[Comparison of different prediction models for the occurrence of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative phase : A systematic qualitative comparison based on prospectively defined quality indicators]

BACKGROUND

Various prognostic prediction models exist for evaluating the risk of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative period (PONV). So far, no systematic comparison of these prognostic scores is available.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was carried out in seven medical databases to find publications on prognostic PONV models. Identified scores were assessed against prospectively defined quality criteria, including generalizability, validation and clinical relevance of the models.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 62 relevant publications with a total of 81,834 patients which could be assigned to 8 prognostic models. The simplified Apfel score performed best, primarily because it was extensively validated. The Van den Bosch score and Sinclair score tied for second place. The simplified Koivuranta score was in third place.

CONCLUSION

The qualitative analysis highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each prediction system based on predetermined standardized quality criteria.

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

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia. Although dozens of different anti-emetics are available for clinical practice, there is currently no comparative ranking of efficacy and safety of these drugs to inform clinical practice. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare, and rank in terms of efficacy and safety, single anti-emetic drugs and their combinations, including 5-hydroxytryptamine₃ , dopamine-2 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists; corticosteroids; antihistamines; and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia. We systematically searched for placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials up to November 2017 (updated in April 2020). We assessed how trustworthy the evidence was using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches for vomiting within 24 h postoperatively, serious adverse events, any adverse event and drug class-specific side-effects. We included 585 trials (97,516 participants, 83% women) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 trials, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared with placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Out of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, with risk ratio (95%CI) 0.26 (0.18-0.38); ramosetron, 0.44 (0.32-0.59); granisetron, 0.45 (0.38-0.54); dexamethasone, 0.51 (0.44-0.57); and ondansetron, 0.55 (0.51-0.60). It was moderate for fosaprepitant, 0.06 (0.02-0.21) and droperidol, 0.61 (0.54-0.69). Granisetron and amisulpride are likely to have little or no increase in any adverse event compared with placebo, while dimenhydrinate and scopolamine may increase the number of patients with any adverse event compared with placebo. So far, there is no convincing evidence that other single drugs effect the incidence of serious, or any, adverse events when compared with placebo. Among drug class specific side-effects, evidence for single drugs is mostly not convincing. There is convincing evidence regarding the prophylactic effect of at least seven single drugs for postoperative vomiting such that future studies investigating these drugs will probably not change the estimated beneficial effect. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

Quo Vadis PCA? A Review on Current Concepts, Economic Considerations, Patient-Related Aspects, and Future Development with respect to Patient-Controlled Analgesia

This review assesses four interrelating aspects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), a long-standing and still widely used concept for postoperative pain management. Over the years, anaesthesiologists and patients have appreciated the benefits of PCA alike. The market has seen new technologies leveraging noninvasive routes of administration and, thus, further increasing patient and staff satisfaction as well as promoting safety aspects. Pharmaceutical research focuses on the reduction or avoidance of opioids, side effects, and adverse events although influence of these aspects appears to be minor. The importance of education is still eminent, and new educational formats are tested to train healthcare professionals and patients likewise. New PCA technology can support the implementation of efficient processes to reduce workload and human errors; however, these new products come with a cost, which is not necessarily reflected through beneficial budget impact or significant improvements in patient outcome. Although first steps have been taken to better recognize the importance of postoperative pain management through the introduction of value-based reimbursement, in most western countries, PCA is not specifically compensated. PCA is still an effective and valued technique for postoperative pain management. Although there is identifiable potential for future developments in various aspects, this potential has not materialized in new products.

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil vs. alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour: a Cochrane systematic review

We aimed to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil used as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the pain of labour. We performed a systematic literature search in December 2015 (updated in December 2016). We included randomised, controlled and cluster-randomised trials of women in labour with planned vaginal delivery receiving patient-controlled remifentanil compared principally with other parenteral and patient-controlled opioids, epidural analgesia and continuous remifentanil infusion or placebo. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with pain relief and the occurrence of adverse events for mothers and newborns. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and applied the GRADE approach for the quality of evidence. We included total zero event trials, using a constant continuity correction of 0.01 and a random-effect meta-analysis. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis; within these, 3713 participants were randomised and 3569 analysed. Most of our pre-specified outcomes were not studied in the included trials. However, we found evidence that women using patient-controlled remifentanil were more satisfied with pain relief than women receiving parenteral opioids (four trials, 216 patients, very low quality evidence) with a standardised mean difference ([SMD] 95%CI) of 2.11 (0.72-3.49), but were less satisfied than women receiving epidural analgesia (seven trials, 2135 patients, very low quality evidence), -0.22 (-0.40 to -0.04). Data on adverse events were sparse. However, the relative risk (95%CI) for maternal respiratory depression for patient-controlled remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia (three trials, 687 patients, low-quality evidence) was 0.91 (0.51-1.62). Compared with continuous intravenous infusion of remifentanil (two trials, 135 patients, low-quality evidence) no conclusion could be reached as all study arms showed zero events. The relative risk (95%CI) of Apgar scores less than 7 at 5 min after birth compared with epidural analgesia (five trials, 1322 participants, low-quality evidence) was 1.26 (0.62-2.57).

[PONV after strabismus surgery : Risk adapted prophylaxis?]

BACKGROUND

Following strabismus surgery, patients frequently develop variable degrees of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). These symptoms cause discomfort and result in serious complications such as intramuscular bleeding and subconjunctival hemorrhage. In children long lasting PONV can lead to and electrolyte imbalance and dehydration. A prolonged course of recovery is the consequence. For the hospital, PONV can also involve negative economic impacts because of a damaged public reputation of the institution. There is still an ongoing debate on wether prophylaxis of PONV is necessary and how the prophylaxis of PONV should be performed. On one hand, there are proponents of a liberal prophylaxis. These intend to treat almost all patients regardless of their individual risk for PONV. On the other hand, opponents point out that every medication has to be indicated individually. In their view, risk scores should be the base of a risk-adapted approach.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to reduce the frequency of PONV by using an anesthetic technique adapted to the individual risk for PONV. Until now, all trials studying the efficiency of a score-based antiemetic prophylaxis were performed on adult patients. In this study, a risk-adapted approach was evaluated on children for the first time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 92 patients, the incidence of PONV was analyzed after strabismus surgery. Before surgery we evaluated the risk factors for PONV according to the POVOC score in children (n = 45, 49 %) and the Apfel's score in adults (n = 47, 51 %). Patients with 0-2 risk factors received a balanced anesthesia (n = 47, 51 %). Those with 3-4 risk factors were operated in total IV anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol (n = 45, 49 %). In addition, as an antiemetic prophylaxis, 0.15 mg/kg dexamethason and 0.1 mg/kg ondansetron were applied in the latter patients. we documented the symptoms and severity of PONV 2, 6 and 24 h after surgery by means of a standardized questionnaire for PONV (Wengritzky-Score).

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV was 17 % (n = 16) in all of the patients. The incidence in low-risk patients receiving a BA without prophylaxis were 21 % in adults and 38 % in children. Of the patients at high risk for PONV receiving the multimodal antiemetic approach 8 % (adults) and 9 % (children) suffered from PONV. The combination of TIVA and antiemetics could reduce the incidence of PONV compared to the predicted values in a clinically relevant manner (OR = 0.26, KI: 0.76-0.87).

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence could be reduced to a level below 20 %. Particularly in patients with a high risk of PONV, TIVA could clearly reduce the incidence. However, the incidence in patients with 2 risk factors is still high (30-39 %). Therefore, it is important to reconsider the effort involved with risk screening and individually adapting anesthesia. Risk stratification means a pre- and perioperative effort. Therefore, we advocate a more liberal approach for PONV prophylaxis.

[Cardioprotection by thoracic epidural anesthesia? : meta-analysis]

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) is thought to provide cardioprotective effects in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. The results of two previous meta-analysis showed controversial conclusions regarding the impact of EDA on perioperative survival. The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate, whether thoracic EDA has the potential to reduce perioperative cardiac morbidity or mortality on the basis of available randomized controlled trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in medical databases (Med-Line, EBM-Reviews, Embase, Biosis and Biological Abstracts) and relevant clinical trials including patients undergoing noncardiac surgery were evaluated by two independent investigators. All randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of thoracic EDA on perioperative outcome, published from 1980 up to the end of 2008 were included into this quantitative systematic review. Calculations were performed using the statistics program Review Manager 4.1 using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Nine studies with a total of 2,768 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Thoracic EDA did not reduce perioperative mortality [odds ratio (Peto OR): 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.58]. Patients receiving thoracic EDA demonstrated a tendency to a lower rate of perioperative myocardial infarction. However, this effect of thoracic EDA did not reach statistical significance (Peto OR: 0.65; 95% CI 0.4-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis did not prove any positive influence of thoracic EDA on perioperative in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Furthermore, it remains questionable if thoracic EDA has the potential to reduce the rate of perioperative myocardial infarction.

Stability-indicating HPLC assays for the determination of piritramide and droperidol in PCA solution

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

A mixture of morphine and droperidol is a well-established antiemetic for reducing the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A mixture of piritramide and droperidol has not yet been evaluated in this context. Our objectives were to develop a high-performance liquid chromatographic assay for piritramide and droperidol in 0·9% saline, and to establish their stability under defined storage conditions.

METHODS

The separation and assay of both drugs were attempted by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using a RP-select B column and a mobile phase of 57:43% v/v methanol-monosodium phosphate solution 0·05 M at a flow rate of 1·2 mL/min. UV detection at 205 and 246 nm for piritramide and droperidol were used, respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The HPLC method was successful. Linearity was shown for piritramide from 0·075 to 0·013 mg/mL and for droperidol from 0·8 to 0·2 mg/mL. The intra- and inter-day relative standard deviation (RSD, %) was 0·27% and 0·54% for piritramide and droperidol, respectively. The two drugs were stable for at least 72 h when stored under ambient light at room temperature.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Seventy-five milligrams piritramide and 2·5 mg droperidol diluted to 50 ml with 0·9% saline should be suitable for clinical use. At this dilution, a Dipidolor(®) and Xomolix(®), mixture, was stable when stored under ambient light exposure at room temperature for at least 72 h.

Postoperative analgesia with parecoxib, acetaminophen, and the combination of both: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients undergoing thyroid surgery

BACKGROUND

We assessed the analgesic efficacy of parecoxib, acetaminophen, and the combination of both compared with placebo in patients undergoing elective thyroid or parathyroid surgery.

METHODS

We randomized 140 patients to receive one of the following i.v. treatments using a double-blinded double-dummy technique: placebo, 80 mg 24 h(-1) parecoxib, 5 g 24 h(-1) acetaminophen, or 80 mg parecoxib plus 5 g acetaminophen. We provided rescue analgesia with piritramide delivered by a patient-controlled analgesia device. We measured opioid consumption and pain intensity over 24 h after operation.

RESULTS

Patient characteristic data, anaesthetic, and surgical characteristics of the patients in the four groups were similar. Parecoxib, acetaminophen, and the combination significantly reduced opioid requirements during 24 h after surgery [mean (sd) 12.5 (10.9) mg for parecoxib, 14.2 (12.3) mg for acetaminophen, and 11.9 (10.7) mg for combination] compared with placebo [23.5 (15.3) mg, P<0.05]. However, the combination of parecoxib and acetaminophen did not have any advantage over individual drugs in terms of opioid consumption in our trial (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Parecoxib and acetaminophen effectively reduce postoperative opioid requirements after thyroid or parathyroid surgery. The combination of these drugs is not associated with a further reduction in opioid consumption.

Analgetikakombinationen zur postoperativen Schmerztherapie

BACKGROUND

The supplementation of an opioid by a non-opioid analgesic is a widely accepted technique for the treatment of postoperative pain. However, it is still unclear whether a combination of different non-opioids has an advantage in terms of an improved analgesia and/or a reduction of the opioid-related adverse effects.

METHODOLOGY

A systematic analysis of the literature was performed searching for randomized, controlled trials studying the effects of a combination of two non-opioid analgesics in order to reduce postoperative opioid requirements and/or postoperative pain. Significant reduction of the postoperative opioid requirement and/or postoperative pain were defined as main rating criteria. To facilitate comparisons between the trials, the relative (proportional) reduction of postoperative opioid administration and the relative reduction of postoperative pain were calculated on defined pain scales.

RESULTS

A total of 25 trials were identified, mainly studies comparing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with paracetamol. Only 3 trials found a statistically improved analgesic efficacy and 15 studies did not show any relevant improvement or the combination group was only significantly superior to one of the groups receiving monotherapy. A further seven studies could not be evaluated due to methodological issues. There was no evidence for a significant reduction of opioid-induced adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

A combination of non-opioid analgesics, in particular NSAIDs with paracetamol, cannot be recommended at present due to the lack of data showing improved effectiveness.

Effect of a balanced anaesthetic technique using desflurane and remifentanil on surgical conditions during microscopic and endoscopic sinus surgery

OBJECTIVES

Controlled hypotension is used to improve surgical conditions during microscopic and endoscopic sinus surgery. Several drug combinations are suitable to provide deep and predictable level of anaesthesia combined with an exact control of intraoperative blood pressure. However, only little is known about the relative importance of the level of hypnosis on the one hand and analgesia on the other hand.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, patient and observer-blinded study.

METHODS

All 100 consecutive patients received a balanced anaesthesia technique using desflurane and remifentanil. Anaesthesia was desflurane-accentuated with remifentanil-supplementation (DARS-group: 1 MAC desflurane; remifentanil: 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) or remifentanil-accentuated with desflurane-supplementation (RADS-group: desflurane: 0.5 MAC; remifentanil: 0.4 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)). Administration of anaesthetics performed to maintain a sufficient level of anaesthesia and to keep mean arterial pressure between 60 and 70 mmHg (8-9.3 hPa). The attending ENT-surgeons were unaware of the type of anaesthesia and rated general surgical conditions and the dryness of the operating site on a visual analogue scale (0-10 cm) and on a verbal rating scale immediately after surgery.

RESULTS

Blood pressure and heart rate was not different between the two groups. Dryness of the operating site was rated significantly better (p < 0.0001) in the DARS-group (median; 25th/75th-percentile: 2.0; 1.5-3.5 vs. RADS-group: 2.6; 2.0-4.0) but the overall rating of the surgical conditions did not differ between the groups (DARS-group: 2.0; 1.0-2.4 vs. RADS-group: 2.2; 1.5-3.2). Immediate postoperative recovery times were increased in the RADS-group, but there was no difference with respect to fit-for-discharge criteria one hour after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Balanced anaesthesia using high dose of desflurane offers small but statistically significant advantages with respect to dryness of the operating site compared to an opioid-accentuated anaesthesia technique. However, since the opioid-accentuated anaesthetic group had a faster immediate recovery both techniques are equally effective for microscopic and endoscopic sinus surgery.

Anti-emetic prophylaxis with oral tropisetron and/or dexamethasone

BACKGROUND

The corticosteroid dexamethasone and the serotonine3 -antagonist tropisetron are both effective drugs for the prophylaxis of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when given intravenously. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the oral use of both drugs as part of a routine oral premedication and to compare their single and combined effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, 320 inpatients with a moderate-high risk of PONV (> or = 40% according to two validated risk scores) received an oral premedication 1-2 h pre-operatively with placebo, a fixed dose of tropisetron 5 mg, dexamethasone 8 mg, or a combination of both drugs. A standardized general anaesthesia was performed, including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, rocuronium, desflurane in air/O2, fentanyl or sufentanil followed by a continuous infusion of remifentanil. Post-operative analgesia and anti-emetic rescue medication were standardized. The main outcome measures were the severity of PONV within the first 24 h (rated by a standardized scoring algorithm). The incidence of PONV was used as the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Data from 310 patients were analyzed. The mean severity score in the placebo-, tropisetron-, dexamethasone- and the combined-groups was 1.37, 0.8, 0.8 and 0.38, respectively. The incidence of PONV of any severity was 59.2%, 37.5%, 40% and 22.8%, respectively. The reduction of the incidence and the severity of PONV were statistically significant with all three interventions. Results from additional analyses suggested that both drugs were equally effective and that there was a simple additive effect of tropisetron and dexamethasone compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Oral tropisetron and dexamethasone were both equally effective in reducing the severity and incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting. The latter could be reduced by approximately 35% in a population of moderate-high risk for PONV. Both drugs had an additive effect. However, even in the combination group there still remained an unacceptably high incidence of PONV of more than 20%. This highlighted the need for a multimodal anti-emetic approach in high-risk patients and the importance of treatment of PONV.

Does the efficacy of supplemental oxygen for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting depend on the measured outcome, observational period or site of surgery?

High intra-operative oxygen concentration reportedly reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but recent data are conflicting. Therefore, we tested whether the effectiveness of supplemental oxygen depends on the endpoint (nausea vs. vomiting), observation interval (early vs. late) or surgical field (abdominal vs. non-abdominal). We randomly assigned 560 adult patients undergoing various elective procedures with a PONV risk of at least 40% to intra-operative 80% (supplemental) or 30% oxygen (control). Potential confounding factors were similar between groups. Incidences of nausea were similar in the groups during early (12% (supplemental) vs. 10% (control), p = 0.43) and late intervals, 26%vs. 20%, p = 0.09, as were the incidences of vomiting (early: 2%vs. 3%, p = 0.40; late: 8%vs. 9%, p = 0.75). Supplemental oxygen was no more effective at reducing PONV in abdominal (40%vs. 31%, p = 0.37) than in non-abdominal surgery (25%vs. 21%, p = 0.368). Thus, supplemental oxygen was unable to reduce PONV independent of the endpoint, observational period or site of surgery.

Risk factors for prilocaine-induced methaemoglobinaemia following peripheral regional anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

The local anaesthetic prilocaine has a low systemic toxicity mainly because of a high absorption in the lung and a large volume of distribution and thus is associated with a lower risk of neurological or cardiac side-effects. However, the major disadvantage is the formation of methaemoglobin by its metabolite o-toluidine. This prospective observational study was performed to identify factors that are associated with increased prilocaine-induced methaemoglobinaemia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One Hundred and sixty two patients undergoing major knee surgery under general anaesthesia combined with peripheral nerve blocks (femoral nerve block, combined femoral/sciatic nerve block or lumbar plexus block) received a single bolus injection of 300 or 400 mg prilocaine about 30 min before surgery via a catheter. The proper placement was verified using nerve stimulation via a stimulating catheter. Three hours after prilocaine injection, venous blood samples were drawn and methaemoglobin levels were measured by standard photometric technique. Data was subjected to a stepwise multiple regression analysis.

RESULTS

The mean methaemoglobin for all patients was 2.7% (range: 0.9-15.4%). A higher dose of prilocaine and younger age were the most important predictive factors for higher methaemoglobin formation. Female sex and to a lesser extent the use of high-concentration/low-volume prilocaine also increased methaemoglobin levels. These four factors of the model explain 36% of the total variance. Other investigated factors, including the patient's height, weight, body mass index, the site of catheter insertion, the anaesthetist's judgement concerning the difficulty of catheter placement, duration of catheter placement or an inadvertent puncture of a venous or arterial vessel, had no significant impact on the concentration of methaemoglobin.

CONCLUSION

The use of prilocaine for regional block is safe, since the older patients who might be more susceptible to suffer from clinical symptoms of methaemoglobinaemia usually form less methaemoglobin. However, since prediction of high methaemoglobin levels is difficult, anaesthesiologists performing regional blocks in patients who might be jeopardized by a decreased oxygen transport capacity should avoid high doses of prilocaine.

[Is a blockade of the lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh an alternative to the classical femoral nerve blockade for knee joint arthroscopy? A randomised controlled study]

BACKGROUND

Gaps in the distribution area of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) are assumed to be the reason for pain caused by a thigh tourniquet when performing a femoral nerve (FN) block according to Winnie. The aim of the study was to evaluate if a direct single blockade of the LFCN in patients undergoing knee surgery resulted in a better tolerance to the tourniquet with equally good analgesic quality during surgery.

METHODS

A total of 40 patients undergoing knee arthroscopy received a proximal blockade of the sciatic nerve and randomly either an FN or an LFCN block. Practicability, onset time, quality of sensory and motor block, and clinical effectiveness during tourniquet and surgery were assessed.

RESULTS

Stimulation time was significantly longer in the LFCN than in the FN group. Quality of sensory and motor block was worse in the LFCN than the NF group. Of the LFCN patients 65% indicated troublesome paraesthesia or pain when a tourniquet was placed, compared to 35% of the FN patients. Of the LFCN patients 50% had pain during cutaneous incision, compared to none of the FN group. During the course of surgery, 70% of the LFCN patients needed supplemental systemic analgesia, but this was required by only 30% of the FN group.

CONCLUSION

An LFCN block is not a suitable alternative to an FN block for regional anaesthesia. For patients with contraindications for an FN block according to Winnie (e.g. vessel surgery in the groin) other more effective methods are available.

Evaluation and validation of a new risk score (CLEOPATRA score) to predict the probability of premature delivery for patients with threatened preterm labor

OBJECTIVE

To develop a clinically useful tool to predict the probability of preterm delivery in patients with threatened preterm labor.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy patients with preterm labor between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation were included. Preterm delivery < 37 weeks of gestation was the main endpoint of the study. The data were randomized and split into an evaluation set (n = 85) and a validation set (n = 85). The evaluation set was subjected to stepwise backward logistic regression analysis to quantify the relative impact of four potential risk factors, including individual patient factors, results of a rapid fetal fibronectin assay, and sonographic measurement of cervical length. Using the constant of the logistic regression analysis and the beta-coefficients for the identified risk factors the individual probability of preterm delivery for each woman of the validation dataset was calculated. The area under a receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the discriminating power of the score.

RESULTS

The overall rate of preterm delivery was 27.1%. The logistic regression analysis was performed for the potential predictors of spontaneous preterm delivery, identified by univariate analysis. These were positive fetal fibronectin, cervical length, previous preterm delivery and maternal age. Two risk factors were independent predictors of preterm delivery and were included in the CLEOPATRA I (clinical evaluation of preterm delivery and theoretical risk assessment) score: cervical length measurement and previous preterm delivery were associated with a higher risk of preterm delivery (odds ratio, 7.65 and 6.74, respectively). Since fetal fibronectin assay is not available at all institutions worldwide, it was excluded from the initial model. In the CLEOPATRA II model the risk factors fetal fibronectin and previous preterm delivery were associated with higher risk of preterm delivery, with odds ratios of 17.9 and 4.56, respectively. The discrimination power (AUC) obtained from the models were: CLEOPATRA I, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.56-0.82); CLEOPATRA II, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.93).

CONCLUSION

In symptomatic women the risk for preterm delivery can be predicted best with the CLEOPATRA II score based on fetal fibronectin and previous preterm delivery.

Eine faktorielle Studie von 6 Interventionen zur Vermeidung von �belkeit und Erbrechen nach Narkosen

BACKGROUND

Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown.

METHODS

In a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design, 5,199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of 6 prophylactic interventions: 1) 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 2) 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 3) 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; 4) propofol or a volatile anesthetic; 5) nitrogen or nitrous oxide; 6) remifentanil or fentanyl. The primary aim parameter was nausea and vomiting within 24 h after surgery, which was evaluated blindly.

RESULTS

Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26%, propofol reduced the risk by 19%, and nitrogen by 12%. The risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics alone. All the interventions acted independently of each other and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. However, absolute risk reduction was a critical function of patients' baseline risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.

The development and validation of a risk score to predict the probability of postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients

Risk scores to predict the occurrence of postoperative vomiting (PV) or nausea and vomiting that were developed for adult patients do not fit for children, because several risk factors are difficult to assess or are usually not applicable in pediatric patients (e.g., smoking status). Thus, in the present study, we sought to develop and to validate a simple score to predict PV in children (POVOC-score). Development and validation of the new score was based on data from 4 independent institutions of 1257 children (aged 0-14 yr) undergoing various types of surgery under general anesthesia without antiemetic prophylaxis. Preoperatively, several potential risk factors were recorded. Postoperatively, the occurrence of PV was observed for up to 24 h. The dataset was randomly split into an evaluation set (n = 657) that was analyzed using a forward logistic regression technique and a validation set (n = 600) that was used to confirm the accuracy of prediction by means of the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve. Four independent risk factors for PV were identified in the final analysis: duration of surgery >/=30 min, age >/=3 yr, strabismus surgery, and a positive history of PV in the children or PV/postoperative nausea and vomiting in relatives (mother, father, or siblings). The incidence of PV was 9%, 10%, 30%, 55%, and 70% for 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 risk factors observed. Using these incidences as cut-off values in the validation dataset, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% confidence interval: 0.68-0.77). Our data suggest that PV can be predicted with an acceptable accuracy using a four-item simplified risk score.

Comparison of surgical site and patient's history with a simplified risk score for the prediction of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Although site of surgery and previous occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting are often used to decide whether prophylactic anti-emetic drugs are indicated, the value of these predictors is unclear. We compared these two risk factors against a simplified four-factor risk score. We analysed data from 1566 adult inpatients who received balanced anaesthesia without prophylactic anti-emetics. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to quantify predictive properties. Nausea and vomiting occurred in 600 (38.3%) patients within 24 h. Sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 47% and 59% for surgical site; 47% and 70% for history of postoperative nausea and vomiting; and 58% and 70% for risk score with three or more factors. The area under the curve for surgical site was 0.53 (95% CI 0.50-0.56); that for patient's history was 0.58 (95% CI 0.56-0.61) while for risk score it was 0.68 (95% CI 0.66-0.71; P < 0.001). Prediction using surgical site or patient's history alone was poor while the simplified risk score provided clinically useful sensitivity and specificity.

Verbessern intraven�ses Fentanyl oder Midazolam vor Durchf�hrung einer peripheren Regionalan�sthesie Patientenakzeptanz und Kooperativit�t bei der Katheteranlage?

BACKGROUND

The procedure of placing a catheter for continuous regional anaesthesia is often associated with fear and pain in the patient. Thus, we evaluated the use of midazolam and fentanyl to improve patient's comfort and cooperation.

METHODS

After an oral dose of 20 mg clorazepate, 174 patients receiving peripheral nerve catheters for regional anaesthesia where randomized into 3 groups to receive either intravenous placebo, 3 mg midazolam or 0.1 mg fentanyl immediately before catheter placement in a double-blind manner. Stepwise regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with patient's assessment of subjective discomfort (measured using a VAS 0-10) during the procedure. Amnesia was evaluated 24 h later. The anaesthetist rated patient's cooperation during catheter placement.

RESULTS

Female sex and longer duration of catheter placement had significant negative impact on patient's comfort, whereas fentanyl showed an improvement. Age, body mass index, midazolam and the type of catheter had no influence. The following day 27% of the midazolam group, 6% of the placebo group and 9% of the fentanyl patients did not remember catheter placement. Patient's cooperation was poor in 26% of the midazolam patients but only in 9% of the placebo and 3% of the patients receiving fentanyl. Of the placebo patients 18.4% had to be supplemented with fentanyl because they found the procedure of catheter placement unbearable. No side effects occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

As patient's comfort and cooperation were significantly improved by fentanyl, we recommend fentanyl to facilitate catheter placement for regional anaesthesia.

Prophylaxe und Therapie von �belkeit und Erbrechen in der ambulanten Ophthalmoan�sthesie

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the most common side effects following anesthesia. It is unpleasant for the patients and has significant impact on postoperative well-being. After ophthalmic surgery arterial hypertension caused by retching and vomiting can cause intraocular bleeding with detrimental effects on the result of surgery. It is possible to identify risk patients who are likely to develop PONV. In these patients antiemetic prophylaxis is indicated, but the extreme age of patients (geriatric patients with relevant comorbidity and children) undergoing (ambulatory) ophthalmic procedures must be considered. Furthermore, antiemetics should be free from side effects, especially sedating effects, since these procedures are often performed on an outpatient basis. Regional or local anesthesia is the method of choice. However, when general anesthesia is necessary avoidance of volatile anesthetics, nitrous oxide, and administration of 5-HT(3) antagonists is recommended. Also, dexamethasone is a potent antiemetic drug that can favorably be combined with the 5-HT(3) antagonists. Dimenhydrinate is well accepted and an effective antiemetic for pediatric patients. By combining these antiemetic measures PONV can be lowered to a clinically satisfying level even in high-risk patients.

Fast-track eligibility, costs and quality of recovery after intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil versus balanced anaesthesia with isoflurane-alfentanil

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The randomized, patient- and observer-blinded study was performed in 120 patients undergoing ear, nose and throat surgery to test the hypothesis that intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil when compared with a balanced anaesthesia technique using isoflurane-alfentanil improves the speed of recovery, minimizes postoperative side-effects and, thus, leads to an improved quality of recovery without increasing total costs.

METHODS

The total costs for each anaesthesia technique were calculated considering drug acquisition costs, personnel costs for the additional time spent in the operating room and the postanaesthesia care unit until fast-tracking eligibility, and the costs to treat the side-effects during and after operation.

RESULTS

The times from the end of surgery to tracheal extubation and the time until leaving the operating room were not different between the two groups. However, more patients receiving intravenous anaesthesia (80 versus 49%) were eligible for fast tracking and thus could bypass the recovery room. This was associated with an average cost saving of 6.00 euros per patient. However, intravenous anaesthesia was associated with higher total costs (89 euros versus 78 euros) mainly because of higher acquisition costs of the anaesthetics (34.60 euros versus 16.50 euros). There was no difference in the quality of recovery as measured by a Quality of Recovery score and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher acquisition costs of the intravenous anaesthetics propofol and remifentanil cannot be compensated for by improved speed of recovery. This anaesthesia technique is more cost intensive than balanced anaesthesia using isoflurane and alfentanil.

Applicability of risk scores for postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults to paediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Scores to predict the occurrence of postoperative vomiting (PV) or nausea and vomiting (PONV) are well established in adult patients. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the applicability of risk scores developed and tested in adult patients in 983 paediatric patients (0-12 yr) undergoing various surgical procedures.

METHOD

The predictive properties of five models were compared with respect to discriminating power (measured by the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve) and calibration (comparison of the predicted and the actual incidences of the disease by weighed linear regression analysis).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of PV was 33.2% within 24 h. The discriminating power was low and insufficient in all models tested (0.56-0.65). Furthermore, the predicted incidences of the scores correlated only vaguely with the actual incidences observed.

CONCLUSION

Specialized scores for children are required. These might use the history of PV, strabismus surgery, duration of anaesthesia > or =45 min, age > or =5 yr and administration of postoperative opioids as independent risk factors.

[Prediction of postoperative nausea and vomiting using an artificial neural network]

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are still frequent side-effects after general anaesthesia. These unpleasant symptoms for the patients can be sufficiently reduced using a multimodal antiemetic approach. However, these efforts should be restricted to risk patients for PONV. Thus, predictive models are required to identify these patients before surgery. So far all risk scores to predict PONV are based on results of logistic regression analysis. Artificial neural networks (ANN) can also be used for prediction since they can take into account complex and non-linear relationships between predictive variables and the dependent item. This study presents the development of an ANN to predict PONV and compares its performance with two established simplified risk scores (Apfel's and Koivuranta's scores).

METHODS

The development of the ANN was based on data from 1,764 patients undergoing elective surgical procedures under balanced anaesthesia. The ANN was trained with 1,364 datasets and a further 400 were used for supervising the learning process. One of the 49 ANNs showing the best predictive performance was compared with the established risk scores with respect to practicability, discrimination (by means of the area under a receiver operating characteristics curve) and calibration properties (by means of a weighted linear regression between the predicted and the actual incidences of PONV).

RESULTS

The ANN tested showed a statistically significant ( p<0.0001) and clinically relevant higher discriminating power (0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.78) than the Apfel score (0.66; 95% CI: 0.61-0.71) or Koivuranta's score (0.69; 95% CI: 0.65-0.74). Furthermore, the agreement between the actual incidences of PONV and those predicted by the ANN was also better and near to an ideal fit, represented by the equation y=1.0x+0. The equations for the calibration curves were: KNN y=1.11x+0, Apfel y=0.71x+1, Koivuranta 0.86x-5.

CONCLUSION

The improved predictive accuracy achieved by the ANN is clinically relevant. However, the disadvantages of this system prevail because a computer is required for risk calculation. Thus, we still recommend the use of one of the simplified risk scores for clinical practice.

Patient preferences for immediate postoperative recovery

BACKGROUND

Several attempts have been made to evaluate patients' concerns with respect to postoperative recovery. To identify aspects of postoperative recovery relevant to patients, several methodological and statistical approaches have been used. One of the first to provide useful information was Fredrick Orkin who used conjoint analysis. This methodology is usually performed by market researchers to learn about the relative importance of product attributes. We used conjoint analysis in the present study.

METHODS

A total of 220 patients undergoing preoperative anaesthetic examination before impending surgery under general anaesthesia were asked to rate nine scenarios during immediate postoperative recovery based on four factors (alertness, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and extra costs) each with three levels. Using conjoint analysis the relative impact of each factor on ranking the scenarios was assessed.

RESULTS

The relative importance of the four factors (as a percentage of the preference decision) was PONV (49%), pain (27%), alertness (13%), and additional costs (11%).

CONCLUSION

Avoidance of PONV is a major concern for patients before surgery.

Impact of a multimodal anti-emetic prophylaxis on patient satisfaction in high-risk patients for postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequent and unpleasant symptoms. This prospective study aimed to assess the efficacy of a multimodal approach to prevent PONV, and patient satisfaction using the willingness-to-pay method. Two validated risk scores were applied to forecast the individual risk for PONV in 900 consecutive patients of whom 108 were identified as high-risk patients (predicted risk: 79-87%). High-risk patients received multimodal anti-emetic prophylaxis: total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol, high fractional inspired oxygen (80%), omission of nitrous oxide, dexamethasone 8 mg, haloperidol 10 microg.kg(-1), and tropisetron 2 mg. Of the remaining patients with low or moderate risk for PONV, a random sample of 71 females received balanced propofol-desflurane anaesthesia without prophylactic anti-emetics. All patients were interviewed 2 and 24 h after surgery for occurrence of nausea and vomiting. Patient satisfaction was measured using the willingness-to-pay method. The incidence of PONV (95%-confidence interval) in the control-group was 41% (29-51%), slightly lower than predicted by the risk scores (53-57%). The multimodal anti-emetic approach reduced the predicted risk (79-87%) in the high risk-group to 7% (3-14%). This was associated with a high willingness-to-pay median (25th/75th percentile) of 84 UK pounds (33-184 UK pounds) in the multimodal anti-emetic group compared to 14 UK pounds (4-30 UK pounds) in the control group. A multimodal anti-emetic approach can considerably reduce the incidence of PONV in high-risk patients and is associated with a high patient satisfaction as measured by the willingness-to-pay method.

[Efficient OP management. Suggestions for optimisation of organisation and administration as a basis for establishing statutes for operating theatres]

Economic aspects have gained increasing importance in recent years. The operating room (OR) is the most cost-intensive sector and determines the turnover process of a surgical patient within the hospital. Thus, optimisation of workflow processes is of particular interest for health care providers. If the results of surgery are viewed as a product, everything associated with surgery can be evaluated analogously to a manufacturing process. All steps involved in producing the end-result can and should be analysed with the goal of producing an efficient, economical and quality product. The leadership that physicians can provide to manage this process is important and leads to the introduction of a specialised "OR manager". This position must have the authority to issue directives to all other members of the OR team. An OR management subordinates directly to the administration of the hospital. By integrating and improving management of various elements of the surgical process, health care institutions are able to rationally trim costs while maintaining high-quality services. This paper gives a short introduction into the difficulties of organising an OR. Some suggestions are made to overcome common shortcomings in the daily practise. A proposal for an "OR statute" is presented that should be a basis for discussion within the OR team. It must be modified according to individual needs and prerequisites in every hospital. The single best opportunity for dramatic improvement in effective resource use in surgical services lies in the perioperative process. The management strategy must focus on process measurement using information technology and feed-back implementing modern quality management tools.However, no short-term effects can be expected from these changes. Improvements take about a year and continuous feed-back of all measures must accompany the reorganisation process.

[Pharmacoeconomical model for cost calculation using a study on prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative phase as an example. Cost effectiveness analysis of a tropisetron supplemented desflurane anaesthesia in comparison to a propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA)]

AIM OF THE STUDY

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are among the most frequent complications after general anaesthesia. Avoiding these symptoms is of utmost importance for most patients; PONV is not only a major source of discomfort for patients but also a cause of additional costs for the patients and the health care provider. The economical impact of PONV will become even more important in the near future because the number of surgical procedures performed on an ambulatory basis is increasing. The following article gives a short overview of the terminology and measures used in pharmacoeconomical studies concerning PONV. Furthermore the economical aspects of a low-flow anaesthesia supplemented with the 5-HT(3)-antagonist tropisetron compared with a total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) using propofol are described.

METHODS

For this comparison a decision analysis was performed using data of a randomised control trial on 150 female patients undergoing major gynaecological surgery. The patients were randomised to receive a total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-alfentanil or a balanced anaesthesia with desfluran (fresh gas flow 1 l.min(-1)) supplemented by 2 mg tropisetron at the end of surgery.

RESULTS

Indirect costs associated with anaesthesia using desflurane-tropisetron (4.94 Euro) are not different from that of propofol-TIVA (4.81 Euro) because of a similar incidence of PONV in the PACU. Furthermore, the total cost for 100 min general anaesthesia is higher in the desflurane-tropisetron group (30.94 Euro) compared with the TIVA group (24.55 Euro) due to the decreasing acquisition costs of propofol in the last 2 years.

CONCLUSION

Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol is more cost-efficient than balanced anaesthesia with desflurane and additional tropisetron as a prophylactic antiemetic.

[Patient evaluation of postoperative recovery. An evaluation of the QoR scores in 577 patients]

BACKGROUND

In 1999 Myles and co-workers presented their quality of recovery score (QoR score) as a tool to evaluate postoperative recovery and to measure patient satisfaction. It was developed according to predefined psychological standards and its reliability and validity had been proven in large clinical trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate a German version of the QoR in a heterogeneous group of surgical patients.

METHODS

A total of 577 unselected patients completed a modified questionnaire. The response rate and time spent on completing the test were recorded. A stepwise multivariate regression analysis identified factors with significant impact on the QoR score. Other analyses were performed descriptively.

RESULTS

Of the patients 83% completed the questionnaire in a median time of 9 h after surgery without assistance. For 75% of these it took 2 min or less. The median QoR score was 15 (10(th)/90(th) percentile: 11/18). Cronbach's p (=0.63) and mean corrected item correlation (=0.32) were used as measures of internal reliability. Factors with impact on the QoR score were: period of time after surgery when performing the test, severity of surgery, sex, general vs local anaesthesia, duration of anaesthesia, and age.

CONCLUSIONS

The German translation of the QoR score is easily applicable to a heterogeneous surgical population and thus can be used as a valuable measure of quality of anaesthesia care and patient satisfaction.

[Motor function during patient-controlled analgesia via a lumbar epidural catheter after major abdominal surgery. Ropivacaine-sufentanil vs. bupivacaine-sufentanil]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present study was to investigate postoperative motoric impairment during patient-controlled analgesia after major abdominal surgery with ropivacaine-sufentanil and bupivacaine-sufentanil via a lumbar epidural catheter.

METHODS

After approval of the local ethics committee, 40 patients scheduled for major lower abdominal surgery were randomly allocated to receive bupivacaine 0.25 % or ropivacaine 0.2 %, both with sufentanil 2 microgram/ml in a double blind manner. General anaesthesia (midazolam, etomidate, fentanyl, vecuronium, and desflurane in N2O/O2) and postoperative management of the patients were standardised. Postoperatively, the motoric function and ability for active early mobilisation was examined clinically (application of the Bromage scale, ability to leave the bed and ability to walk). Reduction of muscular force of the legs was measured postoperatively using a scale and compared with preoperative baseline values. To ensure a similar level of analgesia, a 10-cm visual analogue scale was applied at rest and while coughing.

RESULTS

The two groups did not differ with respect to the demographic data and postoperative levels of analgesia. Less reduction of motoric function at rest was observed in the ropivacaine group (p = 0,044). However, this did not lead to an increased ability to get up from bed (p = 0,57) or to walk around (p = 0,17). A high number of patients did not meet the requirements for early ambulation. Almost half of the patients of both groups were unable to leave their beds in the morning of the first postoperative day. On the second postoperative day about 25 - 30 % of the patients could not walk even when support was applied. Furthermore, median reduction (10th/90th percentile) of muscular strength was reduced to 50 % (37 %/76 %) in the ropivacaine group and to 48 % (31 %/61 %) in the bupivacaine group compared with preoperative values.

DISCUSSION

While quality of analgesia was similar, mobility of the legs at rest is better preserved with ropivacaine 0.2 % than with bupivacaine 0.25 %. However, despite the fact that high dose sufentanil was added to both local anaesthetics, there was marked motoric impairment in both groups probably due to the lumbar site of the epidural catheter. This was associated with an unacceptable high incidence of patients unsuitable for early postoperative mobilisation.

Dimenhydrinate for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Diphenhydramine and its theoclate salt dimenhydrinate are traditional antiemetics still in use. However, so far the quantitative effect of dimenhydrinate in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has not been evaluated systematically.

METHODS

Results from randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of dimenhydrinate vs. a control to prevent PONV were included in a meta-analysis. Studies were systematically searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane-Library, manually screening of reference lists of matching review articles and current issues of locally available peer-reviewed anesthesia journals, up to June 2001. The numbers of patients with complete absence of PONV within 6 h and within 48 h after surgery were extracted as the main end point. Pooled relative benefits (RB) and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. This quantitative systematic review was performed following the recommendations of the QUORUM statement. In all, 18 trials with 3045 patients were included in the analysis: 1658 patients received a placebo (control) and 1387 patients received dimenhydrinate.

RESULTS

The RB to stay completely free of PONV was 1.2 (95% CI: 1.1-1.4) for the early period (NNT = 8; 95% CI: 5-25) and 1.5 (1.3-1.8) for the overall investigated period (NNT = 5; 95% CI: 3-9).

CONCLUSION

Dimenhydrinate is a traditional and inexpensive antiemetic with an efficacy that might be considered as clinically relevant. Although in use for a long time, the dose-response, precise estimation of side-effects, optimal time of administration and the benefit of repetitive doses still remain unclear.

Comparison of predictive models for postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

In order to identify patients who would benefit from prophylactic amtiemetics, six predictive models have been described for the risk assessment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study compared the validity and practicability of these models in patients undergoing general anaesthesia.

METHODS

Data were analysed from 1566 patients who underwent balanced anaesthesia without prophylactic antiemetic treatment for various types of surgery. A systematic literature search identified six predictive models for PONV. These models were compared with respect to validity (discriminating power and calibration characteristics) and practicability. Discriminating power was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration was assessed by weighted linear regression analysis between predicted and actual incidences of PONV. Practicability was assessed according to the number of factors to be considered for the model (the fewer factors the better), and whether the score could be used in combination with a previously applied cost-effective concept.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV was 600/1566 (38.1%). The discriminating power (AUC) obtained by the models (named according to the first author) using the risk classes from the recommended prophylactic concept were as follows: Apfel, 0.68; Koivuranta, 0.66; Sinclair, 0.66; Palazzo, 0.63; Gan, 0.61; Scholz, 0.61. For four models, the following calibration curves (expressed as the slope and the offset) were plotted: Apfel, y=0.82x+0.01, r2=0.995; Koivuranta, y=1.13x-0.10, r2=0.999; Sinclair, y=0.49x+0.29, r2=0.789; Palazzo, y=0.30x+0.30, r2=0.763. The numbers of parameters to be considered were as follows: Apfel, 4; Koivuranta, 5; Palazzo, 5; Scholz, 9; Sinclair, 12; Gan, 14.

CONCLUSION

The simplified risk scores provided better discrimination and calibration properties compared with the more complex risk scores. Therefore, simplified risk scores can be recommended for antiemetic strategies in clinical practice as well as for group comparisons in randomized controlled antiemetic trials.