Antiemetic activity of propofol after sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Sevoflurane versus desflurane for early postoperative vomiting after general anesthesia in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the effects of two commonly used anesthetics in general anesthesia (GA), sevoflurane and desflurane, on early postoperative vomiting (POV) in hospitalized adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SETTING

Early postoperative vomiting after GA.

PATIENTS

A total of 266 adult patients receiving inpatient surgeries under GA maintained with sevoflurane or desflurane.

INTERVENTIONS

We searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect, and Embase for eligible RCTs comparing postoperative outcomes following sevoflurane- or desflurane-maintained anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was early POV. Secondary outcomes included late POV, early and late postoperative nausea (PON), time to extubation, and emergence time.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. There was no significant difference in the risk of early POV (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.64, p = 0.91). No significant difference in early PON was observed (RR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.77-1.56; p = 0.62). Nevertheless, the incidence of late POV and late PON were significantly lower in the sevoflurane group than that in the desflurane group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.94, p = 0.03; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24-0.84, p = 0.01, respectively). The extubation time was longer in the sevoflurane group than in the desflurane group (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.56, 95% CI 0.14-0.97, p = 0.009). The emergence time of patients in the sevoflurane group was longer than that in those receiving desflurane (SMD 0.76, 95% CI 0.1-1.42, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Desflurane had the same effects on early POV and early PON as sevoflurane. However, the association between late POV and late PON with desflurane was stronger than that with sevoflurane if the effects of opioids were not considered. The desflurane group had shorter time to extubation and emergence time than the sevoflurane group. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020218988.

Comparison of equipotent doses of Ramosetron, Ondansetron, and sub-hypnotic dose of Propofol for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background and Aims:

For prevention of Postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) in laparoscopic surgery, ramosetron is a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with higher receptor affinity and slow dissociation than ondansetron. We compared these 2 drugs with propofol which has also shown antiemetic properties. The aim was to study ondansetron, ramosetron, and propofol with respect to incidence of PONV, its severity and the need for rescue antiemetic along with the side effects. Prospective, randomized, double blind study.

Material and Methods:

We compared antiemetic properties of ondansetron (4 mg i.v; n = 40) and ramosetron (0.3 mg i.v; n = 40) with propofol (0.5 mg/kg i.v; n = 40) on 120 ASA I/II patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The side effects associated with study drugs, time to recovery from anesthesia, readiness for PACU discharge and patient satisfaction was also compared. Qualitative data variables are expressed by using frequency and percentage and quantitative data variables are expressed by using mean and SD. Quantitative data variables were compared using ANOVA test and others were compared by post hoc ANOVA Tukey’s test.

Results:

Incidence of vomiting and need for rescue antiemetic was lowest with Ramosetron and highest in Propofol group. Time to recovery was more in Propofol group which was statistically significant. Readiness for PACU discharge was comparable in all the three groups.

Conclusion:

Subhypnotic dose of propofol requires more rescue antiemetic than Ondansetron and Ramosetron because of its short duration of action. Between Ondansetron and Ramosetron the latter is more effective in PONV prevention.

Effectiveness of Propofol versus Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Ear, Nose, and Throat Surgery in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital and Yekatit 12th Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remain as common and unpleasant and highly distressful experience following ear, nose, and throat surgery. During ENT surgery, the incidence of PONV could be significantly reduced in patients who receive dexamethasone and propofol as prophylaxis. However, the comparative effectiveness of the two drugs has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol and dexamethasone for prevention of PONV in ear, nose, and throat surgery.

METHODS

This study was conducted in 80 patients, with ASA I and II, aged 18-65 years, and scheduled for ENT surgery between December 20, 2017, and March 20, 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to Group A and Group B. Immediately after the procedure, Group A patients received single dose of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone (10 mg/kg) and Group B patients were given propofol (0.5 mg/kg, IV), and equal follow-up was employed. The incidence of PONV was noted at 6th, 12th, and 24th hour of drug administration. Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney test were used for comparison of symmetric numerical and asymmetric data between groups, respectively. Categorical data were analyzed with the chi-square test, and p value of < 0.05 was considered as level of significance.

RESULTS

The incidences of PONV throughout the 24-hour postoperative period were 35% in the propofol group and 25% in the dexamethasone group. Statistical significance was found in incidence of PONV (0% versus 22.5%) and use of antiemetic (0% versus 5%) between dexamethasone and propofol groups, respectively, at 12-24 hours. Over 24 hours, 5% in dexamethasone group and 12.5% in propofol group developed moderate PONV, while none of the participants felt severe PONV.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone was more effective than propofol to prevent PONV with lower requirements of rescue antiemetics.

Sub-hypnotic dose of propofol as antiemetic prophylaxis attenuates intrathecal morphine-induced postoperative nausea and vomiting, and pruritus in parturient undergoing cesarean section - a randomized control trial

Background

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a dreadful and uncomfortable experience that significantly detracts patients’ quality of life after surgery. This study aimed to examine the antiemetic effect of a single sub-hypnotic dose of propofol as prophylaxis for PONV.

Method

In this prospective, double-blind, randomized control trial, 345 parturients presented for elective cesarean section at the Obstetric unit of Tamale Teaching Hospital were recruited. Each recruited parturient was randomly assigned to one of three groups; Propofol group (n = 115) represented those who received propofol 0.5 mg/kg, Metoclopramide group (n = 115) represented those who received metoclopramide 10 mg and, Control group (n = 115) represented those who received 0.9% saline. Spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 7.5–10 mg, and intrathecal morphine 0.2 mg was employed for the anesthesia.

Results

The data indicate that 108 (93.9%) parturients from the control group, 10 (8.7%) from the propofol group and 8 (7.0%) from the metoclopramide group experienced some incidence of PONV. There was no significant difference in the incidence of PONV (nausea, vomiting, and none) between the propofol and the metoclopramide groups (P = 0.99; 0.31; and 0.35 respectively). Parturients who received antiemetic agents were 105 (97.2%), 1 (10.0%) and 3 (37.5%) from the control, propofol and metoclopramide groups respectively. The data indicated that 98 (85.2%) parturients from the control, 3 (2.6%) from propofol group, and 100 (87.0%) from the metoclopramide group experienced some levels of pruritus. There was a significant difference in the incidence of pruritus (mild, moderate, and no pruritus) between the metoclopramide and propofol groups (P <  0.01; P <  0.01; and P <  0.01 respectively).

Conclusion

A sub-hypnotic dose of propofol is effective as metoclopramide in the prevention of PONV in parturient undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine. Sub-hypnotic dose of propofol significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative pruritus following intrathecal morphine use.

Trial registration

Current control trial, registered at ISRCTN trial registry: ISRCTN15475205. Date registered: 03/04/2019. Retrospectively registered.

Standard Anesthetic Technique for Middle Ear Surgical Procedures: A Comparison of Desflurane and Sevoflurane

Objective:

This study was designed to compare desflurane and sevoflurane anesthesia for middle ear microsurgery.

Study Design:

One hundred healthy adults undergoing middle ear surgery were assigned to receive either desflurane or sevoflurane as their anesthetic. Intraoperative hemodynamics and BIS numbers were recorded. Hemodynamics, pain, nausea/vomiting, discharge readiness, and other parameters were compared postoperatively and 24 hours later.

Results:

No intraoperative differences were noted except in BIS scores which trended lower with desflurane. PACU blood pressures were higher after desflurane but pain scores, nausea/vomiting, rescue anti-emetics, recovery scores, and discharge times were similar. A significant difference was noted in anesthetic costs (desflurane > sevoflurane), and in patients with the lowest BIS scores associated with more nausea/vomiting.

Conclusions:

Both anesthetics may be used for ototic surgery but propofol anesthesia should still be considered in patients with a history of emetic sequelae.

Significance:

Short-acting inhalational anesthetics produce excellent operating conditions and reduce costs for otologic surgery.

Is infusion of subhypnotic propofol as effective as dexamethasone in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting related to laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomized controlled trial

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of common complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of subhypnotic (1 mg/kg/h) infusion of propofol with dexamethasone on PONV in patients undergoing LC. Methods. A total of 120 patients were included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were randomly assigned to 3 groups; patients of group dexamethasone (group D) were administrated 8 mg dexamethasone before induction of anesthesia, patients of group propofol (group P) were infused to subhypnotic (1 mg/kg/h) propofol during operation and patients of group control (group C) were applied infusion of 10% intralipid. The incidence of PONV and needs for rescue analgesic and antiemetic were recorded in the first 24 h postoperatively. Results. In the 0–24 h, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the group D and group P compared with the group C (37.5%, 40%, and 72.5%, resp.). There was no significant difference in the incidence of PONV and use of antiemetics and analgesic between group D and group P. Conclusion. We concluded that infusion of propofol 1 mg/kg/h is as effective as dexamethasone for the prevention of PONV during the first 24 hours after anesthesia in patients undergoing LC.

[Effect of intraoperative esmolol infusion on anesthetic, analgesic requirements and postoperative nausea-vomitting in a group of laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients]

PURPOSE

Postoperative pain and nausea/vomitting (PNV) are common in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Sympatholytic agents might decrease requirements for intravenous or inhalation anesthetics and opioids. In this study we aimed to analyze effects of esmolol on intraoperative anesthetic-postoperative analgesic requirements, postoperative pain and PNV.

METHODS

Sixty patients have been included. Propofol, remifentanil and vecuronium were used for induction. Study groups were as follows; I - Esmolol infusion was added to maintenance anesthetics (propofol and remifentanil), II - Only propofol and remifentanil was used during maintenance, III - Esmolol infusion was added to maintenance anesthetics (desflurane and remifentanil), IV - Only desflurane and remifentanil was used during maintenance. They have been followed up for 24h for PNV and analgesic requirements. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain was also been evaluated.

RESULTS

VAS scores were significantly lowest in group I (p=0.001-0.028). PNV incidence was significantly lowest in group I (p=0.026). PNV incidence was also lower in group III compared to group IV (p=0.032). Analgesic requirements were significantly lower in group I and was lower in group III compared to group IV (p=0.005). Heart rates were significantly lower in esmolol groups (group I and III) compared to their controls (p=0.001) however blood pressures were similar in all groups (p=0.594). Comparison of esmolol groups with controls revealed that there is a significant decrease in anesthetic and opioid requirements (p=0.024-0.03).

CONCLUSION

Using esmolol during anesthetic maintenance significantly decreases anesthetic-analgesic requirements, postoperative pain and PNV.

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.

Anaesthetic regimens for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Day surgery involves admission of selected patients to hospital for a planned surgical procedure with the patients returning home on the same day. An anaesthetic regimen usually involves a combination of an anxiolytic, an induction agent, a maintenance agent, a method of maintaining the airway (laryngeal mask versus endotracheal intubation), and a muscle relaxant. The effect of anaesthesia may continue after the completion of surgery and can delay discharge. Various regimens of anaesthesia have been suggested for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different anaesthetic regimens (risks of mortality and morbidity, measures of recovery after surgery) in patients undergoing day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1987 to November 2013), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1987 to November 2013), Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge) (1987 to November 2013), LILACS (Virtual Health Library) (1987 to November 2013), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/) (November 2013), World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal (November 2013), and ClinicalTrials.gov (November 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing different anaesthetic regimens during elective day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (irrespective of language or publication status).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and independently extracted the data. We calculated the risk ratio, rate ratio or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals based on intention-to-treat or available data analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials involving 1069 participants at low anaesthetic risk. The sample size varied from 40 to 300 participants. We included 23 comparisons. All trials were at a high risk of bias. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis because there were no two trials involving the same comparison. Primary outcomes included perioperative mortality, serious morbidity and proportion of patients who were discharged on the same day. There were no perioperative deaths or serious adverse events in either group in the only trial that reported this information (0/60). There was no clear evidence of a difference in the proportion of patients who were discharged on the same day between any of the comparisons. Overall, 472/554 patients (85%) included in this review were discharged as day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. Secondary outcomes included hospital readmissions, health-related quality of life, pain, return to activity and return to work. There was no clear evidence of a difference in hospital readmissions within 30 days in the only comparison in which this outcome was reported. One readmission was reported in the 60 patients (2%) in whom this outcome was assessed. Quality of life was not reported in any of the trials. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the pain intensity, measured by a visual analogue scale, between comparators in the only trial which reported the pain intensity at between four and eight hours after surgery. Times to return to activity and return to work were not reported in any of the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that one anaesthetic regimen for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy is to be preferred over another. However, the data are sparse (that is, there were few trials under each comparison and the trials had few participants) and further well designed randomized trials at low risk of bias and which are powered to measure differences in clinically important outcomes are necessary to determine the optimal anaesthetic regimen for day-procedure laparoscopic cholecystectomy, one of the commonest procedures performed in the western world.

Pathophysiological and neurochemical mechanisms of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Clinical research shows that postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is caused primarily by the use of inhalational anesthesia and opioid analgesics. PONV is also increased by several risk predictors, including a young age, female sex, lack of smoking, and a history of motion sickness. Genetic studies are beginning to shed light on the variability in patient experiences of PONV by assessing polymorphisms of gene targets known to play roles in emesis (serotonin type 3, 5-HT3; opioid; muscarinic; and dopamine type 2, D2, receptors) and the metabolism of antiemetic drugs (e.g., ondansetron). Significant numbers of clinical trials have produced valuable information on pharmacological targets important for controlling PONV (e.g., 5-HT3 and D2), leading to the current multi-modal approach to inhibit multiple sites in this complex neural system. Despite these significant advances, there is still a lack of fundamental knowledge of the mechanisms that drive the hindbrain central pattern generator (emesis) and forebrain pathways (nausea) that produce PONV, particularly the responses to inhalational anesthesia. This gap in knowledge has limited the development of novel effective therapies of PONV. The current review presents the state of knowledge on the biological mechanisms responsible for PONV, summarizing both preclinical and clinical evidence. Finally, potential ways to advance the research of PONV and more recent developments on the study of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are discussed.

Comparison of recovery profile for propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia in cases of open cholecystectomy

Objective:

Sevoflurane and propofol are considered to be the agents of choice in surgeries of short duration due to their better recovery profile and few post-operative complications. This study was designed to compare the early recovery profile of sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 60 patients of either sex with American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1 and 2 scheduled for elective cholecystectomy were prospectively randomized into two groups. Group S (30 patients) were maintained with sevoflurane anesthesia (1-2%), while in Group P (30 patients) were maintained with propofol infusion (75-125 μg/kg/min) in both the groups the anesthetic concentration/dose was so adjusted to keep hemodynamic parameter (mean arterial pressure and heart rate) within 15% of their respective baselines values.

Results:

It was observed that there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between there early recovery profile that includes spontaneous eye opening (7.5 ± 1.6 min for sevoflurane group and 6.9 ± 1.7 min for propofol group), following simple verbal command (9.2 ± 2.2 min for sevoflurane group and 8.9 ± 1.9 min for propofol group) and extubation time (10.7 ± 2.3 min for sevoflurane group and 10.3 ± 2.0 min for propofol group) but there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in both groups.

Conclusion:

Propofol is as good as sevoflurane for maintenance of anesthesia in surgeries like open cholecystectomy with an added advantage of lower incidence of PONV owing to its intrinsic antiemetic properties.

Small dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone for postoperative vomiting in pediatric Moyamoya disease patients: a prospective, observer-blinded, randomized controlled study

Background

For effective postoperative antiemetic management in pediatric moyamoya disease patients receiving fentanyl based postoperative analgesia, a multimodal approach has been recommended. The uncertain efficacy of ondansetron for pediatric neurosurgical patients or the possible antiemetic effect of small dose of propofol motivated us to evaluate the preventive effect of a subhypnotic dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone on postoperative vomiting (POV), especially during immediate postoperative periods.

Methods

In a prospective observer-blind randomized controlled study, we compared dexamethasone 0.15 mg/kg alone (Group D) with dexamethasone combined with propofol of 0.5 mg/kg (Group DP) in 60 pediatric patients, aged 4-17 years, who underwent indirect bypass surgery and received fentanyl-based postoperative analgesia. Occurrence of vomiting and pain score (Wong-Baker facial score) and requirement of rescue analgesic and antiemetic were continually measured (0-2, 2-6, 6-12 and 12-24 postoperative hours). For statistical analysis, in addition to the Fisher's exact test, a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) and the linear mixed model (LMM) for repeated measures were used for vomiting and pain scores, respectively.

Results

There was no statistical significance of POV incidence, requirement of rescue analgesic and pain score between the two groups at any measured intervals. The incidence of POV was 53.3% during 24 hours in both groups, and was especially 6.7% and 13.3% (P = 0.671) during 0-2 hr and 16.7% and 23.3% (P = 0.748) during 2-6 hr in group D and group DP, respectively.

Conclusions

A small dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone appears ineffective to preventing POV in pediatric moyamoya patients receiving continuous fentanyl infusion.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a small dose of propofol alone and combined with dexamethasone in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

A small dose of propofol is directly antiemetic, and is effective for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). However, this regimen cannot entirely control PONV after LC.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, patients received intravenously either placebo (Intralipid), propofol 0.5 mg/kg, or propofol 0.5 mg/kg plus dexamethasone 8 mg at the end of surgical procedure. A standard anesthetic technique, including sevoflurane and air in oxygen, was used. Emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, and vomiting) were recorded during the first 24 hours after anesthesia.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients (59 men and 61 nonpregnant women) were enrolled, and each treatment group consisted of 40 patients. The incidence of patients experiencing PONV during the first 24 hours after anesthesia was 33% with propofol (P = 0.003), 15% with propofol plus dexamethasone (P = 0.001), when compared to 65% with placebo. The efficacy of propofol combined with dexamethasone was superior to that of propofol alone (P = 0.029). No clinically important adverse events due to the study drugs were observed in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol 0.5 mg/kg combined with dexamethasone 8 mg is more effective than propofol alone for the prevention of PONV during the first 24 hours after anesthesia in patients undergoing LC.

The impact of isoflurane, desflurane, or sevoflurane on the frequency and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting after lumbar disc surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that anesthesia with the low-soluble inhalation anesthetics, sevoflurane, and desflurane, may result in a lower frequency and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) than anesthesia with isoflurane.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Postoperative care unit and neurosurgical ward at a university hospital.

PATIENTS

625 ASA physical status I, II, and III patients undergoing elective lumbar disc surgery with general anesthesia were included in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were enrolled sequentially to receive either 0.7%-1.2% isoflurane (year 2002), 3.5%-5.5% desflurane (year 2003), or 1.2%-1.9% sevoflurane (year 2004) for maintenance of anesthesia without nitrous oxide. Study personnel, general anesthesia management, and surgical technique remained unchanged over the three-year study period.

MEASUREMENTS

Occurrence of PONV within 24 hours of the end of surgery was recorded. Secondary outcome measures were occurrence of multiple PONV episodes, maximum severity, time to the first PONV event, need for rescue medication, difference between the occurrence of PONV (indicator variable) and the expected risk of PONV (based on the Apfel score).

MAIN RESULTS

Type of inhalation anesthetic had no influence on PONV frequency (9.3%, 11.2%, and 10.8% after isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane, respectively; P = 0.8) or its severity (numerical rating scale, 4.5 +/- 2.0, 4.4 +/- 2.4, and 4.2 +/- 2.1; P = 0.9). Patients who received isoflurane experienced fewer early events but had a late peak of PONV frequency (P = 0.031). For every 10 minutes by which the total duration of the anesthesia exceeded the net time between incision and suture, the risk of PONV increased by a factor of 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.61; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference between the three inhalation anesthetics currently used with regard to frequency or severity of postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both.

Assessing risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a retrospective study in patients undergoing retromastoid craniectomy with microvascular decompression of cranial nerves

We have observed that patients, after retromastoid craniectomy (RMC) with microvascular decompression (MVD) of cranial nerves, frequently experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The authors conducted this study to track the incidence of PONV and to identify potential factors for PONV after RMC with MVD. Medical records from 185 adults, who underwent elective RMC with MVD, were identified and reviewed from January 2000 to December 2004. Extracted data included patient, anesthesia, and surgery related variables that were considered to have a possible effect on the patients experiencing PONV after RMC with MVD. Despite the use of intraoperative prophylactic ondansetron in 99% of patients, the overall incidence of PONV (nausea or emesis or both) was 60% during the first 24 hours postoperatively. It was higher for the patients after RMC with MVD of cranial nerve V [69%, 82/119, P=0.005, odds ratio (OR)=2.8]. Regression modeling demonstrated that female sex (OR=3.0, P=0.005) and use of desflurane (OR=2.8, P=0.003) were significant independent predictors of PONV. Prophylactic transdermal scopolamine patch administered preoperatively was associated with less PONV (OR=0.3, P=0.001). We concluded that PONV occurs frequently in adults recovering from RMC with MVD. The results of this study suggest that it may be necessary to administer a combination of antiemetics to decrease the incidence of PONV after RMC.

The Efficacy of the Non-Opioid Analgesics Parecoxib, Paracetamol and Metamizol for Postoperative Pain Relief After Lumbar Microdiscectomy

In this prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study we compared the efficacy of three IV non-opioid analgesics for postoperative pain relief after lumbar microdiscectomy. Eighty healthy patients were randomly divided into 4 treatment groups (n = 20 each) to receive either parecoxib 40 mg, paracetamol 1 g, metamizol 1 g, or placebo IV 45 min before the end of surgery. In the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) patients were treated using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with piritramide. In the metamizol group the pain score at arrival in the PACU was significantly lower compared with the paracetamol, parecoxib, and placebo groups. In addition, in the metamizol group significantly fewer patients required additional PCA compared with the other groups studied. However, in those patients who required additional pain therapy in the four treatment groups, there was no significant difference in time to first request for piritramide and cumulative consumption of piritramide as assessed by the PCA data in the PACU. The incidence of adverse side effects was infrequent in all groups. These results suggest that in patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy, metamizol is superior to parecoxib, paracetamol, and placebo for immediate postoperative pain relief with minimal side effects.

Tutorial: Context-Sensitive Decrement Times for Inhaled Anesthetics

Context-sensitive decrement times for inhaled anesthetics connect two values: a) the duration of anesthesia (nominally at a constant alveolar concentration)-the "context" and b) the time to decrease the alveolar or vital tissue (e.g., brain, heart, kidney, and liver, collectively called the vessel-rich group of tissues) concentration by some fractional "decrement" of the starting concentration. Increasing duration of anesthesia increases the time to a given decrement in a nonlinear manner that may considerably delay recovery. In the present report we use a commercially available simulation program (Gas Man) to confirm and enlarge on these concepts. In this simulation, increasing duration of anesthesia can markedly delay complete awakening for isoflurane. Increasing anesthesia duration imposes considerably less delay in awakening from sevoflurane compared with isoflurane. For desflurane, only prolonged anesthesia or decrements of 95% and more should delay awakening from anesthesia. These changes are shown to be the result of the relative solubility of each anesthetic in blood and tissue. An increase in cardiac output is also shown to delay awakening.

Meta-analysis of trials comparing postoperative recovery after anesthesia with sevoflurane or desflurane

PURPOSE

Results of published, randomized controlled trials comparing sevoflurane and desflurane were pooled to measure differences in times until patients obeyed commands, were extubated, were oriented, were discharged from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and were ready to be discharged to home, as well as the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

We reviewed all randomized clinical trials in MEDLINE through December 18, 2003, with a title or abstract containing the words sevoflurane and desflurane. Two reviewers independently extracted study data from papers that met inclusion criteria. Endpoints were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two reports of 25 studies (3 reports each described 2 studies) met our inclusion criteria. A total of 746 patients received sevoflurane, and 752 received desflurane. Patients receiving desflurane recovered 1-2 minutes quicker in the operating room than patients receiving sevoflurane. They obeyed commands 1.7 minutes sooner (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7-2.7 minutes), were extubated 1.3 minutes sooner (p = 0.003; 95% CI, 0.4-2.2 minutes), and were oriented 1.8 minutes sooner (p < 0.001; 95% CI, 0.7-2.9 minutes). No significant differences were detected in the phase I or II PACU recovery times or in the rate of PONV.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of studies in which the duration of anesthesia was up to 3.1 hours indicated that patients receiving either desflurane or sevoflurane did not have significant differences in PACU time or PONV frequency. Patients receiving desflurane followed commands, were extubated, and were oriented 1.0-1.2 minutes earlier than patients receiving sevoflurane.

Sevoflurane: an ideal agent for adult day-case anesthesia?

Sevoflurane has several properties which make it potentially useful as a day case anaesthetic. Following induction of anaesthesia with propofol, awakening from sevoflurane is faster compared to isoflurane, faster or similar compared to propofol and comparable (in the majority of studies) to desflurane. Subsequent recovery and discharge is generally similar following all agents. Sevoflurane may also be used to induce anaesthesia, which is generally well-received and causes less hypotension and apnoea compared to propofol. When used as a maintenance anaesthetic, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after sevoflurane is comparable to other inhaled anaesthetics, but this complication appears more common after inhaled inductions. The tolerability and low solubility of sevoflurane facilitate titration of anaesthesia and may reduce the need for opioid analgesia, which in turn may limit the occurrence of nausea and vomiting.

Small dose of propofol for preventing nausea and vomiting after third molar extraction

PURPOSE

The study goal was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a small dose of propofol for the prevention of nausea and vomiting following third molar extraction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 90 women received placebo or propofol at 2 different doses (0.25 mg/kg, 0.5 mg/kg) (n = 30 of each) intravenously at the end of surgery. A standard general anesthetic technique, including sevoflurane and nitrous oxide in oxygen, was employed throughout the surgical procedure. Emetic episodes and safety assessments were performed during 0 to 3 hours and 3 to 24 hours after after anesthesia.

RESULTS

The rate of patients experiencing emesis-free (no nausea, retching, or vomiting) during 0 to 3 hours after anesthesia was 60% with placebo, 66% with propofol 0.25 mg/kg (P =.395), and 90% with propofol 0.5 mg/kg (P =.001); the corresponding rate during 3 to 24 hours after anesthesia was 60%, 63% (P = 0.5), and 87% (P =.02) (P values compared with placebo). No clinically serious adverse effects due to the study drug were observed in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic therapy with a small dose (0.5 mg/kg) of propofol is effective for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing general anesthesia for third molar extractions.

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Combination Antiemetic Regimens for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting : Focus on High-Risk Patients

None of the available antiemetics is entirely effective, perhaps because most of them act through the blockade of one receptor. There is a possibility that a combination of antiemetics with different sites of activity would be more effective than one drug alone for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).The clinical use of combined traditional antiemetics, including antihistamines (e.g. diphenhydramine), butyrophenones (e.g. droperidol) and benzamides (e.g. metoclopramide), for the prevention of PONV is limited because of the possibility of additive central nervous system toxicity, such as delayed emergence, drowsiness and extrapyramidal reactions. The efficacy of a combination of a serotonin 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist (ondansetron, granisetron or tropisetron) and dexamethasone is superior to that of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists alone for the prevention of PONV, suggesting that dexamethasone enhances the antiemetic efficacy of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists. The combination of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist with a traditional antiemetic (droperidol, metoclopramide or promethazine) acting at a different emetogenic receptor is more effective in reducing the incidence of PONV than each antiemetic alone acting at one receptor site. The risk of undesirable adverse effects does not increase with the combination of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist and a traditional antiemetic at the doses commonly used for PONV, because of the absence of drug interactions. The combination of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist (ondansetron) with other agents (propofol and CP-122721) reduces the incidence of PONV to a greater degree than monotherapy. However, no data are available for the combination of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and small doses of propofol for the prevention of PONV.Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination antiemetic regimens for PONV. Knowledge regarding combinations of these antiemetic drugs may be necessary to completely prevent PONV.

The effect of timing of dolasetron administration on its efficacy as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting

Dolasetron (12.5 mg IV) is effective in both preventing and treating postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after ambulatory surgery. However, the optimal timing of dolasetron administration and its effect on the patient's quality of life after discharge have not been established. One-hundred-five healthy, consenting women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic procedures with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this randomized, double-blinded study. Group 1 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV 10-15 min before the induction of anesthesia; Group 2 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV at the end of the laparoscopy (79 +/- 48 min later than Group 1); and Group 3 received dolasetron 12.5 mg IV at the end of anesthesia (93 +/- 52 min later than Group 1). The incidence of PONV, complete responses (defined as no emetic episodes and no rescue medication within the 24-h period after anesthesia), recovery profiles, and patient satisfaction were recorded. In the postanesthesia care unit and during the 24-h follow-up period, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for rescue antiemetics, did not differ significantly among the three groups. The percentages of patients with complete responses to the study drug within the first postoperative 24 h were also similar in all three groups (55%, 59%, and 52% for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). The early and intermediate recovery profiles, including resumption of a normal diet and patient satisfaction with the control of PONV, were not different among the three study groups. Dolasetron 12.5 mg IV administered before the induction of anesthesia is as effective as dolasetron given at the end of laparoscopy or at the end of anesthesia in preventing PONV after outpatient laparoscopy.

IMPLICATIONS

The timing of dolasetron administration appears to have little effect on its efficacy when administered as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting.

Small doses of propofol, droperidol, and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of small doses of propofol, droperidol, and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after thyroidectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study.

SETTING

University-affiliated teaching hospital.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blinded study, 90 patients (75 females) received propofol 0.5 mg/kg, droperidol 20 microg/kg, or metoclopramide 0.2 mg/kg intravenously (n = 30 in each group) at the end of surgery. A standardized general anesthetic technique was used.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during the first 24 hours after anesthesia was recorded in 13%, 47%, and 50% of patients who had received propofol, droperidol, and metoclopramide, respectively (P < 0.05; overall Fisher exact probability test). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any of the groups.

CONCLUSION

Small dose (0.5 mg/kg) of propofol is more effective than droperidol or metoclopramide for the prevention of PONV after thyroidectomy.

Recovery profile and side effects of remifentanil-based anaesthesia with desflurane or propofol for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Nitrous oxide (N2O) has been suggested to contribute to bowel distension, resulting in worsened operating conditions for laparoscopic surgery, and to increase incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Therefore, our objective was to assess the feasibility of two remifentanil-based anaesthetic regimens free from N2O with special regard to recovery profile, postoperative analgesic demand and side effects in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Fifty patients (ASA I-II, 23-65 yr) were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil-based anaesthesia in conjunction with propofol (group R/P) or desflurane (group R/D). After standardised induction of anaesthesia, analgesia was continued with remifentanil in all patients. For maintenance of hypnosis, propofol or desflurane were used in concentrations to ensure loss of consciousness, lack of awareness, and maintenance of heart rate and blood pressure within +/- 25% of initial values. At the end of surgery all anaesthetics were discontinued without tapering and early emergence and recovery were recorded. Pain scores were assessed by using a visual analogue scale. Patient-controlled analgesia with i.v. piritramide was used for treatment of postoperative pain and recorded for 90 min in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). In addition, side effects were noted.

RESULTS

Early emergence from anaesthesia did not differ between the groups. In group R/P, time to eye opening, spontaneous respiration and extubation was 4.4 +/- 2.9 min, 5.2 +/- 3.4 min and 5.5 +/- 3.3 min respectively, compared with 4.7 +/- 2.7 min, 5.3 +/- 2.4 min and 5.7 +/- 2.5 min in group R/D. While pain scores did not differ between both groups on admission to the PACU, patients receiving desflurane required more i.v. piritramide as compared to those receiving propofol, 22.0 +/- 6.5 mg and 17.9 +/- 7.0 mg, respectively (P<0.05). Nausea was less frequent after propofol (16% vs. 48%, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, remifentanil-based anaesthetic regimens in conjunction with propofol or desflurane are suitable and allow for rapid recovery from anaesthesia. However, the use of propofol results in less postoperative analgesic consumption and nausea as compared to desflurane.

The use of propofol for its antiemetic effect: a survey of clinical practice in the United States

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To investigate the use of propofol by anesthesiologists for its antiemetic effect and to compare our findings with published evidence.

DESIGN

Anonymous survey of U.S. anesthesiologists.

SETTING

American Society of Anesthesiologists' annual meeting.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One hundred fifty anesthesiologists were surveyed on how they use propofol to achieve an antiemetic effect. A large majority (84%) of the anesthesiologists surveyed stated they used propofol for its antiemetic effect: 63% of those used propofol for induction only for cases lasting <1 h to achieve an antiemetic effect. In addition 37% used a "sandwich" technique, using propofol at the beginning and end of a case for a similar purpose. There is evidence that the antiemetic effect of propofol is associated with a defined plasma concentration range; mean, 343 ng/mL (10-90% confidence intervals [CI] 200-600 ng/mL). Simulation data demonstrated that after propofol 2 mg/kg, its concentration will drop below 350 ng/mL at 32 min. After 2 mg/kg and 20 mg within 10 min of the end of surgery, its concentration will drop below 350 ng/mL by 7 min after the 20 mg bolus dose. This finding suggests that the plasma concentrations of propofol, when used in these cases, will be below the effective range of antiemetic effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Many anesthesiologists used propofol for its antiemetic effect. There is strong evidence for its antiemetic efficacy after anesthesia maintained by a propofol infusion and also for its use in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). However, there is little evidence to support its use purely at induction of anesthesia or as part of a "sandwich" technique in an attempt to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. This is especially true in cases lasting longer than a few minutes.

Clinical and economic factors important to anaesthetic choice for day-case surgery

Clinical and economic factors that are important to consider when selecting anaesthesia for day-case surgery can differ from those for inpatient anaesthesia. Patients undergoing day-case surgery tend to be healthier and have shorter durations of surgery. They expect less anxiety before surgery, amnesia for the surgical experience, a rapid return to normal (normal mentation with minimal pain and nausea) after surgery, and lower expenses. However, the latter 2 expectations can conflict; older generic drugs have lower acquisition costs but often impose longer recovery times. Longer recovery periods can increase costs by prolonging the time to discharge from labour-intensive areas such as the operating suite or the post-anaesthesia recovery unit. The challenge for today's anaesthetist is to use newer drugs judiciously to minimise their expense without compromising the rate or quality of recovery. Several approaches can secure these aims. Most apply the least anaesthetic needed. 'Least anaesthetic' may mean the particular form of anaesthetic (e.g. local infiltration with monitored anaesthesia care versus a general anaesthetic), or may mean the delivery of the smallest effective dose, perhaps guided by anaesthetic monitors such as end-tidal analysers or the bispectral index. For patients requiring general anaesthesia, a combination of several drugs usually secures the closest approach to the ideal. Drug combinations used usually include a short-acting properative anxiolytic (e.g. midazolam), intravenous propofol (a short-acting potent anxiolytic and amnestic agent) for induction of anaesthesia (and sometimes for maintenance) and primary maintenance of anaesthesia with inhaled nitrous oxide combined with a poorly soluble (low solubility produces rapid recovery; the least soluble is desflurane) potent inhaled anaesthetic delivered at a low inflow rate (to minimise cost). Although old, nitrous oxide is inexpensive and has favourable pharmacokinetic and cardiovascular advantages; however, it is limited in its anaesthetic/amnestic potency, and has the capacity to increase nausea. In children, induction of anaesthesia is often accomplished with sevoflurane rather than desflurane; although sevoflurane is modestly more soluble than desflurane, it is non-pungent whereas desflurane is pungent. Moderate- or short-acting opioids (fentanyl is popular) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (especially ketorolac), or local anaesthetics are added to secure analgesia during and after surgery. Similarly, when needed, moderate- or short-acting muscle relaxants are selected. Before the end of anaesthesia, an intravenous antiemetic may be given. With this drug combination, patients usually awaken within minutes after anaesthesia and can often move themselves to the vehicle for transport to the recovery unit. These combinations of anaesthetics and techniques minimise use of expensive drugs while expediting recovery (again minimising cost) with minimal or no compromise in the quality of recovery.

Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Pain, nausea and vomiting are frequently listed by patients as their most important perioperative concerns. With the change in emphasis from an inpatient to outpatient hospital and office-based medical/surgical environment, there has been increased interest in the 'big little problem' of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Currently, the overall incidence of PONV is estimated to be 25 to 30%, with severe, intractable PONV estimated to occur in approximately 0.18% of all patients undergoing surgery. PONV can lead to delayed postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) recovery room discharge and unanticipated hospital admission, thereby increasing medical costs. The aetiology and consequences of PONV are complex and multifactorial, with patient-, medical- and surgery-related factors. A thorough understanding of these factors, as well as the neuropharmacology of multiple emetic receptors [dopaminergic, muscarinic, cholinergic, opioid, histamine, serotonin (5-hydroxy-tryptamine; 5-HT)] and physiology [cranial nerves VIII (acoustic-vestibular), IX (glossopharyngeal) and X (vagus), gastrointestinal reflex] relating to PONV are necessary to most effectively manage PONV. Commonly used older, traditional antiemetics for PONV include the anticholinergics (scopolamine), phenothiazines (promethazine), antihistamines (diphenhydramine), butyrophenones (droperidol) and benzamides (metoclopramide). These antiemetics have adverse effects such as dry mouth, sedation, hypotension, extrapyramidal symptoms, dystonic effects and restlessness. The newest class of antiemetics used for the prevention and treatment of PONV are the serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron). These antiemetics do not have the adverse effects of the older, traditional antiemetics. Headache and dizziness are the main adverse effects of the serotonin receptor antagonists in the dosages used for PONV. The serotonin receptor antagonists have improved antiemetic effectiveness but are not as completely efficacious for PONV as they are for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Older, traditional antiemetics (such as droperidol) compare favourably with the serotonin receptor antagonists regarding efficacy for PONV prevention. Combination antiemetic therapy improves efficacy for PONV prevention and treatment. In the difficult-to-treat PONV patient (as in the chemotherapy patient), suppression of numerous emetogenic peripheral stimuli and central neuroemetic receptors may be necessary. This multimodal PONV management approach includes use of: (i) multiple different antiemetic medications (double or triple combination antiemetic therapy acting at different neuroreceptor sites); (ii) less emetogenic anaesthesia techniques; (iii) adequate intravenous hydration; and (iv) adequate pain control.