Effect of intraoperative subhypnotic infusion of propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting: A retrospective analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To measure the possible association between subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia and the incidence of PONV.

DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching.

SETTING

Postanesthesia care unit and inpatient unit.

PATIENTS

Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-IV, undergoing non-cardiac surgery lasting >2 h were included. Patients were excluded if transferred to the intensive care unit after surgery or received ketamine. Initially 70,976 patients were screened, and a cohort of 51,707 eligible adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery under general balanced anesthesia between 2015 and 2019 were included. Using a propensity score matching, 3185 patients who received subhypnotic propofol during general balanced anesthesia were matched with 5826 patients who did not receive subhypnotic propofol in a 1:2 ratio.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during PACU stay. The secondary outcome was the incidence of PONV within the first 24 h after surgery. Exploratory outcomes were time-to-extubation and length of hospital stay.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 9011 patients were included (3185 patients who received propofol infusion, and 5826 patients who did not receive propofol infusion) after propensity score matching. The adjusted odds ratio for PONV incidence was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.18; p = 0.635) in PACU, and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.23; P = 0.50) within 24 h after surgery. The length of hospital stay was 6 h shorter (ratio of means (95% CI) of 0.92, 0.89, 0.94), p < 0.001) and time-to-extubation was 2 min longer (ratio of means 1.24 (1.20, 1.28), p < 0.001) in patients receiving subhypnotic propofol infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia is not associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV during PACU stay and within the first 24 h after surgery. However, it is associated with decreased LOS and increased time-to-extubation, but differences in neither outcome were clinically important.

Pharmacologic interventions for postoperative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

Data sources

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.

Eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions

Randomized clinical trials that investigated the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in preventing PONV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy were included. The primary endpoints were the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), use of rescue antiemetics, and incidence of complete response in the overall postoperative phases. The secondary endpoints were the same parameters assessed in the early, middle, and late postoperative phases. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms were used to present the hierarchy of pharmacologic interventions.

Results

Twenty-six studies (n = 3,467 patients) that investigated 17 different pharmacologic interventions were included. According to the SUCRA values, the incidence of PONV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (16.1%), followed by palonosetron (27.5%), and with tropisetron (28.7%). The incidence of PON among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (11.8%), followed by tropisetron and propofol combination (14%), and ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (18.0%). The incidence of POV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with tropisetron and propofol combination (2.2%), followed by ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (23.2%), and tropisetron alone (37.3%). The least usage of rescue antiemetics among the overall postoperative phases and the highest complete response was observed with tropisetron and propofol combination (3.9% and 96.6%, respectively).

Conclusion

Propofol and tropisetron alone and in combination, and the ramosetron and dexamethasone combination effectively prevented PONV, PON, POV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy, with some heterogeneity observed in this NMA of full-text reports. Their use minimized the need for rescue antiemetics and enhanced the complete response.

Trial registration number

CRD42018100002.

Reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A quality report

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective outpatient surgery can complicate discharge and increase patient suffering. Within our hospital system, there was variability in the use of postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis for patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, which resulted in variable outcomes. To address this variability, we designed and implemented a standardized postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis guideline for the care of this surgical population.

AIM

We sought to develop and implement a standardized postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis guideline for all patients presenting for elective ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the goal of reducing the rate of emesis to ≤5%.

METHODS

We convened a multidisciplinary team to develop a postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis guideline which included administration of dexamethasone, ondansetron, and a low-dose propofol infusion in addition to a femoral and sciatic nerve block and routine ketorolac administration for pain control. Our primary outcome, emesis rate, was tracked using a P-chart. Process measures included use of guideline medications and balancing measures included opioid administration, pain scores, and emergence time.

RESULTS

We analyzed postoperative nausea and vomiting outcomes for 817 patients from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. The baseline postoperative emesis rate for all anesthetizing locations was 17%. Following, guideline implementation, the emesis rate decreased to 5%. Opioid administration was decreased following guideline implementation. The percentage of patients managed without any perioperative opioids increased from 16% in the baseline group to 38% following guideline implementation. The P-chart suggests that the observed reduction in emesis rate represents special cause variation and this reduction was sustained over a two-year period.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of standard postoperative nausea and vomiting guidelines for adolescents undergoing outpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was associated with lower emesis rates. This reduction in emesis rate may have been due to the concurrent reduction in opioids we observed following guideline implementation.

Effect of preoperative visiting operation room on emergence agitation in preschool children under sevoflurane anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Emergence agitation (EA) is a common complication in children during recovery from sevoflurane anesthesia with an high incidence. The main objective of this study was to compare the effects of preoperative visiting operation room (PVOR) to administration of propofol at the end of anesthesia on EA in preschool children under sevoflurane anesthesia.

METHODS

Sixty-nine preschool children aged from 3 to 6 years scheduled for tonsillectomy under sevoflurane anesthesia were randomly allocated to one of the three groups to receive either PVOR (Group PV), routine preoperative visit (Group RV) or routine preoperative visit plus propofol (Group RP), 23 patients were included in each group. General anesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane. Parental separation status score, mask acceptance score, Aono's four point score and pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) score and incidence of EA were recorded. PAED score >10 were regarded as EA. Recovery profile and adverse events were also recorded.

RESULT

Parental separation status score and mask acceptance score in group PV was significantly lower than that in group RV and group RP (P < 0.05); Aono's four point score, PAED score and incidence of EA in group PV and group RP was significantly lower than that in group RV (P < 0.05); Time to extubation and time to interaction in group PV and group RV was significantly shorter than that in group RP (P < 0.05); POV and rescue by fentanyl in group PV and group RP was significantly lower than that in group RV(P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

PVOR can effectively reduce the incidence of EA as well as administration of propofol without additional medical expenses and other adverse effects.

Total intravenous anesthesia vs single pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent postoperative vomiting in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting are frequent but often missed complications after general anesthesia in pediatric patients. Because inhaled anesthetics are known to trigger postoperative vomiting, total intravenous anesthesia is often administered in high-risk children to avoid the use of inhalational anesthesia. Since inhalational anesthesia might be advantageous in some situations, the question is raised whether administration of pharmacological prophylaxis offers equal protection from postoperative vomiting compared with total intravenous anesthesia alone.

AIM

The aim of this systematic review was to compare total intravenous anesthesia with single-drug pharmacological prophylaxis for the protection of postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL) with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials including patients <18 years of age undergoing general anesthesia, with one group receiving propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia and another group receiving inhalational anesthesia with single pharmacological prophylaxis. Primary outcome was the overall incidence for postoperative vomiting. Secondary outcomes included early and late postoperative vomiting, the need for postoperative antiemetic medication, time to first oral intake, duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit, and any adverse events defined as such by the respective authors. Risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using a random effects model with inverse variance weighting.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials including 558 children were included in the final analysis. All patients underwent strabismus surgery. Total intravenous anesthesia and single pharmacological prophylaxis were equally effective in preventing overall postoperative vomiting (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.77; 1.27]; 4 trials), as well as vomiting in the early (1.48 [0.78; 2.83]; 4 trials) and late (0.89 [0.56;1.42]; 2 trials) postoperative period. There was no difference in the need for postoperative antiemetic medication. Although patients resumed drinking and eating significantly earlier following total intravenous anesthesia (MD -1.40 hours [-2.01; -0.80], P < .001), the duration of PACU stay did not differ between groups. The incidence of intraoperative oculocardiac reflex was the only reported adverse event, which was more likely to occur after total intravenous anesthesia (1.86 [1.01; 3.41]).

CONCLUSION

Single pharmacological prophylaxis appears equally effective compared with total intravenous anesthesia in preventing postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients. However, during strabismus surgery, total intravenous anesthesia increases the risk for bradycardia due to oculocardiac reflex. Thus, when anesthesia is maintained with inhalational anesthetics, its emetogenic effects can sufficiently be compensated by the addition of a single prophylactic antiemetic medication.

A comparison of sedation with midazolam-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl during endoscopy in children: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam plus ketamine versus fentanyl plus propofol combination administered to children undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) and to determine the most appropriate sedation protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, single-blind study included patients between the ages of 4 and 17 years who underwent UGE for diagnostic purposes. Patients were divided randomly into groups A (midazolam-ketamine combination, n=119) and B (fentanyl plus propofol combination, n=119). The effectiveness of the sedation and complications during the procedure and recovery period were recorded.

RESULTS

The processes started without an additional dose of the drug for 118 patients (99.1%) in group A and for 101 patients (84.8%) in group B (P=0.001). The average dose of ketamine administered to the patients in group A was 1.03±0.15 mg/kg and the average dose of propofol administered to the patients in group B was 1.46±0.55 mg/kg. None of the patients stopped the endoscopic procedure in group A, but one patient (0.8%) had to discontinue the endoscopic procedure in group B. 27 patients in group A (22.7%) and 41 patients (34.5%) in group B developed complications during the procedure (P=0.044). The rate of complications during the recovery of group A (110 patients, 92.4%) was significantly higher than that in group B (48 patients, 40.3%) (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

In children, UGE procedures can be quite comfortable when using the midazolam-ketamine combination. However, adverse effects related to ketamine were observed during recovery.

Propofol: a review of its role in pediatric anesthesia and sedation

Propofol is an intravenous agent used commonly for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia, procedural, and critical care sedation in children. The mechanisms of action on the central nervous system involve interactions at various neurotransmitter receptors, especially the gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. Approved for use in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration in 1989, its use for induction of anesthesia in children less than 3 years of age still remains off-label. Despite its wide use in pediatric anesthesia, there is conflicting literature about its safety and serious adverse effects in particular subsets of children. Particularly as children are not "little adults", in this review, we emphasize the maturational aspects of propofol pharmacokinetics. Despite the myriad of propofol pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies and the ability to use allometrical scaling to smooth out differences due to size and age, there is no optimal model that can be used in target controlled infusion pumps for providing closed loop total intravenous anesthesia in children. As the commercial formulation of propofol is a nutrient-rich emulsion, the risk for bacterial contamination exists despite the Food and Drug Administration mandating addition of antimicrobial preservative, calling for manufacturers' directions to discard open vials after 6 h. While propofol has advantages over inhalation anesthesia such as less postoperative nausea and emergence delirium in children, pain on injection remains a problem even with newer formulations. Propofol is known to depress mitochondrial function by its action as an uncoupling agent in oxidative phosphorylation. This has implications for children with mitochondrial diseases and the occurrence of propofol-related infusion syndrome, a rare but seriously life-threatening complication of propofol. At the time of this review, there is no direct evidence in humans for propofol-induced neurotoxicity to the infant brain; however, current concerns of neuroapoptosis in developing brains induced by propofol persist and continue to be a focus of research.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a subhypnotic dose of Propofol in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Background:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after general anesthesia in patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery. We aimed to compare the effect of a sub hypnotic dose of Propofol in the prevention of PONV after lower abdominal surgery with that of the conventional antiemetic drug Metoclopramide.

Materials and Methods:

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 104 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II status, aged 18–65 years, and undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery were randomized to one of four groups (n = 26 each). The patients in the four groups were administered intravenously Propofol 20 mg (G1), Propofol 30 mg (G2), Metoclopramide 10 mg (G3), and placebo (G4), 15 min before skin closure. All episodes of PONV during the first 24 h after anesthesia were recorded by an investigator who was blinded to treatment assignment.

Results:

There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with regard to their gender, age, ASA class, duration of surgery, duration of recovery time and hospital stay, and also body mass index (BMI) (P > 0.05). The prevalence of PONV 0-6 h after anesthesia was 23.08% with Propofol 20 mg (P = 0.005), 15.38% with Propofol 30 mg (P = 0.016), 15.38% with Metoclopramide 10 mg (P = 0.016), compared to 30.77% with placebo (P = 0.005).

Conclusions:

Administration of a subhypnotic dose of Propofol (30 mg) was found to be as effective as 10 mg Metoclopramide in reducing the incidence and severity of PONV in adult patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgeries under Isoflurane-based anesthesia in the early postoperative period.

Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.