs is based on knowledge of the pharmacology of commonly used agents and is an essential component of caring for patients in the intensive care unit. The large variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in the critically ill make it difficult to directly compare agents. Midazolam provides rapid and reliable amnesia, even when administered for low levels of sedation. Propofol may be useful when deeper levels of sedation and more rapid awakening are required. Lorazepam can be used for long-term sedation in more stable patients if rapidity of effect is not required. Further investigation in assessment of depth of sedation in the critically ill is needed. Continued study of costs, side effects, and appropriate dosing strategies of all sedative agents is needed to answer questions not sufficiently addressed in the current literature.

CONCLUSION

An individualized approach to sedation based on knowledge of drug pharmacology is needed because of confounding variables including concurrent patient illness, depth of sedation, and concomitant use of analgesic agents. (Crit Care Med 2000; 28:854-866)

Development and evaluation of combined rectus sheath and ilioinguinal blocks for abdominal gynaecological surgery

We describe the development of a technique of combined rectus sheath and ilioinguinal blocks for patients undergoing abdominal gynaecological surgery, and its use in a series of 37 patients (21 midline and 16 transverse incisions). Up to 60 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% with adrenaline 1:400,000 was used, depending on the patient's weight. Median (interquartile range) total morphine requirement (including 0.15 mg x kg(-1) given intra-operatively) up to 48 h after surgery was 0.34 (0.2-0.38) [corrected] mg x kg(-1) for midline incisions and 0.47 (0.35-0.64) [corrected] mg x kg(-1) for transverse incisions; no other systemic opioids were given. Six-hourly pain scores within the first 48 h after surgery were < or =1 (mild pain) in 11 out of 21 (52%) and < or =2 (moderate pain) in 18 out of 21 (86%) patients with midline incisions and in 5 out of 16 (31%) and 13 out of 16 (81%) patients with transverse incisions, respectively. No patient had emetic symptoms worse than mild nausea during the 48-h postoperative study period.

The effect of midazolam on persistent postoperative nausea and vomiting

The effect of intravenous midazolam on persistent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was compared to placebo in a prospective randomized double-blind study. Twenty patients aged 18 to 82 years with persistent PONV resistant to standard anti-emetics and present for greater than six hours were randomized to receive either an intravenous infusion of midazolam 1.0 mg/h or placebo. Nausea (P = 0.04), vomiting (P = 0.02) and the use of rescue anti-emetics (P = 0.003) were significantly less in the midazolam group. We conclude that low-dose intravenous infusion of midazolam significantly reduces persistent PONV.