P6 acupressure does not prevent emesis during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery

The impact of using P6 acupressure on the nausea, vomiting, and comfort of myocardial infarction patients: A randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Background

Nausea and vomiting are two common symptoms in myocardial infarction patients. This study aims to determine the impact of p6 acupressure on nausea, vomiting, comfort, and the need for anti-vomiting drugs in myocardial infarction (MI) patients.

Methods

This research involved 90 patients with acute heart attacks experiencing persistent nausea despite taking anti-vomiting drugs. They were divided into three groups: acupressure, placebo, and control. The acupressure group wore a wristband with a button, the placebo group had a similar wristband without a button, and the control group received no wristband. Data on nausea severity, comfort, frequency of nausea, vomiting, and retching was collected before and after the intervention at different time points. The study also assessed the use of anti-vomiting drugs within 24 h of the intervention.

Results

The patients in the acupressure group, compared to those in the placebo and control groups, experienced significantly lower severity of nausea, frequency of vomiting, nausea, and retching and a substantially higher level of comfort level during the two, four, and 6 h after the start of the intervention (P < 0.05). However, no significant difference between the placebo and control groups was observed (P > 0.05). During the 24 h after the start of the intervention, administration of anti-vomiting drugs to the acupressure group was significantly less than that done in the placebo and control groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The results illustrated that p6 acupressure reduces nausea, vomiting, and retching and increases the comfort level in myocardial infarction patients.

Epidural administration of 2% Mepivacaine after spinal anesthesia does not prevent intraoperative nausea and vomiting during cesarean section: A prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) is a common symptom during cesarean section (CS) delivery causing significant discomfort to patients. Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) can provide both intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. During CSEA, it is reasonable to administer local anesthetics to the epidural space before patient complaints to compensate for the diminished effect of spinal anesthesia. Therefore, we hypothesized that intraoperative epidural administration of 2% mepivacaine would reduce the incidence of IONV.

METHODS

Patients who were scheduled for elective CS were randomly allocated to 2 groups. Patients and all clinical staff except for an attending anesthesiologist were blinded to the allocation. After the epidural catheter was inserted at the T11-12 or T12-L1 interspace, spinal anesthesia was performed at the L2-3 or L3-4 interspace to intrathecally administer 10 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Twenty min after spinal anesthesia, either 5 mL of 2% mepivacaine (group M) or saline (group S) was administered through an epidural catheter. Vasopressors were administered prophylactically to keep both the systolic blood pressure ≥ 80 % of the baseline value with the absolute value ≥ 90 mm Hg and the mean blood pressure ≥ 60 mm Hg. The primary endpoint was the incidence of IONV. The secondary endpoints were degree of nausea, the degree and incidence of pain, and Bromage score.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were randomized, and 3 patients were excluded from the final analysis. There was no significant difference in the incidence of IONV between the groups (58% in group M and 61% in group S, respectively, P = .82). In contrast, the incidence and degree of intraoperative pain in group M were significantly lower compared to group S. In addition, the incidence of rescue epidural administration of fentanyl (18% vs 47%) or mepivacaine (2.3% vs 25%) for intraoperative pain was lower in group M compared to group S.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that epidural administration of 2% mepivacaine 20 minutes after spinal anesthesia does not reduce the incidence of IONV in CS under CSEA. However, intraoperative epidural administration of 2% mepivacaine was found to improve intraoperative pain.

Acupressure and Acupuncture Use in the Peripartum Period

Acupuncture is the procedure of inserting fine needles into specific points on the body for therapeutic purposes. Acupuncture and its derivatives (acupressure, moxibustion, electroacupuncture, and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation on acupoints) are a popular treatment choice in the peripartum period (32 wk' gestation to 14 d postdelivery). There is substantial research evidence supporting acupuncture and its derivatives in the peripartum period. Benefits in the use of acupressure to reduce labor pain intensity and a reduction in the duration of labor with acupressure have been found. There is mixed evidence for the use of both moxibustion and moxibustion with acupuncture for noncephalic presentations and for acupressure for reducing intraoperative nausea. There is limited evidence available on acupuncture use in women with high-risk pregnancies or multifetal gestations.

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and in the postoperative period.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no intervention given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 April 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies and conference abstracts, and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Our primary outcomes are intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Data entry was checked. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-four studies (involving 10,990 women) met our inclusion criteria. Sixty-nine studies, involving 8928 women, contributed data. Most studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Many studies were small with unclear risk of bias and sometimes few events. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was moderate to very low. 5-HT3 antagonists: We found intraoperative nausea may be reduced by 5-HT3 antagonists (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.71, 12 studies, 1419 women, low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in intraoperative vomiting but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, 11 studies, 1414 women, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in postoperative nausea (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54, 10 studies, 1340 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and these drugs may show a reduction in postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, 10 studies, 1450 women, low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists: We found dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative nausea but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52, 15 studies, 1180 women, very low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60, 12 studies, 942 women, low-certainty evidence) and postoperative nausea (aRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, 7 studies, 601 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if dopamine antagonists reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92, 9 studies, 860 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids (steroids): We are uncertain if intraoperative nausea is reduced by corticosteroids (aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence) similarly for intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73, 6 studies, 733 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.95, 7 studies, 793 women, low-certainty evidence). Antihistamines: Antihistamines may have little to no effect on intraoperative nausea (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.11, 1 study, 149 women, very low-certainty evidence) or intraoperative vomiting (no events in the one study of 149 women). Antihistamines may reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64, 4 studies, 514 women, low-certainty evidence), however, we are uncertain whether antihistamines reduce postoperative vomiting (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81, 3 studies, 333 women, very low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics: Anticholinergics may reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87, 4 studies, 453 women, low-certainty evidence) but may have little to no effect on intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.54, 4 studies; 453 women, very low-certainty evidence). No studies looked at anticholinergics in postoperative nausea, but they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 1 study, 161 women, low-certainty evidence). Sedatives: We found that sedatives probably reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether sedatives reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, 2 studies, 145 women, very low-certainty evidence) and they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, 2 studies, 145 women, low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists: There were no studies assessing intraoperative nausea or vomiting. Opioid antagonists may result in little or no difference to the number of women having postoperative nausea (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.45, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 1.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.43, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence). Acupressure: It is uncertain whether acupressure/acupuncture reduces intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 9 studies, 1221 women, very low-certainty evidence). Acupressure may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80, 9 studies, 1221 women, low-certainty evidence) but it is uncertain whether it reduces postoperative nausea (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence). Ginger: It is uncertain whether ginger makes any difference to the number of women having intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.21, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), postoperative nausea (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.77, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence) and postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.65, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence). Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes including adverse effects or women's views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, sedatives and acupressure probably or possibly have efficacy in reducing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. However the certainty of evidence varied widely and was generally low. Future research is needed to assess side effects of treatment, women's views and to compare the efficacy of combinations of different medications.

Effectiveness of P6 Stimulation for Reduction of Nausea and Vomiting During Caesarean Section Under Combined Spinal-Epidural Anaesthesia: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Objective

Obstetric patients who receive combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia for elective caesarean section (CS) frequently experience intraoperative nausea and vomiting (N&V). Prophylactic therapy with antiemetic agents can have multiple adverse effects to the mother and baby. We designed a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of electrical P6 stimulation for prophylactic N&V treatment for scheduled elective CS performed under CSE anaesthesia.

Methods

Following the Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent, a total of 180 patients were randomly allocated into three groups: (1) P6 stimulation (via a peripheral nerve stimulator), (2) intravenous (IV) antiemetics (metoclopramide and ondansetron), and (3) control (no IV antiemetic medications and no P6 stimulation), with 60 parturients in each group.

Results

Significantly fewer patients experienced intraoperative N&V in the P6 group (nausea 36.7% and vomiting 13.3%) and IV antiemetic group (nausea 23.3% and vomiting 16.7%) than those in the control group (nausea 73.3% and vomiting 45%; p<0.001). In addition, significantly fewer patients required rescue antiemetic medications in the P6 group (35%) and the IV antiemetic group (31.7%) than those in the control group (73.3%; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the overall anaesthetic care satisfaction reported between the three study groups.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that P6 stimulation is as simple and as effective as our routine prophylactic IV antiemetic treatment for prevention of N&V during CS performed under CSE anaesthesia that could be of great interest to patients and obstetric anaesthesiologists who prefer treatments with fewer potential side effects.

Preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anesthesia for cesarean section: challenges and solutions

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) or postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affecting women undergoing regional anesthesia for cesarean section is an important clinical problem since these techniques are used widely. There are burdens of literature about IONV/PONV and several in parturient and cesarean. However, it needs more attention. The underlying mechanisms of IONV and PONV in the obstetrical setting mainly include hypotension due to sympathicolysis during neuraxial anesthesia, bradycardia owing to an increased vagal tone, the visceral stimulation via the surgical procedure and intravenously administered opioids.

METHODS

Given the high and even increasing rate of cesarean sections and the sparse information on the etiology, incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting and the impact of prophylactic measures on the incidence of PONV/IONV, this article aims to review the available information and provide pragmatic suggestions on how to prevent nausea and vomiting in this patient cohort. Current literature and guidelines were identified by electronic database searching (MEDLINE via PubMed and Cochrane database of systematic reviews) up to present, searching through reference lists of included literature and personal contact with experts.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Taking into account the current guidelines and literature as well as everyday clinical experience, the first step for decreasing the incidence of IONV and PONV is a comprehensive management of circulatory parameters. This management includes liberal perioperative fluid administration and the application of vasopressors as the circumstances require. By using low-dose local anesthetics, an additional application of intrathecal or spinal opioids or hyperbaric solutions for a sufficient controllability of neuraxial distribution, maternal hypotension might be reduced. Performing a combined spinal-epidural anesthesia or epidural anesthesia may be considered as an alternative to spinal anesthesia. Antiemetic drugs may be administered restrainedly due to off-label use in pregnant women for IONV or PONV prophylaxis and may be reserved for treatment.

Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point PC6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Antiemetic drugs are only partially effective in preventing PONV. An alternative approach is to stimulate the PC6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, updated in 2009 and now in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of PC6 acupoint stimulation with or without antiemetic drug versus sham or antiemetic drug for the prevention of PONV in people undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2014), MEDLINE (January 2008 to December 2014), EMBASE (January 2008 to December 2014), ISI Web of Science (January 2008 to December 2014), World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the PC6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy, or combined PC6 acupoint and drug therapy compared to drug therapy, for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in people undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the incidences of nausea and vomiting after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias domains for each trial. We used a random-effects model and reported risk ratio (RR) with associated 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We used trial sequential analyses to help provide information on when we had reached firm evidence in cumulative meta-analyses of the primary outcomes, based on a 30% risk ratio reduction in PONV.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 trials involving 7667 participants. We rated two trials at low risk of bias in all domains (selection, attrition, reporting, blinding and other). We rated 25 trials at high risk in one or more risk-of-bias domains. Compared with sham treatment, PC6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced the incidence of nausea (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77; 40 trials, 4742 participants), vomiting (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.71; 45 trials, 5147 participants) and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; 39 trials, 4622 participants). As heterogeneity among trials was substantial and there were study limitations, we rated the quality of evidence as low. Using trial sequential analysis, the required information size and boundary for benefit were reached for both primary outcomes.PC6 acupoint stimulation was compared with six different types of antiemetic drugs (metoclopramide, cyclizine, prochlorperazine, droperidol. ondansetron and dexamethasone). There was no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the incidence of nausea (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 14 trials, 1332 participants), vomiting (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 19 trials, 1708 participants), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.16; 9 trials, 895 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, due to the study limitations. Using trial sequential analyses, the futility boundary was crossed before the required information size was surpassed for both primary outcomes.Compared to antiemetic drugs, the combination of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic therapy reduced the incidence of vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.91; 9 trials, 687 participants) but not nausea (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; 8 trials, 642 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as very low, due to substantial heterogeneity among trials, study limitations and imprecision. Using trial sequential analysis, none of the boundaries for benefit, harm or futility were crossed for PONV. The need for rescue antiemetic was lower in the combination PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic group than the antiemetic group (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; 5 trials, 419 participants).The side effects associated with PC6 acupoint stimulation were minor, transient and self-limiting (e.g. skin irritation, blistering, redness and pain) in 14 trials. Publication bias was not apparent in the contour-enhanced funnel plots.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of PC6 acupoint stimulation over sham. Compared to the last update in 2009, no further sham comparison trials are needed. We found that there is moderate-quality evidence showing no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs to prevent PONV. Further PC6 acupoint stimulation versus antiemetic trials are futile in showing a significant difference, which is a new finding in this update. There is inconclusive evidence supporting the use of a combined strategy of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drug over drug prophylaxis, and further high-quality trials are needed.

Sham Acupressure Controls Used in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Critique

OBJECTIVES

To explore the commonly utilized sham acupressure procedures in existing acupressure trials, and to assess whether different types of sham interventions yield different therapeutic outcomes, and, as far as possible, to identify directions for the future development of an adequate sham acupressure method.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing true acupressure with sham interventions were included. Thirteen electronic databases were adopted to locate relevant studies from inception to July 3, 2014. Meanwhile, eight Chinese journals on complementary and alternative medicine were manually searched to locate eligible articles. In addition, eligible studies listed in the reference lists of the included papers and other related systematic reviews on acupressure were also screened to further search any potentially eligible trials. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the risk of bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Back Review Group. Descriptive analysis was adopted to summarize the therapeutic outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies with 7265 participants were included. Methodological quality of the included trials was generally satisfactory. Six types of sham acupressure approaches were identified and "non-acupoint" stimulation was the most frequently utilized sham point while an acupressure device was the most commonly used approach for administering sham treatments. Acupressure therapy was a beneficial approach in managing a variety of health problems and the therapeutic effect was found to be more effective in the true acupressure groups than that in the sham comparative groups. No clear association could be identified between different sham acupressure modalities and the reported treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A great diversity of sham acupressure controls have been used in clinical practice and research. A solid conclusion whether different sham alternatives are related to different treatment outcomes cannot be derived because of significant clinical heterogeneity among the analyzed trials. Non-acupoints are generally recommended but the definite locations should be identified with caution. For studies using single sham acupoints on hands or legs, it is suggested to apply identical acupressure devices on the same acupoint as in the active intervention without any stimulation. While for studies on pain, stimulation of sham acupoints should be avoided.

Interventions at caesarean section for reducing the risk of aspiration pneumonitis

BACKGROUND

Aspiration pneumonitis is a syndrome resulting from the inhalation of gastric contents. The incidence in obstetric anaesthesia has fallen, largely due to improved anaesthetic techniques and the increased use of regional anaesthesia at caesarean section. However, aspiration pneumonitis is still a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and it is important to use effective prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether interventions given prior to caesarean section reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonitis in women with an uncomplicated pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect. If substantial clinical or statistical heterogeneity was detected, we used random-effects analysis to produce an overall summary.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in this review. However, only 22 studies, involving 2658 women, provided data for analysis. All the women in the included studies had a caesarean section under general anaesthesia. The studies covered a number of comparisons, but were mostly small and of unclear or poor quality.When compared with no treatment or placebo, there was a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 with antacids (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.32, two studies, 108 women), H2 antagonists (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, two studies, 170 women) and proton pump antagonists (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, one study 80 women). H2 antagonists were associated with a reduced the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with proton pump antagonists (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, one study, 120 women), but compared with antacids the findings were unclear. The combined use of 'antacids plus H2 antagonists' was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with placebo (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, one study, 89 women) or compared with antacids alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, one study, 119 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was poor, but the findings suggest that the combination of antacids plus H2 antagonists was more effective than no intervention, and superior to antacids alone in preventing low gastric pH. However, none of the studies assessed potential adverse effects or substantive clinical outcomes. These findings are relevant for all women undergoing caesarean section under general anaesthesia.

Pressure to the p6 acupoint and post-appendectomy pain, nausea, and vomiting: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The use of acupressure is growing. Several studies have applied pressure to the P6 to reduce postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain but have reported conflicting results. This study aimed to investigate the effects of pressure to the P6 point on pain, nausea and vomiting after appendectomy.

METHODS

A single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 88 patients after appendectomy. The subjects were randomly assigned to two groups. After the patients in the intervention group had regained their consciousness, pressure was applied to the P6 acupoint using special Acubands. In the control group, the Acubands were fastened loosely on the patients' wrists. The bracelets were kept for seven hours and pain, nausea, and vomiting were measured hourly. Student's t-test and chi-square test were used to analyze data. All analyses were performed in SPSS11.5.

RESULTS

The two groups were not significantly different in terms of age, body mass index, duration of anesthesia, and length of incision. The mean pain intensity in the two groups was not significantly different at different times. Overall, 45.4% of the P6 group and 47.7% of the control group experienced postoperative nausea. The two groups were not significantly different in the mean intensity of nausea at different postoperative hours. In total, 12 patients in the P6 group and 18 in the control group had vomiting

CONCLUSION

Pressure to the P6 did not significantly reduce pain and nausea after appendectomy. However, the incidence of vomiting was less in the P6 group. This method can be used to reduce vomiting after appendectomy. Similar studies are suggested to apply pressure with the onset of pain or nausea and vomiting.

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and can also occur in the period following the procedure. 

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 February 2012) and reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.  

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria but only 41 studies, involving 5046 women, provided useable data for the review involving women having caesareans under regional anaesthesia. The majority of the studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Only two studies included emergency surgery, however, they did not stratify data according to type of surgery. The studies covered numerous comparisons, but the majority of studies involved 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, corticosteroids or acupressure. Studies were mainly small and of unclear quality.Three classes of intervention were found to be effective in at least three out of four of our primary outcomes (intraoperative nausea, intraoperative vomiting, postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting). These interventions were 5-HT(3) antagonists, dopamine antagonists and sedatives. Other classes of intervention were effective for fewer than three of our primary outcomes.With 5-HT antagonists, we found a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.88, eight studies, 720 women). There were also reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, four studies, 405 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.77, five studies, 565 women). We did not detect a significant reduction in intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00, seven studies, 668 women).Dopamine antagonists demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.57, nine studies, 636 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64, eight studies, 536 women), with similar reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91, five studies, 412 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91, six studies, 472 women). These differences were observed with both metoclopramide and droperidol.Sedatives (most commonly propofol) demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, four studies, 285 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, four studies, 285 women), also with a reduction in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, two studies 145 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, two studies, 145 women).Acupressure was found to be effective for intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.90, six studies, 649 women) but not postoperative nausea (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, three studies, 429 women). Acupressure was not effective at reducing vomiting either intraoperatively (average RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.18, six studies, 649 women) or postoperatively (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.06, three studies, 429 women).Other effective intervention classes included corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics.There were insufficient data to demonstrate any class of intervention was superior to another. There were no significant differences observed in the comparison of combined versus single interventions.Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes or the incidence of adverse effects. However, one study showed an increase in respiratory depression with sedation (midazolam) compared with dopamine antagonists.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that many different interventions have efficacy in preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. There is little evidence that combinations of treatment are better than single agents.

P6 acupressure effectiveness on acute vertiginous patients: a double blind randomized study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of P6 acupressure on vertigo and neurovegetative symptoms, its possible interference with vestibular-ocular reflex (VOR), and its clinical usefulness during acute vertigo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred and four patients, either affected by acute vertigo (n=124) or undergoing labyrinth stimulation (n=80), were randomly divided in two homogeneous groups: an experimental group A and a placebo group B. Each patient rated severity of vertigo and neurovegetative symptoms on a visuo-analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10, before and after bilateral placement of a P6 device. The latter was placed on the P6 acupressure point (appropriate placement) in Group A patients or on the dorsal part of the carpus (inappropriate placement) in the Group B patients. Furthermore, qualitative and quantitative nystagmus parameters were collected via recorded video-oculoscopy and electronystagmography.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of Group A patients reported improvement of symptoms, which was significant for neurovegetative symptoms, but not for vertigo. In contrast, only 11% of the Group B patients reported improvement. VOR analysis did not show any significant variation of qualitative and quantitative nystagmus variables.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the P6 device is effective in improving neurovegetative symptoms in patients affected by spontaneous and provoked vertigo, without any interference with VOR. Given the low cost and lack of side-effects of the P6 device, its routine application is suggested for acute vertigo and during labyrinth stimulation.

The efficacy of acupressure for symptom management: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Acupressure is a noninvasive strategy used to manage various symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article was to review randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of acupressure for the management of symptoms.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, and PubMed using the key words acupressure, clinical trial, human, and/or randomized. Randomized clinical trials published between January 1, 2000 and January 31, 2010, which used acupressure as the sole intervention for one group, were included when they were written in English and when there were four or more studies of the efficacy of acupressure for that particular symptom.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included in this review. Investigators in 16 of 23 studies concluded acupressure was effective, primarily for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients during pregnancy and during chemotherapy. Investigators in nine of 10 studies concluded that acupressure was effective for pain in patients with dysmenorrhea, during labor and after trauma. Investigators of four studies concluded that acupressure was effective in the management of dyspnea and investigators in six studies concluded that acupressure was effective in improving fatigue and reducing insomnia in a variety of populations. However, evaluation of the randomized controlled trial reports indicated a significant likelihood of bias.

CONCLUSION

Acupressure may be a useful strategy for the management of multiple symptoms in a variety of patient populations, but rigorous trials are needed. Inclusion of acupressure as an intervention may improve patient outcomes.

Effect of acupuncture on nausea and/or vomiting during and after cesarean section in comparison with ondansetron

PURPOSE

Acupuncture has been used for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study compared the effect of electrical acustimulation with ondansetron for preventing intraoperative and postoperative emetic symptoms and improving patient satisfaction.

METHODS

After gaining ethical approval, 450 parturients scheduled for elective cesarean delivery were randomly allocated to receive either electrical stimulation using P6 acupoint (pericardium 6) bilaterally for 30 min before spinal anesthesia (group III; n = 150), or 4 mg ondansetron 30 min before spinal anesthesia (group II; n = 150), or placebo (group II; n = 150). Nausea and vomiting were evaluated and recorded intraoperatively and postoperative for 24 h by an independent anesthetist.

RESULTS

The three groups were not significantly different with respect to intraoperative ephedrine dose and duration of surgery. Nausea and vomiting occurred statistically significantly less often in the active treatment groups (II, III) during operation and for 6 h postoperatively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the incidence of nausea and vomiting from 6 to 24 h postoperatively. Patient satisfaction with PONV control was higher with the active treatment groups compared with group I.

CONCLUSION

Electrical acustimulation is comparable to ondansetron in prevention of PONV during and after cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia and in improving patient satisfaction.

Interventions at caesarean section for reducing the risk of aspiration pneumonitis

BACKGROUND

Aspiration pneumonitis is a syndrome resulting from the inhalation of gastric contents. The incidence in obstetric anaesthesia has fallen, largely due to improved anaesthetic techniques and the increased use of regional anaesthesia at caesarean section. However, aspiration pneumonitis is still a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and it is important to use effective prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether interventions given prior to caesarean section reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonitis in women with an uncomplicated pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies, involving 2658 women, are included, all having a caesarean section under general anaesthesia. The studies covered a number of comparisons, but were mostly small and of unclear or poor quality.When compared to no treatment or placebo, there was a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 with antacids (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.32, two studies, 108 women), H(2) antagonists (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, two studies, 170 women) and proton pump antagonists (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, one study 80 women). H(2) antagonists were associated with a reduced the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with proton pump antagonists (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, one study, 120 women), but compared with antacids the findings were unclear. The combined use of 'antacids plus H(2) antagonists' was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with placebo (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, one study, 89 women) or compared with antacids alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, one study, 119 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was poor, but the findings suggest that the combination of antacids plus H(2) antagonists was more effective than no intervention, and superior to antacids alone in preventing low gastric pH. However, none of the studies assessed potential adverse effects or substantive clinical outcomes. These findings are relevant for all women undergoing caesarean section under general anaesthesia.

Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Drugs to prevent PONV are only partially effective. An alternative approach is to stimulate the P6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2008), EMBASE (January 1988 to September 2008), ISI Web of Science (January 1965 to September 2008), the National Library of Medicine publication list of acupuncture studies, and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the P6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, an acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in patients undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the risks of nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We collected adverse effect information from the trials. We used a random-effects model and reported relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 trials involving 4858 participants; four trials reported adequate allocation concealment. Twelve trials did not report all outcomes. Compared with sham treatment P6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced: nausea (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83); vomiting (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83), and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). Heterogeneity among trials was moderate. There was no clear difference in the effectiveness of P6 acupoint stimulation for adults and children; or for invasive and noninvasive acupoint stimulation. There was no evidence of difference between P6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the risk of nausea (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.13), vomiting (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13). The side effects associated with P6 acupoint stimulation were minor. There was no evidence of publication bias from contour-enhanced funnel plots.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

P6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV. There was no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs.