Mechanisms underlying postoperative nausea and vomiting and neurotransmitter receptor antagonist-based pharmacotherapy

Impact of Preoperative Gum Chewing on Postoperative Anti-Emetic Use in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Benign Ovarian Masses: A Prospective, Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Objectives: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common issue for females undergoing gynecological surgeries, including those assisted by robotic systems. Despite available prophylactic measures, the incidence of PONV remains high, negatively impacting recovery and increasing healthcare costs. This study evaluates whether preoperative gum chewing reduces the need for anti-emetic drugs in females undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian mass. Materials and Methods: This prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial enrolled 92 adult females scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery to treat benign ovarian mass. Following exclusions, the remaining participants were randomly assigned to either a gum-chewing group or a no-gum-chewing group. The gum-chewing group chewed sugar-free gum for 15 min in the holding area before surgery. The primary outcome measured was the need for anti-emetics to control PONV during the first hour in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included the number of anti-emetic requests. No preemptive anti-emetics were administered during surgery. Results: Out of the initial 92 patients, 88 were included in the final analysis, with 44 in each group. The incidence of PONV requiring anti-emetics in the PACU was significantly lower in the gum-chewing group (79.5%) compared to the no-gum-chewing group (95.5%). Additionally, the number of anti-emetic requests was higher in the no-gum-chewing group. No postoperative complications such as tooth or jaw pain/injury or gastric content regurgitation were reported. Conclusions: Preoperative gum chewing for 15 min immediately before surgery significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in females undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian mass. This simple, non-pharmacological intervention improved patient comfort and reduced the need for anti-emetic medications without any adverse effects. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to develop guidelines for incorporating preoperative gum chewing into clinical practice.

Penehyclidine for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery Under Combined Intravenous and Inhalation Anesthesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Purpose

We designed this study to investigate the effect of intravenous use of penehyclidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Patients and Methods

Ninety-two Women Patients (Aged ≥ 18) Scheduled for Elective Gynecologic Laparoscopy Were Enrolled in the Current Study. Patients Were Equally Randomized Assigned Into Penehyclidine group (PHC group: received a bolus of penehyclidine 10 μg/kg during the induction of anesthesia, then followed by a continuous infusion of 10 μg/kg penehyclidine at a fixed rate of 2.0 mL/h in postoperative intravenous analgesia pump over 48h, 0.5 mg upper limit respectively) or Control group (received 0.9% saline in replace of penehyclidine at the same time points). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the postanesthesia care unit and ward area. Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores and general comfort questionnaire (GCQ) scores were assessed on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2.

Results

Patients between two groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Compared with the Control group, the incidence and severity of PONV, postoperative nausea (PON), and postoperative vomiting (POV) were significantly lower in the PHC group at 2h (PONV: P = 0.002, P = 0.004, respectively; PON: P = 0.018, P = 0.038, respectively; POV: P = 0.011, P = 0.072, respectively), 24h (PONV: P = 0.003, P = 0.001, respectively; PON: P = 0.010, P = 0.032, respectively; POV: P = 0.006, P = 0.044, respectively), and 48h (PONV: P = 0.003, P = 0.002, respectively; PON: P = 0.007, P = 0.019, respectively; POV: P = 0.002, P = 0.013, respectively) after surgery. The QoR-15 and GCQ scores of the PHC group were significantly higher than those of the Control group at POD 1, 2 (P < 0.001; P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that perioperative intravenous application of penehyclidine can effectively prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynecological laparoscopic surgery patients and improve postoperative recovery.

Antiemetic effects of sclareol, possibly through 5-HT3 and D2 receptor interaction pathways: In-vivo and in-silico studies

BACKGROUND

Emesis is a complex physiological phenomenon that serves as a defense against numerous toxins, stressful situations, adverse medication responses, chemotherapy, and movement. Nevertheless, preventing emesis during chemotherapy or other situations is a significant issue for researchers. Hence, the majority view contends that successfully combining therapy is the best course of action. In-vivo analysis offers a more comprehensive grasp of how compounds behave within a complex biological environment, whereas in-silico evaluation refers to the use of computational models to forecast biological interactions.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the effects of Sclareol (SCL) on copper sulphate-induced emetic chicks and to investigate the combined effects of these compounds using a conventional co-treatment approach and in-silico study.

METHODS

SCL (5, 10, and 15 mg/kg) administered orally with or without pre-treatment with anti-emetic drugs (Ondansetron (ODN): 24 mg/kg, Domperidone (DOM): 80 mg/kg, Hyoscine butylbromide (HYS): 100 mg/kg, and Promethazine hydrochloride (PRO): 100 mg/kg) to illustrate the effects and the potential involvement with 5HT3, D2, M3/AChM, H1, or NK1 receptors by SCL. Furthermore, an in-silico analysis was conducted to forecast the role of these receptors in the emetic process.

RESULTS

The results suggest that SCL exerted a dose-dependent anti-emetic effect on the chicks. Pretreatment with SCL-10 significantly minimized the number of retches and lengthened the emesis tendency of the experimental animals. SCL-10 significantly increased the anti-emetic effects of ODN and DOM. However, compared to the ODN-treated group, (SCL-10 + ODN) group considerably (p < 0.0001) extended the latency duration (109.40 ± 1.03 s) and significantly (p < 0.01) decreased the number of retches (20.00 ± 0.70), indicating an anti-emetic effect on the test animals. In in-silico analysis, SCL exhibited promising binding affinities with suggesting receptors.

CONCLUSION

SCL-10 exerted an inhibitory-like effect on emetic chicks, probably through the interaction of the 5HT3 and D2 receptors. Further studies are highly appreciated to validate this study and determine the precise mechanism(s) behind the anti-emetic effects of SCL. We expect that SCL-10 may be utilized as an antiemetic treatment in a single dosage form or that it may function as a synergist with other traditional medicines.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Despite the availability of several classes of antiemetics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a substantial burden for patients following surgery, resulting in patient dissatisfaction and prolonged stays in post-anesthesia care units and ultimately increasing the cost of care. Enhanced recovery protocols and PONV management guidelines are now centered on the assessment of the individual patient's risk for developing PONV, as well as multimodal prophylaxis using antiemetics targeting different mechanisms of action. Over the last two decades, the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) has emerged as a therapeutic target for the management of PONV. This review of the literature explains the role of the NK1R and its ligand-substance P-in vomiting, describes the pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties of NK1R antagonists (NK1RAs) and summarizes the clinical evidence supporting NK1RAs for PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery. In particular, we discuss the therapeutic application of NK1RA in PONV prophylaxis protocols owing to their advantages over other antiemetic classes in efficacy, duration of efficacy, safety, pharmacology, and ease of administration. Future studies will be aimed at further investigating the efficacy and safety of NK1RA-based multimodal combinations, particularly among vulnerable populations (e.g., children and elderly).

Efficacy and safety of electrical acupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting are typical postsurgical complications. Drug therapy is only partially effective. The goal of our meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of electrical acupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting and to score the quality of evidence supporting this concept.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 19, 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies (2064 patients) were included. Compared with control treatment, electrical acupoint stimulation reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.57, P < 0.001), postoperative nausea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64, P < 0.001) and postoperative vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70, P < 0.001). Electrical acupoint stimulation also reduced the number of patients requiring antiemetic rescue (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.85, P = 0.004). No differences in adverse events were observed. Subgroup analysis showed that both electroacupuncture (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, P < 0.001) and transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58, P < 0.001) had significant effects. Electrical acupoint stimulation was effective whether administered preoperatively (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.60, P < 0.001), postoperatively (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.76, P < 0.001), or perioperatively (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.67, P < 0.001). The quality of evidence was moderate to low.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrical acupoint stimulation probably reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, and reduce the number of patients requiring antiemetic rescue, with few adverse events.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Opioid-Free Anesthesia Versus Opioid Based Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a usual complication in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Minimized opioid use due to surgery has been shown to have a better effect on patient recovery after surgery. In this study we evaluate the effect of opioid free anesthesia for postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and methods: 80 patients aged 20-65 years old were included in this randomized, clinical and prospective trial. The patients belonged to the ASA classifications 1 and 2 and were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were classified into two groups: group 1 (fentanyl group- FG), which included 40 patients who received opioid anesthesia, and group 2 (opioid free anesthesia group-OFAG) which included 40 patients who received opioid free anesthesia. In patients from group 1 (fentanyl group -FG) introduction to general anesthesia consisted of giving midazolam at 0.04 mg/kg, fentanyl at 0.002 mg/kg, 2 mg/kg of propofol and 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium bromide. These patients received fractionated bolus doses of fentanyl during surgery. Prior to general anesthesia these patients did not receive dexamethasone. The patients from group 2 (opioid free anesthesia group - OFAG) received dexamethasone at 0.1 mg/kg and 1 g of paracetamol before introduction to anesthesia as a pre-emptive analgesia. Introduction to anesthesia consisted of giving midazolam at 0.04 mg/kg, lidocaine at 1 mg/kg, propofol at 2 mg/kg, ketamine at 0.5 mg/kg, and 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium bromide. Immediately after intubation, continuous intravenous infusion with lidocaine at 2 mg/kg/h and magnesium sulfate at 1.5 g/h was given. In this group, fentanyl was not given either during the introduction of anesthesia or during the intraoperative period. Immediately after extraction of the gallbladder patients from group 2 (OFAG) received 2.5 g of metamizole intravenously. PONV were recorded in the postoperative period of 24 hours after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference with respect to age, weight, sex, duration of surgery, and anesthesia time. PONV at different time intervals were statistically not significant at all postoperative time points - 1 hr, 4 hr, 8 hr, 12 hr and 24 hr after surgery in fentanyl group compared to opioid free anesthesia group. Even not statistically significant, PONV have occurred more often in patients who received opioid anesthesia. Conclusion: Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurs more often in patients who received opioids during laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to patients who received opioid free anesthesia, but without statistical significance.

Effect of individualized treatment strategy on postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynaecological laparoscopic surgery: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have always been a concern of clinicians and may increase medical costs for patients. Consensus guidelines recommend using multiple antiemetics with different mechanisms as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of PONV. Individualized risk scores for nausea and vomiting and individualized treatment strategies are feasible. This study evaluated the effect of individualized treatment strategies on postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic gynaecological operations.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. A total of 119 adult patients who underwent gynaecological laparoscopic surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly divided into an individualized treatment group or a control group, with the individualized treatment group receiving individualized prevention according to a preoperative risk score of nausea and vomiting and the control group receiving no individualized prevention. Vomiting, retching, nausea, and use of rescue medication were all recorded for 24 h after the operation. The primary outcome variable was complete response, defined as no emesis or the use of rescue medication 24 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

The complete response rate was higher in the individualized treatment group (56.7%) than in the control group (23.7%) (95% CI, 0.01-0.27; P < 0.001). The incidences of emesis (18.3% vs. 44.1%, P = 0.002) were significantly lower in the individualized treatment group than in the control group. There were no differences in any nausea (26.7% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.391) or rescue medication use (6.7% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.743). Adverse events and laboratory and electrocardiogram abnormalities occurred no more frequently in the individualized treatment group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this single-centre, double-blind, randomized study suggests that an individualized PONV prophylactic treatment strategy based on the number of PONV risk factors could be a safe and effective regimen to reduce the incidence of PONV in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine Compared to Remifentanil During Bariatric Surgery on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: a Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs frequently after bariatric surgery and is a major cause of adverse outcomes. This retrospective study investigated whether opioid-restricted total intravenous anesthesia using dexmedetomidine as a substitute for remifentanil can reduce PONV in bariatric surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic medical records of adult patients who underwent laparoscopic bariatric surgery between January and December 2019 were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the agents used for anesthesia: Group D, propofol and dexmedetomidine; Group R, propofol and remifentanil.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were included in the analyses. The frequency of postoperative nausea was significantly lower in Group D than that in Group R until 2 h after discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) (P = 0.005 in the PACU, P = 0.010 at 2 h after PACU discharge) but failed to significantly reduce the overall high incidence rates of 60.5% and 65.5%, respectively (P = 0.592). Postoperative pain score was significantly lower in Group D until 6 h after PACU discharge. The rates of rescue antiemetic and analgesic agent administration in the PACU were significantly lower in Group D than those in Group R.

CONCLUSION

Opioid-restricted total intravenous anesthesia using dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative nausea, pain score, antiemetic, and analgesic requirements in the immediate postoperative period after bariatric surgery.

A Randomised Study To Compare Palonosetron With Ondansetron for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) Following Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgeries

Background

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Methodology

In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, non-smoking females aged 18-70 years, weighing 40-90 kg, and posted for elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries were enrolled into ondansetron (Group A, n = 65) and palonosetron (Group B, n = 65) groups. Palonosetron (1 mcg/kg IV) or ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg IV) were administered just before induction. Postoperatively, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, PONV (scored on a scale of 0-3), need for rescue antiemetic, complete response, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated up to 48 h following surgery. Normally distributed continuous variables were compared using Student’s t-test. In addition, the Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare nominal categorical data as deemed appropriate. P-value <0.05 was observed as statistically significant.

Results

The overall PONV scores and postoperative nausea scores during 0-2 and 24-48 hours were comparable, but PONV scores (p = 0.023) and postoperative nausea scores (p = 0.010) during 2-24 hours were significantly lesser in Group B compared to Group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative vomiting score or retching during 0-48 hours. The amount of first-line rescue antiemetic used during 2-24 hours was significantly higher in Group A (56%) than in Group B (31%) (p = 0.012; p <0.05). A complete response to the drug during 2-24 hours was significantly higher (p = 0.023) in Group B (63%) compared to Group A (40%), whereas response was comparable during 0-2 and 24-48 hours. Both groups had a comparable incidence of adverse effects and patient satisfaction scores.

Conclusion

Palonosetron has a superior anti-nausea effect, less need for rescue antiemetics, and lesser incidence of total PONV compared to ondansetron during 2-24h and comparable effect to ondansetron during 0-2h and 24-48h postoperative period in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Genetic Susceptibility Toward Nausea and Vomiting in Surgical Patients

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequently occurring adverse effects following surgical procedures. Despite predictive risk scores and a pallet of prophylactic antiemetic treatments, it is still estimated to affect around 30% of the patients, reducing their well-being and increasing the burden of post-operative care. The aim of the current study was to characterize selected genetic risk factors of PONV to improve the identification of at risk patients. We genotyped 601 patients followed during the first 24 h after surgery for PONV symptoms in the absence of any antiemetic prophylaxis. These patients were recruited in the frame of a randomized, placebo controlled clinical study aiming to test the efficacy of dexamethasone as a treatment of established PONV. We examined the impact of selected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) located around 13 different genes and the predicted activity of 6 liver drug metabolizing enzymes from the cytochromes P450 family (CYP) on the occurrence and recurrence of PONV. Our genetic study confirms the importance of genetic variations in the type 3B serotonin receptor in the occurrence of PONV. Our modelling shows that integration of rs3782025 genotype in preoperative risk assessments may help improve the targeting of antiemetic prophylaxis towards patients at risk of PONV.

Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Adult Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Thyroidectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and disturbing problem in patients undergoing ambulatory thyroidectomy. This prospective trial aimed to explore whether dexmedetomidine (DEX) combined with azasetron (AZA) can further drop the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing ambulatory thyroidectomy compared with AZA. Methods: This single-center, randomized, double-blind trial involved 172 adult patients undergoing ambulatory thyroidectomy. The individuals were randomized to DEX + AZA group and AZA group. In the DEX + AZA group, patients received dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg kg^-1 for 10 min and then the infusion rate was held at 0.1 μg kg^-1 h^-1 until the completion of the operation, while the same amount of 0.9% saline in the AZA group. At the completion of the surgery, 10 mg azasetron was administered to every patient in both groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of 24 h PONV after ambulatory thyroidectomy. The secondary outcomes included residence time in recovery room, pain scores, severity of nausea, and adverse events. Results: No significant difference was found in the incidence of 24-h PONV between the DEX + AZA group and the AZA group [36% (30 of 84) vs. 38% (32 of 84); relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-1.40; P = 0.749]. The incidence of severe nausea was similar between the DEX + AZA group and the AZA group [57% (12 of 21) vs. 43% (9 of 21); relative risk, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.72-2.50; P = 0.355]. Conclusions: Intraoperative dexmedetomidine combined with azasetron failed to drop the incidence of 24-h PONV compared with azasetron alone in patients undergoing ambulatory thyroidectomy.

What is the ideal combination antiemetic regimen?

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

Dexmedetomidine Combined With Butorphanol or Sufentanil for the Prevention of Post-operative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Microvascular Decompression: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Patients undergoing microvascular decompression are often accompanied with high risk of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). In this study, we compare the antiemetic efficacy of butorphanol or sufentanil combined with dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing microvascular decompression.

Methods: Patients undergoing microvascular decompression were randomized into two groups. The primary outcome was the occurrence and severity of PONV during the 72 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included levels of pain intensity and sedation and consumption of opioids at 1, 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery. We also recorded the intraoperative hemodynamics, consumption of narcotic drugs, operation and anesthesia time, estimated blood loss, infusion volume and urine output, requirements of rescue antiemetics or analgesics, the satisfaction scores of patients and surgeons, complications, and length of stay.

Results: The overall incidence rates of nausea and vomiting during the 72 h after surgery were significantly reduced in group DB (76.00 and 44.00% in group DS vs. 54.17% and 22.92% in group DB, P < 0.05). Patients in group DB had a lower incidence of nausea than those in group DS at intervals of 1–6 and 6–24 h (P < 0.05). However, patients in group DB had a lower incidence of vomiting than those in group DS only at intervals of 1–6 h (P < 0.05). Similarly, the number of patients requiring rescue antiemetics was also significantly reduced in group DB compared with that in group DS at intervals of 1–6 h (P < 0.05). The number of patients experiencing moderate to severe PONV was comparable between the two groups during 72 h after surgery (P > 0.05). The consumption of opioid morphine equivalent was significantly reduced in group DB (P < 0.05). Compared with those in group DS, the satisfaction scores of both patients and surgeons were significantly increased in group DB (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Butorphanol combined with dexmedetomidine could reduce early PONV and the number of patients requiring rescue antiemetics, especially at intervals of 1–6 h, while the satisfaction scores of both patients and surgeons were significantly increased.

Intraoperative systemic vascular resistance is associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy is very high compared with other surgeries, even when many prophylactic measures have been taken. However, the pathogenesis of PONV is multifactorial. Female sex, a history of motion sickness or PONV, nonsmokers, and perioperative opioid use are the most closely related factors. Among the multiple risk factors, suboptimal gastrointestinal (GI) perfusion may be attributed to some cases of PONV, and increased systemic vascular resistance (SVR) may lead to GI ischemia. The hypothesis of this research was that SVR is related to PONV.

AIM

To investigate the relationship between SVR and PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy.

METHODS

A total of 228 patients who underwent elective laparoscopic hysterectomy were included in this prospective observational study. SVR was monitored using a noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring system. Four indices of SVR, the baseline, mean, area under the curve (AUC), and weighted AUC, were used for analysis. The incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting were evaluated while patients were awake and throughout the intervals from 0 to 2 h, 2 to 6 h, and 6 to 24 h starting upon arrival at the post-anesthesia care unit. The associations between various SVR indices and PONV were investigated by logistic regression. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV in the study was 56.14% (128/228), and PONV tended to appear within 6 h after surgery. Five variables were significant in univariate analyses, however, only SVR mean [odds ratio (OR) = 1.015, 95%CI: 1.005-1.109, P = 0.047] and duration of surgery (OR = 1.316, 95%CI: 1.003-2.030, P = 0.012) were associated with PONV after logistic regression analysis. Furthermore, patients with high SVR mean were more likely to suffer from PONV after laparoscopic hysterectomy. On average, patients who developed PONV needed more time to tolerate diet and demonstrated poorer sleep quality on the first night after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In this study, PONV was a common complication after laparoscopic hysterectomy. SVR was associated with PONV, and high SVR mean was associated with a significantly increased risk of PONV.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Intra-operative lidocaine in the prevention of vomiting after elective tonsillectomy in children: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative vomiting (POV) is a frequent complication of tonsillectomy in children. In adult patients undergoing abdominal surgeries, the use of intravenous lidocaine infusion can prevent POV.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the anti-emetic effect of an intravenous lidocaine infusion used as an adjuvant to general anaesthesia, in children undergoing elective ear, nose and throat surgery.

DESIGN

Double-blind, randomised, controlled study.

SETTING

Hospital-based, single-centre study in Chile.

PATIENTS

ASA I-II children, aged 2 to 12 years, scheduled for elective tonsillectomy.

INTERVENTION

We standardised the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated to lidocaine (1.5 mg kg intravenous lidocaine over 5 min followed by 2 mg kg h) or 0.9% saline (at the same rate and volume). Infusions were continued until the end of the surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Presence of at least one episode of vomiting, retching or both in the first 24 h postoperatively (POV).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Plasma concentrations of lidocaine and postoperative pain.

RESULTS

Ninety-two children were enrolled. Primary outcome data were available for 91. In the Lidocaine group, 28 of 46 patients (60.8%) experienced POV, compared with 37 of 45 patients (82.2%) in the Saline group [difference in proportions 21.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8 to 38.8), P = 0.024]. The intention-to-treat analysis showed that when we assumed that the patient in the Saline group lost to follow-up did not have POV, the difference in proportions decreased to 19.6% (95% CI, 0.9 to 37.2), with an unadjusted odds ratio of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.97, P = 0.044). The odds of having POV were 62% less likely in those patients receiving lidocaine compared with patients in the Saline group. The mean lidocaine plasma concentration was 3.91 μg ml (range: 0.87 to 4.88).

CONCLUSION

Using an intravenous lidocaine infusion as an adjuvant to general anaesthesia decreased POV in children undergoing elective tonsillectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01986309.

Opioid-Free Total Intravenous Anesthesia Improves Postoperative Quality of Recovery after Ambulatory Gynecologic Laparoscopy

Background:

Gynecological laparoscopic surgery is commonly performed on an ambulatory basis under general anesthesia. The postoperative quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered one of the principal endpoints after ambulatory surgery. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with opioids is known to improve postoperative QOR after ambulatory surgery. However, opioids can be associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications, which can affect postoperative QOR. The primary aim of this study was to compare the patient recovery using the QOR-40 at 24 h postoperative in ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy between opioid-free (OF) TIVA and opioid-based TIVA.

Settings and Design:

A prospective, randomized, controlled, comparative study was conducted at the day surgery center.

Patients and Methods:

Eighty females were included in the study. They were randomized into two equal groups: OF TIVA group with dexmedetomidine and propofol or opioid-based TIVA (O) group with fentanyl and propofol. The primary outcome was QOR-40 at 24 h postoperative, and the secondary outcomes were postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS), time to first rescue analgesia, number of rescue tramadol analgesia, and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Results:

A statistically significant difference in total QOR-40 score at 24 h postoperative was observed between the groups (median [range] QOR-40 of 182.0 [164.0–192.0] in the OF TIVA group and 170.0 [156.0–185.0] in the O group; P = 0.03). OF group had significantly lower time to first rescue analgesia, maximum NRS pain scores, number of rescue tramadol analgesia, and ondansetron use.

Conclusions:

OF TIVA significantly improves postoperative QOR in patients undergoing ambulatory gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of intraperitoneal versus intravenous dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following laparascopic surgery. This study compared the effect of intraperitoneal versus intravenous dexamethasone for reducing PONV after gynecological laparoscopic surgeries.

Methods

Eighty adult female patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II, scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomized to receive 8 mg dexamethasone intravenously (IV) (n = 40) or intraperitoneally (IP) (n = 40). The primary outcome was the PONV incidence during the first 24 h after laparoscopy. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, total rescue analgesic consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively, the need for rescue antiemetic drugs, and the incidence of complications that may accompany these medications.

Results

Eleven women (27.5%) in the IV group, versus only 3 (7.5%) women in the IP group, experienced nausea during the first 24 h postlaparoscopy (P = 0.037). However, 5 patients (12.5%) in the IV group, versus only 2 patients (5.0%) in the IP group, experienced vomiting (P = 0.424). No statistically significant differences were seen in the severity of nausea or the need for rescue antiemetics. The IV group had a higher rate of side-effects than the IP group (27.5% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.037). Headache and dizziness were common side effects in the IV dexamethasone group. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of mean VAS score for pain and total meperidine consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively.

Conclusions

Intraperitoneal dexamethasone at a dose of 8 mg at the end of gynecological laparoscopy reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea.

Continuous administration of ramosetron with patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy does not delay postoperative bowel function recovery: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

BACKGROUND

Currently, 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are indicated to slow gastrointestinal motility in the diarrhea-predominant subtype of irritable bowel syndrome. They are commonly used to prevent or treat postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV). We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study to investigate whether the continuous administration of ramosetron, a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, for preventing PONV and/or OINV after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) might influence bowel function recovery.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo LDG were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment regimens: no prophylactic ramosetron (Group C); ramosetron 0.6 mg added to 2-day intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) (Group R0.6); and ramosetron 1.2 mg added to 2-day IV-PCA (Group R1.2). Postoperative recovery profiles of bowel function, incidence of postoperative nausea/vomiting and pain, and perioperative data that affected bowel function recovery were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients completed the study protocol. Parameters associated with postoperative recovery of bowel function, such as time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, time to first defecation, and time to commencement of soft diet, were not significantly different between the 3 groups. The incidence of nausea 2 to 24 hours after surgery was significantly lower in Group R0.6 (20.0%) and Group R1.2 (12.5%) than in Group C (45.8%) (P < .022). The ratio of complete response 2 to 24 hours after surgery was significantly higher in Group R0.6 (80.0%) and Group R1.2 (87.5%) than in Group C (54.2%) (P < .022). The incidence of retching 24 to 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower in Group R0.6 (0.0%) and Group R1.2 (4.2%) than in Group C (16.7%) (P < .043).

CONCLUSION

Continuous administration of ramosetron with patient-controlled analgesia to prevent PONV and OINV after LDG did not delay postoperative bowel function recovery.

Amisulpride Prevents Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients at High Risk

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting causes distress for patients and can prolong care requirements. Consensus guidelines recommend use of multiple antiemetics from different mechanistic classes as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The prophylactic efficacy of the dopamine D2/D3 antagonist amisulpride in combination with other antiemetics was investigated.

Methods

This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter trial was conducted in 1,147 adult surgical patients having three or four postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous amisulpride (5 mg) or matching placebo at induction of general anesthesia, in addition to one standard, nondopaminergic antiemetic, most commonly ondansetron or dexamethasone. Vomiting/retching, nausea, and use of rescue medication were recorded for 24 h after wound closure. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue medication use in the 24-h postoperative period.

Results

Complete response occurred in 330 of 572 (57.7%) of the amisulpride group and 268 of 575 (46.6%) of the control group (difference 11.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3 to 16.8; P &lt; 0.001). The incidences of emesis (13.8% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.003), any nausea (50.0% vs. 58.3%, P = 0.002), significant nausea (37.1% vs. 47.7%, P &lt; 0.001), and rescue medication use (40.9% vs. 49.4%, P = 0.002) were significantly lower in the amisulpride group. Adverse events and laboratory and electrocardiogram abnormalities occurred no more frequently with amisulpride than with placebo.

Conclusions

Intravenous amisulpride was safe and effective as prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting when given in combination with an antiemetic from another class to adult patients at high risk for suffering postoperative nausea and vomiting undergoing elective surgery under inhalational general anesthesia.

The pathophysiology, incidence, impact, and treatment of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Opioid medications are integral in managing acute moderate-to-severe pain. Opioid analgesics bind to μ (mu), κ (kappa), or δ (delta) opioid receptors in the brain, spinal cord, and digestive tract. However, opioids cause adverse effects that may interfere with their therapeutic use. Some adverse effects wane over time, but patients using opioids for acute pain struggle with opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) the entire time they take the opioid. This article discusses the underlying mechanisms, clinical implications, and treatment strategies of OINV.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search and review of Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar for articles relating to OINV. In addition, package inserts provided pharmacologic data and dose recommendations as needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Research suggests approximately 40% of patients may experience nausea and 15%-25% of patients may experience vomiting after opioid administration. Nausea often precedes vomiting, although they can occur separately. Many patients receiving opioids rate the nausea and vomiting as worse than their pain. Nausea and vomiting can lead to complications including electrolyte imbalances, malnutrition, and volume depletion, and can also negatively affect quality of life and postoperative recovery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are several medications that can be used to treat OINV including serotonin receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. Healthcare providers should be proactive about discussing OINV with patients, as this may improve patient outcomes and pain relief.

Progress in understanding mechanisms of opioid-induced gastrointestinal adverse effects and respiratory depression

Opioids evoke analgesia through activation of opioid receptors (predominantly the μ opioid receptor) in the central nervous system. Opioid receptors are abundant in multiple regions of the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system including enteric neurons. Opioid-related adverse effects such as constipation, nausea, and vomiting pose challenges for compliance and continuation of the therapy for chronic pain management. In the post-operative setting opioid-induced depression of respiration can be fatal. These critical limitations warrant a better understanding of their underpinning cellular and molecular mechanisms to inform the design of novel opioid analgesic molecules that are devoid of these unwanted side-effects. Research efforts on opioid receptor signalling in the past decade suggest that differential signalling pathways and downstream molecules preferentially mediate distinct pharmacological effects. Additionally, interaction among opioid receptors and, between opioid receptor and non-opioid receptors to form signalling complexes shows that opioid-induced receptor signalling is potentially more complicated than previously thought. This complexity provides an opportunity to identify and probe relationships between selective signalling pathway specificity and in vivo production of opioid-related adverse effects. In this review, we focus on current knowledge of the mechanisms thought to transduce opioid-induced gastrointestinal adverse effects (constipation, nausea, vomiting) and respiratory depression.

Maropitant administered orally 2-2.5 h prior to morphine and dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of emesis in cats

Objectives The main goal of this study was to test the antiemetic effects of maropitant administered orally 2-2.5 h prior to morphine and dexmedetomidine in cats. Methods Eighty-three healthy female cats were randomized to receive maropitant (8 mg orally; n = 39) or no treatment (control; n = 44), 2-2.5 h prior to morphine 0.1 mg/kg and dexmedetomidine 20 µg/kg intramuscularly. The incidence of sialorrhea, lip licking, retching and vomiting were recorded after morphine/dexmedetomidine injection. Results There were no differences between groups in terms of age or weight. The treated group received a mean ± SD dose of maropitant of 2.9 ± 0.6 mg/kg. The incidence of sialorrhea and lip licking was no different between groups. The incidence of retching (control 36% vs maropitant 13%; P = 0.012) and emesis (control 32% vs maropitant 13%; P = 0.03) was significantly reduced in cats treated with maropitant. Conclusions and relevance Maropitant 8 mg (total dose) administered orally 2-2.5 h prior to morphine and dexmedetomidine significantly reduced, but did not eliminate, the incidences of retching and vomiting. Maropitant did not decrease the occurrence of sialorrhea and lip licking, signs that may be indicative of nausea. Maropitant might be useful for morning administration to prevent emesis in outpatient cats requiring sedation or anesthesia; however, dose regimens or interval of administration might require improvement.

Corticosteroids for adult patients with advanced cancer who have nausea and vomiting (not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery)

BACKGROUND

Nausea is a common symptom in advanced cancer, with a prevalence of up to 70%. While nausea and vomiting can be related to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery, a significant number of people with advanced cancer also suffer from nausea unrelated to such therapies. Nausea and vomiting may also cause psychological distress, and have a negative impact on the quality of life of cancer patients; similarly to pain, nausea is often under-treated. The exact mechanism of action of corticosteroids on nausea is unclear, however, they are used to manage a number of cancer-specific complications, including spinal cord compression, raised intracranial pressure, and lymphangitis carcinomatosis. They are also commonly used in palliative care for a wide variety of non-specific indications, such as pain, nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and low mood. However, there is little objective evidence of their efficacy in symptom control, and corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. In view of their widespread use, it is important to seek evidence of their effects on nausea and vomiting not related to cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL EBSCO, Science Citation Index Web of Science, Latin America and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science Web of Science, and clinical trial registries, from inception to 23rd August 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any double-blind randomised or prospective controlled trial that included adults aged 18 years and over with advanced cancer with nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery were eligible for the review, when using corticosteroids as antiemetic treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 451 participants. The trial size varied from 51 to 280 participants. Two studies compared dexamethasone to placebo, and the third study compared a number of additional interventions in various combinations, including metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, tropisetron, and dexamethasone. The duration of the studies ranged from seven to 14 days. We included two studies (127 participants) with data at eight days in the meta-analysis for nausea intensity; no data were available that incorporated the same outcome measures for the third study. Corticosteroid therapy with dexamethasone resulted in less nausea (measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with a lower score indicating less nausea) compared to placebo at eight days (MD 0.48 lower nausea, 95% CI 1.53 lower to 0.57 higher; very low-quality evidence), although this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.37). Frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between groups, and the interventions were well tolerated. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of nausea, and the use of different agents, dosages, and comparisons. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible due to insufficient data. The quality of this evidence was downgraded by three levels, from high to very low due to imprecision, likely selection bias, attrition bias, and the small number of participants in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are few studies assessing the effects of corticosteroids on nausea and vomiting not related to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery in adult cancer patients. This review found very low-quality evidence which neither supported nor refuted corticosteroid use in this setting. Further high quality studies are needed to determine if corticosteroids are efficacious in this setting.

Intravenous Amisulpride for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Background

Two essentially identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III studies evaluated the efficacy of intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3 antagonist, in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult surgical patients.

Methods

Adult inpatients undergoing elective surgery during general anesthesia and having at least two of the four Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting were enrolled at 9 U.S. and 10 European sites. A single 5-mg dose of amisulpride or matching placebo was given at induction of anesthesia. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting/retching and no use of antiemetic rescue medication in the 24-h postoperative period. Nausea incidence was a secondary endpoint.

Results

Across the two studies, 689 patients were randomized and dosed with study medication, of whom 626 were evaluable per protocol. In the U.S. study, 46.9% (95% CI, 39.0 to 54.9) of patients achieved complete response in the amisulpride group compared to 33.8% (95% CI, 26.2 to 42.0) in the placebo group (P = 0.026). In the European study, complete response rates were 57.4% (95% CI, 49.2 to 65.3) for amisulpride and 46.6% (95% CI, 38.8 to 54.6) for placebo (P = 0.070). Nausea occurred less often in patients who received amisulpride than those who received placebo. There was no clinically significant difference in the safety profile of amisulpride and placebo; in particular, there were no differences in terms of QT prolongation, extrapyramidal side effects, or sedation.

Conclusions

One of the two trials demonstrated superiority, while pooling both in a post hoc change to the plan of analysis supported the hypothesis that amisulpride was safe and superior to placebo in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a population of adult inpatients at moderate to high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Comparison of Dexamethasone-Dimenhydrinate and Dexamethasone-Ondansetron in Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Postoperative Patients

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting is one of the most common problems after implementation of general anesthesia. The incidence can reach 80% in high-risk patients, depending on the type of surgery. In our study, we aimed to compare dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate and dexamethasone-ondansetron combinations in prevention of nausea and vomiting in postoperative patients.

METHOD

Sixty 18-65-year-olds ASAI-II females who underwent rhinoplasty were included in the study. Patients were randomly included in two groups: Dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate group (group DD) and dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO). All patients received dexamethasone 8 mg iv after endotracheal intubation. Anesthesia continuation was established with sevoflurane, air-oxygen mixture and remifentanil infusion. At the 30th minute of the operation, group DO received ondansetron 4 mg iv and group DD received dimenhydrinate 1 mg/kg iv. For postoperative analgesia tramadol (1.5 mg/kg) iv, tenoksikam (20 mg) and afterward for postoperative patient-controlled tramadol was used. In the postoperative recovery room, nausea and vomiting were evaluated at the 30th, 60th, 120th minutes and at the end of 24 h. Total amount of tramadol was recorded. All results were statistically evaluated.

OBSERVATIONS

Demographics and Apfel risk scores of both groups were similar. Surgical operation duration (p = 0.038) and total preoperative remifentanil consumption were higher in group DD (p = 0.006). In group DO, nausea at 30 and 60 min (p = 0.001, p = 0.007), retching at 30 and 60 min (p = 0.002, p = 0.006) were higher than group DD. The additional antiemetic need in group DO was significantly higher at 30 min (p = 0.001). Postoperative analgesic consumption was similar in both groups.

RESULT

Our study revealed that dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate combination was more effective than dexamethasone-ondansetron in prevention of nausea and vomiting after rhinoplasty operations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Effect of sevoflurane anesthesia on the comprehensive mRNA expression profile of the mouse hippocampus

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after general anesthesia. Recent studies suggested that the hippocampus is involved in PONV. Hypothesising that hippocampal dopaminergic neurons are related to PONV, we examined the comprehensive mRNA profile of the hippocampus, using a sevoflurane-treated mouse model to confirm this. This study was conducted after approval from our institutional animal ethics committee, the Animal Research Center of Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine (project number: 12-033). Eight mice were assigned to two groups: a naïve group and a sevoflurane group (Sev group). In the Sev group, four mice were anesthetised with 3.5% sevoflurane for 1 hour. Subsequently, mRNA was isolated from their hippocampal cells and RNA sequencing was performed on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 platform. Mapping of the quality-controlled, filtered paired-end reads to mouse genomes and quantification of the expression levels of each gene were performed using R software. The Rtn4rl2 gene that encodes the Nogo receptor was the most up-regulated gene in the present study. The expression levels of dopamine receptor genes and the tachykinin gene were increased by sevoflurane exposure, while the genes related to serotonin receptors were not altered by sevoflurane exposure. The expression levels of LIM-homeodomain-related genes were highly down-regulated by sevoflurane. These findings suggest that sevoflurane exposure induces dopaminergic stimulation of hippocampal neurons and triggers PONV, while neuronal inflammation caused by LIM-homeodomain-related genes is down-regulated by sevoflurane.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine with fentanyl for maintenance of intraoperative hemodynamics in hypertensive patients undergoing major surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Background:

The objective of this study was to study and compare the effects of intravenous dexmedetomidine and fentanyl on intraoperative hemodynamics, opioid consumption, and recovery characteristics in hypertensive patients.

Methods:

Fifty-seven hypertensive patients undergoing major surgery were randomized into two groups, Group D (dexmedetomidine, n = 29) and Group F (fentanyl, n = 28). The patients received 1 μg/kg of either dexmedetomidine or fentanyl, followed by 0.5 μg/kg/h infusion of the same drug, followed by a standard induction protocol. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressures (MAPs), end-tidal isoflurane concentration, and use of additional fentanyl and vasopressors were recorded throughout.

Results:

Both dexmedetomidine and fentanyl caused significant fall in HR and MAP after induction and dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the induction dose of thiopentone (P = 0.026). After laryngoscopy and intubation, patients in Group D experienced a fall in HR and a small rise in MAP (P = 0.094) while those in Group F showed significant rise in HR (P = 0.01) and MAP (P = 0.004). The requirement of isoflurane and fentanyl boluses was significantly less in Group D. The duration of postoperative analgesia was longer in Group D (P = 0.015) with significantly lower postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Infusion of dexmedetomidine in hypertensive patients controlled the sympathetic stress response better than fentanyl and provided stable intraoperative hemodynamics. It reduced the dose of thiopentone, requirement of isoflurane and fentanyl boluses. The postoperative analgesia was prolonged, and incidence of PONV was less in patients who received dexmedetomidine.

Severe Nausea and Vomiting in the Evaluation of Nitrous Oxide in the Gas Mixture for Anesthesia II Trial

Background

The Evaluation of Nitrous oxide in the Gas Mixture for Anesthesia II trial randomly assigned 7,112 noncardiac surgery patients to a nitrous oxide or nitrous oxide–free anesthetic; severe postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was a prespecified secondary end point. Thus, the authors evaluated the association between nitrous oxide, severe PONV, and effectiveness of PONV prophylaxis in this setting.

Methods

Univariate and multivariate analyses of patient, surgical, and other perioperative characteristics were used to identify the risk factors for severe PONV and to measure the impact of severe PONV on patient outcomes.

Results

Avoiding nitrous oxide reduced the risk of severe PONV (11 vs. 15%; risk ratio [RR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.84]; P &lt; 0.001), with a stronger effect in Asian patients (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; interaction P = 0.004) but lower effect in those who received PONV prophylaxis (RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.05]; P = 0.18). Gastrointestinal surgery was associated with an increased risk of severe PONV when compared with most other types of surgery (P &lt; 0.001). Patients with severe PONV had lower quality of recovery scores (10.4 [95% CI, 10.2 to 10.7] vs. 13.1 [95% CI, 13.0 to 13.2], P &lt; 0.0005); severe PONV was associated with postoperative fever (15 vs. 20%, P = 0.001). Patients with severe PONV had a longer hospital stay (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.23], P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The increased risk of PONV with nitrous oxide is near eliminated by antiemetic prophylaxis. Severe PONV, which is seen in more than 10% of patients, is associated with postoperative fever, poor quality of recovery, and prolonged hospitalization.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 1: pathophysiological considerations

BACKGROUND

The present article has been written to convey concepts of anaesthetic care within the context of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme, thus aligning the practice of anaesthesia with the care delivered by the surgical team before, during and after surgery.

METHODS

The physiological principles supporting the implementation of the ERAS programmes in patients undergoing major abdominal procedures are reviewed using an updated literature search and discussed by a multidisciplinary group composed of anaesthesiologists and surgeons with the aim to improve perioperative care.

RESULTS

The pathophysiology of some key perioperative elements disturbing the homoeostatic mechanisms such as insulin resistance, ileus and pain is here discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based strategies aimed at controlling the disruption of homoeostasis need to be evaluated in the context of ERAS programmes. Anaesthesiologists could, therefore, play a crucial role in facilitating the recovery process.

Genetic factors associated with pharmacotherapy and background sensitivity to postoperative and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a most common complication of surgery and anesthesia. It has been suggested that the inherited factors may play a significant role in the background sensitivity to both PONV and also chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), including resistance to antiemetic prophylaxis and/or therapy. This notion could be best exemplified by occurrence of PONV in several generations of families and concordance of PONV in monozygotic twins. The most frequently addressed issue in the research on genomic background of PONV/CINV relates to the inherited resistance to the antiemetic treatment (pharmacogenomics), and in lesser degree to their genomic background. The most common group of antiemetics consists of 5HT3 receptor antagonists, and this group was an initial target of pharmacogenomic research. Most research approaches have been based on the investigation of polymorphic variations in the target for the antiemetic 5HT3 receptor antagonists, i.e., serotonin receptor subunits A and B (HTR3A and HTR3B). The other area of pharmacogenomic investigations includes metabolic pathways of 5HT3 antagonists, in particular polymorphic variants of the CYP450 2D6 isoform (CYP2D6) because most of them are metabolized in various degrees by the CYP2D6 system. The results of targeted genomic association studies indicate that other genes are also associated with PONV and CINV, including OPRM1, and ABCB1. In addition, genes such as DRD2 and CHRM3 genes have recently been associated with PONV. The new genome-wide association studies seem also to indicate that the background genomic sensitivity to PONV and CINV might be multifactorial and include several genomic pathways.

The cellular mechanisms of the antiemetic action of dexamethasone and related glucocorticoids against vomiting

Glucocorticoids, used primarily as anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory drugs, are also effective, alone or combined with other antiemetics, for preventing nausea and vomiting. Dexamethasone, one of the glucocorticoids, has been suggested as a first-line drug for preventing low-level emetogenic chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and in patients with only one or two risks for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Dexamethasone combined with 5-HT3 or tachykinin NK1 antagonists is also suggested for higher-level emetogenic chemotherapy and radiotherapy and for patients at high risk for PONV. Glucocorticoids may act via the following mechanisms: (1) anti-inflammatory effect; (2) direct central action at the solitary tract nucleus, (3) interaction with the neurotransmitter serotonin, and receptor proteins tachykinin NK1 and NK2, alpha-adrenaline, etc.; (4) maintaining the normal physiological functions of organs and systems; (5) regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis; and (6) reducing pain and the concomitant use of opioids, which in turn reduces opioid-related nausea and vomiting.

Evaluation of antiemetic effect of intravenous palonosetron versus intravenous ondansetron in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), without active intervention, following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unacceptably high. We evaluated the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) palonosetron in counteracting PONV during the first 24 hrs following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, using ondansetron as the comparator drug.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a randomized, controlled, single blind, parallel group trial, single pre-induction IV doses of palonosetron (75 mcg) or ondansetron (4 mg) were administered to adult patients of either sex undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were 49 subjects per group. The pre-anesthetic regimen, anesthesia procedure and laparoscopic technique were uniform. The primary effectiveness measure was total number of PONV episodes in the 24 hrs period following end of surgery. The frequencies of individual nausea, retching and vomiting episodes, visual analog scale (VAS) score for nausea at 2, 6 and 24 hrs, use of rescue antiemetic (metoclopramide), number of complete responders (no PONV or use of rescue in 24 hrs) and adverse events were secondary measures.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in primary outcome. Similarly, the frequencies of nausea, retching and vomiting episodes, when considered individually, did not show significant difference. Nausea score was comparable at all time points. With palonosetron, 14 subjects (28.6%) required rescue medication while 13 (26.5%) did so with ondansetron. The number of complete responders was 14 (28.6%) and 16 (32.7%), respectively. Adverse events were few and mild. QTc prolongation was not encountered.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron is comparable to ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy when administered as single pre-induction dose.

The management of postoperative nausea and vomiting: current thoughts and protocols

The postoperative course of surgical patients can have a tremendous impact on the surgical outcome and on patient satisfaction. One of the most significant issues is postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) which, despite being a common side effect of general anesthesia, has received little attention in the plastic surgery literature. The incidence and potential consequences of PONV are frequently underestimated and consequently the need for prophylaxis is often overlooked. There are significant consequences to this seemingly minor morbidity that extend beyond patient discomfort and dissatisfaction. In addition to being considered a significant undesirable outcome by patients, severe cases of PONV may result in postoperative complications and unplanned hospital admissions. In this article we overview the mechanism, pathophysiology, and risk factors for PONV and provide a comprehensive algorithmic approach to its management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Efficacy of the oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist aprepitant administered with ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Background

5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, dexamethasone and droperidol were used for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Recently, neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonist has been used for PONV. We evaluated the effect of oral aprepitant premedication in addition to ondansetron.

Methods

A total 90 patients scheduled for elective rhinolaryngological surgery were allocated to three groups (Control, Ap80, Ap125), each of 30 at random. Ondansetron 4 mg was injected intravenously to all patients just before the end of surgery. On the morning of surgery, 80 mg and 125 mg aprepitant were additionally administered into the Ap80 group and Ap125 group, respectively. The rhodes index of nausea, vomiting and retching (RINVR) was checked at 6 hr and 24 hr after surgery.

Results

Twelve patients who used steroids unexpectedly were excluded. Finally 78 patients (control : Ap80 : Ap125 = 24 : 28 : 26) were enrolled. Overall PONV occurrence rate of Ap125 group (1/26, 3.9%) was lower (P = 0.015) than the control group (7/24, 29.2%) at 6 hr after surgery. The nausea distress score of Ap125 group (0.04 ± 0.20) was lower (P = 0.032) than the control group (0.67 ± 1.24) at 6 hr after surgery. No evident side effect of aprepitant was observed.

Conclusions

Oral aprepitant 125 mg can be used as combination therapy for the prevention of PONV.

Nausea and vomiting after surgery: it is not just postoperative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to highlight postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), to discuss why it occurs, how it might be prevented and then how it can be treated.

RECENT FINDINGS

PONV/postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) is a problem that patients identify as one of the worst, if not the worst problem that can occur after surgery. Therapy is not perfect, yet there are anaesthesia techniques that can help minimize the problem and drugs that can be used both to prevent and also treat the problem once it occurs. There is a genetic basis for why some people experience PONV/PDNV more than others and also why treatment for some is better than others.

SUMMARY

It is easy to turn the vapourizer dial, but that is a part of the problem. Not everyone reacts the same to drugs. Although PDNV is not as well characterized as PONV, at the very least, avoid an anaesthetic that may make PONV/PDNV worse and be aggressive in treating the problem.

The implementation of evidence-based practice for the prevention/management of post-operative nausea and vomiting

Aim  To bring the research evidence for the prevention/management of post-operative nausea and vomiting into clinical practice in the surgical services department of a community hospital. Methods  Audit and feedback were used to lead organisational change at the project hospital. A team of key stakeholders was created and helped to bring change to the way post-operative nausea and vomiting was treated and managed at the institution. The Chief of Anesthesia, Assistant Chief Nursing Officer, Nurse Researcher, Director of Surgical Services, operating room manager, post-anaesthesia care unit manager, pre-admission testing nurse and author as team leader made up the change management team. Current compliance with the six criteria set forth as research evidence for the change was derived from a surgical chart audit. Strategies for changes to increase compliance were then developed by the team. For the next several months change management occurred. Results  There was a vast improvement in evidence-based practice following change management. Furthermore, post-operative nausea and vomiting decreased from 18% at the start to 5% nausea and 0% vomiting at the end. Conclusion  Change management using audit and feedback is effective in changing organisational practice and in improving patient outcomes following surgery.