Comparison of prophylaxis strategy for postoperative nausea and vomiting and its incidence before and after the implementation of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 in surgical setting: a single-center, retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association between adherence to guideline-recommended risk-based postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, the antiemetics used for PONV prophylaxis, and the incidence of PONV in patients who were underwent general anesthesia before and after 5-HT3 receptor antagonists became available. METHODS: Patients (≥ 20 years old) who were extubated after scheduled surgery and returned to general wards between January 2021 and February 2022 and between June 2022 and July 2023 were included. Risk factors included age < 50, female, motion sickness, nonsmoker, surgical factors, and postoperative opioid use. Two and three or more prophylaxis were recommended for patients with one or two and three or more risk factors, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of patients who received adequate prophylaxis, and the secondary outcomes were antiemetic agents used during anesthesia and the incidence of PONV on postoperative days 0 and 1. PONV was defined as documented PONV or rescue antiemetic administration. RESULTS: From January 2021 to February 2022 and from June 2022 to July 2023, 2342 and 2682 patients were included, respectively. Before ondansetron became available, more D2 receptor antagonists were used (p < 0.001), and after ondansetron became available, both ondansetron (p < 0.001) and propofol (p < 0.001) were given more frequently. Before and after ondansetron became available, the number of patients with adequate prophylaxis was 3.7% and 9.2%, respectively (p < 0.001), and the incidence of PONV on postoperative days 0 and 1 was 44.6% and 44.0%, respectively (p = 0.67). CONCLUSION: The availability of ondansetron increased the number of patients with adequate PONV prophylaxis, but did not decrease the incidence of PONV.

Postanesthesia Care Unit and Anesthetic Management Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: Differences by Race and Ethnicity.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association of patient race and ethnicity with postanesthesia care unit (PACU) outcomes in common, noncardiac surgeries requiring general anesthesia. DESIGN: Single tertiary care academic medical center retrospective matched cohort. METHODS: We matched 1:1 1836 adult patients by race and/or ethnicity undergoing common surgeries. We compared racial and ethnic minority populations (62 American Indian, 250 Asian, 315 Black or African American, 281 Hispanic, and 10 Pacific Islander patients) to 918 non-Hispanic White patients. The primary outcomes were: the use of an appropriate number of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylactics; the incidence of PONV; and the use of a propofol infusion as part of the anesthetic (PROP). Secondary outcomes were: the use of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, including the use of regional anesthesia for postoperative pain control; the use of any local anesthetic, including the use of liposomal bupivacaine; the duration until readiness for discharge from the PACU; the time between arrival to PACU and first pain score; and the time between the first PACU pain score of ≥4 and administration of an analgesic. Logistic and linear regression were used for relevant outcomes of interest. FINDINGS: Overall, there were no differences in the appropriate number of PONV prophylactics, nor the incidence of PONV between the two groups. There was, however, a decreased use of PROP (OR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.94; P = .005), PACU length of stay was 9.56 minutes longer (95% CI: 2.62, 16.49; P = .007), and time between arrival to PACU and first pain score was 2.30 minutes longer in patients from racial and ethnic minority populations (95% CI: 0.99, 3.61; P = .001). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of appropriate number of PONV prophylactic medications as well as the incidence of PONV were similar in patients from racial and ethnic minority populations compared to non-Hispanic White patients. However, there was a lower use of PROP in racial and ethnic minority patients. It is important to have a health equity lens to identify differences in management that may contribute to disparities within each phase of perioperative care.

Implementation of Electronic Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Assessment and Best Practice Advisory Tools to Improve Patient Care.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 30% of surgical patients undergoing anesthesia. PONV is a substantial cause of increased length of stay, cost of care, and unanticipated patient admission and readmission. LOCAL PROBLEM: Seventy percent of patients received PONV prophylaxis; PONV assessment was performed in only 63% of patients in this hospital system. METHODS: A standardized PONV preoperative assessment checklist and a best practice advisory (BPA) were implemented in our electronic medical record (EMR) and charting system. Anesthesia providers and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) nurses completed training on patient management for PONV, including preoperative assessment and BPA use. RESULTS: The PONV preoperative assessment achieved high adoption, and providers followed its recommendations in more than 90% of cases. During the 6-month implementation phase, PONV rates decreased from 56% to 43.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a standardized, electronic PONV preoperative risk assessment checklist and a BPA effectively reduced PONV rates in this hospital system.

Sociodemographic Disparities in Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis is consistently considered a key indicator of anesthesia care quality. PONV may disproportionately impact disadvantaged patients. The primary objectives of this study were to examine the associations between sociodemographic factors and the incidence of PONV and clinician adherence to a PONV prophylaxis protocol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients eligible for an institution-specific PONV prophylaxis protocol (2015-2017). Sociodemographic and PONV risk data were collected. Primary outcomes were PONV incidence and clinician adherence to PONV prophylaxis protocol. We used descriptive statistics to compare sociodemographics, procedural characteristics, and protocol adherence for patients with and without PONV. Multivariable logistic regression analysis followed by Tukey-Kramer correction for multiple comparisons was used to test for associations between patient sociodemographics, procedural characteristics, PONV risk, and (1) PONV incidence and (2) adherence to PONV prophylaxis protocol. RESULTS: Within the 8384 patient sample, Black patients had a 17% lower risk of PONV than White patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.95; P = .006). When there was adherence to the PONV prophylaxis protocol, Black patients were less likely to experience PONV compared to White patients (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .003). When there was adherence to the protocol, patients with Medicaid were less likely to experience PONV compared to privately insured patients (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-1.04; P = .017). When the protocol was followed for high-risk patients, Hispanic patients were more likely to experience PONV than White patients (aOR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.18-7.42; adjusted P = .022). Compared to White patients, protocol adherence was lower for Black patients with moderate (aOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91; P = .003) and high risk (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42-0.78; P = .0004). CONCLUSIONS: Racial and sociodemographic disparities exist in the incidence of PONV and clinician adherence to a PONV prophylaxis protocol. Awareness of such disparities in PONV prophylaxis could improve the quality of perioperative care.

Impact of Emend on Perioperative Bariatric Surgery Antiemetic Utilization, Patient Satisfaction, and Costs.

PURPOSE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common adverse effects of anesthesia and surgery, resulting in patient discomfort and dissatisfaction. Latest research has demonstrated the efficacy of NK-1 receptor antagonists in PONV management and its use in chemotherapy nausea prophylaxis. The authors of this article would like to provide evidence to support the use fosaprepitant, as monotherapy, in postoperative care, replacing a polypharmacological standard of care regimen. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of 400 patients who received standard of care antiemetic regimen or received fosaprepitant (No-Fosaprepitant vs. Fosaprepitant groups, respectively). The primary outcome of this study is to evaluate the impact of fosaprepitant (administered intravenously) on perioperative antiemetic use, treatment cost, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Total PONV medication cost decreased with the replacement of standard of care regimen for fosaprepitant, from 46.47±20.54 United States Dollars in the no-Fosaprepitant group to 25.69±14.84 United States Dollars in the Fosaprepitant group. There was a significant reduction in antiemetic doses between groups; 0.37±0.745 versus 7.61±5.202 for ondansetron ( P =0.001), 92±1.279 versus 2.21±2.399 for promethazine ( P =0.001), 0.25±0.685 versus 1.41±0.577 for scopolamine patch ( P =0.001), and 0.05±0.218 versus 1.14±0.398 for dexamethasone ( P =0.001). Patient satisfaction, measured by a questionnaire, was a 11.6% higher in the Fosaprepitant group. CONCLUSION: Fosaprepitant is a relevant alternative in preventing and treating PONV in patients who underwent bariatric/metabolic surgical procedures.

Isoflurane not at the expense of postoperative nausea and vomiting in cardiac anesthesia - an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Inhalative anesthesia is of common use, but is generally known to potentiate postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). With an internal change of anesthesia regimen from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) to isoflurane (in terms of myocardial protection) in cardiac anesthesia a higher incidence of PONV was to be expected. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence of PONV after the simultaneous implementation of PONV prophylaxis. METHODS: The incidence of PONV, prospectively assessed in 197 cardiac surgery patients (68 y ± 10.4, 66.5% male) having isoflurane plus dual PONV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and droperidol, was compared with previous data of 190 controls (67 y ± 9.6, 71% male) having TIVA without and with single or dual PONV prophylaxis (n = 64 dexamethasone and droperidol, n = 25 dexamethasone, n = 101 only TIVA), and the Apfel-scoring (0-4 depending on PONV-risk). DRKS00014275. Statistics: Chi2-test, p < .05 (Bonferroni). RESULTS: The incidence of PONV under isoflurane with antiemetic prophylaxis was 20.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.4; 27.4) compared to 30.5% (95%CI 24; 37.6) under TIVA (p = .029; dexamethasone and droperidol 23.4% (95%CI 13.8; 35.7); dexamethasone 32% (95%CI 14.9; 53.5); only TIVA 34.7% (95%CI 25.5; 44.8)), but was not lower in high-risk patients than predicted according to Apfel-scoring 4 (71.4 vs. 78%). CONCLUSION: In cardiac anesthesia, the use of isoflurane is not at the expense of PONV when using a risk-independent two-drug-prophylaxis. It is even beneficial resulting surprisingly in a lower incidence of PONV than under TIVA unless with and without prophylaxis. Patients with the highest risk for PONV and receiving isoflurane should receive a third antiemetic prophylactic drug.

An analysis of the management and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting significantly increases recovery time, reduces patient satisfaction, and increases time to discharge. Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting highlight effective methods for prophylaxis and treatment. Implications of adherence to these guidelines include both improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the incidence, contributing factors, and current prescribing practices for prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Electronic medical records were assessed for adult patients who had an elective gastrointestinal or gynaecologic surgical procedure over a one-year period. Patient demographics and perioperative data were collected to assess risk factors and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The appropriateness of prophylaxis and treatment was assessed according to current guidelines. RESULTS: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was consistent with previously noted findings. The average time spent under anaesthesia was significantly higher in patients who experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting. Appropriate evidence-based rescue therapy was administered in a minority of the cohort experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: There is substantial opportunity for provider education and adherence to best prescribing practices. Enhanced adherence to evidence-based rescue therapy prescribing may improve patient outcomes and satisfaction.

Clinical and economic burden of postoperative nausea and vomiting: Analysis of existing cost data.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an undesirable outcome that occurs in up to 30% of patients. Over the years, the cost of treating PONV has decreased due to the availability of cheaper yet effective antiemetics. Limiting PONV development benefits the hospital system as studies have shown that prevention is associated with shorter post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stays as well as decreased supply costs and staffing burden. The financial burden for prophylaxis against PONV has been shown to be less than what patients are willing to pay to prevent the development of PONV. Studies have also shown that prevention of initial development of PONV limits readmission rates, which is beneficial to both the patient and the hospital. Owing to recent economic analysis and reductions in antiemetic prices, the patient's preference for comfort, the hospital's commitment to providing the best care, and the system's desire for fiscal prudence are aligned. This culminates in recommending PONV prophylaxis for all patients undergoing anesthesia.

An overview of intravenous amisulpride as a new therapeutic option for the prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Introduction: Current therapies of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are based on a combination of antiemetics from different pharmacological classes. Dopamine receptor antagonists are one of the cornerstones of such multimodal antiemetic approach, with droperidol being the best studied representative of this group. Droperidol's use has significantly declined after the FDA's black-box warning in 2001 due to its QT-prolonging properties. Amisulpride is a promising antiemetic agent which could fill this gap.Areas covered: In this review, the authors discuss the pharmacological profile as well as clinical safety and efficacy of intravenous amisulpride and its relevance in the management of PONV. The article is based on a Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library search for studies on amisulpride conducted so far.Expert opinion: Promising clinical results on Barhemsys®, an intravenous formulation of amisulpride, make it a potential future drug of choice from the dopamine receptor antagonist group, replacing droperidol after its safety concerns. Amisulpride's success on the market will mostly be determined by its cost-effectiveness and it will likely find a brighter use on the US-market, where the black-box warning led to droperidol's withdrawal, while in many European countries, droperidol is still being used as an antiemetic.

A randomized, double-blind study of the ultrasound assessment of the effect of pharyngeal packing on perioperative gastric volume in nasal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pharyngeal packing (PP) is commonly performed to reduce the incidence of perioperative blood ingestion (PBI) in nasal surgery (NS), and thus the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study examined the effects of PP on the perioperative gastric volume (GV) and PONV in patients undergoing NS, by ultrasound assessment. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective NS [septoplasty, septo-rhinoplasty (SRP) and functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS)] were randomised to receive or not receive PP. In the PP group, pharyngeal packs were placed after the orotracheal intubation. Ultrasound assessments were performed for all patients preoperatively (before the anaesthesia induction) and postoperatively (before the extubation). The antero-posterior (AP) and cranio-caudal (CC) antral diameters, antral cross-sectional area (ACSA), and total GV were calculated. PONV incidence and severity were rated. These variables were compared between timepoints and groups, and in the subgroup analyses according to the surgery type. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess correlations between the variables. RESULTS: AP and CC diameters and ACSAs were greater postoperatively than preoperatively in the PP and non-PP groups (n = 44 each; all p < 0.05). Postoperative AP and CC diameters and the ACSA were greater in the non-PP than in the PP group (all p < 0.05). Postoperative AP diameters were greater than preoperatively in patients undergoing SRP and FESS, and the postoperative CC diameter and ACSA were greater than preoperatively in patients undergoing SRP (all p < 0.05). Surgery duration was correlated positively with postoperative AP diameter (r = 0.380, p < 0.05), CC diameter (r = 0.291, p < 0.05), and ACSA (r = 0.369, p < 0.05). Patients who underwent septoplasty surgery, PP was decreased PONV incidence and severity at the first four hours, postoperatively (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that PP reduces the increase in the perioperative GV due to PBI in an elective NS. It is therefore a useful and safe means of reducing the risk of perioperative pulmonary aspiration in such surgeries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCT), ACTRN12619000487112 , 25/03/2019, Trial registration retrospectively registered.

Population pharmacokinetics of palonosetron and model-based assessment of dosing strategies.

PURPOSE: Palonosetron is the most recent 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, and its fixed dose of 0.075 mg is indicated for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. This study aimed to examine whether fixed dosing is more appropriate than body size-based dosing through the development of a population pharmacokinetic model and model-based simulations. METHODS: Fifty-one adult patients undergoing general anesthesia received single intravenous palonosetron administrations 30 min before the end of surgery. Palonosetron concentrations were measured in blood samples collected at various timepoints within 48 h. A population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by non-linear mixed-effects modeling, and the area under the curves (AUCs) for fixed dosing and body size-based dosing were simulated. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of palonosetron were best described by the three-compartment model, and lean body weight (LBW) was the most significant covariate for all pharmacokinetic parameters. In a patient with LBW of 40 kg, typical clearance and central volume of distribution were 0.102 L/min and 6.98 L, respectively. In simulations, the overall interindividual variability in AUC (0, 48 h) of fixed dosing was not much higher than that of body size-based dosing. In subgroup analysis, the AUCs (0, 48 h) of fixed dosing were considerably lower in the high-weight subgroup and higher in the low-weight subgroup than the median-weight subgroup. In contrast, LBW-based dosing showed similar AUC distributions among the three subgroups. CONCLUSION: LBW-based dosing might be suitable for high-weight patients to avoid possible underdosing. Nevertheless, the current fixed dosing of palonosetron is acceptable for adult patients with normal weight.

The role of intraperitoneal ropivacaine in laparoscopic appendicectomy: a prospective, double-blinded randomized control Australian study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, intraoperative use of local anaesthetic is not routinely given in all laparoscopic appendicectomies. Although its use has been widely studied in laparoscopic hernia repairs, gynaecological laparoscopy and laparoscopic cholecystectomies, there are no published trials of the use of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic during laparoscopic appendicectomy in the Australasian setting. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of intraperitoneal ropivacaine during laparoscopic appendicectomy will reduce the amount of post-operative opiate analgesia used, abdominal pain, post-operative nausea or vomiting, shoulder tip pain and length of hospital stay. METHODS: A randomized double-blinded placebo versus control trial was conducted with patients with clinically diagnosed appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy. Primary outcomes measured were the number of times the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) button was pressed post-operatively and the average and total amount of fentanyl from PCA consumed during the post-operative period from 0 to 6 h and from 6 to 16 h. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients with 43 patients in the placebo normal saline group and 43 patients in the treatment ropivacaine group were included in the study. During the immediate post-operative period (0-6 h), there was a statistically significant reduction in the number of times the PCA button was pressed in the ropivacaine group compared to the normal saline group (16 versus 24 times, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal ropivacaine has an analgesic effect for patients up to 6 h following emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy.

Preoperative Risk Assessment to Guide Prophylaxis and Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting.

PURPOSE: This article describes the implementation of a postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) risk prediction and prophylaxis protocol. DESIGN: This is a retrospective pre/post implementation quality improvement project. METHODS: This project used chart reviews to assess the impact of the implemented PONV assessment and prophylaxis in a sample population of adult females undergoing gynecologic surgical procedures. FINDINGS: The mean number of prophylactic antiemetics administered significantly increased during the postimplementation period from 3.64 (SD, 0.878) in the preimplementation period to 4.07 (SD, 1.021) in the postimplementation period (P < .001). The greatest increase in antiemetic administration occurred in the moderate-risk (risk score, 4) and the high-risk (risk score, 5 to 6) groups. The incidence of PONV decreased from 32.3% in the preimplementation period to 28.9% in the postimplementation period; however, this reduction did not meet statistical significance. Antiemetic administration compliance increased from 37% in the preimplementation group to 61% in the postimplementation group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this project suggest that a risk-tailored approach to PONV prophylaxis using a risk assessment tool along with treatment recommendations is effective at reducing the incidence of PONV. The effectiveness of this approach is limited by the involvement of the anesthesia providers responsible for completing the assessments and administering PONV prophylaxis.

Novel multimodal analgesia regimen improves post-TACE pain in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUD: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the primary palliative treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it is often accompanied by postoperative pain which hinder patient recovery. This study was to examine whether preemptive parecoxib and sufentanil-based patient controlled analgesia (PCA) could improve the pain management in patients receiving TACE for inoperable HCC. METHODS: From June to December 2016, 84 HCC patients undergoing TACE procedure were enrolled. Because of the willingness of the individuals, it is difficult to randomize the patients to different groups. We matched the patients' age, gender and pain scores, and divided the patients into the multimodal group (n = 42) and control group (n = 42). Patients in the multimodal group received 40 mg of parecoxib, 30 min before TACE, followed by 48 h of sufentanil-based PCA. Patients in the control group received a routine analgesic regimen, i.e., 5 mg of dezocine during operation, and 100 mg of tramadol or equivalent intravenous opioid according to patient's complaints and pain intensity. Postoperative pain intensity, percentage of patients as per the pain category, adverse reaction, duration of hospital stay, cost-effectiveness, and patient's satisfaction were all taken into consideration when evaluated. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the visual analogue scale scores for pain intensity was significantly lower at 2, 4, 6, and 12 h (all P < 0.05) in the multimodal group and a noticeably lower prevalence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in the multimodal group (31.0% vs. 59.5%). Patient's satisfaction in the multimodal group was also significantly higher than that in the control group (95.2% vs. 69.0%). No significant difference was observed in the duration of hospital stay between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Preemptive parecoxib and sufentanil-based multimodal analgesia regime is a safe, efficient and cost-effective regimen for postoperative pain control in HCC patients undergoing TACE.

Assessment of pre-operative maropitant citrate use in macaque (Macaca fasicularis & Macaca mulatta) neurosurgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective analysis of post-operative vomiting (POV) in non-human primates at our institution was 11%. Based on this additional risk factor for post-operative complications, we aimed to eliminate or decrease POV by adding an antiemetic, maropitant citrate, to the pre-medication protocol. METHODS: Retrospective and prospective data were collected over a 5-year period from 46 macaques of two species during 155 procedures. Additionally, blood was collected from five Macaca mulatta to perform a pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: A 1 mg/kg subcutaneous dose of maropitant given pre-operatively significantly decreased POV. Findings indicated post-neurosurgical emesis in Macaca fasicularis was significantly greater than in Macaca mulatta. Pharmacokinetic analysis of maropitant in Macaca mulatta determined the mean maximum plasma concentration to be 113 ng/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Maropitant administration prior to anesthesia for neurosurgeries decreased our incidence of POV to 1%. The plasma concentration reaches the proposed plasma level for clinical efficacy approximately 20 minutes after administration.

Cost analysis of enhanced recovery after surgery in microvascular breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown in multiple surgical specialties to decrease hospital length of stay (LOS) after surgery. ERAS in breast reconstruction has been found to decrease hospital LOS and inpatient opioid use. ERAS protocols can facilitate a patient's recovery and can potentially increase the quality of care while decreasing costs. METHODS: A standardized ERAS pathway was developed through multidisciplinary collaboration. It addressed all phases of surgical care for patients undergoing free-flap breast reconstruction utilizing an abdominal donor site. In this retrospective cohort study, clinical variables associated with hospitalization costs for patients who underwent free-flap breast reconstruction with the ERAS pathway were compared with those of historical controls, termed traditional recovery after surgery (TRAS). All patients included in the study underwent surgery between September 2010 and September 2014. Predicted costs of the study groups were compared using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were analyzed: 82 in the ERAS cohort and 118 in the TRAS cohort. Clinical variables that were identified to potentially affect costs were found to have a statistically significant difference between groups and included unilateral versus bilateral procedures (p = 0.04) and the need for postoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.03). The cost regression analysis on the two cohorts was adjusted for these significant variables. Adjusted mean costs of patients with ERAS were found to be $4,576 lesser than those of the TRAS control group ($38,688 versus $43,264). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ERAS pathway was associated with significantly decreased costs when compared to historical controls. There has been a healthcare focus toward prudent resource allocation, which dictates the need for plastic surgeons to recognize economic evaluation of clinical practice. The ERAS pathway can increase healthcare accountability by improving quality of care while simultaneously decreasing the costs associated with autologous breast reconstruction.

A retrospective evaluation of the perioperative drug use and comparison of its cost in robotic vs open surgery for endometrial cancer.

To compare the usage and cost of analgesics (opioid and non-opioids), antiemetics, and IV fluids and its associated costs in robotic vs open staging surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). This retrospective study was performed at a single academic institution from January 2014 to June 2017 in the department of Gynecology Oncology at Amrita Institute of Medical Science, Kerala, India. The study included women with biopsy confirmed clinically early stage endometrial cancer or atypical hyperplasia, who underwent robotic-assisted or open staging surgery. Data on surgical time, blood loss, post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, and length of hospital (LOH) stay; analgesic, antiemetic, and IV fluid use were collected for three distinct periods: intra-operative, PACU, and ward. Direct medicine and material costs associated with the administration of intravenous (IV) fluids, analgesics, and antiemetics were collected. All parameters were compared between two surgical groups. The study included 133 (54 open and 79 robotic-assisted) patients. As compared to open surgery, robotic-assisted surgery was associated with significantly reduced: surgical time (p = 0.007), estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), PACU stay (p < 0.001), LOH stay (p < 0.001); IV fluids (crystalloid and colloid; p < 0.001); opioids (p < 0.001), non-opioids (intravenous acetaminophen, oral acetaminophen, diclofenac; all p < 0.001); incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting and the requirement of rescue antiemetics (p < 0.001). EC staging using robotic-assisted surgery was associated with significantly lower medicine and material costs attributed to IV fluids, analgesia, and antiemetics (p < 0.001). As compared to open surgery, robotic surgery was associated with the total saving of $107.7 ($19.5 in IV fluids, $49.2 in analgesics, $1.33 in antiemetics, and $37.8 in material). Robotic-assisted surgical staging for endometrial cancer is associated with decreased requirement and expenditure attributable to post-operative pain, post-operative nausea and vomiting, and maintenance and replacement fluid therapy.

Comparison of Ramosetron With Ondansetron for Prevention of Intrathecal Morphine-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine is a reliable, easy to apply, and cost effective method for controlling pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major concern. 5-Hydroxytryptamine receptor 3 (5-HT3) antagonists like ondansetron and ramosetron are commonly used for preventing PONV, but the optimal choice remains unclear. We conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of ramosetron and ondansetron, hypothesizing that the longer acting ramosetron may be better than ondansetron in the first 48 hours after TKA, performed with spinal anesthesia and intrathecal morphine. METHODS: Patients were randomized preoperatively to either intravenous ondansetron (8 mg) or ramosetron (0.3 mg). The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of PONV. Secondary outcomes were the need for a rescue antiemetic (metoclopramide), pain score, patient satisfaction, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) at 0-6, 6-12, 12-24, and 24-48 hours. RESULTS: Ninety patients were evaluable; 45 patients/arm. Compared with ondansetron, ramosetron was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of nausea at: (1) 12-18 hours: 3/45 vs 11/45 (P = .016), (2) 18-24 hours: 1/45 vs 9/45 (P = .005), and vomiting at 18-24 hours: 1/45 vs 6/45 (P = .044). There were no significant differences in the use of rescue-antiemetic medicine, pain score, patient satisfaction, and ADRs. CONCLUSION: Preoperative ramosetron provided more prolonged PONV prophylaxis than ondansetron after TKA in our setting, and had a similar ADR profile. Other trials are needed to confirm our results before ramosetron is adopted widely.

Barriers and facilitators perceived by physicians when using prediction models in practice.

OBJECTIVES: Prediction models may facilitate risk-based management of health care conditions. In a large cluster-randomized trial, presenting calculated risks of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) to physicians (assistive approach) increased risk-based management of PONV. This increase did not improve patient outcome-that is, PONV incidence. This prompted us to explore how prediction tools guide the decision-making process of physicians. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using mixed methods, we interviewed eight physicians to understand how predicted risks were perceived by the physicians and how they influenced decision making. Subsequently, all 57 physicians of the trial were surveyed for how the presented risks influenced their perceptions. RESULTS: Although the prediction tool made physicians more aware of PONV prevention, the physicians reported three barriers to use predicted risks in their decision making. PONV was not considered an outcome of utmost importance; decision making on PONV prophylaxis was mostly intuitive rather than risk based; prediction models do not weigh benefits and risks of prophylactic drugs. CONCLUSION: Combining probabilistic output of the model with their clinical experience may be difficult for physicians, especially when their decision-making process is mostly intuitive. Adding recommendations to predicted risks (directive approach) was considered an important step to facilitate the uptake of a prediction tool.