Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting Prophylaxis Research Articles

Standardised electronic algorithms for monitoring prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

IntroductionDespite comprehensive guidelines with high-grade evidence, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a frequent problem in anaesthesia care. Anaesthesia information management systems (AIMS) may aid clinicians in PONV prevention, but their benefit is critically dependent on the details of implementation into practice. This study aimed to examine strengths and weaknesses of the local AIMS-based algorithm in prevention of PONV.Material and methodsThis retrospective study was conducted in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) of a university hospital and included 10 604 patients aged 18 or older who were followed up in the PACU (intracranial, obstetrical or cardiothoracic surgery excluded) from March 2013 until March 2014. The PONV incidence in PACU and AIMS data validity were analysed.ResultsAdherence to PONV guideline recommendations was considerably low, with only 5749 (54%) of the patients receiving correct PONV prophylaxis. Two thousand seven hundred sixty-six (26%) of the patients received an insufficient PONV prophylaxis, which was associated with an excess PONV incidence (11% vs. 4% with correct prophylaxis, p < 0.001) in the PACU. Two thousand four hundred forty-nine (23%) of all patients were discharged from the PACU with an insufficient PONV prophylaxis despite perioperative digital PONV prevention algorithms.ConclusionsAdherence to PONV prophylaxis guidelines in the era of AIMS software and decision support is still remarkably low. The AIMS data usefulness depends on the user, the type of data input and the configuration of the software. Adherence to correct PONV prophylaxis should be re-evaluated systematically before discharge from PACU.

A randomized study to compare palonosetron with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following middle ear surgeries.

Background and Aims:Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has multifactorial etiology. It is a commonly encountered morbidity after anesthesia specially following middle ear surgery. Various antiemetic medications have been tried with mixed responses. Palonosetron is a newer 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) receptor antagonist marketed for PONV prophylaxis. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after middle ear surgeries.Material and Methods:One hundred patients of ASA class 1 or 2, aged 18 years and above, weighing between 40 and 90 kg scheduled for elective middle ear surgeries were randomly assigned into palonosetron group (n = 50) and ondansetron group (n = 50). Palonosetron was administered in dose of 1 mcg/kg maximum up to 75 mcg and ondansetron in dose of 0.1 mg/kg maximum up to 8 mg. Intraoperative monitoring of QTc interval was also done to see any significant change after the antiemetic administration. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and side effects were recorded over 2, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. All parameters were compared between the two groups as mean ± standard deviation and as count (%). Two sided P values of <0.05 were considered significant.Results:The incidence of PONV (P = 0.002), nausea (P = 0.0002) and vomiting (P = 0.006) was significantly lower in palonosetron group than in ondansetron group in 2- to 12-hour period. QTc interval prolongation, a known side effect of ondansetron was not found in palonosetron group intraoperatively.Conclusion:Palonosetron was found to be superior to ondansetron up to 12 hours after the surgery with no significant effect on QTc interval.

Prospective Assessment of Postoperative Nausea Early After Bariatric Surgery.

The most common reason for readmission after bariatric surgery is postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The aim of this study was to compare the incidence and severity of PONV between patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (GB). This was a prospective observational cohort study that evaluated all patients who underwent non-revisional isolated SG or GB at a tertiary care center. Patients were asked to grade their nausea on a 10-point Likert scale at 2h postoperatively and the morning of each postoperative day (POD). There were 65 patients that matched the inclusion criteria, of which 29 underwent SG and 36 underwent GB. There were no significant differences in age (p = 0.198), BMI (p = 0.294), American Society of Anesthesiology classification (p = 0.380), or male gender (p = 0.164) when comparing SG and GB patients. Perioperative PONV prophylaxis was similar. There were no differences in LOS (2.6 ± 1.3 vs 2.3 ± 0.5days, p = 0.919) or readmission/visit to the emergency department due to PONV (10.3% vs 13.9%, p = 0.665) between the two groups. Prolonged LOS due to PONV occurred in 20.7% of SG patients and 19.4% of GB patients (p = 0.901). The severity and incidence of PONV are similar following SG and GB. Importantly, there was no difference in hospital utilization due to PONV between SG and GB.

Incidence of akathisia after postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis with droperidol and ondansetron in outpatient surgery: A multicentre controlled randomised trial.

Akathisia, a distressing movement disorder induced by butyrophenones, has been described with low doses of droperidol used for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, but the incidence remains unclear. To determine the incidence of akathisia after PONV prophylaxis with two doses of droperidol in comparison with ondansetron, in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. We hypothesised that the incidence of akathisia is higher with droperidol than that with ondansetron. Randomised controlled double blind trial. Two University Hospital Centres and two private Clinics from January to September 2014. Patients (n=297) undergoing general anaesthesia for ambulatory surgery were randomly allocated to receive PONV prophylaxis with droperidol (0.625 or 1.25 mg) or ondansetron 4 mg; patients of the three groups also received 4 mg of dexamethasone. Exclusion criteria were contraindication to droperidol and ondansetron, use of psychotropic medications or benzodiazepines or history of psychotic illness. Participants received droperidol (0.625 or 1.25 mg) or ondansetron 4 mg during general anaesthesia. After discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit presence and severity of akathisia were assessed using the Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale at 4 h postoperatively. Score of the Global Clinical Assessment of Akathisia of Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale. The number of akathisia observed was 1/118 (0.8%) in the ondansetron group, 1/84 (1.2%) in droperidol 0.625 mg group, and 3/87 (3.4%) in droperidol 1.25 mg group. The akathisia rate difference among the three groups was not significant (P = 0.52). We could not demonstrate significant differences in the incidence of akathisia between the two doses of droperidol. The only case of marked akathisia treated with benzodiazepines was observed after droperidol 1.25 mg. The use of droperidol or ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis is associated to a low incidence of akathisia (0.8 to 3.4%) after general anaesthesia for ambulatory surgery. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01942343.

Perioperative pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management after day-case surgery: The SFAR-OPERA national study

ObjectivesSince pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the main reasons for failed discharge after day-case surgery, assessing pain and PONV is important. The aim was to describe the perioperative pain and PONV management within selected day-case surgical procedures in France. MethodsThe OPERA trial was carried out on given days between December 2013 and December 2014. Each participating centre was required to fill out 3 separate questionnaires aiming at describing (1) protocols about pain and PONV, (2) patients’ characteristics and procedures, (3) analgesic and PONV practice patterns for selected procedures. ResultsOver the two days of investigation in each of the 221 randomly selected healthcare institutions, 7382 patients were included, of whom 2144 patients above 12 years underwent one of 10 selected procedures. Among responding institutions, 40% [33;47] had a dedicated pain management written protocol. Combination of tramadol and paracetamol was the most commonly prescribed (78% [71;83] of centres). Oral morphine was prescribed in 59/199 (30% [23; 37]) centres, for home treatment in 25/59 (42% [30; 56]) centres. However, there was no standardised take-home analgesic and PONV strategies for selected surgical procedures at risk of moderate to severe pain. PONV management guidance after discharge was included in only 12 % of centres. ConclusionThis survey demonstrates that practice patterns for pain treatment and PONV prophylaxis after ambulatory surgery vary among French centres and are not always in line with national guidelines. Strategies to improve practices and make them more homogeneous are necessary.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in pediatric subjects

Background/purposeThis multicenter, randomized, partially-blinded phase IIb study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of aprepitant in pediatric subjects for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). MethodsSubjects aged birth to 17 years scheduled to undergo surgery and receive general anesthesia with ≥1 risk factor for PONV were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 aprepitant dose regimens (a single oral dose of aprepitant equivalent to adult doses of 10 mg, 40 mg, or 125 mg), or a control regimen of ondansetron before anesthesia. Assessments included PK, safety, and exploratory efficacy (complete response [CR; no emesis, retching, or dry heaves and no rescue therapy within 0–24 h following surgery] and no vomiting [NV; no emesis, retching, or dry heaves within 0–24 h following surgery]). ResultsOf 220 randomized and treated subjects, 119 receiving a single aprepitant dose were sampled for PK analysis and had evaluable aprepitant plasma concentrations. A dose-dependent relationship in exposure (AUC0–8 h and Cmax) was observed. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated, and the CR and NV rates were high (>80%) across treatment groups. ConclusionsPK, safety, and preliminary efficacy analyses support further clinical evaluation of aprepitant for PONV prophylaxis in pediatric patients. ClinicalTrials.gov IDNCT01732458 Level of evidenceTherapeutic, Level I.

Muscular tissue oxygen saturation during robotic hysterectomy and postoperative nausea and vomiting: exploring the potential therapeutic thresholds.

The relationship between muscular tissue oxygen saturation (SmtO2) during surgery and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains to be determined. Patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy participated in this prospective cohort study. SmtO2 of the brachioradialis muscle in the forearm was continuously monitored during surgery. Thresholds based on relative changes or absolute values were systematically assigned. The relationship between thresholds and PONV was investigated based on threshold analysis (i.e., exceeding or not exceeding a threshold), area under the curve analysis (i.e., the size of the area enclosed by the SmtO2 trace and threshold), and multivariable analysis by accounting for recognized PONV risk factors. PONV occurred in 35 of 106 patients (33%). Based on the multivariable analysis, the SmtO2 threshold of 20% above baseline correlated with less PONV (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.16-0.93; p = 0.034), and the following values correlated with more PONV: 5% below baseline (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.26-4.45; p = 0.007), 20% below baseline (OR 16.08; 95% CI 3.05-84.73; p = 0.001), < 70% (OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.17-6.99; p = 0.021) and < 60% (OR 6.55; 95% CI 1.11-38.53; p = 0.038). Our study suggests that a potential therapeutic goal for PONV prophylaxis may be to maintain SmtO2 at > 70% and above baseline.

CYP2D6 basic genotyping as a potential tool to improve the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron in prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after anesthesia and surgery. Ondansetron is one of the most widely used drugs in the prophylaxis of PONV and is extensively metabolized in humans. In vitro metabolism studies have shown that ondansetron is a substrate for human hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes. The cytochrome P450 (human hepatic cytochrome [CYP]) 2D6 inhibitor quinidine reduced in vitro hydroxylation of ondansetron, which indicates the important role of CYP2D6 in ondansetron metabolism. Genotyping these alleles allows the prediction of the extensive metabolizer (EM) and poor metabolizer (PM) phenotypes with approx. 90-96% accuracy. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the pharmacological prevention of PONV with ondansetron depends on the most common CYP2D6 alleles (CYP2D6*1, *3, *4, *5, and NxN [multiplication gene]). Genotyping for the defective CYP2D6*3, CYP2D6*4 and CYP2D6*5 alleles among 93 surgical female patients was performed by polymerase chain reaction amplification and restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP). The genetically defined EMs and ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs) of CYP2D6 had a statistically significant (p < 0.02) higher frequency of nausea and vomiting after strumectomy (33.3%) than intermediate metabolizers (IMs) (10.3%) and PMs (0%). The relative risk (odds ratio [OR]) of PONV occurrence was 5 times higher for EMs/UMs than IMs/PMs. Our results suggest that PONV treatment with ondansetron could be improved by basic, widely available and inexpensive PCR-RFLP genetic tests.

Preoperative Risk Assessment to Guide Prophylaxis and Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

This article describes the implementation of a postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) risk prediction and prophylaxis protocol. This is a retrospective pre/post implementation quality improvement project. This project used chart reviews to assess the impact of the implemented PONV assessment and prophylaxis in a sample population of adult females undergoing gynecologic surgical procedures. The mean number of prophylactic antiemetics administered significantly increased during the postimplementation period from 3.64 (SD, 0.878) in the preimplementation period to 4.07 (SD, 1.021) in the postimplementation period (P<.001). The greatest increase in antiemetic administration occurred in the moderate-risk (risk score, 4) and the high-risk (risk score, 5 to 6) groups. The incidence of PONV decreased from 32.3% in the preimplementation period to 28.9% in the postimplementation period; however, this reduction did not meet statistical significance. Antiemetic administration compliance increased from 37% in the preimplementation group to 61% in the postimplementation group (P<.001). The results of this project suggest that a risk-tailored approach to PONV prophylaxis using a risk assessment tool along with treatment recommendations is effective at reducing the incidence of PONV. The effectiveness of this approach is limited by the involvement of the anesthesia providers responsible for completing the assessments and administering PONV prophylaxis.

The effect of a multifaceted postoperative nausea and vomiting reduction strategy on prophylaxis administration amongst higher-risk adult surgical patients.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and distressing problem for patients and increases the burden of care in post-anaesthesia care units (PACU). As such it has been a recent focus for quality improvement. Evidence-based guidelines have demonstrated the benefit of PONV risk stratification and prophylaxis, but may be underutilised in clinical practice. This prospective pre-/post-intervention study was conducted at an adult tertiary hospital in non-cardiac adult surgical patients at higher-risk of PONV. The intervention included promotion of an evidence-based PONV guideline, and provision of individualised prescribing and patient outcome data to anaesthetists. Six hundred and twenty-eight patients with ≥2 risk factors for PONV following general anaesthesia for non-cardiac surgery were included (333 pre-intervention and 295 post-intervention). Prior to the intervention, 9.0% (30/333) of moderate- and high-risk patients received antiemetic prophylaxis consistent with our guideline. Post-intervention, the rate of guideline adherence was 19.3% (57/295). In the high-risk PONV group, the time in PACU was significantly reduced post-intervention, 66 minutes versus 83 minutes (<i>P</i>=0.032). This institution-specific PONV reduction strategy had a modest but significant effect on improving prophylaxis administration. However, our findings indicate that further efforts would be required to ensure fuller compliance with the current extensive evidence base for PONV management in higher-risk patients.

Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after cardiac surgery in high-risk patients: A randomized controlled study.

Context:The role of prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in cardiac surgery is under debate.Aims:To study the risk factors for PONV after cardiac surgery and the role of betamethasone with or without droperidol for its prevention.Setting and Design:Randomized open-label controlled study comparing standard care with PONV prophylaxis from February to November 2016.Methods:Five hundred and two patients with planned nonemergent cardiac surgery were included. Interventions: In the intervention arm, PONV prophylaxis (4 mg betamethasone with/without 0.625 mg droperidol) was administered in high-risk patients (two or more risk factors). Patients in the control arm were treated as per routine hospital practices.Results:Female sex, past history of PONV, and migraines were associated with a significantly increased risk of PONV, while motion sickness, smoking status, and volatile anesthetics were not. Pain and treatment with nefopam or ketoprofen were associated with an increased risk of PONV. PONV was less frequent in the active arm compared to controls (45.5% vs. 54.0%, P = 0.063; visual analogic scale 10.9 vs. 15.3 mm, P = 0.043). Among the 180 patients (35.6%) with ≥2 risk factors, prophylaxis was associated with reduced PONV (intention-to-treat: 46.8% vs. 67.8%, P = 0.0061; per-protocol: 39.2% vs. 69%, P = 0.0002). In multivariate analysis, prophylaxis was independently associated with PONV (odds ratio [OR]: 0.324, 95% confidence interval: 0.167–0.629, P = 0.0009), as were female sex, past history of PONV, and migraines (OR: 3.027, 3.031, and 2.160 respectively). No drug-related side effects were reported.Conclusion:Betamethasone with/without droperidol was effective in decreasing PONV in high risk cardiac surgical patients without any side effect.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting with Plastic Surgery: A Practical Advisory to Etiology, Impact, and Treatment.

Ambulatory surgery is common in plastic surgery, where many aesthetic and reconstructive procedures can be performed in hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, or office-based surgery facilities. Outpatient surgery offers advantages to both the patient and the surgeon by increasing accessibility, flexibility, and convenience; lowering cost; and maintaining high-quality care. To optimize a patient's experience and comfort, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) should be prevented. However, in those patients who develop PONV, it must be appropriately managed and treated. The incidence of PONV is variable. It is often difficult to accurately predict those patients who will develop PONV or how they will manifest symptoms. There are a variety of recommended "cocktails" for PONV prophylaxis and treatments that are potentially effective. The decision regarding the type of treatment given is often more related to provider preference and determination of side-effect profile, rather than targeted to specific patient characteristics, because of the absence of large volumes of reliable data to support specific practices over others. Fortunately, there are several tenets for the successful prevention and treatment of PONV we have extracted from the literature and summarize here. The following is a summary for the practicing plastic surgeon of the current state of the literature regarding PONV cause, risk factors, prophylaxis, and treatment that may serve as a guide for further study and practice management.

Minimum Effective dose of Dexamethasone in Combination with Midazolam as Prophylaxis against Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

Background:Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 20% and 30% of patients. As many as 60%–80% patients at high risk may be affected. Dexamethasone (D) and midazolam (M) are well studied as antiemetic. Use of D can be associated with certain undesirable side effects so minimum dose is preferred. M is a routinely used premedicant. Hence, this study was designed with both D and M in high risk patients for PONV to find minimum effective dose of D.Aims:To determine the minimum dose of D that combined with M would provide effective prophylaxis of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients at high risk for PONV.Setting and Design:This is a prospective, randomized double-blind trial.Materials and Methods:One hundred and fifty-five patients scheduled for elective LC were randomized to 5 groups of 31 each. Group C was given normal saline, and the rest were administered D 1 mg (group MD1), 2 mg (group MD2), 4 mg (group MD4), or 8 mg (group MD8) in combination with 0.04 mg/kg M at induction. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, severity of nausea, and the use of rescue antiemetic and postoperative pain was analyzed.Statistical Analysis:Chi-square test was used to compare incidence of study variables. Independent Student's t-test was used for continuous variables. Demographic data were compared using ANOVA. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results:The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in group MD4 (29%) and MD8 (6%) compared to placebo group (71%) (P < 0.001) and of vomiting was significantly lower in groups of MD2 (58%), MD4 (48%), and MD8 (6%) compared with placebo (90%) (P < 0.001) at 24 h. There was significant reduction in nausea, pain severity, and incidence of use of rescue antiemetic in MD4 and MD8 groups with no discernable side effects of the drugs.Conclusion:We conclude that 4 mg D with M and 2 mg D with M is effective for prevention of nausea and vomiting, respectively, in patients at high risk for PONV undergoing LC.

Simplified algorithm for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a before-and-after study

BackgroundPoor adherence to guidelines aimed at reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is well known. In a before-and-after study, we tested the effectiveness of a simplified algorithm for PONV prophylaxis on the incidence of PONV. MethodsIn the first audit, we examined the adherence to our institutional guidelines for PONV prevention. In response to the results of this audit, we introduced a simplified algorithm for PONV prevention [female patients receiving triple prophylaxis (dexamethasone and ondansetron plus either a target-controlled infusion with propofol or droperidol) and male patients receiving double prophylaxis, dexamethasone, and ondansetron]. The impact of the simplification of the PONV algorithm was evaluated in a second audit. In both audits, we reviewed the medical records of all adult patients undergoing elective non-cardiac non-day-case surgery under general anaesthesia and being admitted to our post-anaesthesia care unit during two arbitrarily chosen weeks. We assessed the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and PONV after 1 and 24 h, and the compliance with the departmental algorithm for PONV prophylaxis. ResultsAfter simplification of the PONV algorithm, the overall incidence of PONV within 24 h after surgery was significantly lower than before the implementation of the simplified PONV algorithm (22% vs 33%, P=0.02). The PONV incidence within 1 h was comparable between the audits (11% vs 14%, P=0.45). The adherence to departmental guidelines for PONV prophylaxis was significantly higher after the implementation of the simplified PONV algorithm (46% vs 18%, P=0.0001). ConclusionsA simplified algorithm for PONV prophylaxis resulted in a significant reduction in the PONV incidence and better compliance with the PONV algorithm.

Prophylaxis of postoperative complications after craniotomy.

This review reports an update of the evidence on practices applied for the prevention and management of the most common complications after craniotomy surgery. Latest guidelines support the combined thromboprophylaxis with the use of both mechanical and chemical modalities, preferably applied within 24 h after craniotomy. Nevertheless, a heightened risk of minor hemorrhagic events remains an issue of concern. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain constitute the complications most commonly encountered during the first 24 h postcraniotomy. Recently, neurokinin type-1 receptor antagonists have been tested as adjuncts for PONV prophylaxis with encouraging results, whereas dexmedetomidine and gabapentinoids emerge as promising alternatives for postcraniotomy pain management. The available data for seizure prophylaxis following craniotomy lacks scientific quality; thus, this remains still a debatable issue. Significantly, a growing body of evidence supports the superiority of levetiracetam over the older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), in terms of efficacy and safety. Optimum management of postoperative complications is incorporated as an integral part of the augmented quality of care in patients undergoing craniotomy surgery, aiming to improve outcomes. This review may serve as a benchmark for neuroanesthetists for heightened clinical awareness and prompt institution of well-documented practices.

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

BackgroundIntraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV) or postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affecting women undergoing regional anesthesia for cesarean section is an important clinical problem since these techniques are used widely. There are burdens of literature about IONV/PONV and several in parturient and cesarean. However, it needs more attention. The underlying mechanisms of IONV and PONV in the obstetrical setting mainly include hypotension due to sympathicolysis during neuraxial anesthesia, bradycardia owing to an increased vagal tone, the visceral stimulation via the surgical procedure and intravenously administered opioids.MethodsGiven the high and even increasing rate of cesarean sections and the sparse information on the etiology, incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting and the impact of prophylactic measures on the incidence of PONV/IONV, this article aims to review the available information and provide pragmatic suggestions on how to prevent nausea and vomiting in this patient cohort. Current literature and guidelines were identified by electronic database searching (MEDLINE via PubMed and Cochrane database of systematic reviews) up to present, searching through reference lists of included literature and personal contact with experts.Discussion and conclusionTaking into account the current guidelines and literature as well as everyday clinical experience, the first step for decreasing the incidence of IONV and PONV is a comprehensive management of circulatory parameters. This management includes liberal perioperative fluid administration and the application of vasopressors as the circumstances require. By using low-dose local anesthetics, an additional application of intrathecal or spinal opioids or hyperbaric solutions for a sufficient controllability of neuraxial distribution, maternal hypotension might be reduced. Performing a combined spinal–epidural anesthesia or epidural anesthesia may be considered as an alternative to spinal anesthesia. Antiemetic drugs may be administered restrainedly due to off-label use in pregnant women for IONV or PONV prophylaxis and may be reserved for treatment.

Low-Dose Naloxone for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

To determine whether postoperative administration of low-dose intravenous naloxone decreases the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and its impact on postoperative opioid requirements and pain scores. Meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials. A total of 946 adult and pediatric patients who received low-dose intravenous naloxone for 24 hours after various surgeries. Systemic literature searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, PubMed, and Ovid MEDLINE databases were conducted. Among the relevant studies, data extraction and bias assessment determined the trials for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Nine randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Naloxone demonstrated a reduced risk of postoperative nausea (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.95, p=0.01) in a pooled analysis of eight of the nine studies. However, naloxone did not decrease the risk of postoperative vomiting in a collective assessment of all nine trials (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.63-1.09, p=0.18). Subgroup analysis of continuous-infusion naloxone found further reductions in nausea and vomiting, but these findings were limited to 186 of the 946 patients. Three studies recorded antiemetic doses and found an overall dose reduction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.96, p=0.03). Compared with controls, naloxone prophylaxis of PONV did not significantly change cumulative postoperative opioid needs (mean difference 0.29 mg, 95% CI -3.55 to 4.13 mg, p=0.88) among five trials, nor visual analog scale pain scores (mean difference -0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.05, p=0.18) in six studies. This pooled analysis of data suggests that low-dose naloxone plays no role in preventing PONV, while exhibiting no significant effects on postoperative opioid needs and pain scores. The reduction demonstrated in postoperative nausea did not translate into decreases in postoperative vomiting.

Post-operative nausea and vomiting in bariatric surgery patients: an observational study.

The risk of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery is unclear. The aim of the study was to investigate the risk of PONV and the use and effectiveness of PONV prophylaxis. This prospective observational study included 74 patients undergoing bariatric surgery with total intravenous anaesthesia. Patients were given PONV prophylaxis based on published guidelines and a simplified PONV risk score. Perioperative data were collected and a questionnaire was used at 2, 4, 6, 24, 48 and 72h after the operation to evaluate PONV. Data are presented as risk (%) with the 95% confidence interval. Sixty five per cent (54-75) of the patients experienced PONV in the first 24 post-operative hours and the risk increased with the number of risk factors for PONV. PONV occurred in 78% (66-87) of women and 26% (12-49) of men during the first 24h. In relation to the guidelines, one patient received suboptimal PONV prophylaxis, 23% received optimal prophylaxis and 76% supra-optimal prophylaxis. The risk of PONV was 82% (59-94) with optimal prophylaxis and 59% (46-71) with supra-optimal prophylaxis. Of all patients, 34% (24-45) experienced severe PONV in the first 24h that limited their activity. The incidence of PONV in bariatric surgery patients was high despite a PONV prophylaxis regime following current guidelines. These results cast doubt as to the effectiveness of the usual PONV prophylaxis in this patient group and point to the need for further investigation of PONV prophylaxis and treatment in bariatric surgery patients.

Prevención y tratamiento de pacientes con náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are a common problem in surgical patients. When not properly prevented, they can lead to increased morbidity, prolonged stay in the postoperative recovery unit and unplanned hospitalization. The objective of the surgical team should be the prophylaxis of PONV rather than its treatment, in order to significantly reduce its incidence and associated complications.The main risk factors for PONV are: female sex, history of PONV in prior surgeries and/or motion sickness, non-smoking, use of systemic opioids postoperatively, undergo certain types of surgery (such as cholecystectomy, laparoscopic surgery and gynecological surgery), use volatile anesthetics and/or intraoperative nitrous oxide, and duration of surgery. We suggest to objectify the risk of PONV using the Apfel or Koivuranta PONV risk scales. The main anti-emetic drugs used as prophylaxis and treatment in the perioperative period are dexamethasone, ondansetron and droperidol.There are general strategies that can be used to reduce the baseline surgical risk of PONV such as avoiding general anesthesia, favoring regional anesthesia, using propofol for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia, avoiding the use of nitrous oxide and/or inhalational anesthetics, minimizing the postoperative use of systemic opioids and to receive an abundant intravenous hydration during surgery.The etiology of PONV is multifactorial, so prevention and treatment should include different classes of antiemetics, acting on the different receptors of nausea and/or vomiting so far known, together with the general strategies mentioned above.

The effect of requesting a reason for non-adherence to a guideline in a long running automated reminder system for PONV prophylaxis.

Automated reminders are employed frequently to improve guideline adherence, but limitations of automated reminders are becoming more apparent. We studied the reasons for non-adherence in the setting of automated reminders to test the hypothesis that a separate request for a reason in itself may further improve guideline adherence. In a previously implemented automated reminder system on prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), we included additional automated reminders requesting a reason for non-adherence. We recorded these reasons in the pre-operative screening clinic, the OR and the PACU. We compared adherence to our PONV guideline in two study groups with a historical control group. Guideline adherence on prescribing and administering PONV prophylaxis (dexamethasone and granisetron) all improved compared to the historical control group (89 vs. 82% (p< 0.0001), 96 vs 95% (not significant) and 90 vs 82% (p<0.0001)) while decreasing unwarranted prescription for PONV prophylaxis (10 vs. 13 %). In the pre-operative screening clinic, the main reason for not prescribing PONV prophylaxis was disagreement with the risk estimate by the decision support system. In the OR/PACU, the main reasons for not administering PONV prophylaxis were: 'unintended non-adherence' and 'failure to document'. In this study requesting a reason for non-adherence is associated with improved guideline adherence. The effect seems to depend on the underlying reason for non-adherence. It also illustrates the importance of human factors principles in the design of decision support. Some reasons for non-adherence may not be influenced by automated reminders.