Is infusion of subhypnotic propofol as effective as dexamethasone in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomized controlled trial

Factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the National Referral Hospital, Bhutan: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common distressing symptoms experienced after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We report the rate, and the factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting, the patterns of prophylactic antiemetic prescription, and the anesthetic techniques used among patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the Jigme Dorji Wangchuck (JDW) National Referral Hospital, Bhutan.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the JDW National Referral Hospital, from January to December 2018. All the patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were included in the study. The demographic variables, premedication, induction agents, muscle relaxants, inhalational agents for maintenance, opioid and adjuvant analgesics, the reversal agents used, and the occurrence of PONV within 24 h were recorded. Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 23). Continuous variables were compared using a t-test or Mann-Whitney test, categorical variables were tested using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

190 patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia. The rate of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 31.1% (59/190). Over half (53.7%, 102/190) of the study population were within 21-40 years of age, over 80% (157/190) were female, and 2/3rd were overweight and obese. The most frequently used premedication was ranitidine (39%, 34/87) and metoclopramide (31%, 27/87). More than half (57.4%, 109/190) of the patients received morphine as an opioid analgesic before induction. Sodium thiopentone was a commonly used induction agent (65.8%, 125/190). Succinylcholine and atracurium were mostly preferred muscle relaxants. Isoflurane and air were the most used inhalational anesthetic agents for the maintenance of anesthesia. Ondansetron was the most preferred anti-emetics during the intraoperative period. Previous history of motion sickness (OR 5.8, 95%CI 2.9-11.2, p < 0.001), and use of sodium thiopental (OR 4.1, 95%CI 1.9-9.1, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for PONV. The use of antiemetics (OR 0.1, 95%CI 0.0-0.4, p = 0.002), propofol (OR 0.2, 95%CI 0.1-0.5, p < 0.001), adjuvant analgesic paracetamol (OR 0.4, 95%CI 0.2-0.8, p = 0.026), and adequate hydration with IV fluids (OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.9-1.0, p = 0.042) were preventive factors for PONV.

CONCLUSION

The rate of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy was high. History of motion sickness and use of sodium thiopental for induction were independent risk factors of PONV. The use of multimodal prophylactic antiemetics was robust and superior to monotherapy in preventing PONV. This finding re-emphasizes the need for risk stratification and appropriate use of antiemetics and anesthetic agents to prevent PONV.

Effect of Propofol Infusion on Need for Rescue Antiemetics in Postanesthesia Care Unit After Volatile Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequent after volatile anesthesia. We hypothesized that coadministration of propofol with volatile anesthetic compared to pure volatile anesthetics would decrease the need for postoperative antiemetic treatments and shorten recovery time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).

METHODS

We retrospectively identified adult patients who underwent procedures using general anesthesia with volatile agents, with or without propofol infusion, from May 2018 through December 2020, and who were admitted to the PACU. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimates to assess whether propofol was associated with decreased need for rescue antiemetics.

RESULTS

Among 47,847 patients, overall IPTW rescue antiemetic use was 4.7% for 17,573 patients who received propofol and 8.2% for 30,274 who did not (odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.61; P <.001). This effect associated with propofol was present regardless of the intensity of antiemetic prophylaxis (OR, 0.59, 0.51, and 0.58 for 0-1, 2, and ≥3 antiemetics used, respectively), procedural duration (OR, 0.54, 0.62, and 0.47 for ≤2.50, 2.51-4.00, ≥4.01 hours), and type of volatile agent (OR, 0.51, 0.52, and 0.57 for desflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane) (all P <.001). This effect was dose dependent, with little additional benefit for the reduction in the use of PACU antiemetics when propofol rate exceeded 100 μg/kg/min. Patients who received rescue antiemetics required longer PACU recovery time than those who did not receive antiemetics (ratio of the geometric mean, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.28-1.33; P <.001), but use of propofol did not affect PACU recovery time (ratio of the geometric mean, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.01; P =.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of propofol infusions to volatile-based anesthesia is associated with a dose-dependent reduction in the need for rescue antiemetics in the PACU regardless of the number of prophylactic antiemetics, duration of procedure, and type of volatile agent used, without affecting PACU recovery time.

Effect of intraoperative subhypnotic infusion of propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting: A retrospective analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To measure the possible association between subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia and the incidence of PONV.

DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching.

SETTING

Postanesthesia care unit and inpatient unit.

PATIENTS

Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-IV, undergoing non-cardiac surgery lasting >2 h were included. Patients were excluded if transferred to the intensive care unit after surgery or received ketamine. Initially 70,976 patients were screened, and a cohort of 51,707 eligible adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery under general balanced anesthesia between 2015 and 2019 were included. Using a propensity score matching, 3185 patients who received subhypnotic propofol during general balanced anesthesia were matched with 5826 patients who did not receive subhypnotic propofol in a 1:2 ratio.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during PACU stay. The secondary outcome was the incidence of PONV within the first 24 h after surgery. Exploratory outcomes were time-to-extubation and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 9011 patients were included (3185 patients who received propofol infusion, and 5826 patients who did not receive propofol infusion) after propensity score matching. The adjusted odds ratio for PONV incidence was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.18; p = 0.635) in PACU, and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.23; P = 0.50) within 24 h after surgery. The length of hospital stay was 6 h shorter (ratio of means (95% CI) of 0.92, 0.89, 0.94), p < 0.001) and time-to-extubation was 2 min longer (ratio of means 1.24 (1.20, 1.28), p < 0.001) in patients receiving subhypnotic propofol infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia is not associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV during PACU stay and within the first 24 h after surgery. However, it is associated with decreased LOS and increased time-to-extubation, but differences in neither outcome were clinically important.

The Comparison of Postoperative Pain, Nausea, and Vomiting between Veress Needle Entry and Direct Trocar Entry Methods in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND Postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting are the most common side effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). In the present study, we investigated the differences in postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting between Veress needle and direct trocar entry methods among patients undergoing LC. METHODS 96 patients with gallstones were studied. They were randomly divided into two groups: the patients in the first group (n = 48) were insufflated 8.1 liters per minute CO2 gas by direct trocar port, and the patients in another group (n = 48) were insufflated 2.1 liters per minute CO2 gas by Veress needle. Pain intensity, nausea, and vomiting were assessed at 20 minutes, 4 hours, and 12 hours after the operations. RESULTS The duration of CO2 gas insufflation in Veress needle was 88.7 ± 10.7 seconds and indirect trocar was 16.6 ± 1.6 seconds. Visual analog scale (VAS) score significantly reduced in Veress needle compared with direct trocar (0.39 ± 0.98 vs. 1.68 ± 1.48) at 20 min after the operation, while there was no difference at 4 hours and 12 hours after the operation. The requirement and dose of pethidine injection were significantly lower in Veress needle than direct trocar. In addition, nausea and vomiting occurred in Veress needle less than direct trocar at 20 min, 4 hours, and 12 hours after LC. CONCLUSION Pain intensity just in the short term after LC in the group with CO2 gas insufflation in Veress needle was significantly less than the other group, while nausea and vomiting were significantly less during the whole follow-up periods in the group with CO2 gas insufflation in Veress needle.

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).

Effectiveness of Propofol versus Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Ear, Nose, and Throat Surgery in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital and Yekatit 12th Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remain as common and unpleasant and highly distressful experience following ear, nose, and throat surgery. During ENT surgery, the incidence of PONV could be significantly reduced in patients who receive dexamethasone and propofol as prophylaxis. However, the comparative effectiveness of the two drugs has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol and dexamethasone for prevention of PONV in ear, nose, and throat surgery.

METHODS

This study was conducted in 80 patients, with ASA I and II, aged 18-65 years, and scheduled for ENT surgery between December 20, 2017, and March 20, 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to Group A and Group B. Immediately after the procedure, Group A patients received single dose of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone (10 mg/kg) and Group B patients were given propofol (0.5 mg/kg, IV), and equal follow-up was employed. The incidence of PONV was noted at 6th, 12th, and 24th hour of drug administration. Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney test were used for comparison of symmetric numerical and asymmetric data between groups, respectively. Categorical data were analyzed with the chi-square test, and p value of < 0.05 was considered as level of significance.

RESULTS

The incidences of PONV throughout the 24-hour postoperative period were 35% in the propofol group and 25% in the dexamethasone group. Statistical significance was found in incidence of PONV (0% versus 22.5%) and use of antiemetic (0% versus 5%) between dexamethasone and propofol groups, respectively, at 12-24 hours. Over 24 hours, 5% in dexamethasone group and 12.5% in propofol group developed moderate PONV, while none of the participants felt severe PONV.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone was more effective than propofol to prevent PONV with lower requirements of rescue antiemetics.

Incidence and predictors of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing electrophysiology ablation procedures

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting remains a significant concern for patients undergoing general anesthesia for percutaneous radiofrequency catheter ablation and cryoablation for tachyarrhythmias.

AIM

Our objective was to examine the incidence and risk factors for nausea and vomiting in the recovery room.

METHODS

Children aged > 2 and ≤ 18 years who underwent general anesthesia for a percutaneous radiofrequency catheter ablation or cryoablation for a tachyarrhythmia between January 1, 2013, and January 1, 2016, were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes included postoperative nausea, vomiting, and a composite of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the recovery room.

RESULTS

We identified 611 patients with a mean age of 13.3 ± 3.9 years, 54.5% male, and a mean length of anesthesia was 3.9 ± 1.0 hours. Vomiting or retching in the postanesthesia care unit occurred in 7.4% of patients and nausea in an additional 12.4%. A composite of nausea and vomiting occurred in 95 patients (15.5%). On multivariable analysis, a subhypnotic propofol infusion (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.88, P = .019) and shorter anesthetic duration (OR 0.81 per 30 minutes, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, P = .006) were independently associated with less vomiting in the recovery room. A history of PONV (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.24-4.05, P = .007) was independently associated with a composite of nausea and vomiting in the recovery room.

CONCLUSIONS

A shorter anesthetic time and a subhypnotic propofol infusion were predictive of a lower rate of postoperative vomiting in patients undergoing general anesthesia for electrophysiologic ablation procedures.

Use of propofol for prevention of post-delivery nausea during cesarean section: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

Nausea and vomiting are common, undesirable symptoms during cesarean section. We conducted this study to assess the antiemetic properties of propofol for the prevention and immediate treatment of post-delivery nausea and vomiting during cesarean section under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.

METHODS

Eighty women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomized to receive either propofol at a plasma concentration of 1000 ng/mL or normal saline immediately after clamping of the umbilical cord. The incidence of post-delivery nausea and vomiting, patients requiring rescue antiemetic, bispectral index, sedation score, and the incidence of hypotension were assessed intraoperatively. Satisfaction and neonatal behavioral neurological assessments were evaluated postoperatively.

RESULTS

The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in the propofol group compared to the placebo group (25% versus 60%, P < 0.001). The incidence of retching and vomiting showed no significant difference between the two groups. Propofol 20 mg as a rescue antiemetic was significantly effective in both the groups. Satisfaction level of patients and obstetricians in the propofol group was higher than in the placebo group. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups both pre- and post-delivery. There was no difference in postoperative neonatal behavioral neurological assessment between groups.

CONCLUSION

Propofol at a plasma concentration of 1000 ng/mL significantly reduced the incidence of post-delivery nausea compared to placebo, but had no effect on reducing retching or vomiting episodes during cesarean section.

Assessment of pre-operative maropitant citrate use in macaque (Macaca fasicularis & Macaca mulatta) neurosurgical procedures

BACKGROUND

Retrospective analysis of post-operative vomiting (POV) in non-human primates at our institution was 11%. Based on this additional risk factor for post-operative complications, we aimed to eliminate or decrease POV by adding an antiemetic, maropitant citrate, to the pre-medication protocol.

METHODS

Retrospective and prospective data were collected over a 5-year period from 46 macaques of two species during 155 procedures. Additionally, blood was collected from five Macaca mulatta to perform a pharmacokinetic analysis.

RESULTS

A 1 mg/kg subcutaneous dose of maropitant given pre-operatively significantly decreased POV. Findings indicated post-neurosurgical emesis in Macaca fasicularis was significantly greater than in Macaca mulatta. Pharmacokinetic analysis of maropitant in Macaca mulatta determined the mean maximum plasma concentration to be 113 ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Maropitant administration prior to anesthesia for neurosurgeries decreased our incidence of POV to 1%. The plasma concentration reaches the proposed plasma level for clinical efficacy approximately 20 minutes after administration.

A prospective randomized study on the impact of low-dose dexamethasone on perioperative blood glucose concentrations in diabetics and nondiabetics

Background:

Dexamethasone is a potent corticosteroid when administered alone or in combination alone has proven efficacious in preventing nausea and vomiting (PONV) perioperatively. However, the administration of even a single dose has been associated with hyperglycemia. This is the first study that evaluates the effect of two low-doses of dexamethasone (4 and 8 mg) on blood glucose concentrations among diabetics and nondiabetics in patients who have received spinal anesthesia.

Materials and Methods:

After obtaining ethical clearance and patient consent, 180 American Society of Anesthesiologists 1–3 patients undergoing the elective infraumbilical surgeries under spinal anesthesia aged between 18 and 70 years were included in this study. Ninety diabetic patients were allotted to the diabetic group (DM), and ninety nondiabetic patients were allotted to the nondiabetic group (ND). Group DM was divided into three subgroups DM0, DM4, and DM8. Group ND was divided into three subgroups ND0, ND4, and ND8. The patients in groups DM0 and ND0 served as controls. The patients in groups DM4 and ND4 received 4 mg dexamethasone. The patients in groups DM8 and ND8 received 8 mg dexamethasone. The blood glucose concentrations were monitored at 0 (baseline), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 h after giving the drug.

Results:

The baseline blood glucose values were higher in diabetics compared to nondiabetics (128.57 ± 22.26 vs 94.99 ± 12.82 mg/dL). There was a statistically significant increase in blood glucose concentrations in both diabetics and nondiabetics who received dexamethasone. The rise of blood glucose from baseline was similar in both diabetics and nondiabetics.

Conclusion:

The maximum rise in blood glucose was in the range of 40–45 mg/dl in the patients who received dexamethasone. The clinician should use his clinical judgment before administering dexamethasone for PONV prophylaxis/treatment.

Cardioversions and Transthoracic Echocardiography

Patients with atrial fibrillation and flutter routinely require transesophageal echocardiography with cardioversion. It is not uncommon to encounter patients with reduced ejection fractions, coronary artery disease, prior cardiac surgery, or obstructive sleep apnea. The anesthesiologist must carefully evaluate the patient and any available laboratory and study findings to assess for potential complications after anesthesia. Appropriate anesthetics must be chosen based on the preoperative evaluation. Additionally, because most of these cases are done without a secured airway, emergency medications and airway equipment must be readily available.