The effect of midazolam on persistent postoperative nausea and vomiting

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.

Comparison of efficacy between palonosetron-midazolam combination and palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing breast surgery and patient controlled analgesia: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study: A CONSORT-compliant study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint in patients following general anesthesia. Various antiemetics, including 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are effective but still have limited efficacy. Therefore, combination therapy is preferable to using a single drug alone in high-risk patients. We performed a comparative study on the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, monotherapy vs palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy for the prevention of PONV.

METHODS

A total of 104 female patients scheduled for breast cancer surgery were enrolled. They were randomly divided into 2 groups, a palonosetron monotherapy group (group P) and palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy group (group PM). Both groups received 0.075 mg palonosetron intravenously after induction of anesthesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was applied according to the allocated group. Intravenous (IV)-PCA in group P consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml); IV-PCA in group PM consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus midazolam 4 mg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml). Efficacy parameters were collected during 0 to 1, 1 to 6, 6 to 24, and 24 to 48 hours postoperative time intervals. These measures included complete response (defined as no PONV and no rescue anti-emetic use) rate, incidence of PONV, sedation score, rescue antiemetic use, rescue analgesic use, and numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain. The complete response rate during the 0 to 24 hours interval was analyzed as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Although the complete response rate between 0 and 24 hours was higher in group PM (42.3% and 48.1% in group P and PM, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .55). The complete response rates in other time intervals were not different between the 2 groups as well. The sedation score and NRS score also showed no differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination therapy of palonosetron with midazolam did not lead to a greater reduction in the incidence of PONV than monotherapy in patients undergoing breast surgery and receiving IV-PCA containing fentanyl.

Effect of fentanyl on nausea and vomiting in cesarean section under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled study

Objective

Although opioids may induce nausea and vomiting, they possess sedative effects and can reduce intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV). This study assessed the effect of adding fentanyl to midazolam on sedation levels and IONV during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Methods

Eighty parturients scheduled for elective cesarean section were enrolled in the study. Following fetal delivery, patients were administered 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam plus 0.03 mL/kg of normal saline (M group) or 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam plus 1.5 μg/kg of fentanyl (MF group). The primary outcome was the incidence of IONV. The secondary outcomes were incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), intraoperative sedation level, and five-point patient satisfaction score (PSS).

Results

The IONV incidence was significantly lower in the MF group compared with the M group (5% [2/40] vs. 25% [10/40]). The PONV incidence did not differ significantly between the groups. The intraoperative sedation level tended to be deeper in the MF group. The 5-point PSS was significantly higher in the MF group. There was a strong correlation between the sedation level and IONV incidence.

Conclusions

Adding fentanyl to midazolam is effective for sedation and to prevent IONV in women who are undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia.

Minimum Effective dose of Dexamethasone in Combination with Midazolam as Prophylaxis against Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 20% and 30% of patients. As many as 60%–80% patients at high risk may be affected. Dexamethasone (D) and midazolam (M) are well studied as antiemetic. Use of D can be associated with certain undesirable side effects so minimum dose is preferred. M is a routinely used premedicant. Hence, this study was designed with both D and M in high risk patients for PONV to find minimum effective dose of D.

Aims:

To determine the minimum dose of D that combined with M would provide effective prophylaxis of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients at high risk for PONV.

Setting and Design:

This is a prospective, randomized double-blind trial.

Materials and Methods:

One hundred and fifty-five patients scheduled for elective LC were randomized to 5 groups of 31 each. Group C was given normal saline, and the rest were administered D 1 mg (group MD1), 2 mg (group MD2), 4 mg (group MD4), or 8 mg (group MD8) in combination with 0.04 mg/kg M at induction. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, severity of nausea, and the use of rescue antiemetic and postoperative pain was analyzed.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test was used to compare incidence of study variables. Independent Student's t-test was used for continuous variables. Demographic data were compared using ANOVA. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in group MD4 (29%) and MD8 (6%) compared to placebo group (71%) (P < 0.001) and of vomiting was significantly lower in groups of MD2 (58%), MD4 (48%), and MD8 (6%) compared with placebo (90%) (P < 0.001) at 24 h. There was significant reduction in nausea, pain severity, and incidence of use of rescue antiemetic in MD4 and MD8 groups with no discernable side effects of the drugs.

Conclusion:

We conclude that 4 mg D with M and 2 mg D with M is effective for prevention of nausea and vomiting, respectively, in patients at high risk for PONV undergoing LC.

Effect of Sub hypnotic Doses of Propofol and Midazolam for Nausea and Vomiting During Spinal Anesthesia for Cesarean Section

Background:

Spinal anesthesia has been associated with intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV), especially during cesarean section, which is attributed to several mechanisms.

Objectives:

In the present study, therapeutic and preventive properties of sub hypnotic dose midazolam and propofol and their effects on the occurrence and severity of intraoperative nausea and vomiting during elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were evaluated.

Patients and Methods:

In a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trial, 90 parturients, ASA class I and II, aged 20-30 years, who undergone spinal anesthesia for cesarean section were randomly allocated to one of three groups receiving midazolam (1 mg bolus and 0.1 mg/kg/hr, n=30), propofol (20 mg bolus and 0.1 mg/kg/hr, n = 30), and placebo (saline, n=30) intravenously (IV) immediately after umbilical cord clamping. Bupivacaine hydrochloride (10 mg) was used for induction of the anesthesia. Patients’ hemodynamics was monitored at 3-minute intervals. Furthermore, intraoperative and post-delivery emetic episodes, severity of emesis, scores of sedation and ephedrine consumption were recorded.

Results:

The incidence of nausea, retching, and vomiting was significantly higher in the control group compared to propofol and midazolam groups. Overall, PONV (postoperative nausea and vomiting) in midazolam group was as low as propofol group without any significant hemodynamic changes as seen in placebo group or even with propofol group.

Conclusions:

Subhypnotic doses of midazolam or propofol are effective in the prevention of nausea and vomiting during and after cesarean section with spinal anesthesia and does not significantly influence hemodynamic of the patients.

Effect of Sedation with Midazolam or Propofol on Patient's Comfort During Cancer Chemotherapy Infusion: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study in Breast Cancer Patients

Nausea, vomiting and anxiety related to administration of cancer chemotherapy remain significant problems. This randomized, clinical trial was undertaken to evaluate the effect of sedation on the patient's comfort during chemotherapy infusion in patients with breast cancer. Forty-five breast cancer patients were randomized into three groups: Group I--chemotherapy, control, Group II--midazolam+chemotherapy, and Group III--propofol+chemotherapy. Nausea occured in 87% and vomiting in 13% of the patients in the control group, while none of the sedated subjects had these side-effects, although 76% of them had experienced then during previous cycles of chemotherapy. Compared with the control group, post-chemotherapy anxiety scores also improved with the addition of midazolam or propofol. Eighty percent of the subjects declared that they would prefer the sedative-containing regimen for their further cycles. Sedation with midazolam or propofol may improve the patient's comfort, and provide better control of chemotherapy-related side effects during chemotherapy infusion in breast cancer patients.

Comparison of ramosetron with combined ramosetron and midazolam for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients at high risk following laparoscopic gynaecological surgery

Objectives

This randomized, double-blind study compared the antiemetic efficacy of ramosetron with that of ramosetron combined with midazolam, and investigated whether the timing of midazolam administration affected the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Methods

Nonsmoking female patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery were randomized to three groups: group R received intravenous (i.v.) normal saline at induction of anaesthesia and 30 min before the end of surgery; group RM1 received midazolam i.v. at induction of anaesthesia and normal saline i.v. 30 min before the end of surgery; group RM2 received normal saline i.v. at induction of anaesthesia and midazolam i.v. 30 min before the end of the surgery. All patients received 0.3 mg ramosetron i.v. at the end of surgery. Incidence of PONV and need for rescue antiemetics were assessed during the 48-h postoperative period.

Results

A total of 126 patients were included in the analyses. There was no significant difference in the incidence of severe nausea, emetic episodes or use of antiemetics among the three groups. The incidence of complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetics) was significantly higher in the RM1 (30/41; 73%) and RM2 (30/42; 71%) groups compared with group R (19/43; 44%).

Conclusions

Midazolam given at induction of anaesthesia or at the end of the surgery, combined with ramosetron, was more effective than ramosetron alone in reducing the incidence of PONV.

Comparison of the antiemetic effect of ramosetron and combined ramosetron and midazolam in children: a double-blind, randomised clinical trial

CONTEXT

Postoperative nausea and vomiting remains a clinically important problem after strabismus surgery in children.

OBJECTIVE

To study the benefit of adding midazolam to ramosetron on the incidence of postoperative nausea, retching or vomiting and on the incidence of postoperative agitation.

DESIGN

A randomised, double-blind comparison.

SETTING

The operating theatre suite and day care unit of Seoul National University Hospital. The study period was January to December 2010.

PATIENTS

In total, 405 paediatric patients (aged 4-12 years) undergoing strabismus surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of two groups, ramosetron or ramosetron with midazolam.

INTERVENTION

Patients received either ramosetron 6 μg kg or ramosetron 6 μg kg and midazolam 0.1 mg kg prior to induction of anaesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The incidences of nausea, retching or vomiting in the first 48 h after surgery, and the incidence of emergence agitation in the post-anaesthetic care unit.

RESULT

The incidences of nausea, retching or vomiting during the first and second 24-h periods after surgery were similar in the two groups. There was a small, clinically insignificant reduction in delirium scores in the ramosetron with midazolam group.

CONCLUSION

Adding midazolam to ramosetron had no advantages over ramosetron alone in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

Comparing the preventive effect of midazolam and midazolam-dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting in elective middle ear surgery

Background:

Nausea and vomiting are common postoperative complications with incidence of 20–80% depends on the surgery type, anesthetic drugs, age, sex, etc. This complication may lead to patient discomfort, intraocular, and intracerebral pressures increase, sutures rupture, esophageal injury, and rarely death. Many studies reported that midazolam and dexamethasone alone can decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but their combination has never been studied yet. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of midazolam and midazolam-dexamethasone on PONV after middle ear surgery.

Materials and Methods:

66 ASA I and II patients aged 15–65 year scheduled for elective middle ear surgery under general anesthesia randomly divided into two groups. Immediately after induction of the anesthesia group one (M) received midazolam 0.075 mg/kg and group two (M+D) received combination of midazolam (0.075 mg/kg) plus dexamethasone (0.05 mg/kg). Then the severity of nausea was measured by visual analog scales 0–10 (VAS) in recovery room at 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Metoclopramid (0.1 mg/kg) was administrated I.V. slowly if nausea score was above 3 or patient had vomiting. The postoperative need for antiemetics and the duration of stay in recovery room were recorded. Values of P<0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results:

There were no significant differences in age, gender, and weight between the two groups. There was no significant difference in the mean nausea scores between two groups except after 12 h postoperatively (1.39 ± 3.19 in M group vs. 0.42 ± 1.71 in M+D group). The mean vomiting frequency was significantly less in midazolam-dexamethasone group in the recovery room (0.9 ± 0.29 vs. 0 ± 0) and at 6–12 h (1.09 ± 2.41 vs. 0.3 ± 0.8), and 12–24 h (0.42 ± 1.32 vs. 0.03 ± 0.17) postoperatively. During the first 24 h postoperatively, the metoclopramid consumption was significantly less in combination therapy (6.48 ± 9.54) than in the midazolam group (12.9 ± 23.44) (Value<0.5).

Conclusion:

The combination of midazolam-dexametazone is more effective than midazolam alone in prevention of postoperative vomiting after middle ear surgery. Therefore, we recommend combination therapy for patients who are prone to PONV.

Antiemetic effects of midazolam added to fentanyl-ropivacaine patient-controlled epidural analgesia after subtotal gastrectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are frequent adverse effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with opioids.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess the antiemetic effect of midazolam added to fentanyl-ropivacaine PCEA.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, smoking patients with gastric cancer undergoing elective subtotal gastrectomy were evenly allocated to 1 of 2 treatment groups to manage postoperative pain: 0.2% ropivacaine mixed with fentanyl 4 μg/mL and midazolam 0.2 mg/mL (test group) or 0.2% ropivacaine mixed with fentanyl 4 μg/mL (control group). The PCEA infusion was set to deliver 4 μL/h of the study solution, with a bolus of 2 mL per demand and a 15-minute lockout time. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain intensity, sedation score, usage of rescue analgesia and rescue antiemetic, respiratory depression, urinary retention, and pruritus were recorded at 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Total infused volume of PCEA at 72 hours after surgery was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were approached and randomized to treatment. No patients were excluded by exclusion criteria and all enrolled patients completed this study. Incidence of nausea (7% vs 33%; P = 0.02) in the test group was significantly lower than in the control group. The overall frequency of PONV in the test group was significantly less than that of the control group (7% vs 40%; P = 0.006). In addition, the mean (SD) infused volume of PCEA in the test group was significantly lower than that in the control group (392.3 [68.9] vs 351.2 [49.8] mL; P = 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in pain intensity, usage of rescue antiemetics and rescue analgesics, and mild pruritus between groups. No patient reported moderate or severe sedation, respiratory depression, or hypoxemia. In addition, there were no severe adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam added to fentanyl-ropivacaine PCEA was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of PONV compared with fentanyl-ropivacaine alone, and a significant decrease in the amount of PCEA administered without a significant increase in adverse events in these patients who underwent subtotal gastrectomy.

Anti-Emetic Effect of Midazolam Added to Morphine Patient-Controlled Analgesia After Total Abdominal Hysterectomy

Nausea and vomiting are frequent adverse effects of patient-controlled analgesia with opioids. This study was designed to compare the effect of midazolam to that of ondansetron for prevention of nausea and vomiting during morphine patient-controlled analgesia. In a randomised, double-blind, prospective trial, 90 patients were allocated to one of three groups of 30 each, to receive one of three patient-controlled analgesia regimens to manage postoperative pain: a combination of midazolam and morphine (group M), a mixture of ondansetron and morphine (group O) or morphine alone (group C). Patients were assessed for the incidence of nausea and vomiting, the degree of sedation (awake, mild, moderate, deep) and other side-effects during the first 24 hours after the operation. The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in groups M (27%) and O (37%) compared with group C (70%) (P <0.05). The incidence of mild sedation in group M was significantly higher than that in groups O or C (P <0.05). We conclude that midazolam is as effective as ondansetron in preventing opioid-induced nausea and vomiting following total abdominal hysterectomy and has acceptable side-effects.

Effect of midazolam, dexamethasone and their combination on the prevention of nausea and vomiting following strabismus repair in children

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common complication following strabismus surgery. This randomized and double-blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of midazolam alone or in combination with dexamethasone in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing strabismus repair.

METHODS

One hundred ASA I children, aged 4-12 yr, scheduled to undergo elective strabismus surgery, were enrolled. No premedication was given. Anaesthesia was induced with sevoflurane, nitrous oxide and oxygen. After induction, fentanyl 2 microg kg-1 and cisatracurium 0.1 mg kg-1 were administered and an endotracheal tube was inserted. After induction of anaesthesia and before start of surgery, patients were randomly allocated into one of four groups of 25 children each to receive placebo, midazolam 50 microg kg-1, dexamethasone 0.5 mg kg-1 or a combination of midazolam 50 microg kg-1 and dexamethasone 0.5 mg kg-1. Episodes of nausea, and retching and vomiting were recorded during the first 24 h after surgery.

RESULTS

The incidence of postoperative nausea was 48%, 32%, 12% and 0% with placebo, dexamethasone, midazolam and the midazolam-dexamethasone combination, respectively. The incidence of vomiting was 52% and 32% with placebo and dexamethasone, respectively; no child vomited with midazolam alone, or with the midazolam-dexamethasone combination.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic midazolam with or without dexamethasone reduces the incidence of PONV in children undergoing strabismus repair.

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.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Despite many medical advances, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomit-ing (PDNV) remains high. Sequelae such as dehydration, wound dehiscence, bleeding and others, contributed to increased healthcare costs and patient dissatisfaction. This article reviews the literature regarding the anatomy of emesis, the predictors of PONV and various treatments.

Use of intravenous midazolam and clonidine in cyclical vomiting syndrome: a case report

We report a case of a teenage boy with cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS) who was referred to the anesthesia-run postoperative pain service for symptom management. His symptoms were uncontrolled by oral pizotifen prophylaxis and acute therapy with intravenous (IV) hydration and ondansetron. A continuous low dose IV midazolam infusion was added to his treatment regimen (as is instituted for recalcitrant postoperative nausea and vomiting) with benefit, but not total symptom resolution. Recent literature review suggested links between migraine, CVS and adrenergic autonomic dysfunction. Consequently, IV clonidine was administered, in addition, with recovery. This combination was reinstituted successfully on subsequent admissions and emergency department presentations with shortened episode durations from 4-5 days to 16-48 h. It is uncertain if clonidine's sympatholytic effects were significantly beneficial or if associated sedation or natural resolution were contributors. Many agents have been used in CVS therapy but no trials have been done. Neither midazolam nor clonidine has been reported previously as used in the treatment of CVS. The apparent success of this combination raises possibilities both for future trials and research into the pathogenesis of CVS.

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

PURPOSE

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

SOURCE

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

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Midazolam: An Effective Antiemetic After Cardiac Surgery???A Clinical Trial

Cardiac surgery has been associated with a significant incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). To assess the antiemetic property of midazolam, we undertook this double-blinded, randomized trial in 200 patients undergoing cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass, and we compared its efficacy with that of ondansetron in preventing PONV. Assessments on the occurrence of PONV were made at regular intervals for the first 24 h after tracheal extubation, along with sedation and pain scoring. We report a 6% incidence of nausea and no incidence of vomiting in the midazolam group, compared with a 21% incidence of PONV in the ondansetron group (P < 0.001). All 21 patients (18 women and 3 men) in the ondansetron group and none of the 6 patients (all women) in the midazolam group required a rescue antiemetic drug (P < 0.001). The sedation scores and postoperative pain scores were comparable in both groups. We conclude that midazolam, instituted as a continuous infusion in a dose of 0.02 mg. kg(-1). h(-1), is a more effective antiemetic than ondansetron in a dose of 0.1 mg/kg IV every 6 h for the prevention of PONV after cardiac surgery.

Comparative study of the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron, propofol and midazolam in the early postoperative period

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron with two different hypnotic drugs (propofol 15 mg, midazolam 1 and 2 mg) for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Four-hundred-and-fifty-three patients scheduled for elective gynaecological or abdominal surgery were enrolled. One-hundred-and-twenty patients (26%) experienced postoperative emesis, and when nausea scores reached 2 or greater on a five-point scale, they were randomized to receive intravenously: propofol 15 mg (1.5 mL) in Group P, midazolam 1 mg in Group M1, midazolam 2 mg in Group M2 and ondansetron 4 mg in Group O.

RESULTS

Four patients (13.3%) in Group P, 13 patients (43.3%) in Group M1, five patients (16.6%) in Group M2 and one patient (3.3%) in Group O required a second dose of the study drug. After administration of the study drugs, nausea scores were significantly lower in all groups than before these drugs were given. No patient had a sedation score over 3 (the patients remained awake and/or responded to verbal contact). The sedative effects of midazolam and propofol lasted for a much shorter time than the antiemetic effects of these drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol and midazolam used in subhypnotic doses were as effective as ondansetron in treating PONV in patients undergoing abdominal or gynaecological surgery without untoward sedative or cardiovascular effects.

Using diazepam and atropine before strabismus surgery to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of diazepam and atropine sulfate premedication in preventing nausea and vomiting after strabismus surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODS

Fifty children age 4 to 15 years who underwent strabismus surgery at Cukurova University Medical Faculty, Department of Ophthalmology, from February 2000 to June 2000 were randomized into 2 groups: 25 children in the control group did not receive premedication, whereas 25 children in the treatment group received premedication with 0.15 mg/kg diazepam and 0.015 mg/kg atropine sulfate. Occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was recorded.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV was lower in the premedicated group (P <.018, chi(2) test).

CONCLUSIONS

It is concluded that diazepam and atropine sulfate premedication decreases nausea and vomiting after strabismus surgery.

Pharmacotherapy of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are two of the most common and unpleasant side effects following anaesthesia and surgery. Despite the development of new anti-emetics and a vast amount of published research, PONV continues to be a problem, especially in high-risk patients. Recent interest has focused on the use of a combination of agents, acting on different receptors and the adoption of a multimodal approach to tackle this problem. The search for the most cost-effective strategy has also been a major goal. This article will discuss the risk factors and physiology of PONV, currently available therapies, the use of a multimodal approach and the cost-effectiveness of PONV management. Finally, recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of PONV will be discussed.

Treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of antiemetics for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is poorly understood. METHODS: Systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, any language, to 8.2000) for randomised comparisons of antiemetics with any comparator for the treatment of established PONV. Dichotomous data on prevention of further nausea and vomiting, and on side effects were combined using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: In seven trials (1,267 patients), 11 different antiemetics were tested without placebos; these data were not further analysed. Eighteen trials (3,809) had placebo controls. Dolasetron 12.5-100 mg, granisetron 0.1-3 mg, tropisetron 0.5-5 mg, and ondansetron 1-8 mg prevented further vomiting with little evidence of dose-responsiveness; with all regimens, absolute risk reductions compared with placebo were 20%-30%. The anti-nausea effect was less pronounced. Headache was dose-dependent. Results on propofol were contradictory. The NK1 antagonist GR205171, isopropyl alcohol vapor, metoclopramide, domperidone, and midazolam were tested in one trial each with a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Of 100 vomiting surgical patients receiving a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, 20 to 30 will stop vomiting who would not have done so had they received a placebo; less will profit from the anti-nausea effect. There is a lack of evidence for a clinically relevant dose-response; minimal effective doses may be used. There is a discrepancy between the plethora of trials on prevention of PONV and the paucity of trials on treatment of established symptoms. Valid data on the therapeutic efficacy of classic antiemetics, which have been used for decades, are needed.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: prevention and therapy

As we enter the new millennium, the armamentarium available to treat and prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting continues to expand. There remains a finite incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, particularly among high-risk populations. This review examines recent studies of drugs, both new and old, and their impact on postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis and treatment.

Additive anti-emetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron with droperidol in out-patient gynecological laparoscopy

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol, alone and in combination, administered for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing general anesthesia for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy.

METHODS

Following Institutional Ethics Board approval and patient consent, 160 female out- patients scheduled for laparoscopy were randomly allotted in a double-blind fashion to receive: i) saline (placebo), ii) 4 mg ondansetron, iii) 1.25 mg droperidol, or iv) 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol combination intravenously on induction. Following a standardized general anesthesia, patients were interviewed and assessed for PONV at various times.

RESULTS

During the first 24 hr after surgery, the incidence of PONV in the placebo group was 71%. This was reduced to 61% with droperidol alone (P = 0.334), to 46% with ondansetron alone (P = 0.027), and to 23% with the combination group (P<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between combination and droperidol (P<0.001) and between combination and ondansetron (P = 0.036). There were fewer requests for rescue medication from the combination group (7.7%) than from the ondansetron and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the combination of 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol is more efficacious as a prophylactic anti-emetic than either agent alone during the 24 hr post-surgery. This additive effect may be due to the different mechanisms of action of ondansetron and droperidol.