A Comparative Study of the Antiemetic Effects of α2-Adrenergic Receptor Agonists Clonidine and Dexmedetomidine against Diverse Emetogens in the Least Shrew (Cryptotis parva) Model of Emesis.

In contrast to cats and dogs, here we report that the α2-adrenergic receptor antagonist yohimbine is emetic and corresponding agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine behave as antiemetics in the least shrew model of vomiting. Yohimbine (0, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, and 3 mg/kg, i.p.) caused vomiting in shrews in a bell-shaped and dose-dependent manner, with a maximum frequency (0.85 ± 0.22) at 1 mg/kg, which was accompanied by a key central contribution as indicated by increased expression of c-fos, serotonin and substance P release in the shrew brainstem emetic nuclei. Our comparative study in shrews demonstrates that clonidine (0, 0.1, 1, 5, and 10 mg/kg, i.p.) and dexmedetomidine (0, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/kg, i.p.) not only suppress yohimbine (1 mg/kg, i.p.)-evoked vomiting in a dose-dependent manner, but also display broad-spectrum antiemetic effects against diverse well-known emetogens, including 2-Methyl-5-HT, GR73632, McN-A-343, quinpirole, FPL64176, SR141716A, thapsigargin, rolipram, and ZD7288. The antiemetic inhibitory ID50 values of dexmedetomidine against the evoked emetogens are much lower than those of clonidine. At its antiemetic doses, clonidine decreased shrews' locomotor activity parameters (distance moved and rearing), whereas dexmedetomidine did not do so. The results suggest that dexmedetomidine represents a better candidate for antiemetic potential with advantages over clonidine.

Resolution of severe gastroparesis induced by parasympathetic surge following facial trauma: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Gastroparesis is a condition that affects the motility of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, causing a delay in the emptying process and leading to nausea, vomiting, bloating, and upper abdominal pain. Motility treatment along with symptom management can be done using antiemetics or prokinetics. This study highlights the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of gastroparesis and suggests a potential link between facial trauma and symptom remission, indicating the need for further investigation. CASE PRESENTATION: A 46-year-old Hispanic man with hypertension, type 2 diabetes (T2D), and hyperlipidemia on amlodipine 10 mg, lisinopril 5 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, and insulin glargine presented with a diabetic foot ulcer with probable osteomyelitis. During hospitalization, the patient developed severe nausea and vomiting. The gastroenterology team advised continuing antiemetic medicine and trying very small sips of clear liquids. However, the patient didn't improve. Therefore, the gastroenterology team was contacted again. They advised having stomach emptying tests to rule out gastroparesis as the source of emesis. In addition, they recommended continuing metoclopramide, and starting erythromycin due to inadequate improvement. Studies found a 748-min stomach emptying time. Normal is 45-90 min. An uneventful upper GI scope was done. Severe gastroparesis was verified, and the gastroenterology team advised a percutaneous jejunostomy or gastric pacemaker for gastroparesis. Unfortunately, the patient suffered a mechanical fall resulting in facial trauma. After the fall, the patient's nausea eased, and emesis stopped. He passed an oral liquids trial after discontinuation of erythromycin and metoclopramide. CONCLUSION: This case exemplifies the difficulties in diagnosing and treating gastroparesis. An interesting correlation between parasympathetic surges and recovery in gastroparesis may be suggested by the surprising remission of symptoms following face injuries.

The prophylactic antiemetic therapies in management of differentiated thyroid cancer patients with radioactive iodine therapy: a single-center, non-randomized clinical trial.

Objective: The present study was to investigate three different single-drug regimens to show which was more effective to reduce radioactive iodine therapy (RAI) associated nausea and vomiting, and to compare the occurrence of long-term gastrointestinal diseases after RAI therapy. Method: We performed a single-center, non-randomized clinical trial among patients who underwent RAI therapy from March 2016 to July 2022. Enrolled patients were divided into four cohorts based on the date of the treatment. cohort 1, with no preventive antiemetics; cohort 2, received 20 mg of pantoprazole per day for 3 days; cohort 3, received a 10 mg metoclopramide tablet two times daily for 3 days; cohort 4, oral ondansetron, 8 mg, twice daily for 3 days. The primary endpoints were proportion of patients who experience vomiting episodes and nausea during the 7-day hospital period. Secondary end points included Functional Living Index Emesis (FLIE) quality-of life questionnaires and the occurrence of gastrointestinal diseases. Results: A total of 1755 patients were analyzed, comprised of 1299 (74.0%) women and 456 (26.0%) men, with a median age of 44 years (range 18-78 years). The characteristics of patient were similar within the four groups. 465 (26.4%) patients developed RAI-associated nausea, and 186 (14.4%) patients developed RAI-associated vomiting. The rate of nausea was significantly decreased in the patients who were taking ondansetron when compared with the other cohorts (P<0.05), while the rate of vomiting (≥6 episodes) was slightly lower. As secondary endpoint, FLIE measures ondansetron scored highly compared to other cohorts, from baseline (mean score of 110.53 ± 17.54) to day 7 (mean score of 105.56 ± 12.48). In addition, 48 (2.7%) patients were found to be with gastrointestinal diseases at the end of one year follow up. Multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight revealed a significantly independent risk factors of developing gastrointestinal disorders. Conclusions: In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that short-term ondansetron could be an effective prophylactic agent in controlling RAI-associated nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the risk of developing gastrointestinal disorders was significantly higher for patients with multiple RAI therapy and higher dose of I-131 per body weight.

Efficacy and safety of netupitant/palonosetron in preventing nausea and vomiting in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab(R-CHOP) is one of the standard regimens. Given that R-CHOP is highly emetogenic, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention is clinically important. However, there is a paucity of studies focusing on these patients. This study aimed to ascertain the effectiveness of an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) in preventing CINV in patients with DLBCL undergoing first-line R-CHOP chemotherapy. Seventy patients were enrolled in this single-center prospective non-comparative study conducted between November 2020 and May 2023 in South Korea. NEPA was administered 1 h prior to chemotherapy initiation on day 1. The primary endpoint of the study was the complete response rate (no emesis, and no rescue medication) during the acute, delayed, and overall phases, which were assessed over a period of 120 h post-chemotherapy. The complete response rates for NEPA were 90.0% [95% CI 80.5, 95.9] for the acute phase, 85.7% [95% CI 75.3, 92.9] for the delayed phase, and 84.3% [95% CI 73.6, 91.9] for the overall phase, with no-emesis rates (acute: 97.1% [95% CI 97.1, 99.7], delayed: 95.7% [95% CI 88.0, 99.1], overall: 92.9% [95% CI 84.1, 97.6]). NEPA was well tolerated with no severe treatment-emergent adverse events. NEPA exhibited substantial efficacy in mitigating CINV in DLBCL patients undergoing R-CHOP chemotherapy, demonstrating high CR and no-emesis rates, and favorable safety profiles.

MASCC 2023 Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines and Education Statements: an evidence-based and consensus resource for patients.

PURPOSE: The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)/European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Patient Antiemetic Guideline Committee aimed to (1) adapt the updated evidence-based, clinical guidelines to patient-centered antiemetic guidelines and (2) develop patient education materials and statements. METHODS: The MASCC 2023 Patient Antiemetic Guidelines were created and reviewed by antiemetic experts and patient advocates by incorporating the 2023 MASCC/ESMO antiemetic guidelines into patient-friendly language. Patient Education Statements were developed based on current literature and by utilizing an expert modified Delphi consensus (≥ 75% agreement). Patient advocate/focus group input and patient survey results were further integrated into Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines and Education Statements. RESULTS: Patient-Centered Antiemetic Guidelines were created using patient-friendly language and visual slides. Patient-friendly language was also utilized to communicate the Educational Statements. Key content categories identified for the Educational Statements included the following: nausea/vomiting definitions, causes, risk factors, categories, complications, accompanying symptoms, prophylactic antiemetic treatment, general management, when to call/what to ask the healthcare team, what caregivers can do, and available resources. All identified content met the ≥ 75% expert agreement threshold. Fifteen (15) items demonstrated 100% agreement, 11 items achieved ≥ 90% agreement, and three content items demonstrated 80 ~ 82% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The inaugural MASCC 2023 Patient Antiemetic Guidelines can help patients and caregivers understand the prevention of nausea and vomiting related to their cancer treatment. Educational Statements provide further patient information. Educating patients on how to utilize guideline antiemetics and the education statements can contribute improvements in the control of anticancer treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

Prevalence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Anticipatory nausea and vomiting are unpleasant symptoms observed before undergoing chemotherapy sessions. Less is known about the occurrence of symptoms since the advent of the new neurokinin-1 antagonist. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was performed at a single Brazilian Institution. This study included breast cancer patients who received doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and an appropriate antiemetic regimen (dexamethasone 10 mg, palonosetron 0.56 mg, and netupitant 300 mg in the D1 followed by dexamethasone 10 mg 12/12 h in D2 and D4). Patients used a diary to record nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue medication in the first two cycles of treatment. The prevalence of anticipatory nausea and vomiting was assessed before chemotherapy on day 1 of C2. RESULTS: From August 4, 2020, to August 12, 2021, 60 patients were screened, and 52 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 50.8 (28-69) years, most had stage III (53.8%), and most received chemotherapy with curative intent (94%). During the first cycle, the frequency of overall nausea and vomiting was 67.31%, and that of severe nausea and vomiting (defined as grade>4 on a 10-point visual scale or use of rescue medication) was 55.77%. Ten patients had anticipatory nausea and vomiting (19.23%). The occurrence of nausea and vomiting during C1 was the only statistically significant predictor of anticipatory nausea and vomiting (OR=16, 95%CI 2.4-670.9, p=0.0003). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of anticipatory nausea is still high in the era of neurokinin-1 antagonists, and failure of antiemetic control in C1 remains the main risk factor. All efforts should be made to control chemotherapy-induced nausea or nausea and vomiting on C1 to avoid anticipatory nausea.

Treatment of nausea in hospitalized patients with acute illness.

Evidence suggests that available antiemetics are equal to intravenous fluid treatment against acute nausea of other causes than motion sickness, pregnancy, anaesthesia, chemo- or radiation therapy. Each antiemetic is associated with adverse effects, which include movement disorders, sedation, and QT prolongation. Intravenous fluid and treatment directed against underlying pathology is recommended as a first-line treatment against nausea in these patients. If an antiemetic is clinically warranted, ondansetron has the most favourable ratio between side effects and price, as argued in this review.

Analysis of influencing factors and construction of prediction model for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing number of bariatric surgeries, the high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with this surgery has also gradually attracted attention. Among the common bariatric surgery methods, patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) have the highest incidence of nausea and vomiting. The mechanism of occurrence of PONV is very complex. This study aims to explore the influencing factors of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and construct a nomogram prediction model based on these factors. METHODS: With the approval of the Ethics Committee, the electronic medical records of patients who underwent LSG from July 2022 to May 2023 were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients with complete medical records who underwent LSG from July 2022 to May 2023 were included in this study. Among them, 46 patients developed PONV, resulting in a PONV incidence rate of 40.4%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that female gender, the use of inhalation anesthesia, and operation time ≥ 120 min were risk factors for PONV in LSG. Additionally, the use of more than two kinds of antiemetic drugs was identified as a protective factor. Based on these factors, a nomogram model was constructed. CONCLUSION: PONV in patients undergoing LSG is related to gender, type of anesthesia, duration of surgery, and combination therapy with antiemetic drugs. The nomogram prediction model constructed in this study demonstrates high accuracy and discrimination in predicting the occurrence of PONV in patients undergoing LSG.

The efficacy and safety of perioperative glucocorticoid for total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of individuals undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which can result in pain, limited motor function and adverse complications such as infection, nausea and vomiting. Glucocorticoids have been shown anti-inflammatory and antiemetic effects, but can also elevate blood glucose levels and increase the risk of wound infection. Thus, it is essential to investigate the efficacy and safety of glucocorticoid usage in TKA. METHOD: A comprehensive systematic search of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of glucocorticoid application in TKA. The primary outcomes assessed were the postoperative pain assessment. Secondary outcomes included the range of motion in knee joint, levels of inflammatory cytokines, adverse complications, and the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomized controlled trials were included in the final analysis. The glucocorticoid group exhibited significant reduction in the resting VAS scores on postoperative days 1, 2 (POD1, 2)and postoperative 3 months (POM3), as well as decreased morphine consumption on POD1 and increased range of motion (ROM) in knee joint on POD1, 3. Additionally, the glucocorticoid group exhibited decreased levels of postoperative inflammatory cytokines and the incidence of PONV along with a shorter length of hospital stay. The blood glucose concentration was significantly increased in the glucocorticoid group on POD1 compared with the control group. While the blood glucose on POD2 and occurrence of postoperative adverse complications were similar between two groups including wound infection and venous thrombosis. The periarticular injection analgesia (PIA) group demonstrated lower VAS scores on POD2 comparing to the systemic administration (SA) group according to two studies. However, there was no significant difference of the resting VAS on POD1 and POD2 between PIA and SA group across all studies. CONCLUSION: Perioperative glucocorticoids treatment in TKA significantly reduced short-term pain score and opioid-use which was probably not patient relevant. The application of glucocorticoids in TKA implied a beneficial trend in analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and antiemetic effects, as well as improved range of motion and shortened hospital stay. While it will not increase the risk of continued high glucose, postoperative wound infection and venous thrombosis.

The clinical effect of an electric massage chair on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients: randomized phase II cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse events in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV. METHODS: A randomized phase II cross-over trial was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: KCT0008200, 17/02/2023, Retrospectively registered.

Opioid-induced respiratory depression suspected of drug interaction in a prostate cancer patient: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Many of the drugs used for the treatment and alleviation of symptoms in cancer patients are known to inhibit or induce cytochrome P450 (CYP). Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the drug interactions of opioid analgesics that are metabolized by CYPs, because for example when using oxycodone metabolized by CYP3A4, it is possible that the effect will be attenuated or enhanced by the concomitant use of drugs that induce or inhibit CYP3A4. Aprepitant, an antiemetic drug used in many patients receiving anticancer drugs, is known as a moderate competitive inhibitor of CYP3A4. We experienced a case of respiratory depression caused by opioids, which was suspected to be caused by a drug interaction with antiemetics especially aprepitant. CASE DESCRIPTION: The patient was a 72-year-old man. He had been treated with continuous oxycodone infusion for perianal pain associated with the rectal invasion of prostate cancer. No comorbidities other than renal dysfunction were observed. Oxycodone treatment was started at 48 mg/day, and was increased to 108 mg/day, and then the pain decreased. Once the pain was controlled, chemotherapy was planned. Antiemetics (dexamethasone, palonosetron, and aprepitant) were administered before anticancer drug administration. Approximately 3 hours after antiemetics administration and before the administration of the anticancer drugs, a ward nurse noticed that oversedation and respiratory depression had occurred. When the patient was called, he immediately woke up and was able to talk normally, so the anticancer drugs were administered as scheduled. About 2 hours after the nurse noticed oversedation, the attending physician reduced the dose of oxycodone infusion to 48 mg/day. After that, his drowsiness persisted, but his respiratory condition improved. Despite reducing the dose of oxycodone to less than half, the pain remained stable at numeric rating scale (NRS) 0-1, without the use of a rescue dose. The patient was discharged from the hospital 36 days after the administration of anticancer drugs, without any problems. CONCLUSIONS: The cause of respiratory depression in this case was thought to be a combination of factors, including drug interactions between oxycodone and antiemetics, and oxycodone accumulation due to renal dysfunction.

Comparative efficacy of prophylactic protocols in reducing perioperative nausea and vomiting during video-assisted thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer.

Lung cancer, a global mortality leader, often necessitates Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic (VATS) surgery. However, post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common, highlighting a need for effective management and prevention strategies in this context. A retrospective case-control study at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital evaluated patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer between May and September 2022. Patients were categorized based on PONV prevention methods, and data encompassing demographics, surgical history, and postoperative adverse events s were analyzed to assess the association between prophylactic protocols and PONV incidence. The Netupitant and Palonosetron Hydrochloride (NEPA) group showed a significant reduction in PONV occurrences post-surgery compared to Ondansetron (ONDA) and Control groups, emphasizing NEPA's efficacy in alleviating PONV symptoms (P < 0.05). Furthermore, following VATS radical resection of lung cancer, NEPA markedly reduced the intensity of PONV symptoms in patients. Both univariate and multivariate logistic analyses corroborated that NEPA independently reduces PONV risk, with its protective effect also apparent in susceptible populations like females and non-smokers. NEPA utilization markedly reduced both the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing VATS radical resection of lung cancer, serving as an independent protective factor in mitigating PONV risk post-surgery.

The emerging emetogenicity of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS­102) from patient self-reporting: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) is an oral anticancer drug with adequate efficacy in unresectable colorectal cancer, but frequently also induces chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). To investigate the occurrence of CINV and antiemetic therapy in patients with colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102 (JASCC-CINV 2001). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with colorectal cancer who received TAS-102 without dose reduction for the first time. Primary endpoint was the incidence of vomiting during the overall period. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of nausea, significant nausea, anorexia, other adverse events (constipation, diarrhea, insomnia, fatigue, dysgeusia) and patient satisfaction. Patient diaries were used for primary and secondary endpoints. All adverse events were subjectively assessed using PRO-CTCAE ver 1.0. and CTCAE ver 5.0. RESULTS: Data from 100 of the 119 enrolled patients were analyzed. The incidence of vomiting, nausea, and significant nausea was 13%, 67%, and 36%, respectively. The incidence of vomiting in patients with and without prophylactic antiemetic therapy were 20.8% and 10.5%, respectively. Prophylactic antiemetics were given to 24% of patients, of whom 70% received D2 antagonists. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that experience of CINV in previous treatment tended to be associated with vomiting (hazard ratio [HR]: 7.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-58.5, P = 0.07), whereas prophylactic antiemetic administration was not (HR: 1.61, 95 CI: 0.50-5.21, P = 0.43). With regard to patient satisfaction, the proportion of patients who were "very satisfied," "satisfied," "slightly satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" was 81.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of vomiting and high patient satisfaction suggest that TAS-102 does not require the use of uniform prophylactic antiemetic treatments. However, patients with the experience of CINV in previous treatment might require prophylactic antiemetic treatment.

Commonly used antiemetics for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT3 antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority of any drug class is yet to be established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis in women receiving neuraxial morphine for Caesarean delivery. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Wanfang Data for eligible randomised controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) within 24 h after surgery. We used a Bayesian random-effects model and calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous data. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses for primary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies with 4238 women were included. In the primary analyses of all women, 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone significantly reduced PON and POV compared with placebo, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone were more effective than monotherapy. In the subgroup analyses, similar results were seen in women receiving epidural morphine or intrathecal morphine alone but not in women receiving intrathecal morphine with fentanyl or sufentanil. However, most included studies had some concerns or a high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low. CONCLUSIONS: Combined 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy in preventing PONV associated with neuraxial morphine after Caesarean delivery. Future studies are needed to determine the role of prophylactic antiemetics in women receiving intrathecal morphine and lipophilic opioids. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023454602.

Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting Incidence After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With Pretreatment With Haloperidol and Ondansetron: A Randomization Clinical Trial Study.

OBJECTIVE: Nausea and vomiting after surgery are the most common complications. Therefore, we performed this study to compare the effect of ondansetron and haloperidol on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 60 patients candidates for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were allocated to haloperidol (0.05 mg/kg, n = 30) and ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg, n = 30) groups. An Ocular Analog Scale was used to assess postoperative nausea and vomiting. Every 15 minutes in the recovery room, heart rate and blood pressure were measured up to 6 hours after surgery. In addition, patient satisfaction was assessed postoperatively. RESULTS: Haloperidol and ondansetron have the same effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward. It was found that the trend of Visual Analog Scale variable changes in the recovery room was similar in the haloperidol and ondansetron group ( P = 0.58); it was also true for the ward ( P = 0.79). Comparing the length of stay in a recovery room in the 2 groups was not statistically significant ( P = 0.19). In addition, the 2 groups did not differ in satisfaction postoperatively ( P = 0.82). CONCLUSION: Haloperidol and ondansetron had an equal effect on reducing nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patient satisfaction and length of stay in the recovery room did not differ between groups.