Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with patient-controlled analgesia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of droperidol, metoclopramide, and tropisetron

Antiemetic prophylaxis with droperidol in morphine-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: a propensity score matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are limited real-world data regarding the use of droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA). This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic benefits and sedation effects of droperidol in morphine-based IV-PCA.

METHODS

Patients who underwent major surgery and used morphine-based IV-PCA at a medical center from January 2020 to November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the rate of any postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) within 72 h after surgery. Propensity score matching was used to match patients with and without the addition of droperidol to IV-PCA infusate in a 1:1 ratio. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

After matching, 1,104 subjects were included for analysis. The addition of droperidol to IV-PCA reduced the risk of PONV (aOR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.67, p < 0.0001). The antiemetic effect of droperidol was significant within 36 h after surgery and attenuated thereafter. Droperidol was significantly associated with a lower risk of antiemetic uses (aOR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.80, p = 0.0011). The rate of unintentional sedation was comparable between the patients with (9.1%) and without (7.8%; p = 0.4481) the addition of droperidol. Postoperative opioid consumption and numeric rating scale acute pain scores were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of droperidol to IV-PCA reduced the risk of PONV without increasing opiate consumption or influencing the level of sedation. However, additional prophylactic therapies are needed to prevent late-onset PONV.

Should nasogastric tube be used routinely in patients undergoing cardiac surgery? A narrative review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Nasogastric tube (NGT) use has been common in the immediate postoperative period in surgical patients for decades. Potential advantages include the decompression of gastric contents and the early administration of time-sensitive medications. However, its routine use after cardiac surgery has not been established as a gold standard yet. The NGT use for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting has been a matter of debate in literature. Also, NGT use has also been associated with the incidence of some respiratory and gastrointestinal complications and it may be a source of significant pain and discomfort to patients. In this article, we review the current available literature regarding the use of NGT during and immediately after cardiac surgery, with particular emphasis on its potential role in enhanced postoperative recovery.

METHODS

We performed a database search in October 2021 using Embase, Cochrane Library, and Medline to identify studies that examined the use of NGT in patients that underwent cardiac surgery. Data and literature about NGT's impact on post-operative nausea and vomiting, early administration of medications, interference with imaging, post-operative complications, respiratory complications, gastrointestinal complications, pain and discomfort, and enhanced recovery after surgery were examined.

RESULTS

Three reports investigating the use of NGT to reduce post-operative nausea and vomiting were examined with sample sizes of 114, 104, and 202. The use of NGT did not significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in 2/3 of the studies: a 2% nausea reduction with NGT (p < 0.05), a 7.7% nausea reduction with NGT (p = 0.6), and a 14% vomiting reduction with NGT (p = 0.007). The prevalence of pneumonia following NGT use has been shown to vary ranging from 4 to 95% with associated mortality rates of 17 to 62%.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, there is currently not sufficient evidence to support the routine use of NGT during cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to establish the role of NGT in this patient population.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Compatibility and stability of dezocine and tropisetron in 0.9% sodium chloride injection for patient-controlled analgesia administration

Tropisetron is an adjuvant for dezocine used in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and has been reported to provide superior pain control. It is efficacious in reducing the institutional incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), which decreases resource utilization and cost. However, no scientific evidence has been reported in the literature demonstrating analytical confirmation of the compatibility and stability of the combination of dezocine and tropisetron. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the stability of dezocine with tropisetron in 0.9% sodium chloride injection form for PCA administration.Commercial solutions of dezocine and tropisetron were combined and examined for compatibility and stability when diluted with 0.9% sodium chloride injection in polyolefin bags and glass bottles stored at 4°C or 25°C for up to 14 days. The initial concentrations were 40 mg/100 mL dezocine and 5 mg/100 mL tropisetron. For all samples, the compatibility parameters (including precipitation, cloudiness, discoloration, and pH values) were evaluated. Chemical stability was also determined using high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) analysis.After a 14-day period of storage at 4°C or 25°C, the initial concentrations of dezocine and tropisetron were maintained at at least 98%. All of the mixtures remained clear and colorless throughout the observation period, and no color change or precipitation was observed.These results indicated that admixtures of 40 mg/100 mL dezocine and 5 mg/100 mL tropisetron in 0.9% sodium chloride injection were stable for at least 14 days when stored in polyolefin bags or glass bottles at 4°C or 25°C and protected from light.

Comparative safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients, but these agents may be harmful. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

METHODS

Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564.

RESULTS

Overall, 120 studies and 27,787 patients were included after screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly more patients receiving granisetron plus dexamethasone experienced an arrhythmia relative to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.96, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.11-7.94), ondansetron (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.17-8.95), dolasetron (OR 4.37, 95 % CI 1.51-12.62), tropisetron (OR 3.27, 95 % CI 1.02-10.43), and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OR 5.75, 95 % CI 1.71-19.34) in a NMA including 31 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 6,623 patients of all ages. No statistically significant differences in delirium frequency were observed across all treatment comparisons in a NMA including 18 RCTs and 3,652 patients.

CONCLUSION

Granisetron plus dexamethasone increases the risk of arrhythmia.

A network meta-analysis on the efficacy of serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists used in adults during the first 24 hours for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

The serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron are potential prophylactic agents for patients with mild to moderate risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A few trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy among 2 to 3 of these 4 agents. However, the comparative efficacy of all four 5-HT(3) antagonists has not yet been quantitatively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to investigate whether the 5-HT(3) antagonists--ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron-differ in efficacy when used for the prevention of PONV.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled, double-blind studies measuring efficacy in terms of PONV prophylaxis. A Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted using published studies of 5-HT(3) antagonists for PONV prophylaxis. The odds of patients with no PONV and postoperative vomiting (POV) within each study arm 24 hours after surgery were the primary indices of drug efficacy. Data were extracted and analyzed via indirect comparisons using random effects Bayesian models in WinBUGS version 1.4.3.

RESULTS

A total of 85 studies were identified, representing 15,269 patients. The results indicate that granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53 [95% credible interval (CI), 1.15-2.00]) and dolasetron (OR = 1.67 [95% CI, 1.12-2.38]) in preventing PONV. Four antiemetic drugs had comparable efficacy in terms of preventing POV: granisetron showed similar efficacy compared with ondansetron (OR = 1.49 [95% CI, 0.90-2.43]), tropisetron (OR = 1.69 [95% CI, 0.92-3.13]), and dolasetron (OR = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.71-2.38]). Ondansetron exhibited comparable efficacy compared with tropisetron (OR = 1.14 [95% CI, 0.66-1.96]) and dolasetron (OR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.51-1.47]). Tropisetron and dolasetron were also similar in efficacy (OR = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.40-1.45]). All 5-HT(3) antagonists were statistically significantly better at preventing PONV or POV than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to PONV prophylaxis, granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron and dolasetron; ondansetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron exhibited similar efficacy. With respect to POV prophylaxis, ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron seemed to have comparable efficacy.

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.

The effect of transdermal scopolamine plus intravenous dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients with epidural PCA after major orthopedic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common complication of Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) after surgery. The authors sought to determine whether a transdermal scopolamine (TDS) patch in combination with IV dexamethasone is more effective than IV dexamethasone alone or IV dexamethasone plus IV ramosetron for reducing PONV in patients receiving epidural PCA after major orthopedic surgery.

METHODS

120 patients that received epidural PCA with hydromorphone and ropivacaine after major orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia were allocated to 3 groups: Group D (n = 40) received IV dexamethasone 8 mg, Group DR (n = 40) received IV dexamethasone 8 mg plus IV ramosetron 0.3 mg, Group DS (n = 40) received IV dexamethasone 8 mg plus a TDS patch (Group DS, n = 40). Nausea and vomiting incidences, VAS for nausea, the use of additional antiemetics, and adverse effects (a dry mouth, blurred vision, drowsiness) during the first 24 hours postoperatively were subjected to analysis.

RESULTS

The DS Group had a significantly higher rate of complete remission of PONV than the D and DR groups (82.5% vs 47.5%, and 50.0%, respectively), and had lower rates of nausea (17.5% vs 55.0%, and 50.0%), and vomiting (10.0% vs 50.0%, and 25.0%), and required less antiemetics (5.0% vs 35.0%, 22.5%) than group D and Group DR during the first 24 hours after surgery. Furthermore, no inter-group differences were observed with respect to adverse effects in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic use of a TDS patch plus dexamethasone was found to be a more effective means of preventing PONV in patients that received epidural PCA after major orthopedic surgery than dexamethasone alone or dexamethasone plus ramosetron without adversely affecting side effects.

Intravenous droperidol: a review of its use in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Droperidol (Dehydrobenzperidol, Dehidrobenzoperidol, Dridol, Droleptan, Inapsine) is a dopamine D(2) receptor antagonist that has been widely used in adults and children for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) over several decades and, more recently, for the prevention of opioid-induced PONV during patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in adults. In well controlled clinical trials of patients undergoing surgery, the efficacy of single-dose intravenous (IV) droperidol in preventing PONV was similar to that of ondansetron and dexamethasone. Droperidol significantly reduced opioid-induced PONV in adults during PCA and had a morphine-sparing effect. Droperidol is generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse effects is similar to that observed with placebo and the serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (setrons). Guidelines recommend that, in adults, droperidol monotherapy be considered for those at moderate risk of PONV, and droperidol in combination with a setron and/or dexamethasone be considered for patients at moderate or high risk of PONV. In children with moderate or high risk of PONV, droperidol is recommended for first-line use in some countries, and second-line use in others.

Is metoclopramide an alternative to tramadol in management of post-operative pain? An experimental study

In this study, metoclopramide was compared with other pharmacological agents for preventing post-operative pain. Sixty Sprague-Dawley male rats, weighing 310-345 g were included in the study; 1 cm surgical incision, including skin, facia, and muscle was made to the plantar surface of rear foot of all anaesthetized rats. Rats were randomized into four groups. In group 1 (group S) 2 cm3 saline, in group 2 (group M) 2 cm3 metoclopramide (5 mg/kg) in group 3 (group T) 2 cm3 tramadol (45 mg/kg), in group 4 (group M+T) half doses of group M and group T was given intraperitoneally. Post-operative pain was assessed after 2 h, first and second days of incision. Post-operative pain scores were found to be significantly lower in group M, group T and group M+T when compared with the control group. But there was no significant difference between these groups. We concluded that metoclopramide, with low cost, fewer side-effects and being significantly effective for preventing post-operative pain, can be an alternative to tramadol.

Antiemetic and analgesic-sparing effects of diphenhydramine added to morphine intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to examine the analgesic and dose-related antiemetic efficacy of diphenhydramine-morphine mixture for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

METHODS

Healthy women, undergoing abdominal total hysterectomy were recruited to this double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (n=40 each). In group 1, patients received saline at induction and morphine 1 mg ml(-1) alone for postoperative PCA. Patients in groups 2 and 3 received diphenhydramine 30 mg i.v. at induction and were given a 1.2:1 or a 4.8:1 ratio, respectively, of diphenhydramine-morphine mixture for postoperative PCA.

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients completed the study. The incidence of postoperative nausea (31.6% vs 67.6%, P<0.01) and vomiting (15.8% vs 40.5%, <0.05) was significantly lower in group 3 than in group 1. Furthermore, the incidence of severe nausea was significantly lower in group 3 than in group 1 (2.6% vs 24.3%, P<0.05). The rescue antiemetic requirements were also significantly less in group 3 than in group 1 (5.3% vs 24.3%, P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between group 2 and group 1 in any of the comparisons. Pain intensity, 24-h morphine consumption and diphenhydramine-related side-effects, such as sedation or dry mouth, did not differ among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

An initial bolus of diphenhydramine 30 mg at anaesthetic induction followed by postoperative PCA with a 4.8:1, but not 1.2:1, diphenhydramine-morphine mixture provides an effective antiemetic efficacy without morphine-sparing effects.

Acupressure wristbands for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the application of acupressure bands would lead to a reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting after cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

SETTING

University-affiliated tertiary care teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled to receive either acupressure treatment (n = 75) or placebo (n = 77). All patients had acupressure bands placed on both wrists before induction of anesthesia; those in the treatment group had a bead placed in contact with the P6 point on the forearm.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were assessed for nausea, vomiting, and pain scores during the first 24 hours of the postoperative period. The incidences of nausea, vomiting, pain scores, and analgesic and antiemetic requirements were similar between the 2 groups. A subgroup analysis by gender implied that acupressure treatment may be effective only in female patients.

CONCLUSION

Acupressure treatment did not lead to a reduction in nausea, vomiting, or antiemetic requirements in patients after cardiac surgery.

[Postoperative nausea and vomiting]

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain are the most common complaints following anesthesia and surgery, and due to negative emotional impact on patients, they cause prolonged postoperative recovery. The incidence of PONV is 20-30% during the first 24 h after anesthesia. Both peripheral and central mechanisms are involved in control of emesis.

FACTORS

Many factors associated with anesthesia and surgery may affect PONV: patient's age and sex, history of PONV after pervious anesthesia, administration of antiemetics prior to operation, type and duration of operation, type of premedication, induction agent, maintenance agent, reversal of muscle relaxation, treatment of postoperative pain and movement of patients. ANTAGONISTS OF 5-HYDROXYTRYPTAMINE-3 (5-HT3) RECEPTORS: Ondansetron is a competitive serotonin type 3 receptor antagonist important in prevention of PONV. However, if 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists are effective against nausea and vomiting after a variety of anesthetic and surgical procedures, then at last we may have the key to the mechanism of PONV. Prophylaxis with a combination of antiemetic drugs is more effective in prevention of PONV.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists: tropisetron, ondansetron and dolasetron

There are currently three 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists available in Australia. In this randomized, double-blind, parallel group study the prophylactic antiemetic effect of a single dose of tropisetron 2 mg, ondansetron 4 mg or dolasetron 12.5 mg was compared after major gynaecological surgery. One hundred and eighteen patients (group T n = 42; group O n = 36; group D n = 40) were evaluated for nausea, vomiting, recovery characteristics and satisfaction for 24 hours postoperatively. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Rescue antiemetic, prochlorperazine 12.5 mg i.m., was given if vomiting occurred more than 10 minutes after arrival in the recovery room. If prochlorperazine was ineffective one hour after administration, droperidol 1 mg i.v. was given. There were no significant differences between groups for the incidence of vomiting during consecutive epochs until 24 hours postoperatively or overall (57%, 75% and 72.5% for groups T, O and D respectively, P = 0.18). The incidence and number of rescue antiementic treatments for nausea or vomiting were similar. The incidence of nausea and the overall and interval nausea scores were similar except for lower "worst nausea" score in group T between 12 and 18 hours (P = 0.02). Recovery times, satisfaction and cost per patient did not differ between groups. We conclude that the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting remained high in this setting despite 5-HT3 receptor antagonist prophylaxis and that the choice between these agents should be based on the lowest available acquisition cost.

Drug interactions with patient-controlled analgesia

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has become standard procedure in the clinical treatment of pain. Its widespread use in patients with all kinds of diseases opens a variety of possible interactions between analgesics used for PCA and other drugs that might be administered concomitantly to the patient. Many of these drug interactions are of little clinical importance. However, some drug interactions have been reported to result in serious clinical problems. Drug interactions can either predominantly affect the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of the drug. Most important pharmacokinetic drug interactions occur at the level of drug metabolism or protein binding. Acceleration of methadone metabolism caused by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 induction by antiretroviral drugs or rifampicin (rifampin) has caused methadone withdrawal symptoms. Lack of morphine formation from codeine as a result of CYP2D6 inhibition by quinidine results in an almost complete loss of the analgesic effects of codeine. Alterations of methadone protein binding caused by an inhibition of alpha1-acid glycoprotein synthesis by alkylating substances are another possibility for predominantly pharmacokinetically based drug interactions during PCA. Furthermore, inhibition of P-glycoprotein by anticancer drugs could result in altered transmembrane transport of morphine, methadone or fentanyl, although this has not been shown to be of clinical relevance. Synergistic effects of systemically administered opioids with spinally or topically delivered opioids or anaesthetics have been reported frequently. The same is true for the opioid-sparing effects of coadministered non-opioid analgesics. Antidepressants, anticonvulsants or alpha2-adrenoreceptor agonists have also been shown to exert additive analgesic effects when administered together with an opioid. Inconsistent findings, however, are reported regarding the treatment of patients with opioid-induced nausea and sedation, since coadministration of antiemetics either increased or decreased the respective adverse effects or revealed additional unwanted drug effects.

Prophylactic ondansetron does not improve patient satisfaction in women using PCA after Caesarean section

Eighty-one consenting women undergoing elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia were randomly divided into two groups. In Group O patients, ondansetron 4 mg was given intravenously at the end of the surgery and 8 mg added to the morphine solution in the PCA syringe. Patients in Group P received only morphine via PCA syringe. Analgesia and nausea were measured until PCA was discontinued 24 h after the operation. Women in the two groups were similar with respect to age, duration of use of the PCA, amount of morphine used, previous history of PONV, and incidence of motion sickness and morning sickness during the current pregnancy. The number of women who complained of nausea and those needing rescue antiemetic medication was significantly less in Group O. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the patient's perception of the control of nausea and their overall satisfaction. It was noted that PONV was more frequent among women who had significant morning sickness during early pregnancy and ondansetron was beneficial in reducing PONV in these women. Although the ondansetron reduced the incidence of PONV and the need for further antiemetic medication, this did not affect patient's satisfaction regarding their postoperative care.

Effects of dopamine antagonists in human eye accommodation

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of dopamine antagonists in accommodation of the human eye. The dopamine antagonist drugs used in this experiment include 0.5% metoclopramide and 0.25% droperidol. Eighteen healthy subjects were enrolled; they were randomly assigned, in double-masked fashion, to receive topical administration of a single drop of either 0.5% metoclopramide or 0.25% droperidol in one eye, with the fellow eye receiving isotonic saline as control. The accommodative abilities of both eyes were measured before instillation, and also at 3 and 6 hr after instillation of drugs, respectively. We studied the latency of reaction, the rate of accommodation, the average accommodative power, the rate of recovering and the total recovering time as the five parameters for evaluating the accommodative ability of each eye. The results showed that there were significant changes in two parameters: the rate of accommodation and rate of recovering, whereas there were no significant changes in the other three parameters: latency of accommodation, average power of accommodation and total recovering time. In conclusion, the dopamine antagonists may have some effects on the rate of accommodation but not the degree of accommodation. Further studies with higher concentrations of these dopamine antagonists on dose-response relationships are needed before exact drug efficacy can be drawn.

Evaluation of the effective drugs for the prevention of nausea and vomiting induced by morphine used for postoperative pain: a quantitative systematic review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with morphine therapy develops in more than 60% of patients after surgery, markedly reducing patient QOL. The prophylactic effect of several antiemetics has already been studied, but evaluations, and even those using the same drug, are not uniform. The present research involved a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on prophylactic drug therapy for PONV in patients receiving morphine for the treatment of postoperative pain. The efficacy of the prophylactic administration of the drugs was examined. As a result, meta-analysis of five drugs was possible and the evidence of efficacy was shown for three drugs ranked in order of an increasing odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI): dexamethasone (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.15-0.35, p < 0.00001), droperidol (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.00001), and metoclopramide (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.75, p < 0.001). These results suggest that the three drugs are effective in prophylactic treatment for PONV. Of them, dexamethasone used as a prophylactic drug for PONV provided the best results. Dexamethasone was shown to reduce the incidence of PONV from 66-80% to 16-50% with a dose of 1.25 to 10 mg and to be suitable as a first drug of choice.

Tropisetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of tropisetron, a selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, in preventing nausea and vomiting in high-risk inpatients undergoing various surgical procedures.

DESIGN

Prospective, open, nonrandomized, observational, interventional study.

SETTING

Postanesthesia care unit, and surgical wards of the University Hospital Center, Charleroi.

PATIENTS

A total of 1,132 elective surgical inpatients (>15 years of age) in two separate surveys. The first prospective survey covered all surgical adult inpatients (n = 671) after various surgical procedures over a 3-month period. A new 3-month survey was performed to assess the effectiveness of the preventive measure and included another 461 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting were recorded in the first survey and used to establish an antiemetic policy. This consisted in the administration of tropisetron 2 mg intravenously after anesthesia induction, if two patient-related risk factors associated with high-risk surgery and general anesthesia were present.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Nausea frequency and intensity, assessed every 4 hours using a visual analog scale (VAS), frequency and times of vomiting episodes and the need for rescue medication were recorded for 72 hours postoperatively. Nausea was experienced by 18.8% and vomiting by 9.8% of the patients in the first survey (211 high risk-patients of 671). In the second survey, 137 patients of 461, considered at high-risk received prophylactic tropisetron. The proportion of patients having nausea decreased to 11.1% (p,178 0.01) and vomiting episodes to 2.8% (p < 0.001). Twenty-six of the tropisetron-treated patients (19%) suffered subsequent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Patient satisfaction with tropisetron was high.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic tropisetron can reduce the incidence of PONV in selected high-risk inpatients undergoing various types of surgical procedures.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynaecological laparotomies: a comparison of tropisetron and ondansetron

In a randomized, double-blind study, the antiemetic efficacy of a single bolus of tropisetron 5 mg (group T, 37 patients), ondansetron 4 mg (group O, 39 patients) or saline (group C, 45 patients) given at induction was compared in a homogeneous group of 121 patients undergoing gynaecological laparotomy and receiving postoperative patient-controlled intravenous morphine for 24 to 48 hours. Fewer group T and group O patients developed severe nausea compared to group C (P < 0.01, log rank test in Kaplan-Meier analysis). Group T patients also had lower nausea scores than group O at 8 to 16h (P < 0.05). The overall incidences of severe nausea in groups T, O, and C were 5.4%, 17.9%, and 44.4% respectively (P < 0.001, group T vs group C; P < 0.05 group O vs group C). In conclusion, the 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists tropisetron and ondansetron were superior to placebo in preventing PONV.

The preoperative administration of intravenous dextromethorphan reduces postoperative morphine consumption

We evaluated the effect of dextromethorphan on postoperative pain management. Sixty ASA physical status I-III female patients undergoing major abdominal surgery underwent standardized general anesthesia. Thirty patients received an i.v. infusion of dextromethorphan 5 mg/kg before anesthetic induction (Pre group), whereas the remaining 30 patients received the same volume of isotonic sodium chloride solution, followed by a postoperative i.v. infusion of dextromethorphan 5 mg/kg (Post group). Patients in the Pre group received the same volume of isotonic sodium chloride solution postoperatively. All patients were then treated with patient-controlled i.v. analgesia, which administered a 0.6-mg bolus of morphine on demand (maximal 4 h dose 20 mg). The mean visual analog pain score during cough or movement and at rest were similar in the two groups in the first 3 days postoperatively. However, Post group patients consumed more morphine than Pre group patients during the first 2 days (P < 0.01). The sedation scores, patient satisfaction, and the incidence of morphine-related side effects were similar between the two groups. We conclude that the preoperative administration of dextromethorphan 5 mg/kg reduces postoperative morphine consumption compared with postoperative administration.

IMPLICATIONS

In this double-blinded study, we found that the preoperative administration of i.v. dextromethorphan 5 mg/kg, compared with postoperative administration, reduces postoperative morphine consumption, which may provide clinical evidence of preemptive or preventive analgesic effects of dextromethorphan.

Extrapyramidal side-effects from droperidol mixed with morphine for patient-controlled analgesia in two children

We report two cases of extrapyramidal reactions occurring in children following the use of droperidol in combination with morphine for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Symptoms appeared 38 and 27 h, respectively, after commencement and after a total dose of 0.14 mg.kg-1 and 0.17 mg.kg-1, respectively. Although effective and safe in adult patients, we recommend caution with the use of droperidol-morphine mixtures for PCA in paediatric patients.

Comparative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting are important causes of morbidity after anesthesia and surgery. We performed a meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials to determine the relative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We performed a literature search of English references using both the MEDLINE database and a manual search. Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials comparing the efficiency of the prophylactic administration of ondansetron, droperidol, and/or metoclopramide therapy during general anesthesia were included. A total of 58 studies were identified, of which 4 were excluded for methodological concerns. For each comparison of drugs, a pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI was calculated using a random effects model. Ondansetron (pooled OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31, 0.61; P < 0.001) and droperidol (pooled OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54, 0.85; P < 0.001) were more effective than metoclopramide in preventing vomiting. Ondansetron was more effective than droperidol in preventing vomiting in children (pooled OR 0.49; P = 0.004), but they were equally effective in adults (pooled OR 0.87; P = 0.45). The overall risk of adverse effects was not different among drug combinations. We conclude that ondansetron and droperidol are more effective than metoclopramide in reducing postoperative vomiting.

IMPLICATIONS

We performed a systematic review of published, randomized, controlled trials to determine the relative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron and droperidol were more effective than metoclopramide in reducing postoperative vomiting. The overall risk of adverse effects did not differ.

Efficacy and adverse effects of prophylactic antiemetics during patient-controlled analgesia therapy: a quantitative systematic review

Nausea and vomiting are frequent adverse effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids. To identify the optimal prophylactic antiemetic intervention in this setting, we performed a systematic search for randomized trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, reference lists, hand-searching, no language restriction) published up to May 1998 that compared prophylactic antiemetic interventions with placebo or no treatment in the postoperative PCA-setting with opioids. Fourteen placebo-controlled trials (1117 patients) with different regimens of droperidol, ondansetron, hyoscine TTS, tropisetron, metoclopramide, propofol, and promethazine were analyzed. One PCA was with tramadol, all others were with morphine. At 24 h, the cumulative incidence of nausea and vomiting without antiemetics was approximately 50%. Droperidol 0.017-0.17 mg/mg of morphine (0.5-11 mg/d droperidol) was statistically significantly more effective than placebo without evidence of dose-responsiveness; the number needed to treat to prevent nausea compared with placebo was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8-5.2), and that to prevent vomiting was 3.1 (2.3-4.8). Compared with placebo, the incidence of minor adverse effects with droperidol was increased with doses >4 mg/d.

IMPLICATIONS

Of 100 patients treated with droperidol added in a patient-controlled analgesia pump with morphine, 30 who would have vomited or been nauseated had they not received droperidol will not suffer these effects. There is no evidence of dose-responsiveness for efficacy with droperidol, but the risk of adverse effects is dose-dependent. There is a lack of evidence for other antiemetics.

Single-dose tropisetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast surgery

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we compared the efficacy of tropisetron 5 mg with tropisetron 2 mg for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after breast surgery. One hundred forty-eight female patients were randomized to receive either tropisetron 5 mg (n = 49), tropisetron 2 mg (n = 49), or saline (n = 50) before the induction of anesthesia with thiopental and morphine. Anesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide and isoflurane. Postoperative analgesia was provided by patient-controlled analgesia with i.v. morphine. The incidence of PONV, the pain score, and the analgesic requirement were recorded for 48 h. There was no difference among groups in patient characteristics, risk factors for PONV, morphine consumption, or side effects. During the first 6 h postoperatively, the incidence of PONV after tropisetron 2 mg and 5 mg were similar and were superior to placebo (P < 0.001). After 6 h, the incidence of PONV increased significantly in patients who had received tropisetron 2 mg (P = 0.01) and was greater than that in patients who had received tropisetron 5 mg (P = 0.001). We conclude that single-dose tropisetron 5 mg is more effective than tropisetron 2 mg in the prevention of PONV after breast surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

Breast surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A single dose of i.v. tropisetron 5 mg is well tolerated and decreases the number of vomiting and nausea episodes after surgery.

[Benefit-risk and monitoring modalities of different techniques and methods of postoperative analgesia]

This review aimed to determine the benefits-risks ratio of postoperative analgesia. The various agents usually used for intravenous postoperative analgesia (paracetamol, NSAID's, opioids), and the techniques for postoperative analgesia (PCA, epidural, perinervous block) are analysed. The rules proposed for the monitoring of postoperative analgesia are considered.

[Patient-controlled analgesia. Benefits, risks, methods of monitoring]

Patient-controlled analgesia refers to a relatively new approach to morphine delivery in which patients are allowed to self-administer small doses of an opioid, to achieve adequate relief of postoperative pain. The main benefit is to reduce fluctuations in opioid plasma concentrations. A matter for worry remains the occurrence of side effects, especially ventilatory depression. In order to guarantee the efficacy and safety of this technique, the education of patients and nurses is essential. Protocols are required, specifying the use of this technique (prescription, patient monitoring, treatment of side effects).

A comparison of prophylactic ondansetron hydrochloride and droperidol for strabismus repair in adults

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic administration of an antiemetic is a common procedure for patients undergoing strabismus surgery. Droperidol and ondansetron hydrochloride are commonly used antiemetics. This study compared the rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in adult patients undergoing strabismus surgery with prophylactically administered Droperidol or ondansetron hydrochloride.

METHODS

A double-masked, randomized, prospective study was conducted comparing droperidol with ondansetron hydrochloride when administered prophylactically to adults undergoing strabismus surgery.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients entered the study with a mean age of 30 years. Twenty percent of patients had nausea immediately postoperatively and 37% had nausea before discharge with no significant differences between groups. Overall rate of emesis, time in the recovery room, and time to discharge was not significantly different between the droperidol and ondansetron hydrochloride group.

CONCLUSION

No real differences in the ability to prevent PONV between the two medications were found in this study.

Epidural infusion of bupivacaine 0.0625% plus fentanyl 3.3 micrograms/ml provides better postoperative analgesia than patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine after gynaecological laparotomy

One hundred and twenty women undergoing gynaecological abdominal operations were randomized to receive either epidural bupivacaine 0.0625% + fentanyl 3.3 micrograms/ml infusion (Group EPI, n = 57), or patient-controlled intravenous morphine analgesia (Group PCA, n = 54) for postoperative pain relief. The groups were comparable in demographic data, types and duration of operation. Group EPI achieved significantly lower verbal rating scale of pain (VRS) at rest at 0, 4, 12, 16, 20, 28 and 40th postoperative hours. The VRS during cough were also significantly lower in Group EPI at 0, 4, 8, 12, 28 and 36th postoperative hours. None of the patients had respiratory depression or hypotension. Nausea/vomiting occurred in 52.6%/33.3% of patients in Group EPI and 52.7%/37.0% in Group PCA. Most patients (84.2% in Group EPI and 72.2% in Group PCA) rated their pain management as "good". We conclude that epidural infusion of bupivacaine 0.0625% and fentanyl 3.3 micrograms/ml provide better analgesia than patient-controlled intravenous morphine after gynaecological laparotomy.

Comparison of tramadol and tramadol/droperidol mixture for patient-controlled analgesia

PURPOSE

To compare the analgesic efficacy and side effects of tramadol vs tramadol and droperidol for post-operative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

METHODS

Randomised, double-blind study. Thirty-four patients undergoing elective colorectal or head and neck surgery were allocated to Group 1 (n = 18, PCA bolus 10 mg tramadol) or Group 2 (n = 16, PCA bolus 10 mg tramadol + 0.1 mg droperidol). Anaesthesia was induced with fentanyl and thiopentone and maintained with O2, N2O plus enflurane or isoflurane with iv morphine at doses decided by the attending anaesthetists. Muscle relaxation was achieved with atracurium or vecuronium. Patients were observed four-hourly for pain using an 11-point verbal rating scale (VRS). Nausea and vomiting, and sedation were assessed using four-point scales post-operatively. Vital signs, request for rescue anti-emetic and analgesic, and overall satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean nausea scores were lower in Group 2 (1.00 +/- 1.33 vs 0.06 +/- 0.25 at 0-8 hr, 1.22 +/- 1.93 vs 0.06 +/- 0.25 at 8-16 hr, P < 0.01; 0.81 +/- 1.68 vs 0 at 32-40 hr, P < 0.05; Group 1 vs Group 2). The vomiting scores were also lower (0.50 +/- 1.04 vs 0 at 0-8 hr, 0.67 +/- 1.50 vs 0, at 8-16 hr, P < 0.05; Group 1 vs Group 2). Seven (39%) patients in Group 1, but none in Group 2 requested rescue anti-emetic (P < 0.01). There were no differences in VRS, sedation score, overall satisfaction or vital signs.

CONCLUSION

Tramadol and droperidol combination is superior to tramadol alone for post-operative PCA. It provides a similar quality of analgesia with less nausea and vomiting and without an increase in sedation.

Comparison of tropisetron, droperidol, and saline in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic surgery

This study was performed to compare the efficacy of tropisetron, droperidol, and saline in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and to compare the possible adverse effects of these drugs in gynecologic incontinence surgery. Using a randomized, double-blind study design, we studied 150 women undergoing gynecologic incontinence surgery with standardized general anesthesia. At the end of surgery, the patients received either tropisetron 5 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg, or 0.9% saline intravenously (i.v.). As a rescue antiemetic, the patients received metoclopramide 10 mg i.v.. The episodes of nausea, retching, and vomiting; the need for rescue treatment; and the type and severity of adverse events were recorded at four occasions during the 48-h observation period. Pain, anxiety, drowsiness, and general satisfaction were also evaluated on a linear numerical scale of 0-10. Complete response (no PONV within the 48-h observation period) occurred similarly in the study groups (tropisetron 25%, droperidol 22%, and placebo 18%). Tropisetron and droperidol had no effect on the incidence of nausea and retching. However, the incidence of vomiting was significantly less in the tropisetron group than in the placebo group (tropisetron 19%, droperidol 45%, and placebo 57%). The number of emetic episodes (retching and/or vomiting) per patient within 48 h was significantly decreased under tropisetron when compared with placebo (tropisetron 2.5 +/- 3.4, droperidol 4.2 +/- 6.1, placebo 5.9 +/- 7.1). With regard to adverse events, the patients in the droperidol group had significantly more anxiety than the placebo group (2-6 h postoperatively), more drowsiness than the tropisetron and placebo groups (0-2 h postoperatively), and more dissatisfaction than the tropisetron (0-6 h postoperatively) and placebo groups (2-6 h postoperatively). We conclude that tropisetron given 5 mg i.v. during anesthesia in gynecologic incontinence surgery effectively prevents vomiting but not nausea and retching, while 1.25 mg i.v. droperidol fails to prevent any of these emetic symptoms and results in adverse events.

A case of postoperative anxiety due to low dose droperidol used with patient-controlled analgesia

A multiparous woman in good psychological health underwent urgent caesarean section in labour. Postoperatively, she was given a patient-controlled analgesia device delivering boluses of diamorphine 0.5 mg and droperidol 0.025 mg. Whilst using the device she gradually became anxious, the feeling worsening after each bolus. The diagnosis of droperidol-induced psychological disturbance was not made straight away although on subsequent close questioning the patient gave a very clear history. After she had received a total of only 0.9 mg droperidol, a syringe containing diamorphine only was substituted and her unease resolved completely. We feel that, although the dramatic extrapyramidal side effects of dopaminergic antiemetics are well known, more subtle manifestations may easily be overlooked.

The prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting using a combination of ondansetron and droperidol

We have studied the effect of combination antiemetic therapy (ondansetron and droperidol) with morphine delivered by patient-controlled analgesia following major gynaecological surgery. Sixty patients were randomly allocated to one of three treatment regimens; ondansetron alone (4 mg bolus and 0.13 mg.ml-1 in the morphine solution), droperidol alone (1.25 mg bolus and 0.05 mg.ml-1 in the morphine solution), or both drugs in combination. For the first 12 postoperative hours, patients receiving combination therapy experienced significantly less nausea than those receiving single antiemetic therapy (p < 0.001). There was no difference between the regimens from 12 to 18 h. We conclude that a combination of ondansetron and droperidol added to morphine in a patient-controlled analgesia system reduces postoperative nausea to a greater extent than treatment with either drug alone following major gynaecological surgery.