Metoclopramide versus ondansetron in prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Prokinetic Agents

Gastrointestinal (GI) prokinetic agents are drugs that increase GI motility and promote the movement of contents in the GI tract by amplifying and controlling the contraction of GI smooth muscle. Currently used prokinetics increase GI motility by acting as a dopamine D₂ receptor antagonist (e.g., metoclopramide, domperidone, levosulpiride) and 5-HT₄ receptor agonist (e.g., mosapride, prucalopride). Some prokinetics also have a cholinesterase inhibitory property (e.g., itopride), and herb-derived prokinetics (e.g., motilitone) affect multiple receptors. Depending on the type and distribution of receptors on which the prokinetics bind, the effect(s) may be regional or throughout the GI tract. Most prokinetics have been used for functional dyspepsia and gastroparesis because they mainly affect upper GI motility. However, prucalopride, a highly selective 5-HT₄ receptor agonist, is used primarily to treat chronic constipation and pseudo-obstruction. Dopamine D₂ receptor antagonists also inhibit the D₂ receptor in the medulla oblongata chemoreceptor trigger zone; therefore, they can treat nausea and vomiting. However, short term use of dopamine D₂ antagonists at an appropriate dose is recommended because of their potential for central nervous system side effects by penetrating the blood-brain barrier. It is necessary to know the mechanism of action, each clinical trial’s characteristics, and the side effects of prokinetics to obtain the best clinical outcomes. This article aims to summarize the results of clinical studies related to the impact of currently available prokinetic agents in Korea on GI motility.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Local Anesthetic Agent in Scalp Block and Scalp Infiltration to Control Postcraniotomy Pain: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial

Context

Scalp infiltration and scalp block are being used to manage postcraniotomy pain. Dexmedetomidine has been successfully used as an adjuvant in regional anesthesia. The study was intended to compare whether addition of dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of analgesia as well as to compare the two techniques.

Aims

The primary objective was to assess whether addition of dexmedetomidine to bupivacaine prolonged the duration of analgesia. The secondary objective was to compare between scalp nerve block and scalp infiltration as techniques for pain relief.

Settings and Design

The randomized control study was conducted in a tertiary care center from November 2013 to October 2014.

Materials and Methods

A total of 150 American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-II patients, aged 18-70 years undergoing elective craniotomy were included. Patients were randomized into three groups of 50 patients, i.e., Group BI (bupivacaine infiltration), Group BDI (bupivacaine and dexmedetomidine infiltration), and Group BDNB (bupivacaine and dexmedetomidine scalp nerve block). Patient's pain score, pain-free interval, rescue analgesic requirement, and hemodynamic and respiratory parameters were noted for 48 h. Patients were followed up at 1 and 3 months to assess postcraniotomy pain.

Results

Pain-free period was significantly longer in Group BDNB than Groups BDI and BI (P < 0.0001) and pain control was better in dexmedetomidine containing groups than in bupivacaine group (BI) (P < 0.0001). The rescue analgesic requirement was significantly lower in Group BDNB and Group BDI compared to Group BI.

Conclusion

The addition of dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) to bupivacaine prolonged the pain-free period. Scalp nerve block is a superior technique than scalp infiltration.

Comparison of Palonosetron with Granisetron for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery

Background:

In patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a serious concern. With an incidence of 46%–72%, PONV hampers the postoperative recovery in spite of the availability of many antiemetic drugs. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in preventing PONV and to compare the duration of action and side effects in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia.

Settings and Design:

Eighty patients who were comparable in all aspects were considered for this study. After their consent, they participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, comparative study.

Materials and Methods:

In this observational study, 80 patients of either gender who were undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in the study. Based on computer randomization, these patients were divided equally into two groups of 40 patients each in double-blinded manner. The treatments were given intravenously 5 min before induction of anesthesia. The episodes of PONV, severity of nausea/vomiting, and side effects were observed during the first 48 h after surgery.

Statistical Tests:

At the end of study, results were compiled and SPSS^® statistical package version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Two independent samples t-test was used for quantitative data, and Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative data. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results:

The incidence of PONV during 0–2 h in the postoperative period was 15% with palonosetron and 27.5% with granisetron; the incidence during 2–24 h postoperatively was 20% with palonosetron and 30% with granisetron. Both palonosetron and granisetron had comparable effectiveness as antiemetic during the early postoperative periods (0–24 h). During 24–48 h, the incidence was 17.5% and 37.5%, respectively (P = 0.04). Safety profile was similar in both the groups (P = 0.6).

Conclusion:

There were no significant differences in the overall incidence of PONV and complete responders for palonosetron and granisetron group in the early recovery period. However, due to its prolonged duration of action, palonosetron was more effective than granisetron for long-term prevention of PONV after laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Analysis of two treatment modalities for the prevention of vomiting after trauma: Orogastric tube or anti-emetics

INTRODUCTION

Vomiting in the emergency department after trauma occurs frequently and might lead to aspiration of gastric content. An orogastric tube (OGT) is a way to prevent emesis. However, this is an inconvenient procedure and may actually trigger vomiting. Therefore, a change in policy was applied from preferably an OGT to the administration of anti-emetics in a selected population. The aim of this study was to analyse the prevention of vomiting in trauma patients after OGT or anti-emetics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study. Data of all trauma patients presented at the crash room of the emergency department between July 1st 2013 and July 1st 2014 were collected from the local trauma registry and electronic patient documentation system and comprising 6 months preceding and 6 months after change of policy. Vomiting and nausea after trauma were recorded. Furthermore, complications such as aspiration and cardiac arrhythmias were documented.

RESULTS

A total of 1446 patients were presented after trauma. 230 patients were promptly intubated. An additional 763 patients were fully responsive and did not complain of nausea. The remaining 453 patients were further analysed. 44 patients received OGT placement procedure and 409 patients received anti-emetics. Significant difference was found in patients vomiting after OGT placement or anti-emetics (20.5% vs. 2.7%; P<0.001). Patients who received anti-emetics were not more at risk for cardiac arrhythmias. After matched control analysis, there was still a significant difference was found.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Administration of anti-emetics is suitable and effective for the prevention of vomiting after trauma in this selected population, without an increased risk for complications.

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to update the present evidence about the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase was conducted to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of the retrieved articles was conducted. Relevant outcomes were pooled as odds ratio (OR) by RevMan version 5.3 for windows.

RESULTS

Pooled data from 14 RCTs (1542 patients) favored dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics over single antiemetics as a prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.27 to 0.54], p < 0.00001), late postoperative period (OR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.56], p < 0.00001), and overall postoperative period (OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.51], p < 0.00001). Subsequently, rescue antiemetic usage was significantly lower in the combination group (OR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.16 to 0.41], p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed that all combinations of dexamethasone and other antiemetics were superior to corresponding singel antiemetics except for the combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron which was not superior to ramosetron alone in all postoperative periods and the combination of dexamethasone and granisetron which was not superior to granisetron alone in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07 to 1.01], p = 0.05). For all adverse events, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics provided better prophylaxis than single antiemetics against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The underlying mechanism of dexamethasone action and its optimal dose should be further investigated.

Evidence-Based Practice in Laparoscopic Surgery: Perioperative Care

Best practices for reducing risks of postoperative infection, venous thromboembolism, and nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery are uncertain. As a result, perioperative care varies widely. We reviewed evidence from randomized clinical trials on the effectiveness of interventions for postoperative infection, venous thromboembolism, and nausea and vomiting Data sources were the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, reference lists of published trials, and randomized clinical trials published in English since 1990. Trials were also limited to those focused on patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Data from 98 randomized clinical trials were included in the final analysis. Routine antibiotic use in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and possibly other clean procedures not involving placement of prostheses, is likely unnecessary. Similarly, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is probably unnecessary for low-risk patients undergoing brief procedures. Of a wide variety of methods for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting, serotonin receptor antagonists appear the most effective and should be considered for routine prophylaxis.

Role of flupirtine as a preemptive analgesic in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background and Aims:

Postsurgical pain is the leading complaint after laparoscopic cholecystectomy that may delay the postoperative recovery and hence we undertook a prospective randomized trial to analyze the role of flupirtine as a preemptive analgesic for postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing above surgery.

Material and Methods:

A total of 66 cases were randomly assigned to two groups to receive capsule flupirtine (200 mg) or capsule vitamin B complex administered orally, 2 h before the laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery. Time to first analgesic requirement, assessment of postoperative pain in terms of visual analog score, and analgesic requirement postoperatively were measured as a primary outcome.

Results:

Time to first analgesic requirement was significantly prolonged in the flupirtine group as compared with the placebo group. There was significant pain reduction in early postoperative period (up to 4 h), but no changes occurred thereafter. Total analgesic requirement (including rescue analgesia) and side-effects were comparable between the groups except for higher sedation in flupirtine group.

Conclusions:

Flupirtine is effective as a preemptive analgesic in providing adequate pain relief during the immediate postoperative period after laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery. However, continuation of drug therapy postoperatively could possibly delineate its optimal analgesic profile more profoundly.

Premedication with clonidine versus fentanyl for intraoperative hemodynamic stability and recovery outcome during laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia induced intraoperative hemodynamic responses which should be attenuated by appropriate premedication. The present study was aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of clonidine and fentanyl premedication during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for attenuation of hemodynamic responses with postoperative recovery outcome.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In this prospective randomized double blind study 64 adult consented patients of either sex with ASA I and II, scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia and met the inclusion criteria, were allocated into two groups of 32 patients. Group C patients have received intravenous clonidine 1μg kg(-1) and Group F patients have received intravenous fentanyl 2μg kg(-1) 5 min before induction. Anesthetic and surgical techniques were standardized. All patients were assessed for intraoperative hemodynamic changes at specific time and postoperative recovery outcome.

RESULTS

Premedication with clonidine or fentanyl has attenuated the hemodynamic responses of laryngoscopy and laparoscopy. Clonidine was superior to fentanyl for intraoperative hemodynamic stability. No significant differences in the postoperative recovery outcome were observed between the groups. Nausea, vomiting, shivering and respiratory depression were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

Premedication with clonidine or fentanyl has effectively attenuated the intraoperative hemodynamic responses of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Pregabalin premedication - A new treatment option for hemodynamic stability during general anesthesia: A prospective study

Background:

Hemodynamic responses of laryngoscopy, intubation, and pain are powerful noxious stimulus which should be attenuated by the appropriate premedication, smooth induction, and rapid intubation.

Context:

The oral pregabalin may attenuate the hemodynamic pressor response with intraoperative hemodynamic stability.

Aims:

The present study was designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of oral pregabalin for hemodynamic stability.

Settings and Design:

This is a prospective blind randomized controlled cohort observation study.

Materials and Methods:

The 80 adult consented patients of ASA grade I and II of either gender aged 24–54 years who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to receive oral pregabalin 150 mg or placebo capsule, given 60–75 min before surgery. Patients were premedicated with metoclopramide (10 mg), glycopyrrolate (0.2 mg), and fentanyl (1 μg/kg). Anesthesia was induced with propofol and rocuronium and maintained with isoflurane, nitrous oxide, and oxygen. Both groups were assessed for preoperative sedation and changes in heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure before and after the induction and 1, 3, 5, and 10 min after laryngoscopy and intubation, then at 5 min intervals till end of surgery along with postoperative complications.

Statistical Analysis:

The hemodynamic variables were analyzed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Student's t test, and chi square test as appropriate.

Results:

Preoperative sedation was higher with pregabalin with no significant change in heart rate. The mean arterial pressure was attenuated with oral pregabalin to statistically significant value (P<0.007). The requirement of analgesic drug was reduced with no postoperative respiratory depression, nausea, or vomiting and hemodynamic parameters remained stabilized perioperatively.

Conclusions:

Oral pregabalin premedication effectively leads to sedation and analgesia with successful attenuation of the adverse and deleterious hemodynamic pressor response.

Residual pneumoperitoneum volume and postlaparoscopic cholecystectomy pain

Background:

Gasretention in the peritoneal cavity plays an important role in inducing postoperative pain after laparoscopy, which is inevitably retained in the peritoneal cavity.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to detect the relation between the volume of residual gas and severity of shoulder and abdominal pain.

Patients and Methods:

In this Prospective study 55 women who were referred for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, were evaluated for the effect of residual pneumoperitoneum on postlaparoscopic cholecystectomy pain intensity. The pneumoperitoneum was graded as absent, mild (1-5 mm), moderate (6-10 mm) and severe (> 11 mm). Patients were followed for postoperative abdominal and shoulder pain using visual analogue scale (VAS), postoperative analgesic requirements, presence of nausea and vomiting, time of unassisted ambulation, time of oral intake and time of return of bowel function in the recovery room and at 6, 12 and 24 hours after operation.

Results:

At the end of the study, 17 patients (30.9%) had no residual pneumoperitoneum after 24 hours; which 23 (41.81%) had mild residual pneumoperitoneum, eight (14.54%) had moderate pneumoperitoneum and seven (12.72%) had severe pneumoperitoneum. Patients with no or mild residual pneumoperitoneum had significantly lower abdominal and shoulder pain scores than whom with moderate to severe pneumoperitoneum (P = 0.00) and need less meperidine requirements (P = 0.00). Patients did not have any significant difference in time of oral intake, return of bowel function, nausea and vomiting percentages.

Conclusions:

We conclude that volume of residual pneumoperitoneum is a contributing factor in the etiology of postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are potential complications in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Combination antiemetic therapy often is effective for preventing PONV in patients undergoing LC, and combinations of antiemetics targeting different sites of activity may be more effective than monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the administration of a subhypnotic dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone with one of propofol combined with metoclopramide to prevent PONV after LC.

METHODS

Sixty adult patients scheduled for LC were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups. The patients in group 1 received 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus 8 mg dexamethasone, and those in group 2 received 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus 0.2 mg/kg metoclopramide. The number of patients experiencing nausea and vomiting at 0 to 4, 4 to 12, and 12 to 24 hours postoperatively and as well as additional use of rescue antiemetics were recorded.

RESULTS

The total PONV rates up to 24 hours postanesthesia were 23.3% and 50% for group 1 and group 2, respectively. Comparisons of the data revealed that at 0 to 4 hours, the number of patients experiencing vomiting was 6 (20%) in group 1 and14 (46.7%) in group 2 (P = 0.028). The frequency of vomiting in group 1 was significantly lower than that for group 2 (P = 0.028), and the rate of rescue antiemetic use in group 2 was higher than that in group 1 (20% vs 46.7%; P = 0.028). In the evaluation of PONV based on the nausea and vomiting scale scores, the mean PONV score was 0.4 (0.2) in group 1 compared with 1.0 (0.2) in group 2 (P = 0.017). There were no significant differences between the values at 4 to 12 hours and at 12 to 24 hours. The frequency of adverse reactions (respiratory depression: 1.3%, 1.3%; laryngospasm: 1.3%, 0%; cough: 1.3%, 0%; hiccup: 1.3%, 0%;) was not significantly different in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of a subhypnotic dose of 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus 8 mg dexamethasone at the end of surgery was more effective than administration of 0.5 mg/kg propofol plus metoclopramide in preventing PONV in the early postoperative period in adult patients undergoing LC.

Practice guidelines for postanesthetic care: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic Care

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Oral pregabalin premedication for attenuation of haemodynamic pressor response of airway instrumentation during general anaesthesia: A dose response study

BACKGROUND

The airway instrumentation of direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation are powerful noxious stimuli that should be attenuated by appropriate premedication, smooth induction and rapid intubation. The present study evaluated the safe and clinically effective dose of oral pregabalin premedication for attenuation of haemodynamic pressor response of airway instrumentation.

METHODS

A total of 90 normotensive adult consented patients aged 24-56 years, ASA grade I and II, of both gender were randomized into three treatment groups of 30 patients each. Group I received oral placebo, Group II oral pregabalin 75 mg and Group III oral pregabalin 150 mg 1 h prior to induction. Anaesthetic technique was standardized and all groups were assessed for pre-operative sedation, haemodynamic changes after the premedication, before and after induction, after laryngoscopy and intubation, along with intraoperative haemodynamic stability and post-operative side-effects.

RESULTS

Pre-operative sedation levels were higher with pregabalin premedication. Significant increase in heart rate and mean arterial pressure was observed in Groups I and II after airway instrumentation, while statistically significant attenuation of mean arterial pressure was seen in Group III. No significant decrease in heart rate was observed in any group. None of the patient has suffered from any post-operative side-effects, and no significant differences in the parameters of recovery and awakening time were observed.

CONCLUSION

Oral pregabalin premedication has adequately sedated the patients. The haemodynamic pressor response of airway instrumentation was attenuated in a dose-related fashion. The premedicated patients were haemodynamically stable perioperatively without prolongation of recovery time and side-effects.

Adjunctive atropine versus metoclopramide: can we reduce ketamine-associated vomiting in young children? a prospective, randomized, open, controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric procedural sedation and analgesia (PPSA) with ketamine administration occurs commonly in the emergency department (ED). Although ketamine-associated vomiting (KAV) is a less serious complication of ketamine administration, it seems to be cumbersome and not uncommon. The authors evaluated the incidence of KAV and the prophylactic effect of adjunctive atropine and metoclopramide in children receiving ketamine sedation in the ED setting.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, open, controlled study was conducted in children receiving ketamine sedation in the ED of a university-affiliated, tertiary hospital with 85,000 ED visits, including 32,000 pediatric patients from October 2010 to September 2011. The primary outcome was a measure of the incidence of KAV in the ED and after discharge according to the adjunctive drug administered. Secondary outcome measures included the time to resumption of a normal diet after ketamine sedation.

RESULTS

Of the 1,883 children administered ketamine for primary wound repair during the study period, a convenience sample of 338 patients aged 4 months to 5 years was enrolled. The incidences of KAV were 28.4% in the ketamine alone group, 27.9% in the ketamine with adjunctive atropine group, and 31.2% in the ketamine with adjunctive metoclopramide group (p = 0.86). The vomiting rate after discharge was 9.2% in the ketamine alone group. The nothing-by-mouth (NPO) status before sedation did not influence the incidence of KAV in any of the groups. Mean times to resumption of normal diet after ketamine administration were 7 hours 59 minutes in the ketamine alone group, 7 hours 35 minutes in the ketamine with atropine group, and 8 hours 1 minute in the ketamine with metoclopramide group (p = 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

 In this study, a high rate (28.4%) of KAV was observed, consistent with prior reports using the intramuscular (IM) route. However, the authors were unable to reduce KAV using adjunctive atropine or metoclopramide. Parents or caregivers should be given more detailed discharge instructions about vomiting and diet considering the relatively long time to resuming a normal diet after ketamine sedation and the fact that KAV often occurred after ED discharge.

Systemic metoclopramide to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis without Fujii's studies

Previous evidence suggested that 10 mg systemic metoclopramide is not effective to prevent postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) in patients receiving general anaesthesia. However, the evidence included data with questioned validity by the author Yoshitaka Fujii. The objective of the current study was to examine the effect of a systemic dose of 10 mg metoclopramide to prevent PONV. This quantitative systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A wide search was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that evaluated systemic 10 mg metoclopramide as a prophylactic agent to reduce PONV. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Thirty trials evaluating the effect of 10 mg systemic metoclopramide in 3328 subjects on PONV outcomes were included. Metoclopramide reduced the incidence of 24 h PONV compared with control, odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 0.58 (0.43-0.78), number needed to treat (NNT)=7.8. When evaluated as separate outcomes, metoclopramide also decreased the incidence of nausea over 24 h, OR (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.38-0.68), NNT=7.1, and vomiting over 24 h, OR (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.40-0.66), NNT=8.3. A post hoc analysis examining three studies with questioned validity performed by the author Yoshitaka Fujii that would meet criteria for inclusion in the current study did not demonstrate a significant benefit of metoclopramide compared with control on the incidence of 24 h PONV. Our findings suggest that metoclopramide 10 mg i.v. is effective to prevent PONV in patients having surgical procedures under general anaesthesia. Metoclopramide seems to be a reasonable agent to prevent PONV.

Granisetron versus dexamethasone in prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common problems after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Objectives

The current study aimed to compare Dexamethasone effect with that of Granisetron in prevention of PONV.

Patients and Methods

In the current study 104 patients aged 20-60 with ASA class I or II who were candidates for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of A and B. 15 minutes before anesthesia induction, in group a patient’s 3 mg Granisetron and in group B patients 8 mg Dexamethasone was intravenously injected. Then both groups underwent general anesthesia with similar medications. After operation the prevalence of nausea and vomiting was assessed at three time intervals (0-6 hours, 6-12 hours and 12-24 hours after consciousness). SPSS software version 16 was employed to analyze data. T test, chi-square test and Fischer exact test were performed level of significance was P < 0.05.

Results

There was no significant difference between age, gender proportion, weight, height, and body mass index (BMI) of patients in the two groups. In Dexamethasone group, seven patients experienced nausea and three patients had vomiting, and in Granisetron group, five patients experienced nausea and three patients had vomiting after consciousness. Statistical analysis indicated no significant difference between the two groups in this regard.

Conclusions

Intravenous injection of 8 mg Dexamethasone or 3 mg Granisetron before anesthesia induction had similar effects in prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Oral premedication with pregabalin or clonidine for hemodynamic stability during laryngoscopy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A comparative evaluation

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamic responses of laryngoscopy and laparoscopy should be attenuated by the appropriate premedication, smooth induction, and rapid intubation. The present study evaluated the clinical efficacy of oral premedication with pregabalin or clonidine for hemodynamic stability during laryngoscopy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A total of 180 healthy adult consented patients aged 35 to 52 years with American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status I and II of both gender, who met the inclusion criteria for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, were randomized to receive placebo Group I, pregabalin (150 mg) Group II, or clonidine (200 μg) Group III, given 75 to 90 minutes before surgery as oral premedication. All groups were compared for preoperative sedation and anxiety level along with changes of heart rate and mean arterial pressure prior to premedication, before induction, after laryngoscopy, pneumoperitoneum, release of carbon dioxide, and extubation. Intraoperative analgesic drug requirement and any postoperative complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

Pregabalin and clonidine proved to have sedative and anxiolytic effects as oral premedicants and decreased the need of intraoperative analgesic drug requirement. Clonidine was superior to pregabalin for attenuation of the hemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and laparoscopy, but it increased the incidence of intra-and postoperative bradycardia. No significant differences in the parameters of recovery were observed between the groups. None of the premedicated patient has suffered from any postoperative side effects.

CONCLUSION

Oral premedication with pregabalin 150 mg or clonidine 200 μg causes sedation and anxiolysis with hemodynamic stability during laryngoscopy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, without prolongation of recovery time and side effects.

Nausea and vomiting

Nausea and vomiting are symptoms resulting from a triggered emetic reflex. Many endogenous and exogenous triggering factors can activate the emetic reflex, making understanding difficult and therapy challenging. The key to managing most cases of nausea and vomiting lies in a good history and a detailed physical examination. Most episodes of acute vomiting (lasting < 48 hours) have an evident triggering factor (eg, infection, viral illness, or food poisoning) and can be managed by removing the triggering agent and via supportive therapy. Chronic and unexplained nausea and vomiting can be a challenge. The cause is often obscure and requires special investigation. Functional gastroduodenal disorders such as cyclic vomiting syndrome, functional vomiting, and chronic idiopathic nausea should be considered if investigations are unrevealing. Knowledge regarding various emetic pathways and the specific neurotransmitters involved helps to target therapy. Histamine-1 receptor antagonists and muscarinic antagonists are suitable candidates for motion sickness and labyrinthine disorders. Phenothiazines, 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, and benzodiazepines have a role in postchemotherapy and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Cannabinoid and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are best reserved for refractory cases of nausea and vomiting. Motilin agonists and metoclopramide are useful for treating impaired gastric motility disorders.

Is there a safe advantage in performing outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the standard procedure for removing the sick gallbladder of children, is generally performed leaving the child overnight in the hospital.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine if there is a safe advantage in performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an outpatient procedure while setting the clinical parameters for those who will benefit from in-hospital stay.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients were selected for the study and were divided into group A, if the outpatient procedure was done, and group B, if the child was left overnight in the hospital. Retrospective review of medical charts was performed. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Group A consisted of 13 patients and group B of 22 patients. All patients in group A left the hospital the same day of surgery. Distribution by age and sex in the groups was not statistically different. Preoperative symptoms of vomiting were statistically significantly higher in group B. Presence of an associated medical condition was higher in the in-hospital patients. Concomitant procedures, blood loss estimates, and duration of surgery showed no statistical difference. No child was readmitted after release from the hospital. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative pain management were the same in all patients. Mean postoperative stay and medical charges were statistically significant between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy can safely be done as an outpatient procedure. Children with a complicated gallbladder disease process or associated medical condition benefit from an overnight stay. Perioperative pain management is crucial in all cases. Reduced hospital stay and medical charges are significant advantages in performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an outpatient procedure.

Predictive factors of long hospital stay after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is the most common minimally invasive surgery in Hong Kong. However, ambulatory LC is not a common practice in Hong Kong. This study aims to identify the causes of long hospital stay after elective LC and to delineate a guideline for ambulatory LC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 278 patients who underwent successful elective LC in a single unit between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2003 was performed. They were divided into two groups: LS group had a long hospital stay (>24 hours after operation) and SS group had a short hospital stay. A total of 18 variables, including five patient variables, nine operative variables and four postoperative variables, were identified for univariate analysis. Significant pre- and postoperative factors were included in the multivariate analysis to identify independent predictive factors for long hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of the 278 patients, 118 (44.2%) could be discharged within 24 hours, while 149 (55.8%) had long hospital stay. Nine significant factors were identified in the univariate analysis; three independent factors were found to predict long hospital stay in the multivariate analysis. Patients with age more than 60 years had double risk of long hospital stay. Patients who could not tolerate diet within 8 hours or took more than two tablets of oral analgesia (dologesics) had a four- and threefold increase in risk of long hospital stay, respectively.

CONCLUSION

With careful patient selection, optimal postoperative pain control and early resumption of diet with better management of postoperative nausea and vomiting, ambulatory LC was feasible and safe.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Prophylactic Antiemetics for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Droperidol, Metoclopramide, and Droperidol plus Metoclopramide

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most significant problems in laparoscopic surgery. The antiemetic effects of metoclopramide and droperidol used alone or in combination for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) were assessed in this prospective, double blind, placebo controlled randomized study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 140 patients, ASA physical status I or II, were included in the study. Patients were randomized to one of the following groups: 1, placebo; 2, metoclopramide 10 mg after the induction of anesthesia and placebo at 12 h postoperatively; 3, droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg at 12 h postoperatively; and 4, droperidol 1.25 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg at 12 h postoperatively. Patients were observed for 24 hours for PONV, pain, need for rescue analgesics, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed using the Student's t-test and chi-square test, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. The mean incidence of PONV was 54% with placebo, 42% with metoclopramide, 14% with two doses of droperidol alone, and 11% with a combination of metoclopramide plus droperidol. The patients receiving a combination of metoclopramide and droperidol had a significantly lower rate of PONV than those administered metoclopramide alone (P < 0.05) or placebo (P < 0.001). Those receiving two-dose droperidol alone also had a significantly lower incidence of PONV compared with metoclopramide (P < 0.05) and placebo (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the metoclopramide and placebo groups. Sedation was significantly greater in patients administered droperidol 12 h postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of metoclopramide and droperidol, and two-dose droperidol alone, were found to significantly decrease the incidence of PONV after LC, whereas metoclopramide alone proved inefficient.

Dolasetron, but not metoclopramide prevents nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most frequent complications of general anesthesia. The aim of the study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy of dolasetron and metoclopramide after inhalational or i.v. anesthesia (IVA).

METHODS

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial we evaluated the efficacy of 12.5 mg dolasetron i.v. and 20 mg metoclopramide (MCP) i.v. in preventing PONV in 387 patients (ASA I-III) undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were allocated randomly to one of three main groups: Group D (n = 129) received 12.5 mg dolasetron i.v., Group MCP (n = 129) 20 mg MCP i.v., and Group C (n = 129) saline as placebo i.v. Using a multifactorial study design, one third of each main group (n = 43) was further randomized to receive either general anesthesia with desflurane, isoflurane or IVA with propofol and remifentanil. PONV, postoperative piritramide and droperidol consumption were documented.

RESULTS

Independent from the anesthesia regimen chosen, dolasetron reduced PONV (19%) significantly compared to MCP (45%) and placebo (46%). Furthermore we could show a significant difference in the incidence of PONV between IVA (28%) and isoflurane (46%), but not in comparison to desflurane (36%). Patients receiving IVA had a higher postoperative piritramide consumption compared to the two other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study suggest that dolasetron was more effective than MCP and placebo in preventing PONV. This action is independent of the anesthetic technique used.