Comparison of Palonosetron, Dexamethasone, and Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone as Prophylactic Antiemetic and Antipruritic Drug in Patients Receiving Intrathecal Morphine for Lower Segment Cesarean Section

Commonly used antiemetics for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT3 antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority of any drug class is yet to be established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis in women receiving neuraxial morphine for Caesarean delivery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Wanfang Data for eligible randomised controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) within 24 h after surgery. We used a Bayesian random-effects model and calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous data. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses for primary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies with 4238 women were included. In the primary analyses of all women, 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone significantly reduced PON and POV compared with placebo, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone were more effective than monotherapy. In the subgroup analyses, similar results were seen in women receiving epidural morphine or intrathecal morphine alone but not in women receiving intrathecal morphine with fentanyl or sufentanil. However, most included studies had some concerns or a high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy in preventing PONV associated with neuraxial morphine after Caesarean delivery. Future studies are needed to determine the role of prophylactic antiemetics in women receiving intrathecal morphine and lipophilic opioids.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42023454602.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Gastrointestinal Surgery with Double Prophylactic Therapy

Purpose  Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major problem after surgery. This study aimed to demonstrate the incidence of PONV and the potential associated factors in female patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery against the background of double prophylactic therapy. Methods  Our retrospective study recruited 109 female patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery with double prophylactic therapy, combining palonosetron with dexamethasone, from October 2020 to March 2021, at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. Patient characteristics and perioperative management factors were included in univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors influencing PONV. Results  Four patients lacked complete records, and of the 105 patients included in the final analysis, 53 (50.5%) patients developed PONV. Two influencing factors for PONV were identified: a history of chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 0.325, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.123-0.856; p  = 0.023) and dosage of hydromorphone ≥ 0.02 mg/kg (OR 2.857, 95% CI 1.247-6.550; p  = 0.013). The performance of the multivariate logistic regression was evaluated by analyzing receiver operating characteristic curves, resulting in an area under the curve value of 0.673. Conclusion  The incidence of PONV remains high in female patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery, even with double prophylactic therapy. A dosage of hydromorphone ≥ 0.02 mg/kg may increase risk of PONV, whereas a history of chemotherapy might be a protective factor.

Ondansetron for the Prevention of Pruritus in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery With Intrathecal Opioid: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Pruritus is a frequently reported and unpleasant side effect following intrathecal opioid use with frequency further increased among parturients. We have performed a systematic review to assess the overall efficacy of ondansetron for the prevention of pruritus in patients receiving intrathecal opioid as part of spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was conducted from date of inception to September 2022. Studies that included patients undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia using intrathecal opioid were included. The primary outcome was the presence of pruritus, and the secondary outcome was time to onset of pruritus. Data from included studies were pooled for analysis using an appropriately determined random-effects model. Outcomes were presented using forest plots and 95% confidence intervals. Additional sensitivity and subgroup analysis were performed. Trial sequential analysis was conducted for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized controlled trials with a total of 2586 patients were included: 1219 received ondansetron, 1030 received a placebo, and a further 337 received a different study drug and were excluded from analysis. Opioids used in the included studies were morphine, fentanyl, and sufentanil. Patients who received ondansetron showed a significant reduction in the incidence of pruritus compared to the control group (RR, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.92; I 2 = 64%). There was no significant difference in pruritus onset between the groups (mean difference [MD], 17.54 minutes; 95% CI, -2.18 to 37.26; I 2 = 83%). The overall Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of quality of evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review has demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of pruritus following the use of ondansetron. This is in contrast to previously published meta-analyses. Studies included were of varying quality and some at high risk of bias with a high degree of statistical heterogeneity. Furthermore, high-quality and well-powered studies are required to confirm these findings.

Pharmacological agents for prevention of pruritus in women undergoing Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuraxial opioids provide effective analgesia for Caesarean delivery, however, pruritus can be a troubling side-effect. Effective agents to prevent pruritus are needed. Our objective was to perform an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide clinicians with a comparison of relative efficacy of available interventions to reduce the incidence of pruritus, induced by either intrathecal or epidural single-shot morphine, in women undergoing Caesarean delivery.

METHODS

Databases systematically searched (up to January 2022) included PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, EBSCO CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, and two Cochrane databases. We included randomised, controlled trials involving adult female patients undergoing Caesarean delivery. We pooled trials comparing interventions used for preventing pruritus after Caesarean delivery and performed a Bayesian model network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The final primary network included data from comparisons of 14 distinct interventions (including placebo) used to reduce the incidence of pruritus in 6185 participants. We judged five interventions to be 'definitely superior' to placebo: propofol, opioid agonist-antagonists (neuraxial), opioid antagonists, opioid agonist-antagonists (systemic), and serotonin antagonists. For the network evaluating the incidence of severe pruritus (warranting additional therapeutic treatment of pruritus), data were available for 14 interventions (including placebo) in 4489 patients. For this outcome, we judged three interventions to be 'definitely superior' to placebo: dopamine antagonists (neuraxial) and systemic and neuraxial opioid agonist-antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found several interventions to be effective in reducing the incidence of pruritus. Although sub-hypnotic doses of propofol appear to have an antipruritic effect, replication of this finding and further investigation of optimal dosing are warranted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42022367058).

A comparison of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone as single-agents or in combination in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A randomized trial

Background

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is quite high after laparoscopic surgeries. This study endeavors to compare the efficacy of the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone with that of either drug alone in the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries.

Methods

This randomized, parallel-group trial was done on ninety adults of American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II patients aged 18-60 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of thirty patients each. Group P (n = 30) received palonosetron 0.075 mg intravenously (iv), Group D (n = 30) received dexamethasone 8 mg iv and Group P + D (n = 30) received palonosetron 0.075 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg iv. The primary outcome was incidence of PONV in 24 h, and the secondary outcome was a number of rescue antiemetics required. To compare the proportions in the groups, unpaired t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Chi-square test, or Fisher's exact test was applied.

Results

We found that the overall incidence of PONV was 46.7% in Group P, 50% in Group D, and 43.3% in Group P + D during the first 24 h. Rescue antiemetic was required in 27% of the patients in Group P and Group D compared to 23% of the patients in Group P + D and twice in 3% of the patients in Group P, 7% of the patients in Group D, and none in Group P + D which were not significant.

Conclusions

The combination therapy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone did not significantly reduce the incidence of PONV when compared with either drug alone.

Prevention and Treatment of Neuraxial Morphine-Induced Pruritus: A Scoping Review

The addition of morphine to neuraxial anaesthesia leads to improved postoperative analgesia and lower opioid consumption, but is often accompanied by pruritus. Studies on preventing or treating pruritus show contradictory results. Our objective was to identify effective drugs for the prevention or treatment of pruritus by a scoping review of clinical trials. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. We identified clinical trials investigating the prevention or treatment of neuraxial morphine-induced pruritus in adults. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were screened for eligible studies. One-hundred-and-four articles were included covering 13 pharmacological groups. We conclude that dopamine antagonists, µ-opioid agonist/antagonists and neuraxial or orally administered µ-opioid antagonists prevent pruritus caused by neuraxial morphine regardless of the timing of administration. In the reviewed literature, 5HT3-antagonists prevent neuraxial morphine-induced pruritus when administered before morphine administration. For the treatment of neuraxial morphine-induced pruritus, only nalbuphine appears to be consistently effective. More research is needed to find the most effective doses and the optimal timing of the effective medication.

Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to peripheral nerve blocks in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Combining local anesthetics with dexmedetomidine (DEX) for nerve blocks has been tested and confirmed as an alternative technique to strengthen analgesia in adults, but the evidence supported this proposal in pediatrics was not convincing enough. Thus, we intend to conduct a meta-analysis to make an appraisal of the effects of DEX as a local anesthetic adjuvant on peripheral nerve blocks in children.

METHODS

The analysis has been registered on https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ with the registration number CRD42021254029 on June 10th, 2021. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane central register were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are relevant to child/pain/DEX or block up to April 30, 2021.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were included for data analysis. The pooled results showed a significantly reduced number of patients who required postoperative analgesics within DEX groups [odds ratio = 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03-0.32, P < 0.001]. And DEX significantly prolonged the duration of analgesia of local anesthetics in the meantime [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 4.93, 95% CI 3.02-6.83, P < 0.001]. Nevertheless, adding DEX as an adjunct to local anesthetics would significantly decrease heart rate (SMD = - 0.95, 95% CI - 1.45 to - 0.45, P < 0.001) and increase sedation score (SMD = 1.6, 95% CI 0.53-2.66, P = 0.003) simultaneously.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding DEX as an adjunct to peripheral nerve blocks can prolong analgesia until postoperative 8 hours in pediatric patients. However, the benefits should be weighed against the increasing risk of bradycardia and sedation in critical children.

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.

Efficacy of palonosetron-dexamethasone combination compared to palonosetron alone for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following surgery, and may be one of the most distressing parts of the surgical journey. With combination pharmacological therapy recommended for PONV prophylaxis, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates whether perioperative palonosetron and dexamethasone is more efficacious than palonosetron administered alone.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL; EMBASE; CINAHL; Google Scholar; Web of Science citation index; the US clinical trials register; UK clinical trials register; Australia and New Zealand Clinical trials register; and conference abstracts for major anaesthesia conferences in the last three years.We included randomized controlled trials that compared adult patients undergoing surgery who received palonosetron and dexamethasone, against those who received palonosetron.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (1152 patients) were included. Medium-grade evidence showed that the palonosetron and dexamethasone combination significantly reduced 24-hour rescue anti-emetic requirement (RR: 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.86). There was however no significant difference in the 6-hour (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.61-1.09) and 24-hour PONV incidences (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33-1.10). Similarly, PONV incidences after 24 h did not differ between groups (RR:0.82, 95% CI: 0.59-1.14). Headache and dizziness were the most common side-effects reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination prophylaxis with palonosetron and dexamethasone reduces post-operative anti-emetic requirement, although is not associated with a significant difference in PONV. There was considerable heterogeneity in the studies, and trial sequential analysis indicates that further studies are needed to strengthen the clinical evidence.

Ondansetron versus ondansetron with dexamethasone to prevent intrathecal-morphine pruritus for caesarean patients: randomised double-blind trial

The objective of this randomised, double blinded clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic administration of 4 mg ondansetron as monotherapy versus combination therapy of 4 mg ondansetron plus 8 mg dexamethasone for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-associated pruritus in caesarean section within 24 h. A total of 194 patients were included, 96 patients in the monotherapy group and 98 in the combination group. One hour after the operation, 11.5% of patients in ondansetron group had failure of prophylaxis for pruritus compared to 13.5% of patients in the combination group (p = .66). This decreased throughout the follow-up to reach 0.0% and 1.0% at 24 h in the ondansetron vs. the combination groups respectively. There was no superiority of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over the use of ondansetron as prophylactic antipruritic in parturients receiving intrathecal morphine for caesarean section.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? The incidence of pruritus has been reported to be between 36% and 60% in patients undergoing caesarean section with intrathecal morphine. Ondansetron has been identified as possible antipruritic agent while the antipruritic effect of dexamethasone is inconclusive.What do the results of this study add? The study demonstrated that there was no superiority of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over the use of ondansetron as prophylactic antipruritic in parturients receiving intrathecal morphine for caesarean section. Moreover, it seems that there is no effect of combining ondansetron with dexamethasone over ondansetron alone on antiemetic consequences.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Ondansetron could be an effective antipruritic if used solely for patients undergoing caesarean section.

Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV): A Review of Current Recommendations and Emerging Therapies

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most frequent adverse events after surgery and anesthesia. It is distressing for the patient and can lead to other postoperative complications. Management of PONV involves a framework of risk assessment, multimodal risk reduction, and prophylactic measures, as well as prompt rescue treatment. There has been a significant paradigm shift in the approach towards PONV prevention. There have also been several emerging therapeutic options for PONV prophylaxis and treatment. In this review, we will discuss the up-to-date PONV management guidelines and highlight novel therapeutic options which have emerged in the last few years.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after caesarean section in patients with hyperemesis gravidarum: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most common anaesthetic complications of caesarean section. This study examined the association between hyperemesis gravidarum during pregnancy and nausea and vomiting after caesarean section.

METHODS

A single-centre, retrospective cohort study, using electronic databases of patients with and without hyperemesis gravidarum, undergoing caesarean section from 2015 to 2019. The incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting were established by a review of the documentation of administration of postoperative anti-emetics within the 24-h period after surgery, and examined using univariable, multivariable binary and ordered logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Data were compared for 76 patients with hyperemesis gravidarum and 315 patients without the condition. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the hyperemesis group versus the non-hyperemesis group was 43.4% vs 29.6%, respectively. The odds of experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting was 1.95 times higher in women with hyperemesis gravidarum than in those without (aOR 1.95, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.36, P=0.016). The odds of having more severe postoperative nausea and vomiting were greater in the hyperemesis gravidarum group (aOR 1.91, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.20, P=0.014).

CONCLUSION

Patients with hyperemesis gravidarum are more likely to develop nausea and vomiting after caesarean section, and this is likely to be of greater severity than in those without the condition. This finding should assist the effective provision of intra-operative and postoperative anti-emetics for patients with hyperemesis gravidarum undergoing caesarean section.

The Quality of Recovery after Dexamethasone, Ondansetron, or Placebo Administration in Patients Undergoing Lower Limbs Orthopedic Surgery under Spinal Anesthesia Using Intrathecal Morphine. A Randomized Controlled Trial

Intrathecal morphine is widely and successfully used to prevent postoperative pain after orthopedic surgery, but it is frequently associated with side effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of dexamethasone or ondansetron when compared to placebo to reduce the occurrence of these undesirable effects and, consequently, to improve the quality of recovery based on patient's perspective. Methods. One hundred and thirty-five patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia using bupivacaine and morphine were randomly assigned to receive IV dexamethasone, ondansetron, or saline. On the morning following surgery, a quality of recovery questionnaire (QoR-40) was completed. Results. No differences were detected in the global and dimensional QoR-40 scores following surgery; however, following postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge, pain scores were higher in patients receiving ondansetron compared with patients who received dexamethasone. Conclusion. Neither ondansetron nor dexamethasone improves the quality of recovery after lower limbs orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia using intrathecal morphine.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial to compare body weight-adjusted and fixed doses of palonosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in obese female patients

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common postsurgical complication. Palonosetron is effective for PONV prevention at the usual dose of 75 μg, but the ideal dose for obese patients has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to compare body weight-adjusted and fixed doses of palonosetron for preventing PONV in obese female patients.

Materials and methods

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial involving 80 female patients, aged 18–80 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 2 and 3 and a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg m^-2 who were scheduled to undergo elective breast surgery. Patients received an intravenous body weight-adjusted dose of palonosetron (1 μg kg ^-1, GI = 40 patients) or a fixed dose of palonosetron (75 μg, GII = 40 patients). All patients received dexamethasone (4 mg). The incidence of PONV, complete response rate (CR), severity of nausea and need for rescue antiemetics and analgesics were assessed at: 0–1 h, 1–6 h, 6–24 h and 24–48 h postoperatively.

Results

The mean (± SD) BMI was 35.0 (±5.2) kg m^-2 for GI and 35.7 (±3.6) kg m^-2 for GII. There was no significant difference between groups in PONV incidence, CR, severity of nausea, and need for rescue antiemetics or analgesics. The incidence of PONV for GI and GII was 15% and 27.5%, respectively, during the first 48 h (P = 0.17).

Conclusions

A body weight-adjusted dose of palonosetron was as effective as 75 μg for preventing PONV for 48 h in obese female patients who underwent breast surgery. Hence, the fixed dose may be preferable to the body weight-adjusted dose.