Antiemetic Strategies Research Articles

Comparison of anaesthesia strategies on postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundIntra-operative anaesthesia management should be optimised to reduce the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients; however, a single intervention may not effectively reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting in such patients. This study assessed the effect of an optimised anaesthetic protocol versus a conventional one on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.MethodsA single-centre randomised trial was conducted at Peking University Shenzhen Hospital from June 2021 to December 2022. Among 168 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, 116 qualified, and 103 completed the study with available data. Patients were categorized into the conventional group (received sevoflurane and standard fluids) and the optimised group (underwent propofol-based anaesthesia and was administered goal-directed fluids). The primary endpoints were postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence and severity within 24 h.ResultsPostoperative nausea and vomiting assessment at 0–3 h post-surgery revealed no significant differences between groups. However, at 3–24 h, the optimised anaesthetic protocol group showed lower postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence and severity than those of the conventional group (P = 0.005). In the conventional group, 20 (37.04%) patients experienced moderate-to-severe postoperative nausea and vomiting, compared to six (12.25%) patients in the optimised group (odds ratio = 0.237; 95% CI = 0.086, 0.656; P = 0.006). No significant differences were noted in antiemetic treatment, moderate-to-severe pain incidence, anaesthesia recovery, post-anaesthetic care unit stay, or postoperative duration between the groups. While the total intra-operative infusion volumes were comparable, the optimised group had a significantly higher colloidal infusion volume (500 mL vs. 0 mL, P = 0.014) than that of the conventional group.ConclusionsThe incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting 3–24 h postoperatively in patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were significantly lower with propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia and goal-directed fluid therapy than with sevoflurane anaesthesia and traditional fluid management. Total intravenous anaesthesia is an effective multimodal antiemetic strategy for bariatric surgery.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC- 2,100,046,534, registration date: 21 May 2021).

Evaluation of Antiemetic Consistency in Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Among NHL Patients in Sana'a, Yemen.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a prevalent and distressing adverse effect that can negatively affect a patient's quality of life and treatment adherence. This study aimed to evaluate the consistency of antiemetic use with standard guidelines and to examine the factors influencing it. This cross-sectional study was conducted at the National Oncology Center (NOC) of Al-Jomhouri Teaching Hospital, Sana'a, Yemen, from November 2022 to September 2023. Demographic data, chemotherapy and antiemetic regimens, dosages, and patient-related risk factors were collected via direct interviews, medical records, and treatment charts. This study evaluated the consistency of antiemetic practices among non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL) patients using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. The chi-squared test and regression were used to determine the factors associated with guideline consistency. A total of 251 patients with NHL were recruited for the study; 57.4% were male and 60.6% were aged between 18-49. Most of the patients received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (81.3%). The overall consistency with the NCCN guidelines was only 23.9%, with antiemetic drug selection and dosage reported inconsistently in 62.9% and 16.7% of patients, respectively. Furthermore, 62.5% of the patients received an under-prescribed antiemetic prophylactic regimen. Treatment duration, number of chemotherapy cycles, emetogenic risk potential, and overall patient risk, as well as age, sex, and marital status, were significantly associated with guideline inconsistency (p < 0.05). This study revealed a notable gap in the consistency of antiemetic prescriptions among patients with NHL. Inappropriate drug selection, dosing, and under-prescription are common problems. Patient regimen risk factors significantly influenced the consistency of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Personalized approaches are essential to enhance adherence to guidelines and improve antiemetic strategies.

Intraoperative Prophylaxis with Palonosetron for Postoperative Nausea and/or Vomiting in Adults Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

This study assessed the efficacy of palonosetron, alone or with dexamethasone, in reducing postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) and its impact on hospitalization duration in patients who undergo adult cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) under general anesthesia. This retrospective analysis involved 540 adult patients who underwent CTS from a single-center cohort, spanning surgeries between September 2021 and March 2023. Sensitivity, logistic, and Cox regression analyses evaluated antiemetic effects, PONV risk factors, and outcomes. At the Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), Seattle, WA. Adults undergoing cardiothoracic surgery at VMMC during the specified period. Patients were categorized into the following 4 groups based on antiemetic treatment: dexamethasone, palonosetron, dexamethasone with palonosetron, and no antiemetic. Primary outcomes encompassed PONV incidence within 96 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit stay duration and postoperative opioid use. Palonosetron recipients showed a significantly lower PONV rate of 42% (v controls at 63%). The dexamethasone and palonosetron combined group also demonstrated a lower rate of 40%. Sensitivity analysis revealed a notably lower 0- to 12-hour PONV rate for palonosetron recipients (9% v control at 28%). Logistic regression found decreased PONV risk (palonosetron odds ratio [OR]: 0.24; dexamethasone and palonosetron OR: 0.26). Cox regression identified varying PONV hazard ratios related to female sex, PONV history, and lower body mass index. This single-center retrospective study underscored palonosetron's efficacy, alone or combined with dexamethasone, in managing PONV among adult patients who undergo CTS. These findings contribute to evolving antiemetic strategies in cardiothoracic surgery, potentially impacting patient outcomes and satisfaction positively.

Olanzapine within steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with acute leukemia receiving multi-day intensive chemotherapy.

Olanzapine use for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in hematological malignancies, for multi-day chemotherapy, and with a steroid-sparing antiemetic strategy is poorly understood. This study investigated if olanzapine is associated with improved prevention of CINV when added to a steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen in patients with acute leukemia receiving intensive, moderately emetogenic, multi-day chemotherapy. This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study in patients with acute leukemia. Patients who received olanzapine for CINV prevention were compared to those who did not. All patients received a 5-HT3 antagonist. Adult patients receiving moderately emetogenic, multi-day, intensive chemotherapy for acute leukemia were included. Patients were excluded if they received steroids greater than physiological doses during the study period. The primary endpoint was the complete response of CINV (no emesis or rescue antiemetic usage). This study included 58 patients, 12 patients received olanzapine and 46 patients were in the control group. Baseline demographics were similar. In the study population, 89.7% had acute myeloid leukemia, median age was 54 (interquartile range 42-63) years, 34.5% were female, 27.6% had prior CINV. Complete response of CINV was similar between groups, 4 (33.3%) and 15 (32.6%) patients in the olanzapine and control groups, respectively. Safety events were similar between groups. Patients with acute leukemia receiving multi-day intensive chemotherapy are at high risk for CINV. The limited data in this study suggests that olanzapine use within a steroid-sparing antiemetic regimen was well tolerated and associated with similar incidence and severity of CINV compared to the control group.

Valproic Acid is an Effective Anti-Emetic Treatment in Alexander Disease (P10-9.010)

<h3>Objective:</h3> To explore safety and effectiveness of anti-emetic strategies in Alexander disease (AxD). <h3>Background:</h3> Emesis is a frequent symptom in AxD and leads to inadequate intake and food avoidance behaviors. As a result, weight loss and failure to thrive are common in AxD. We explored emesis treatment strategies to determine their relative benefits and side effects in clinical practice. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> Medical records of patients with AxD (&lt;21 years) participating in a natural history cohort study were reviewed for history of emesis, difficulty with weight gain, and medications. Patients were retrospectively evaluated for response to medication, which was defined as a clinically meaningful decrease in emesis. Treatment failure was defined as no improvement, worsened emesis, clinically significant weight loss, or presence of an intolerable side effect. Deceased patients, patients with a Nissen fundoplication, and patients with insufficient longitudinal data were excluded. Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare response rates of valproic acid to those of anti-reflux medications (proton pump inhibitors, H2 antagonists analyzed together) or cyproheptadine. <h3>Results:</h3> Among 59 subjects with vomiting, 34 subjects met inclusion criteria. Emesis was treated with multiple anti-reflux medications (N=24), cyproheptadine (N=19), and valproic acid (VPA, N=22). Overall, 48% of patients responded to multiple anti-reflux medications, 32% responded to cyproheptadine, and 95% responded to VPA. VPA had a higher success rate in reducing emesis compared to multiple reflux medications (p=0.0001) or cyproheptadine (p&lt;0.0001). Adverse effects from VPA included bone fractures (N=1) in a non-ambulatory patient, hyperammonemia (N=2) which resolved with dose lowering, and mild hair loss (N=2). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Recognizing the limitations of retrospective review, 95% of AxD patients on VPA showed improvements in emesis and weight gain. Response rates to VPA were greater compared to anti-reflux medications or cyproheptadine. VPA is well tolerated overall, although use should be monitored for known adverse effects. <b>Disclosure:</b> Ms. Sergio has nothing to disclose. Miss Gallison has nothing to disclose. Dr. Porcari has nothing to disclose. The institution of Mr. Joung has received research support from Ionis Pharmaceuticals. Mr. Faig has nothing to disclose. An immediate family member of Geraldine Liu has received publishing royalties from a publication relating to health care. Dr. Waldman has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for SwanBio. An immediate family member of Dr. Waldman has stock in Pfizer. The institution of Dr. Waldman has received research support from Ionis Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Waldman has received publishing royalties from a publication relating to health care.

Risk factors associated with nausea and vomiting in children with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

Despite treatment with antiemetic medications, nausea remains uncontrolled for many children receiving chemotherapy. One reason is that risk factors for nausea in children remain poorly explored. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for chemotherapy-induced nausea (CIN) in children. Prospective, observational study including 101 children (median age 6.4 years, range 0.8-17.9) with cancer receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were complete control of acute and delayed CIN, defined as no nausea in the acute phase 0-24 h after chemotherapy and in the delayed phase starting after the acute phase and ending 5 days later. Multivariable analyses included age, sex, cancer type, susceptibility to motion sickness, chemotherapy duration, numbers of antiemetics, co-administration with opioids or tricyclic antidepressants, and previously uncontrolled nausea or vomiting. Acute CIN was associated with susceptibility to motion sickness (odds ratio [OR] 5.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-33.7) and older age (OR 4.19, 95% CI 1.30-14.7), comparing age group 8-18 years with 0-3 years. Delayed CIN was associated with uncontrolled acute nausea or vomiting (OR 10.3, 95% CI 2.65-50.9), highly emetogenic chemotherapy (OR 8.26, 95% CI 1.17-76.8), and having a hematologic cancer type (OR 7.81, 95% CI 1.05-79.2). Susceptibility to motion sickness and age can influence the risk of acute CIN. More research is needed on how best to integrate risk information in preventive antiemetic strategies. Sufficient acute nausea and vomiting control are crucial to prevent delayed CIN.

Multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine improves the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving chemotherapy prior to autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a retrospective study

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is common in patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma (MM) receiving high-dose chemotherapy (HDC) followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite a standard triple antiemetic regimen of a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA), a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) RA, and dexamethasone is recommended, how to control the protracted CINV in ASCT setting remains an intractable problem. Here, we retrospectively analyze CINV data of 100 patients who received either SEAM (semustine, etoposide, cytarabine, melphalan) or MEL140-200 (high-dose melphalan) before ASCT, evaluate the efficacy and safety of multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant combined with tropisetron and olanzapine (FTO), and compare the results to those of patients who received a standard regimen of aprepitant, tropisetron, and dexamethasone (ATD). The overall rate of complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue therapy, is 70% in the FTO group compared to 36% in the ATD group. Although CR rates are comparable in the acute phase between the two groups, significantly more patients treated by FTO achieve CR in the delayed phase than those treated by ATD (74% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Moreover, FTO treatment significantly reduced the percentage of patients who are unable to eat, as well as the requirement for rescue medications. Both regimens are well tolerated and most adverse events (AEs) were generally mild and transient. In conclusion, the antiemetic strategy containing multiple-day administration of fosaprepitant is safe and effective for preventing CINV in lymphoma and MM patients, particularly in the delayed phase.

A pooled analysis of adding olanzapine to guideline-recommended antiemetic therapy for breast cancer patients treated with an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide in prospective and retrospective studies.

As an antipsychotic agent that targets multiple neurotransmitter receptors, olanzapine has been added to antiemetic therapies. For better understanding the application of olanzapine in antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients who suffered anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide-induced nausea and vomiting, we comprehensively reviewed the antiemetic researches related to olanzapine and pooled-analyzed the results to confirm the efficacy and safety of olanzapine in breast cancer. PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception through Sep 15, 2021. Both prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. The primary outcomes were complete response (defined as no vomiting and no use of rescue medications) and no nausea rate, and the secondary outcome was treatment-related adverse events. Four studies with 466 breast cancer patients were identified in the pooled analysis. In the acute period (0-24h), the olanzapine group had significantly higher rates of complete response (71.3% vs 48.1%, odds ratio [OR]: 2.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-5.11, p = 0.003) and no nausea (70.0% vs 43.0%, OR: 3.55, 95% CI 1.76-7.18, p = 0.04) than the placebo group, while in the delayed period, the olanzapine group was also superior to the placebo group in terms of the complete response (82.5% vs 63.3%, OR: 3.81, 95% CI 1.58-9.15, p = 0.003) and no nausea (66.3% vs 51.9%, OR: 2.08, 95% CI 1.03-4.21, p = 0.04) rates. During the overall period in prospective studies, the proportions of complete response (50.0% vs 34.2%, OR: 1.93, p = 0.04) and no nausea (51.3% vs 25.3%, OR: 3.40, p = 0.0006) in the olanzapine group were higher than those in the placebo group. Highly emetogenic chemotherapy breast patients could benefit from olanzapine-contained antiemetic therapy. Furthermore, since the cost is low, olanzapine is worth further clinical application and promotion.

Status of Brain Imaging in Gastroparesis

The pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting in gastroparesis is complicated and multifaceted involving the collaboration of both the peripheral and central nervous systems. Most treatment strategies and studies performed in gastroparesis have focused largely on the peripheral effects of this disease, while our understanding of the central nervous system mechanisms of nausea in this entity is still evolving. The ability to view the brain with different neuroimaging techniques has enabled significant advances in our understanding of the central emetic reflex response. However, not enough studies have been performed to further explore the brain–gut mechanisms involved in nausea and vomiting in patients with gastroparesis. The purpose of this review article is to assess the current status of brain imaging and summarize the theories about our present understanding on the central mechanisms involved in nausea and vomiting (N/V) in patients with gastroparesis. Gaining a better understanding of the complex brain circuits involved in the pathogenesis of gastroparesis will allow for the development of better antiemetic prophylactic and treatment strategies.

Genetic Risk Factors Associated With Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron, Aprepitant, and Dexamethasone in Japanese Breast Cancer Patients Treated With Anthracycline-based Chemotherapy

IntroductionBreast cancer patients often receive anthracycline-based chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains one of the most uncomfortable and distressing adverse reactions. Poor control of CINV reduces the relative dose intensity of chemotherapy agents, which has been associated with poor clinical outcomes and shorter survival. The aim of the present study was to identify genetic risk factors associated with anthracycline-based CINV. Patients and MethodsWe evaluated CINV attributable to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in Japanese breast cancer patients treated with an antiemetic regimen that included palonosetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone. Furthermore, we investigated the associations between CINV and single nucleotide polymorphisms in 6 candidate genes. ResultsEmesis episodes were rarely observed in the 125 patients included in the present survey (7.2%; n = 9); however, significant nausea occurred in more than one half of the patients (52.8%; n = 66). In particular, acute significant nausea was not effectively controlled. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ABCG2 (rs2231142) AA genotype is significantly associated with acute significant nausea (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-23.60; P = .049). ConclusionThe findings of the present study provide significant insights for developing personalized antiemetic strategies for breast cancer patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Patients' perception of chemotherapy side effects: Expectations, doctor-patient communication and impact on quality of life - An Italian survey.

Chemotherapy side effects (CSE) have a strong impact on patients' quality of life (QOL). To assess patient perceptions of CSE, their impact on QOL and doctor-patient communication regarding these aspects, a survey was conducted among Italian cancer patients. Patients at least 18years of age, who received chemotherapy, were administered a dedicated questionnaire to assess their point of view on five domains: expectations about CSE and impact on QOL; doctor-patient communication about CSE; treatments to reduce the impact of CSE; sexual life; family relationships/activities and employment. A total of 761 patients participated. CSE had a considerable impact on patient QOL. Nausea/vomiting was the most feared adverse effect before initiating chemotherapy and the one most commonly experienced during treatment. Patients generally reported good doctor-patient communication regarding information about CSE. In almost all cases, the oncologists prescribed an antiemetic treatment, but the incidence of nausea/vomiting was high. Cancer and CSE severely affected sexual life, daily activities and employment. CSE had a strong negative impact on QOL. Good doctor-patient communication is essential. Improving antiemetic strategies may improve QOL. Doctors' ability to inform patients about delicate issues, such as the impact of CSE on sexual life, needs to be improved.

2016 Updated MASCC/ESMO Consensus Recommendations: Controlling nausea and vomiting with chemotherapy of low or minimal emetic potential.

The purpose of this review is to update the MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) guidelines for controlling nausea and vomiting with chemotherapy of low or minimal emetic potential. The antiemetic study group of MASCC met in Copenhagen in 2015 to review the MASCC antiemetic guidelines. A subgroup performed a systematic literature review on antiemetics for low emetogenic chemotherapy (LEC) and chemotherapy of minimal emetic potential and the chair presented the update recommendation to the whole group for discussion. They then voted with an aim of achieving 67% or greater consensus. For patients receiving low emetogenic chemotherapy, a single antiemetic such as dexamethasone, a 5HT3 receptor antagonist, or a dopamine receptor antagonist may be considered for prophylaxis of acute emesis. For patients receiving chemotherapy of minimal emetogenicity, no antiemetic should be routinely administered. If patients vomit, they should be treated as for chemotherapy of low emetic potential. No antiemetic should be administered for prevention of delayed nausea and vomiting induced by low or minimally emetogenic chemotherapy. More research is needed to determine the incidence of emesis, particularly delayed emesis, in the LEC group. Prospective studies are required to evaluate antiemetic strategies. The risk of emesis within LEC may be more accurately determined by adding the patient risk factors for emesis to those of the chemotherapy drugs. Improved strategies for promoting adherence to guidelines are required.

Prophylactic treatment for delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after non-AC based moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

PurposeDelayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important adverse effect of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy not containing anthracyclines and cyclophosphamide (non-AC MEC). In this review, we summarize current literature to update recommendations for delayed CINV prophylaxis after non-AC MEC.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in PubMed and conference proceedings from ASCO, ESMO, and MASCC. Included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of two or more antiemetic strategies in the prevention of delayed CINV after the administration of non-AC MEC. At least one of the following endpoints was used: complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and/or no use of rescue medication.ResultsOur search provided 247 publications. Nine met the predefined criteria. Included RCTs reported outcomes on palonosetron, aprepitant, casopitant, netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), olanzapine, and megestrol acetate.ConclusionsSuperiority of palonosetron over first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV after non-AC MEC has not been proven. The addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to first-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonists does not significantly improve the incidence of delayed CINV after non-AC MEC. The efficacy of a single-day regimen of dexamethasone with palonosetron is non-inferior to multiday dexamethasone. NEPA, olanzapine, and megestrol acetate show highly effective complete response (CR) rates.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-015-2778-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Phenothiazine vs 5HT3 antagonist prophylactic regimens to prevent Post-Anesthesia Care Unit rescue antiemetic: an observational study.

Our practitioners are asked to consider a patient's postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) risk profile when developing their prophylactic antiemetic strategy. There is wide variation in employed strategies, and we have yet to determine the most effective PONV prophylactic regimen. The objective of this study is to compare prophylactic antiemetic regimens containing: phenothiazines to 5HT3 antagonists for effectiveness at reducing the incidence of Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) rescue antiemetic administration. This is an observational study of 4,392 nonsmoking women who underwent general anesthesia for breast surgery from 1/1/2009 through 6/30/2012. Previous history of PONV or motion sickness (HxPONV/MS) and the use of PACU opioids were recorded. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy was left to the discretion of the anesthesia care team. We compared phenothiazines and 5HT3 antagonists alone and with a glucocorticoid to determine the most effective treatment regimen in our practice for the prevention of the administration of PACU rescue antiemetics. Patients who received a phenothiazine regimen compared to a 5HT3 antagonist regimen were less likely to have an antiemetic administered in the PACU (p=0.0100) and this significant difference in rates holds in a logistic regression model adjusted for HxPONV/MS and PACU Opioid use (p=0.0103). Based on our findings our clinicians are encouraged to administer a combination of a phenothiazine and a glucocorticoid in female, nonsmoking surgical breast patients for the prevention of PACU rescue antiemetic administration.

Comparative study to evaluate the antiemetic strategy used in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery vs. hospitalization

Ortiz, Elícegui A.; Cabrera, J; Benito, P; Bastida, E; Agustí, S; Zaballos., M Author Information

Risk Assessment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in the Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Environment: Predictive Values of the Apfel's Simplified Risk Score for Identification of High-Risk Patients

PurposeOpioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) is popular method of postoperative pain control, but many patients suffer from IV PCA-related postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). In this retrospective observational study, we have determined independent predictors of IV PCA-related PONV and predictive values of the Apfel's simplified risk score in pursuance of identifying high-risk patients.Materials and MethodsWe analyzed 7000 patients who received IV PCA with background infusion after elective surgery. Patients who maintained IV PCA for a postoperative period of 48 hr (completion group, n=6128) were compared with those who have discontinued IV PCA within 48 hr of surgery due to intractable PONV (cessation group, n=872). Patients, anesthetics, and surgical factors known for predicting PONV were evaluated by logistic regression analysis to identify independent predictors of IV PCA related intractable PONV.ResultsIn a stepwise multivariate analysis, weight, background infusion dose of fentanyl, addition of ketolorac to PCA, duration of anesthesia, general anesthesia, head and neck surgery, and Apfel's simplified risk score were revealed as independent risk factors for intractable PONV followed by the cessation of IV PCA. In addition, Apfel's simplified risk score, which demonstrated the highest odds ratio among the predictors, was strongly correlated with the cessation rate of IV PCA.ConclusionMultimodal prophylactic antiemetic strategies and dose reduction of opioids may be considered as strategies for the prevention of PONV with the use of IV PCA, especially in patients with high Apfel's simplified risk scores.

Prophylaxis of intra- and postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients during cesarean section in spinal anesthesia

BackgroundThis paper describes a randomized prospective study conducted in 308 patients undergoing caesarean section in spinal anaesthesia at a single hospital between 2010 and 2012 to find a suitable anti-emetic strategy for these patients.Material/MethodsSpinal anesthesia was performed in left prone position, at L3/L4 with hyperbaric 0.5% Bupivacaine according to a cc/cm body height ratio. There were no opioids given peri-operatively. The patients received either no prophylaxis (Group I) or tropisetron and metoclopramide (Group II) or dimenhydrinate and dexamethasone (Group III), or tropisetron as a single medication (Group IV). The primary outcome was nausea and/or vomiting (NV) in the intraoperative, early (0–2 h) or late (2–24 h) postoperative period.Multivariate statistical analysis was conducted with a regression analysis and a backward elimination of factors without significant correlation.ResultsAll prophylactic agents significantly reduced NV incidence intraoperatively. Relative risk reduction for NV by prophylaxis was most effective (59.5%) in Group II (tropisetron and metoclopramide). In Group III (dimenhydrinate and dexamethasone), NV risk was reduced by 29.9% and by 28.7% in Group IV (tropisetron mono-therapy). The incidence of NV in the early (0–2 h) and the late (2–24 h) postoperative period was low all over (7.8%), but the relative risk reduction of NV in the early postoperative period was 54.1% (Group IV), 45.1% (Group III), and 34.8% (Group II), respectively. In the late postoperative period, there was no significant difference between the 4 groups.ConclusionsWe recommend a prophylactic medication with tropisetron 2 mg and metoclopramide 20 mg for patients during caesarean section. These agents are safe, reasonably priced, and highly efficient in preventing nausea and vomiting.

Recent Literature

Recent Literature

Use of a Disposable Acupressure Device as Part of a Multimodal Antiemetic Strategy for Reducing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

There is still controversy regarding the optimal strategy for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk surgical populations. Although acustimulation at the P6 acupoint has been demonstrated to be effective in preventing PONV, the effect of this nonpharmacologic therapy on the patient's recovery with respect to resumption of normal activities of daily living has not been previously assessed when it is used as part of a multimodal antiemetic regimen. Therefore, we designed this randomized, sham-controlled, and double-blind study to assess the efficacy of a disposable acupressure device (Pressure Right®; Pressure Point Inc., Grand Rapids, MI) on the incidence of emetic episodes and quality of recovery when used in combination with ondansetron and dexamethasone for antiemetic prophylaxis. One hundred ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing major laparoscopic procedures were randomly assigned to either a control group (n = 50) receiving a "sham" acustimulation device or an acupressure group (n = 50) receiving a disposable Pressure Right device placed bilaterally at the P6 point 30 to 60 minutes before induction of anesthesia. All patients received a standardized general anesthetic. A combination of ondansetron, 4 mg IV, and dexamethasone, 4 mg IV, was administered during surgery for antiemetic prophylaxis in both study groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting and the need for "rescue" antiemetic therapy were assessed at specific time intervals for up to 72 hours after surgery. The recovery profiles and quality of recovery questionnaires were evaluated at 48 hours and 72 hours after surgery. Patient satisfaction with the management of their PONV was assessed at the end of the 72-hour study period. The 2 study groups did not differ in their demographic characteristics or risk factors for PONV. The incidence of vomiting at 24 hours was significantly decreased in the acupressure group (10% vs 26%, P = 0.04, 95% confidence interval for absolute risk reduction 1%-31%). The overall incidence of vomiting from 0 to 72 hours after surgery was also significantly decreased from 30% to 12% in the acupressure group (P = 0.03, 95% confidence interval 2%-33%). Furthermore, adjunctive use of the acupressure device seemed to enhance patient satisfaction with their PONV management and quality of recovery at 48 hours after surgery. However, the recovery times to hospital discharge, resumption of normal physical activities, and return to work did not differ significantly between the 2 study groups. Use of the Pressure Right acupressure device in combination with antiemetic drugs provided a reduction in the incidence of vomiting from 0 to 72 hours after surgery with an associated improvement in patient satisfaction with their PONV management. However, recovery and outcome variables failed to demonstrate any improvement with the addition of the acupressure device.

Prévention des nausées et vomissements postopératoires : enquête sur les pratiques en chirurgie gynécologique auprès des membres du Club d’anesthésie réanimation en obstétrique

Objectives A prophylactic anti-emetic strategy should depend on the number of nausea and vomiting risk factors. This study was undertaken to evaluate the practices of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prevention practices among obstetrician-gynaecologists, anaesthetists. Study design A prospective, self-administered questionnaire survey was emailed to all Club d’Anesthésie Réanimation Obstétricale (Caro) members (French Obstetric and Gynaecology Anaesthetists’ Association). Methods The questionnaire had closed-ended questions to evaluate each Caro member's prophylactic anti-emetic practices. Questions concerned demographic datas, prophylactic anti-emetic drugs administered to the patients with or without well known risk factors for developing PONV, the existence of protocol to prevent PONV in their own department of anaesthesiology and their awareness of the existence of French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (Sfar) PONV prevention guidelines 2007. Results Of 115 questionnaires, 66 respondents (57%) returned the questionnaires. Most of the respondents (74%) worked in a university hospital. Forty-two percent practiced exclusively in obstetric-gynaecology department. Fifty-six percent were anaesthetists for more than 20 years. Eighty-five percent of the physicians were well-informed about the SFAR's PONV prevention guidelines. Thirty seven percent of respondents assessed Apfel score systematically for all their patients. The percentages, which didn’t calculate the probability of PONV with Apfel score or calculated only in cases of PONV history or travel sickness were 18% and 45% respectively. In cases of two or more risk factors, 63% used droperidol, dexamethasone and ondansetron in double or triple combinations. Conclusions Although most surveyed practitioners were well informed about the new guidelines concerning PONV prevention, 27% not follow these guidelines regarding the administration of anti-emetic drugs. The calculation of Apfel score in the preoperative period must be also strengthened.