Metoclopramide in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled studies

Metoclopramide has been used for almost 40 yr to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We have reviewed the efficacy and safety of metoclopramide for the prevention of PONV. A systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, manufacturers' databases, hand searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to June 1998) was performed for full reports of randomized comparisons of metoclopramide with placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end-points were prevention of early PONV (within 6 h after operation), late PONV (48 h) and adverse effects. Combined data were analysed using relative benefit/risk and number- needed-to-treat/harm. In 66 studies, 3260 patients received 18 different regimens of metoclopramide, and 3006 controls received placebo or no treatment. There was no evidence of dose-responsiveness with oral, i.m., intranasal or i.v. metoclopramide in children and adults. In adults, the best documented regimen was 10 mg i.v. There was no significant anti-nausea effect. The numbers-needed-to-treat to prevent early and late vomiting were 9.1 (95% confidence intervals 5.5- 27) and 10 (6-41), respectively. In children, the best documented regimen was 0.25 mg kg-1 i.v. The number-needed-to-treat to prevent early vomiting was 5.8 (3.9-11). There was no significant late anti- vomiting effect. Minor drug-related adverse effects (sedation, dizziness, drowsiness) were not significantly associated with metoclopramide. There was one adult who experienced extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide.      

Efficacy, dose-response, and adverse effects of droperidol for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE: To estimate the efficacy and harm produced by droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, hand-searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to May 1999) for randomised comparisons of droperidol with placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (up to six hours postoperatively), and late PONV (24 hr), and adverse effects. Combined data were analysed using relative risk and NNT. RESULTS: In 76 trials, 5,351 patients received 24 different regimens of droperidol. The average incidence of early and late PONV in controls was 34% and 51%, respectively. Droperidol was more efficacious than placebo in preventing PONV. In adults, the anti-nausea effect was short-lived, and there was no dose-responsiveness; with 0.25 to 0.30 mg the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent early nausea was 5. For both early and late anti-vomiting efficacy there was dose-responsiveness; best efficacy was with 1.5 mg to 2.5 mg (NNT, 7). In children, there was dose-responsiveness; best efficacy was with 75 microg x kg(-1) (NNT to prevent early and late vomiting, 4). Two children had extrapyramidal symptoms with droperidol (NNT in children, 91; in any patient, 408). There was dose-responsiveness for sedation and drowsiness (with 2.5 mg the NNT was 7.8). Droperidol prevented postoperative headache (NNT, -25). CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol is anti-emetic in the surgical setting. The effect on nausea is short-lived but more pronounced than the effect on vomiting. Sedation and drowsiness are dose-dependent, extrapyramidal symptoms are rare, and there is a protective effect against headache.     

Dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review

The role of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is unclear. We reviewed efficacy and safety data of dexamethasone for prevention of PONV. A systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, hand searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to April 1999) was done for full reports of randomized comparisons of dexamethasone with other antiemetics or placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (0 to 6 h postoperatively), late PONV (0 to 24 h), and adverse effects. Data from 1,946 patients from 17 trials were analyzed: 598 received dexamethasone; 582 received ondansetron, granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide, or perphenazine; 423 received a placebo; and 343 received a combination of dexamethasone with ondansetron or granisetron. With placebo, the incidence of early and late PONV was 35% and 50%, respectively. Sixteen different regimens of dexamethasone were tested, most frequently, 8 or 10 mg IV in adults, and 1 or 1.5 mg/kg IV in children. With these doses, the number needed to treat to prevent early and late vomiting compared with placebo in adults and children was 7.1 (95% CI 4.5 to 18), and 3.8 (2.9 to 5), respectively. In adults, the number needed to treat to prevent late nausea was 4.3 (2.3 to 26). The combination of dexamethasone with ondansetron or granisetron further decreased the risk of PONV; the number needed to treat to prevent late nausea and vomiting with the combined regimen compared with the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists alone was 7.7 (4.8 to 19) and 7.8 (4.1 to 66), respectively. There was a lack of data from comparisons with other antiemetics for sensible conclusions. There were no reports on dexamethasone-related adverse effects. IMPLICATIONS: When there is a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a single prophylactic dose of dexamethasone is antiemetic compared with placebo, without evidence of any clinically relevant toxicity in otherwise healthy patients. Late efficacy seems to be most pronounced. It is very likely that the best prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting currently available is achieved by combining dexamethasone with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Optimal doses of this combination need to be identified.     

Pharmacological control of opioid-induced pruritus: a quantitative systematic review of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Numerous drugs have been used to prevent or to treat opioid-induced pruritus in the surgical setting. Their relative efficacy is not well understood. METHODS: The methods employed involved the systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, bibliographies, without language restriction, up to June 2000) for full reports of randomized comparisons of any intervention which is thought to be anti-pruritic (active) compared with placebo or no treatment (control) in surgical (including labour) patients receiving opioids. The number of patients who had no pruritus were analysed using relative risk and number-needed-to-treat with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials (1477 patients) were analysed. Two trials (66 patients), both with low-dose propofol, were on treatment of established pruritus; propofol had no anti-pruritic effect compared with Intralipid. In prophylaxis trials, the average incidence of pruritus with control was 59% (range, 10% to 100%). Most mu-receptor antagonists were efficacious: intravenous naloxone 0.25-2.4 microg kg-1 h-1, relative risk 2.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.54), number-needed-to-treat to prevent pruritus compared with control 3.5; oral naltrexone 9 mg, relative risk 2.80 (1.35-5.80), number-needed-to-treat 1.7; naltrexone 6 mg was less effective and 3 mg did not work; different intravenous and epidural nalbuphine regimens, relative risk 1.71 (1.12-2.62), number-needed-to-treat 4.2. Intravenous nalmefene 0.5 or 1 mg was not anti-pruritic. Intravenous (but not epidural) droperidol 2.5 mg was efficacious, relative risk, 1.71 (1.28-2.29), number-needed-to-treat 4.9. There was a lack of evidence for any anti-pruritic efficacy with prophylactic propofol, epidural or intrathecal epinephrine, epidural clonidine, epidural prednisone, intravenous ondansetron, or intramuscular hydroxyzine. CONCLUSION: Naloxone, naltrexone, nalbuphine and droperidol are efficacious in the prevention of opioid-induced pruritus; minimal effective doses remain unknown. There is a lack of valid data on the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of established pruritus.     

枢复宁预防全麻腹部手术后恶心和呕吐的临床研究

全麻患者术后常易发生恶心、呕吐，枢复宁有抗呕吐作用。随机选择１００例腹部外科手术患者，分为枢复宁组（４ｍｇ，ｎ＝５０）和安慰剂组（生理盐水，ｎ＝５０），诱导前静注枢复宁或安慰剂，注速１分钟，双盲法观察术后２４小时抗恶心、呕吐效果及副作用。结果表明，用药组恶心、呕吐发生率（１８％，０）明显低于安慰剂组（５０％，４０％）（Ｐ＜０．０１），两组患者的平均动脉压、经皮血氧饱和度，呼吸频率和心率，血液成分，肝、肾功能无明显改变。因此，枢复宁适用于腹部外科患者术后恶心、呕吐的防治。     

Efficacy and costs of 3 anesthetic regimens in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy and costs associated with 3 different anesthesia regimens used in gynecologic laparoscopy. DESIGN: This was a randomized, controlled study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a university hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 150 ASA physical status I or II patients, undergoing elective gynecologic laparoscopy with general anesthesia. INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated into the following 3 groups: group P-preoperative placebo tablet, propofol induction, propofol-air/O2 maintenance; group I + O-preoperative 8-mg ondansetron tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance; group I (control)-preoperative placebo tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance. MEASUREMENTS: The frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), number needed to treat to prevent PONV, and the costs of the anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: The frequency of PONV within the 24-hour study period was lowest in group I + O (P, 38%; I + O, 33%; and I, 59%; P < 0.05 I + O vs I). The number needed to treat was 5 in group P and 4 in group I + O, compared with group I. The median costs of anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were $65 in group P and dollar 68 in group I + O, compared with group I. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in gynecologic laparoscopy, propofol-air/O2 anesthesia alone, and isoflurane-N2O anesthesia combined with an oral 8-mg dose of ondansetron had similar efficacy and costs to prevent PONV. Isoflurane-N2O anesthesia without ondansetron was less expensive, but was also less efficacious.     

The effect of premedication with OTFC, with or without ondansetron, on postoperative agitation, and nausea and vomiting in pediatric ambulatory patients

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate, in the pediatric ambulatory surgical population, the efficacy of: (i) oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC), when given preoperatively, to reduce postoperative excitement associated with sevoflurane, and (ii) intravenous ondansetron to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with OTFC. METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled study evaluated the efficacy of OTFC [normal dose (ND) = 10-15 microg x kg(-1) or low dose = 100 microg] compared with placebo in the prevention of postoperative agitation; and the efficacy of ondansetron (0.1 mg x kg(-1) to 4 mg) compared with placebo to reduce PONV associated with OTFC. RESULTS: There were 125 patients evaluated (2-10 years old, ASA class I or II and weight 10-40 kg). Preoperatively OTFC was associated with an increased likelihood of cooperation at baseline (P = 0.018). Postoperatively there was a higher incidence of vomiting in children that received OTFC. The anxiety/agitation of patients entering the PACU was significantly less in children who received OTFC ND (P < 0.001). This effect decreased over time. Patients with respiratory adverse events related to the study drug were significantly higher in groups who received OTFC, however, they were not of clinical significance. OTFC was associated with delays in time for eligibility to PACU discharge (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Even though OTFC reduced early postoperative agitation the increase in side effects, namely PONV and prolonged recovery times, limits its clinical usefulness. The study demonstrates the tradeoffs between anxiety and agitation vs vomiting, respiratory events and prolonged recovery times. Ambulatory pediatric patients undergoing procedures in which opioids would be routinely used might benefit the most from OTFC combined with ondansetron as part of the anesthetic technique.     

Intravenous dolasetron and ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background: Intravenous dolasetron mesilate has shown efficacy in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when administered as a single dose prior to emergence from anesthesia. This trial compared intravenous dolasetron and ondansetron for the prevention of PONV when administered at induction of anesthesia.
Methods: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial randomized patients to one of four single IV treatments: placebo, 25 or 50 mg dolasetron, or 4 mg ondansetron. Efficacy was measured by complete response (0 emetic episodes and no rescue medication), nausea severity and patient satisfaction as measured on a visual analog scale (VAS), investigator's rating of nausea severity, and total response (complete response with no nausea [≤ mm VAS]).
Results: 514 patients at 24 sites were evaluated for efficacy. The 50 mg dolasetron and 4 mg ondansetron doses were statistically equivalent, and superior to placebo, for all efficacy measures. Complete response rates were 49%, 51%, 71% and 64% for placebo, 25 and 50 mg dolasetron, and ondansetron, respectively. Dolasetron 50 mg was statistically superior to 25 mg dolasetron for complete response, total response, VAS maximum nausea, time to first emetic episode, and patient satisfaction. The majority of adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity. Headache was the most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event with a 3%-5% incidence across treatments.
Conclusion: When given at induction of anesthesia, 50 mg intravenous dolasetron is equivalent to 4 mg ondansetron and superior to 25 mg dolasetron and placebo for the prevention of PONV. All treatments were safely administered and well tolerated.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast surgery: efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and droperidol in a randomized placebo-controlled study

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse phenomenon following breast surgery. The efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol in preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing breast surgery was compared in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Altogether 207 women were randomly assigned to receive either a single intravenous dose of droperidol (1.25 mg) (n = 69), ondansetron (8 mg) (n = 67) or saline (n = 71) immediately after induction of general anaesthesia with thiopental, fentanyl, atracurium, nitrous oxide in oxygen and isoflurane. Complaints of nausea, vomiting and requests for rescue antiemetics were recorded during a 24-h period postoperatively. During the initial 2 h in the postanaesthesia care unit, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 15%, 6% and 12% in the placebo, droperidol and ondansetron groups, respectively (NS). The incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h was 61%, 48% and 45% in the placebo, droperidol and ondansetron treatment groups, respectively (NS). Postoperative analgesic requirements and the length of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit were equal in all three treatment groups. It is concluded that the intravenous pretreatment with single doses of ondansetron or droperidol did not substantially prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast surgery.     

Prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting. Randomised comparison of dolasetron versus dolasetron plus dexamethasone

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequent complications after operations.The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of combined dolasetron plus dexamethasone versus dolasetron alone with respect to the incidence and severity of emetic symptoms and patients satisfaction. METHODS: In a prospective, randomised, double-blind study, 150 patients scheduled for hysterectomy or breast surgery were allocated to one of the following two groups: group A received 50 mg dolasetron orally and group B 50 mg dolasetron orally plus 8 mg dexamethasone intravenously.The follow-up was for 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: In group A PONV was significantly more frequent (28%) compared to group B (12.0%).The incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in patients receiving dolasetron plus dexamethasone (0%) in comparison to patients receiving dolasetron (8.0%). Furthermore,patients satisfaction was significantly higher in group B compared to group A. About 6 or 7 patients need to be treated with additional dexamethasone instead of a placebo for one patient to benefit from this intervention (i.e. to stay free from PONV) who otherwise would have suffered from PONV. CONCLUSIONS: Combining oral dolasetron with intravenous dexamethasone further improves the antiemetic efficacy of dolasetron. With a number-needed-to-treat of about 6 the additional benefit might be considered clinically relevant.     

Prophylactic Ondansetron in Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting following Pediatric Strabismus Surgery: A Dose-Response Study

Background: This study evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness, dose-response, and clinical usefulness of prophylactic ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in children undergoing strabismus repair.

Method: The authors observed 180 children, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, 2-12 yr of age, who were undergoing strabismus repair. After induction of anesthesia with halothane and nitrous oxide in oxygen or intravenous thiopental, children received either placebo (saline) or intravenous ondansetron in doses of 25, 50, 75, 100, and 150 [mu]g/kg (n = 30). The trachea was intubated and ventilation was controlled. Perioperative analgesic and fluid requirements were standardized. Episodes of nausea and vomiting were recorded for the first 24 h postoperatively. Data such as nonsurrogate (parental satisfaction scores and duration of postanesthesia care unit stay) and therapeutic (numbers needed to prevent and harm) outcome measures were collected.

Results: The incidences of PONV in the placebo and 25-, 50-, 75-, 100-, and 150-[mu]g/kg ondansetron groups were 83, 77, 47, 30, 30, and 27%, respectively. The incidence was less in the 75- (P = 0.002), 100- (P = 0.002), and 150-[mu]g/kg (P < 0.001) ondansetron groups compared with placebo. Duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit was shorter in the 75-, 100-, and 150-[mu]g/kg ondansetron groups (P < 0.002) compared with the placebo group. Parental assessment scores for the child's perioperative experience and the positive number needed to prevent PONV were also better and favorable in the 75-, 100-, and 150-[mu]g/kg ondansetron groups compared with the placebo group. The incidence (P > 0.99) and severity (P = 0.63) of PONV were similar in the 75- and 150-[mu]g/kg ondansetron groups. Surrogate, nonsurrogate, and therapeutic outcome measures revealed that 75 [mu]g/kg ondansetron provided the same benefits as did 100 and 150 [mu]g/kg.     

Postoperative nausea and vomiting with special reference to risk factors and prevention in laparoscopic surgery

The current incidence, risk factors and prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were prospectively evaluated in 1703 inpatients. The objectives of the study were: 1) to create a predictive model based on patient characteristics in order to enable the estimation of the risk for PONV, 2) to ascertain the antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic intravenous ondansetron in comparison with droperidol and placebo against PONV following laparoscopic surgery, and 3) to evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness of combining ondansetron with a low dose of droperidol in high-risk inpatients. The incidence of nausea and vomiting after common surgical procedures was high. In the recovery room, the overall incidence of nausea and vomiting was 18% and 5%, respectively, and over the whole 24-h observation period the respective figures were 52% and 25%. The most significant predictive factors associated with an increased risk for the symptoms were female sex, a previous history of postoperative nausea and vomiting, a history of motion sickness, a longer duration of surgery and non-smoking. Based on these five items, a risk score predicting nausea and vomiting was constructed with a moderately good discriminating power, as judged from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Intravenous ondansetron 4 mg was ineffective in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A higher dose of prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg effectively reduced the incidence and alleviated the intensity of PONV in women scheduled to have laparoscopy for gynaecological and general surgical procedures, as compared with placebo. The antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg and droperidol 1.25 mg was similar as for overall nausea during the 24-h observation period, but ondansetron seemed to be slightly more efficacious in preventing vomiting. Both ondansetron and droperidol were well-tolerated with only minor side-effects. In a high-risk, female, inpatient laparoscopic population, with a mean estimated risk of 65% for PONV, prophylactically administered ondansetron 8 mg in combination with either a 0.75 mg or 1.25 mg dose of droperidol reduced the incidence of post-operative nausea to 35% and that of vomiting to 15% during the first 24 h after surgery. Of these drug combinations, the smaller dose of droperidol resulted in less postoperative sedation than the higher dose; both combinations being otherwise equally well-tolerated without serious adverse events. These results indicate that postoperative nausea and vomiting can, to some extent, be predicted by a few patient characteristics, and in laparoscopic surgery - which is associated with an increased risk for PONV - the incidence can be reduced with either a single dose of ondansetron or droperidol or a combination of these drugs.     

Prophylactic ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following pediatric strabismus surgery: a dose-response study

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the antiemetic effectiveness, dose-response, and clinical usefulness of prophylactic ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in children undergoing strabismus repair. METHOD: The authors observed 180 children, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, 2-12 yr of age, who were undergoing strabismus repair. After induction of anesthesia with halothane and nitrous oxide in oxygen or intravenous thiopental, children received either placebo (saline) or intravenous ondansetron in doses of 25, 50, 75, 100, and 150 /microg/kg (n = 30). The trachea was intubated and ventilation was controlled. Perioperative analgesic and fluid requirements were standardized. Episodes of nausea and vomiting were recorded for the first 24 h postoperatively. Data such as nonsurrogate (parental satisfaction scores and duration of postanesthesia care unit stay) and therapeutic (numbers needed to prevent and harm) outcome measures were collected. RESULTS: The incidences of PONV in the placebo and 25-, 50-, 75-, 100-, and 150-,microg/kg ondansetron groups were 83, 77, 47, 30, 30, and 27%, respectively. The incidence was less in the 75(P = 0.002), 100- (P = 0.002), and 150-microg/kg (P < 0.001) ondansetron groups compared with placebo. Duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit was shorter in the 75-, 100-, and 150-microg/kg ondansetron groups (P < 0.002) compared with the placebo group. Parental assessment scores for the child's perioperative experience and the positive number needed to prevent PONV were also better and favorable in the 75-, 100-, and 150-microg/kg ondansetron groups compared with the placebo group. The incidence (P > 0.99) and severity (P = 0.63) of PONV were similar in the 75- and 150-microg/kg ondansetron groups. Surrogate, nonsurrogate, and therapeutic outcome measures revealed that 75 microg/kg ondansetron provided the same benefits as did 100 and 150 microg/kg. CONCLUSION: The routine prophylactic use of ondansetron at a dose of 75 microg/kg is as effective as 150 microg/kg in preventing PONV and improving the "true" outcome measures after strabismus repair in children.     

Cost-effectiveness of Prophylactic Antiemetic Therapy with Ondansetron, Droperidol, or Placebo

Background: In an era of growing economic constraints on healthcare delivery, anesthesiologists are increasingly expected to understand cost analysis and evaluate clinical practices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are distressing for patients and may increase costs in an ambulatory surgical unit. The authors compared the cost-effectiveness of four prophylactic intravenous regimens for PONV:-4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo.

Methods: Adult surgical outpatients at high risk for PONV were studied. Study drugs were administered intravenously within 20 min of induction of nitrous oxide-isoflurane or enflurane anesthesia. A decision-tree analysis was used to group patients into 12 mutually exclusive subgroups based on treatment and outcome. Costs were calculated for the prevention and treatment of PONV. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for each group.

Results: Two thousand sixty-one patients were enrolled. Efficacy data for study drugs have been previously reported, and the database from that study was used for pharmacoeconomic analysis. The mean-median total cost per patient who received prophylactic treatment with 4 mg ondansetron, 0.625 mg droperidol, 1.25 mg droperidol, and placebo were $112 or $16.44, $109 or $0.63, $104 or $0.51, and $164 or $51.20, respectively (P = 0.001, active treatment groups vs. placebo). The use of a prophylactic antiemetic agent significantly increased patient satisfaction (P < 0.05). Personnel costs in managing PONV and unexpected hospital admission constitute major cost components in our analysis. Exclusion of nursing labor costs from the calculation did not alter the overall conclusions regarding the relative costs of antiemetic therapy.     

Oral ondansetron,tropisetron or metoclopramide to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a comparison in high-risk patients undergoing thyroid or parathyroid surgery

BACKGROUND: Oral antiemetic prophylaxis may be a practical alternative to intravenous administration. Intravenous ondansetron and tropisetron prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) at least as efficiently as traditional antiemetics, droperidol and metoclopramide. We tested the hypothesis that the incidence of PONV after oral ondansetron or tropisetron prophylaxis is lower compared with metoclopramide among high-risk patients. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind study we studied 179 high-risk patients who received either ondansetron 16 mg, tropisetron 5 mg, or metoclopramide 10 mg orally 1 h before the operation. A standard general anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia were used. The incidence of PONV and the need for rescue antiemetic medication was recorded for 24 h. RESULTS: In the postanesthesia care unit, the incidence of PONV was lower after premedication with tropisetron compared with ondansetron and metoclopramide (15%, 32% and 39%, respectively). The incidence of PONV during 0-24 h was the same in each group (68%, 58% and 75% in the ondansetron, tropisetron and metoclopramide group, respectively), but the incidence of vomiting was significantly lower after ondansetron (34%) and tropisetron (22%) prophylaxis compared with metoclopramide (53%). The need for additional antiemetics was significantly lower after tropisetron prophylaxis compared with metoclopramide. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher after tropisetron than after metoclopramide. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial period, the incidence of PONV was lower after premedication with oral tropisetron than after ondansetron or metoclopramide. Considering the entire 24-h postoperative period, the incidence of PONV was the same after all three premedications, but the incidence of vomiting was lower after oral ondansetron and tropisetron than after metoclopramide.     

Comparison of ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery in women

Background : Women undergoing laparoscopic surgery are susceptible to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Ondansetron and droperidol are useful antiemetics. This study was designed to ascertain primarily the relative difference in efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol and secondarily between these drugs and placebo in the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Methods : The prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol was compared in a prospective, randomised, double–blind, placebo–controlled trial of 439 female inpatients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery. During induction of standardised general anaesthesia the patients received intravenously either ondansetron 8 mg (n=195), droperidol 1.25 mg (n=193) or placebo (n=51). The occurrence of nausea, vomiting, sideeffects and the need for rescue antiemetic medication were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. Results : The proportion of patients with nausea was 48%, 50% and 67% in the ondansetron, droperidol and placebo groups, respectively; with a significant difference when both ondansetron (P=0.02) and droperidol (P=0.04) were compared with placebo. Vomiting occurred in 18%, 26% and 37% of the patients in the three groups, respectively (P=0.05 between ondansetron and droperidol, P=0.004 between ondansetron and placebo, P=0.16 between droperidol and placebo). The proportion of patients given rescue medication was 34%, 28% and 49%, respectively (P=0.23 for ondansetron and droperidol, P=0.07 for ondansetron and placebo, P=0.007 for droperidol and placebo). During early recovery the patients treated with ondansetron were significantly more alert than after droperidol. Serious side–effects were not observed. Headache was significantly more common after ondansetron than after droperidol treatment. Conclusions : The efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and droperidol in reducing postoperative nausea associated with laparoscopic surgery in female inpatients was similar, but ondansetron appeared to be slightly more efficient than droperidol in preventing vomiting. Ondansetron and droperidol were both significantly better than placebo in the prophylaxis of PONV.     

Ondansetron oral disintegrating tablets: acceptability and efficacy in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), a major complication in children, is responsive to IV and oral ondansetron. Because these routes are not always available, we studied the acceptability and efficacy of ondansetron oral disintegrating tablets (ODT). In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 62 patients undergoing adenotonsillectomy, aged 5 to 11 years, preoperatively received ODT (4 mg) or placebo. Patients assessed the medication for taste and sensation. Anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane, maintained with desflurane, and supplemented with fentanyl 2.5 microg/kg and dexamethasone 0.5 mg/kg (maximum dose, 12 mg). An observer blinded to treatment evaluated patients for pain, agitation, and PONV. Postoperative treatment consisted of fentanyl 1 microg/kg for pain and agitation and metoclopramide 0.15 mg/kg (maximum dose, 10 mg) for PONV. There were no significant differences between study groups with regard to age, weight, recovery time, agitation, or pain. Approximately 90% of the subjects found the ODT to taste good. No subject rejected the study medication, but the ondansetron-containing tablets were found to be less palatable than the placebo. The incidence of vomiting was significantly less in the ondansetron-medicated group.     

Incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting are similar after metoclopramide 20 mg and ondansetron 8 mg given by the end of laparoscopic cholecystectomies

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron has a well documented antiemetic prophylactic effect, whereas in most studies of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), metoclopramide is less efficacious. This can be attributed to the short-lasting effect of metoclopramide when a low dose is given at the beginning of surgery. We wanted to test a 20-mg dose of metoclopramide given at the end of surgery, using ondansetron 8 mg as a reference. METHODS: 122 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were studied in a randomized, double-blind study design. At the end of the procedure, the patients received either metoclopramide 20 mg or ondansetron 8 mg intravenously. The patients were observed for 24 h for PONV, pain, side-effects and need for rescue antiemetic medication. RESULTS: No significant differences in the incidence of PONV or need for rescue antiemetic treatment was observed in the 0-24 h postoperative study period. The overall incidence of PONV was 43% in the ondansetron group and 47% in the metoclopramide group. The ondansetron patients had a significantly higher incidence of moderate or strong pain during the postoperative observation period (61% vs. 35% in the metoclopramide group) (P < 0.05). No significant differences in side-effects between the groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Metoclopramide 20 mg i.v. given at the end of laparoscopic cholecystectomy resulted in a similar incidence of PONV compared with ondansetron 8 mg. The patients receiving metoclopramide had less pain than the patients receiving ondansetron.     

Efficacy of orally disintegrating ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomised, double-blind placebo controlled study

Peri-operative prophylactic anti-emetics are commonly used parenterally. Orally disintegrating ondansetron is efficacious during chemotherapy. Therefore, we aimed to study the efficacy of orally disintegrating ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting. In a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial on 109 patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, oral ondansetron was compared to intravenous ondansetron and placebo. The anaesthetic technique was standardised. Mean time (SD) to tolerating oral intake was delayed in the placebo group to 366.1 (77.6) min compared to oral 322.9 (63.7) min and intravenous 322.4 (65.2) min groups. This is corroborated by a higher incidence of nausea and vomiting in the control group during the first 6 h postoperatively (control 44.4%, oral 17.7%, intravenous 18.2%). There was no significant difference between oral and intravenous groups. In conclusion, orally disintegrating ondansetron was as efficacious as intravenous ondansetron in the peri-operative phase and may be a viable option for prophylaxis of emesis in day care surgery.     

Inspired Oxygen Fraction of 0.8 Does Not Attenuate Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Strabismus Surgery

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a distressing problem after strabismus surgery. An inspired oxygen fraction has been reported to decrease PONV in patients after colon resection and to be more effective than ondansetron after gynecologic laparoscopy. Therefore, in a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled study, the authors tested whether an inspired oxygen fraction of 0.8 decreases PONV in patients undergoing strabismus surgery and whether oxygen is more effective than ondansetron.

Methods: With approval of the authors' institutional review board, 210 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: (1) 30% inspired oxygen in air plus intravenous administration of saline, (2) 80% inspired oxygen in air plus intravenous administration of saline, or (3) 30% inspired oxygen in air plus 75 [mu]g/kg ondansetron intravenously during induction. General anesthesia was standardized and included etomidate, alfentanil, and mivacurium for induction and sevoflurane for maintenance. PONV was evaluated 6 and 24 h postoperatively by an investigator unaware of treatment assignment.

Results: Overall postoperative incidence of nausea and vomiting was 41% for inspired oxygen fraction of 0.3 plus placebo, 38% for inspired oxygen fraction of 0.8 plus placebo, and 28% for inspired oxygen fraction of 0.3 plus ondansetron, respectively (P = 0.279). Therefore, there was no statistically significant difference of PONV incidence among groups.