Haloperidol dose combined with dexamethasone for PONV prophylaxis in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, dose-response and placebo-controlled study

Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting Incidence After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With Pretreatment With Haloperidol and Ondansetron: A Randomization Clinical Trial Study

OBJECTIVE

Nausea and vomiting after surgery are the most common complications. Therefore, we performed this study to compare the effect of ondansetron and haloperidol on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomized clinical trial, 60 patients candidates for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were allocated to haloperidol (0.05 mg/kg, n = 30) and ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg, n = 30) groups. An Ocular Analog Scale was used to assess postoperative nausea and vomiting. Every 15 minutes in the recovery room, heart rate and blood pressure were measured up to 6 hours after surgery. In addition, patient satisfaction was assessed postoperatively.

RESULTS

Haloperidol and ondansetron have the same effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward. It was found that the trend of Visual Analog Scale variable changes in the recovery room was similar in the haloperidol and ondansetron group ( P = 0.58); it was also true for the ward ( P = 0.79). Comparing the length of stay in a recovery room in the 2 groups was not statistically significant ( P = 0.19). In addition, the 2 groups did not differ in satisfaction postoperatively ( P = 0.82).

CONCLUSION

Haloperidol and ondansetron had an equal effect on reducing nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patient satisfaction and length of stay in the recovery room did not differ between groups.

Perioperative use of low dose haloperidol safely reduces episodes of postoperative nausea/vomiting and length of stay following elective minimally invasive bariatric surgery

INTRODUCTION

While total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) protocols include Dexamethasone and Ondansetron prophylaxis, bariatric patients continue to be considered at particularly high risk for postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV). A multimodal approach for prophylaxis is recommended by the Bariatric Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society however, there remains a lack of consensus on the optimal strategy to manage PONV in these patients. Haloperidol has been shown at low doses to have a therapeutic effect in treatment of refractory nausea and in PONV prophylaxis in other high risk surgical populations. We sought to investigate its efficacy as a prophylactic medication for PONV in the bariatric population and to identify which perioperative strategies were most effective at reducing episodes of PONV.

METHODS

An institutional bariatric database was created by retrospectively reviewing patients undergoing elective minimally invasive bariatric procedures from 2018 to 2022. Demographic data reviewed included age, gender, preoperative body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, and primary language. Primary endpoints included patient reported episodes of PONV, total doses of Ondansetron administered, need for a second antiemetic (rescue medication), complication rate (most commonly readmission within 30 days), and length of stay. Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney test, and ANOVA were used to evaluate the effect of perioperative management on various endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 475 patients were analyzed with Haloperidol being utilized in 15.8% of all patients. Patients receiving Haloperidol were less likely to require Ondansetron outside of the immediate perioperative period (34.7% vs. 49.8%, p = 0.02), experienced less PONV (41.3% vs. 64.3%, p = 0.01) and also had a decreased median length of stay (27.3 vs. 35.8 h, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of low dose Haloperidol to Bariatric ERAS protocols decreases incidence of PONV and the need for additional antiemetic coverage resulting in a significantly shorter length of stay, increasing the likelihood of safe discharge on postoperative day 1.

Perioperative opioid-minimization approach as a useful protocol in the management of patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome-hypermobility type, craniocervical instability and severe chronic pain who are to undergo occipito-cervical fixation

Patients suffering from connective tissue disorders like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome hypermobility type/joint hypermobility syndrome (EDS-HT/JHS) may be affected by craniocervical instability (CCI). These patients experience myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue, depression, extreme occipital-cervical pain, and severe widespread pain that is difficult to relieve with opioids. This complex and painful condition can be explained by the development of chronic neuroinflammation, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and central sensitization. Given the challenges in treating such severe physical pain, we evaluated all the analgesic methods previously used in the perioperative setting, and updated information was presented. It covers important physiopathological aspects for the perioperative care of patients with EDS-HT/JHS and CCI undergoing occipital-cervical/thoracic fixation/fusion. Moreover, a change of paradigm from the current opioid-based management of anesthesia/analgesia in these patients to the perioperative opioid minimization strategies used by the authors was analyzed and proposed as follow-up considerations from our previous case series. These strategies are based on total-intravenous opioid-free anesthesia, multimodal analgesia, and a postoperative combination of anti-hyperalgesic coadjuvants (lidocaine, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine) with an opioid-sparing effect.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Breast and Gynecological Surgery: A Narrative Review of Risk Factors and Prophylaxis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have been widely studied as a multifactorial entity, being of female gender the strongest risk factor. Reported PONV incidence in female surgical populations is extremely variable among randomized clinical trials. In this narrative review, we intend to summarize the incidence, independent predictors, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for PONV reported in recently published clinical trials carried out in female patients undergoing breast and gynecologic surgery, as well as the implications of the anesthetic agents on the incidence of PONV. A literature search of manuscripts describing PONV management in female surgical populations (breast surgery and gynecologic surgery) was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence were highly variable in patients receiving placebo or no prophylaxis among RCTs whereas consistent results were observed in patients receiving 1 or 2 prophylactic interventions for PONV. Despite efforts made, a considerable number of female patients still experienced significant PONV. It is critical for the anesthesia provider to be aware that the coexistence of independent risk factors such as the level of sex hormones (pre- and postmenopausal), preoperative anxiety or depression, pharmacogenomic pleomorphisms, and ethnicity further enhances the probability of experiencing PONV in female patients. Future RCTs should closely assess the overall risk of PONV in female patients considering patient- and surgery-related factors, and the level of compliance with current guidelines for prevention and management of PONV.

What is the ideal combination antiemetic regimen?

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are frequent unpleasant complaints that patients and clinicians report after surgery. PONV and PDNV have been associated with postoperative complications and hospital discharge delays. Despite the extensive evidence describing the use of several regimens in different surgical populations, the ideal regimen has not been established. Several antiemetic drugs have been evaluated in more than 1000 clinical controlled trials for management of this complex emetogenic pathway, including the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, neurokinin-type receptor antagonists, antihistaminics, anticholinergics, and corticosteroids, with the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists being the most commonly used for PONV prophylaxis. Because of the complex emetogenic pathway and multifactorial etiology of PONV, a multimodal approach using two or more drugs that act at different neuro-receptor sites is suggested in patients with one or more risk factors to successfully address PONV and reduce its incidence. Nevertheless, the most studied regimens in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the combination of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with dexamethasone or dopamine receptor antagonists (droperidol). Therefore, the safest and more effective combination regimen appears to be the use of serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonist antiemetic drugs with dexamethasone.

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).

Characterizing the role of haloperidol for analgesia in the Emergency Department

The purpose of this study was to characterize emergency department (ED) physicians' beliefs and current practices regarding the use of haloperidol for the management of acute and acute on chronic pain.

METHODS

A survey regarding haloperidol use was distributed by email to attending physicians, resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants at emergency medicine departments in the Indiana University Health System and at St Joseph Mercy Ann Arbor.

RESULTS

Of the 129 responses received, the majority (89.1%) of providers had used haloperidol for control of pain in the ED. The most common reason that respondents used haloperidol to treat pain was that they did not want to use an opioid or other agent (91.3%). The majority of providers (73.9%) believed that haloperidol was effective because there is a psychiatric component to pain, while over half of respondents (58.3%) chose haloperidol as they believed it to have analgesic properties. When haloperidol was used as a first line medication, providers felt that it was effective in controlling pain about 69.0% of the time without the need for further medication. The most common presentations for use were for unspecified abdominal pain, headache, and gastroparesis.

CONCLUSION

ED providers reported using haloperidol most often as a second line treatment to manage both acute and acute on chronic pain. When haloperidol was used as a first line agent, providers claimed that additional medicines were not usually required. Haloperidol may provide an effective alternative to opioids in treatment of acute pain and acute exacerbations of chronic pain in the ED.

Investigation of Ondansetron, Haloperidol, and Dexmedetomidine Efficacy for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting In Patients with Abdominal Hysterectomy

AIM

This study was aimed to compare the effects of ondansetron, haloperidol, and dexmedetomidine for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

This randomised clinical trial study was performed on p.patients who were candidates for abdominal hysterectomy referring to Taleghani hospital in Arak. In this study, 114 patients with abdominal hysterectomy were randomly assigned to three groups (ondansetron, haloperidol, and dexmedetomidine) using the cubull randomisation method.

RESULTS

The results revealed a significant difference between the three groups of ondansetron, haloperidol and dexmedetomidine in terms of scorpion vomiting in recovery, 2 and 4 hours after surgery, and vomiting score was significantly lower in the ondansetron group compared with the other two groups (P = 0.04; P = 0.02; P = 0.001). There was a significant difference between the three groups of e ondansetron, haloperidol and dexmedetomidine regarding the mean dose of metoclopramide in mg for 24 hours after surgery. Therefore, the dosage of dexmedetomidine in the ondansetron group was less than the other two groups (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

these three drugs are effective in reducing PONV in patients undergoing a hysterectomy. However, the effect of ondansetron was found to be more than the other two drugs in reducing PONV.

Combination of gabapentin and ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized comparative study

Background

As a drug originally introduced for its anticonvulsant effects, gabapentin has been recently shown to be effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in various clinical settings. This study compared the antiemetic efficacy of oral gabapentin, intravenous ramosetron and gabapentin plus ramosetron in patients receiving fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Methods

One hundred and thirty two patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia were allocated randomly into three groups: group G received 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia, group R received 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery, and group GR received a combination of 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia and 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery. Postoperative nausea, retching, vomiting, rescue antiemetic drug use, pain, rescue analgesic requirements and adverse effects were assessed at 0–2, 2–24 and 24–48 h after surgery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was defined as the presence of nausea, retching or vomiting.

Results

The incidence of complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetics up to 48 h postoperatively) was significantly higher in group GR (26/40, 65%) than group G (16/40, 40%; P = 0.025) and group R (18/44, 41%; P = 0.027), whereas there was no significant difference between group G and group R (P = 0.932). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of emetic episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, severe emesis, use of rescue analgesics or any adverse effects. Postoperative pain scores were also similar among groups.

Conclusions

The combination with gabapentin and ramosetron is superior to either drug alone for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02617121, registered November 25, 2015.

Gender-Specific Differences in Low-Dose Haloperidol Response for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Register-Based Cohort Study

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common and distressing complications after general anesthesia and surgery, with young non-smoking females receiving postoperative opioids being high-risk patients. This register-based study aims to evaluate the effect of low-dose haloperidol (0.5 mg intravenously) directly after induction of general anesthesia to reduce the incidence of PONV in the postoperative anesthesiological care unit (PACU).

Methods

Multivariable regression models were used to investigate the association between low-dose haloperidol and the occurrence of PONV using a patient registry containing 2,617 surgical procedures carried out at an university hospital.

Results

Haloperidol 0.5 mg is associated with a reduced risk of PONV in the total collective (adjusted odds ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: [0.56, 0.99], p = 0.05). The results indicate that there is a reduced risk in male patients (adjusted odds ratio = 0.45, 95% confidence interval: [0.28, 0.73], p = 0.001) if a dose of 0.5 mg haloperidol was administered while there seems to be no effect in females (adjusted odds ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval: [0.71, 1.46], p = 0.93). Currently known risk factors for PONV such as female gender, duration of anesthesia and the use of opioids were confirmed in our analysis.

Conclusion

This study suggests that low-dose haloperidol has an antiemetic effect in male patients but has no effect in female patients. A confirmation of the gender-specific effects we have observed in this register-based cohort study might have major implications on clinical daily routine.