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.

Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (a Retrospective Multicentric Study).

PURPOSE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent unappealing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) sequel. The study's purpose was to determine the prevalence, risk factors of PONV, and management of PONV after LSG. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with morbid obesity who had LSG between January 2022 and April 2023. The age range for LSG was 16 to 65 years, and the eligibility requirements included morbid obesity according to international guidelines. RESULTS: PONV was experienced by 74.6% of patients who underwent LSG at 6 h postoperative. Multivariate analysis revealed that female gender, smokers, preoperative GERD, gastropexy, and severity of pain were found to be independent risk variables of the development of PONV, while antral preservation, opioid-free analgesia, and intraoperative combined analgesia were found to be independent protective variables against the development of PONV. Combined intravenous ondansetron and metoclopramide improved 92.6% of patients who developed PONV. Dexamethasone and antihistamines drugs are given for 42 cases with persistent PONV after using intravenous ondansetron and metoclopramide. Pain management postoperatively by opioid-free analgesia managed PONV. Helicobacter pylori status has no role in the development of PONV after LSG. CONCLUSION: Female gender, smoking, presence of preoperative GERD, gastropexy, and severity of pain were found to be independent risk variables of the development of PONV, while antral preservation, opioid-free analgesia, and intraoperative combined analgesia were observed to be independent protective factors against the occurrence of PONV. Combined intravenous ondansetron and metoclopramide improved PONV. Dexamethasone and antihistamines drugs are given for persistent PONV.

Antiemetic Administration and Its Association with Race: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists' contribution to perioperative healthcare disparities remains unclear because patient and surgeon preferences can influence care choices. Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a patient- centered outcome measure and a main driver of unplanned admissions. Antiemetic administration is under the sole domain of anesthesiologists. In a U.S. sample, Medicaid insured versus commercially insured patients and those with lower versus higher median income had reduced antiemetic administration, but not all risk factors were controlled for. This study examined whether a patient's race is associated with perioperative antiemetic administration and hypothesized that Black versus White race is associated with reduced receipt of antiemetics. METHODS: An analysis was performed of 2004 to 2018 Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data. The primary outcome of interest was administration of either ondansetron or dexamethasone; secondary outcomes were administration of each drug individually or both drugs together. The confounder-adjusted analysis included relevant patient demographics (Apfel postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors: sex, smoking history, postoperative nausea and vomiting or motion sickness history, and postoperative opioid use; as well as age) and included institutions as random effects. RESULTS: The Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group data contained 5.1 million anesthetic cases from 39 institutions located in the United States and The Netherlands. Multivariable regression demonstrates that Black patients were less likely to receive antiemetic administration with either ondansetron or dexamethasone than White patients (290,208 of 496,456 [58.5%] vs. 2.24 million of 3.49 million [64.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.82; P < 0.001). Black as compared to White patients were less likely to receive any dexamethasone (140,642 of 496,456 [28.3%] vs. 1.29 million of 3.49 million [37.0%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.78; P < 0.001), any ondansetron (262,086 of 496,456 [52.8%] vs. 1.96 million of 3.49 million [56.1%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.85; P < 0.001), and dexamethasone and ondansetron together (112,520 of 496,456 [22.7%] vs. 1.0 million of 3.49 million [28.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a perioperative registry data set, Black versus White patient race was associated with less antiemetic administration, after controlling for all accepted postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors.

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.

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. RESULTS: Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy cause physical and emotional distress, and up to 30% of affected women require medical treatment. Guidelines on the use of anti-sickness drugs exist, but evidence is limited about which drugs work the best. The EMPOWER (EMesis in Pregnancy ­ Ondansetron With mEtoClopRamide) trial aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two anti-sickness drugs [metoclopramide (metoclopramide hydrochloride, Actavis UK Ltd, Barnstable, UK; IV Ratiopharm GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride dehydrate, Wockhardt UK Ltd, Wrexham, UK; IV Hameln Pharma plus GmbH, Hameln)] for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Women who were < 17 weeks pregnant with severe nausea and vomiting who attended hospital because their first anti-sickness drug had failed to improve their symptoms were asked to take part in the trial. Participants received fluids and, with consent, were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron or (4) double dummy. Trial drugs were administered into a vein and then by tablet for 10 days. On advice from sufferers, the trial focused on treatment failure, but other outcomes, including drug side effects, costs and pregnancy outcome, were collected. The trial was unable to recruit enough women and, therefore, did not progress. Nearly 600 women at 11 hospitals were screened, of whom 122 (21%) were eligible and 33 were recruited. The main reason for ineligibility (68%) was prior use of trial drug (mostly ondansetron). Overall, 15 out of 30 evaluable women experienced treatment failure. Interviews with 21 women who were approached about the trial and 22 research staff identified complex hurdles to and enablers of recruitment. The main hurdles were the requirements of the study protocol in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs and the diversity of pathways to care. The role of research staff was a key enabler. The trial was too small to draw useful conclusions and it highlights the challenges of conducting complex studies on sick pregnant women. Subsequent concerns about the safety of ondansetron highlight the need for further studies to help inform women and the NHS about the best care for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

Cost-effectiveness of oral ondansetron for children with acute gastroenteritis in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastroenteritis is a common childhood condition with substantial medical and indirect costs, mostly because of referral, hospitalisation, and parental absence from work. AIM: To determine the cost-effectiveness of adding oral ondansetron to care as usual (CAU) for children with acute gastroenteritis presenting to out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC). DESIGN AND SETTING: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial from December 2015 to January 2018, at three OOHPC centres in the north of the Netherlands (Groningen, Zwolle, and Assen) with a follow-up of 7 days. METHOD: Children were recruited at the OOH-PC and parents kept a parental diary. Inclusion criteria were: aged 6 months-6 years; diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis; at least four reported episodes of vomiting 24 hours before presentation, at least one of which was in the 4 hours before presentation; and written informed consent from both parents. Children were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to either CAU (oral rehydration therapy) or CAU plus one dose of 0.1 mg/kg oral ondansetron. RESULTS: In total, 194 children were included for randomisation. One dose of oral ondansetron decreased the proportion of children who continued vomiting within the first 4 hours from 42.9% to 19.5%, (a decrease of 54.5%), with an odds ratio of 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2 to 0.7; number needed to treat: four). Total mean costs in the ondansetron group were 31.2% lower (€488 [£420] versus €709 [£610]), and the total incremental mean costs for an additional child free of vomiting in the first 4 hours was -€9 (£8) (95% CI = -€41 [£35] to €3 [£3]). CONCLUSION: A single oral dose of ondansetron for children with acute gastroenteritis, given in OOH-PC settings, is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective.

The use of off-label medications in substance abuse treatment programs.

Background: Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment centers serve a population of clients who have diverse needs, and may desire or require access to varied treatments while seeking care for their SUDs. While pharmacotherapies have increased in popularity for the treatment of SUDs, adoption rates do remain quite low. But a wider array of pharmacotherapies has become available in recent years which may shift the trend. This article helps shed light on how variations in SUD treatment centers develop and persist with regard to the adoption and delivery of off-label medications. Methods: We use a nationally representative and longitudinal sample of SUD treatment centers in the US (N = 196). We use a logistic regression to analyze the relationship between organizational characteristics and offering any medications, off-label. We also use a negative binomial regression to analyze the relationship between organizational characteristics and the number of medications that were used off-label. Results: Our findings reveal that older centers, accredited centers, and centers that offer mental health screenings are all positively associated with the provision of off-label medication in SUD treatment. We also find a positive relationship between private funding and offering a greater number of off-label medications. Conclusions: Our results suggest that SUD clients who seek treatment from centers that offer medications off-label, may have access to a greater number of medication-assisted treatment options.

Children with cyclic vomiting syndrome: phenotypes, disease burden and mitochondrial DNA analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is characterized by repeated, stereotypical vomiting episodes. It is possibly associated with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variants. We examined the phenotype, disease burden, treatment and performed mtDNA analysis in pediatric CVS. METHODS: This retrospective study included 42 children with CVS in a tertiary care center. Information regarding medical history, clinical features, laboratory tests, and treatment were collected. mtDNA sequencing was performed among 13 patients. RESULTS: Mean age of onset among patients was 4.0±3.4 years, and mean age at diagnosis was 6.7±4.2 years. CVS episodes in onset and features were stereotypic. Recognizable prodromes were reported in 54.8% patients. Neuroimaging showed previously unknown intracranial abnormalities. Gastrointestinal infection was found in four patients. Mean duration of hospitalization was 7.0±2.4 days, and mean hospitalization cost was 10,891 RMB. Sequencing showed that 4/13 patients had C16519T mtDNA polymorphism, and 2/13 patients had G3010A mtDNA polymorphism. CONCLUSIONS: Cyclic vomiting syndrome is a disabling disorder, which causes huge disease burdens to the patients and their families. Early clinical suspicion and prompt diagnosis are crucial. mtDNA polymorphisms were found in some patients, but they were not significantly associated with pediatric CVS.

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.

Análisis de costo-efectividad de ondansetrón, alizaprida, domperidona, granisetrón, aprepitant, propofol, dexametasona, dimenhidrinato, metoclopramida y haloperidol para la profilaxis y/o tratamiento de pacientes con náusea y vómito en Colombia / Cost-effectiveness analysis of ondansetron, alizapride, domperidone, granisetron, aprepitant, propofol, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, metoclopramide, and haloperidol for the prophylaxis and/or treatment of patients with nausea and vomiting in Colombia

INTRODUCCIÓN: El análisis de costo-efectividad de ondansetrón, alizaprida, domperidona, granisetrón, aprepitant, propofol, dexametasona, dimenhidrinato, metoclopramida y haloperidol para la profilaxis y/o tratamiento de pacientes con náusea y vómito en Colombia, se desarrolla en el marco del mecanismo técnico-científico para la ampliación progresiva del plan de beneficios y la definición de la lista de exclusiones, establecido en el artículo 15 de la Ley 1751 de 2015. Estas tecnologías fueron seleccionadas por la Dirección de Beneficios, Costos y Tarifas del Aseguramiento en Salud del Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social (MSPS), y remitidas al Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud (IETS) para su evaluación. La náusea es una sensación desagradable, de asco intenso a los alimentos, o de vómito inminente, y está asociada a la disminución de la actividad motora gástrica, el incremento del tono de la pared duodenal y reflujo de su contenido al estómago, lo que causa su distensión. Ésta, se acompaña de manifestaciones del sistema nervioso autónomo como hiper-salivación, palidez, sudación, taquicardia y taquipnea El vómito, por su parte, es la expulsión fo

Implementation of institutional antiemetic guidelines for low emetic risk chemotherapy with docetaxel: a clinical and cost evaluation.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effect of implementation of institutional guidelines for low emetic risk chemotherapy with docetaxel and estimate the cost saving for all low emetic risk chemotherapies. METHODS: We examined the clinical effect of preparing and implementing institutional antiemetic guidelines for the breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant docetaxel therapy. Although the antiemetic medication for such patients used to be ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg (OND + DEX), it was changed to dexamethasone (DEX) 12 mg alone after implementation of the institutional guidelines. The effectiveness and adverse effects of DEX alone (56 patients, 205 courses) were compared with those of OND + DEX (41 patients, 151 courses). The cost saving was calculated from the antiemetic costs in both groups. The annual cost saving was estimated from the number of all low emetic risk chemotherapies in a year. RESULTS: The incidences of nausea (19.5% versus 16.1%), vomiting (2.4% versus 0%), constipation (34.1% versus 30.4%), and insomnia (17.1% versus 17.9%) were not significantly different between the OND + DEX group and DEX alone group. In all low emetic risk chemotherapies, US $78,883 of potential cost saving was estimated in the first year after changing the antiemetic treatment. CONCLUSION: The present results suggest that DEX alone is equally effective for preventing nausea and vomiting and less expensive compared with a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist plus DEX in low emetic risk chemotherapy with docetaxel.

Comparative study of dexamethasone and ondansetron for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare intravenous dexamethasone and ondansetron for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), a main complaint that affects almost 40%-75% of patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. METHODS: In a prospective study, 93 women were divided into 3 groups receiving 4mg of dexamethasone, 8mg of dexamethasone, or 4mg of ondansetron. PONV score was used for assessment during the first 24hours after surgery. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV during the 24-hour postoperative period was highest in the ondansetron group (61%). In the first 3hours, the incidence of PONV in the ondansetron group was also higher: 51.6% as compared with 22.6% and 36.6% in the dexamethasone 4mg and 8mg groups, respectively. The overall incidence of PONV was highest in the first 3hours as compared with later time periods, and there was a linear trend in decreasing PONV among the groups (P=0.017). In the dexamethasone 4mg group, the request for a rescue antiemetic was significantly lower: 0% as compared with 6.7% and 16.1% in the dexamethasone 8mg and ondansetron 4mg groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone was found to be an efficacious and cost-effective drug for the prophylaxis of PONV.

Does the added benefit of ondansetron over dexamethasone, to control post-operative nausea and vomiting, justify the added cost in patients undergoing tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate comparative effectiveness of ondansteron and dexamethasone in prophylaxis of PONV in tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy patients. METHODS: The study was conducted at Shifa International Hospital Islamabad from 1st January to 30th June 2009, on 60 patients undergoing tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy, with their consent. After consecutive alternate sampling, patients were divided into two groups containing 30 patients each. Ondansteron was given in one group, and Dexamethasone in the other group, as anti emetic, at the time of induction. Episodes of PONV were recorded at three specified intervals, i.e., immediate postoperative, 6 hours after surgery and 12 hours after surgery. Data was entered on a pre-designed performa. The data was analyzed in SPSS Version 13.0. RESULTS: Ondansteron Group had a mean age of 12.7 +/- 9.54 years (5-36 years). There were 22 (73.3%) males and 8 (26.7%) females. Dexamethasone Group had a mean age of 14.8 +/- 8.4 years (5-35 years) of whom 18 (60.0%) were males and 12 (40.0%) were females. Overall 6 patients who received ondansetron had PONV compared to 7 patients in the dexamethasone group. This difference was statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone was equally effective in controlling PONV in tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy patients. The improved benefit of using ondansetron over dexamethasone, on a regular basis, does not justify the added cost.

Antiemetic therapy for nausea and vomiting in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic agents are among the most frequently prescribed medications in the emergency department (ED). Nevertheless, there are no widely accepted evidence-based guidelines to optimize the use of these medications for nausea or vomiting in this setting. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to briefly review the evidence supporting the use of antiemetic agents for the treatment of nausea or vomiting for adults in the ED, and to provide recommendations to help guide therapy. DISCUSSION: The antiemetic agents studied include droperidol, promethazine, prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, and ondansetron. Droperidol was commonly used in the past, and is more effective than prochlorperazine or metoclopramide, but due to the US Food and Drug Administration black box warning regarding the potential for QT prolongation with this drug, its use is limited to refractory cases. Promethazine is more sedating than other comparative agents, and also has the potential for vascular damage upon intravenous administration. It may be a suitable option when sedation is desirable. Patients given prochlorperazine or metoclopramide must be monitored for akathisia that can develop at any time over 48 h post administration. Decreasing the infusion rate can reduce the incidence of this adverse effect, and the effect can be treated with intravenous diphenhydramine. Ondansetron is as effective as promethazine, and is not associated with sedation or akathisia. CONCLUSION: Based on the safety and efficacy of ondansetron, it may be used as a first-line agent for relief of nausea or vomiting for most patient populations in the ED.

The effects of stimulation of acupressure point p6 on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review of literature.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can complicate and delay patient recovery from general and neuraxial anesthesia. Even with a new generation of anesthetic drugs and antiemetics, a high number of patients are affected by PONV. PONV has a multifactor etiology, but there are ways to reduce its occurrence. Although it is not a traditionally recognized method, stimulation of acupressure points, specifically P6, has been identified as a potentially effective method of reducing PONV. This study is a state of the science paper reviewing research on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic prophylaxis and various methods of acupressure. It was conducted to add information to the currently available knowledge regarding PONV in hopes of stimulating the use of acupressure for treatment of PONV. The study is divided into six categories: pathophysiology of PONV, background studies of PONV, nonpharmacologic prophylaxis, pharmacological prophylaxis, acupressure and related techniques, and benefits of routine antiemetic prophylaxis.

Antiemetic use in acetaminophen poisoning: how does the route of N-acetylcysteine administration affect utilization?

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare antiemetic use after acetaminophen poisoning in patients treated with oral or intravenous (IV) N-acetylcysteine (NAC). METHODS: Our retrospective chart review identified 20 orally treated patients and 17 IV-treated patients. For both groups, we calculated the total number of antiemetic doses given, their associated cost, and also determined parameters that correlated with antiemetic use. RESULTS: IV-treated patients received fewer total antiemetic doses than those receiving oral NAC (1.1 0.2 vs. 2.8 0.7; P 0.04). Antiemetic cost correlated with doses received for both groups; however, because the regression lines differed (P 0.02), antiemetic therapy cost was less in IV-treated patients. In addition, serum acetaminophen concentration correlated with total antiemetic doses in oral NAC patients (P 0.002) but not with IV treatment patients (P 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous NAC reduced antiemetic utilization, and it costs less than oral therapy. Furthermore, antiemetic use appeared to be determined by a combination of acetaminophen concentration and NAC administration route.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of patient-controlled analgesia compared to continuous elastomeric pump infusion of tramadol and metamizole]. / Análisis coste-efectividad de la PCA postoperatoria frente a la infusión continua elastomérica de tramadol y metamizol.

OBJECTIVES: Little information is available on the cost-effectiveness of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). The present study compared PCA to continuous infusion by elastomeric pump. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty ASA 1 or 2 patients undergoing major gynecologic surgery were enrolled for a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and costs derived from intravenous PCA with metamizole and tramadol compared to continuous infusion of the same analgesic solution by elastomeric pump in the 48 hours following surgery. Patient satisfaction and side effects were also recorded. RESULTS: The analgesic effectiveness and side effects of the 2 regimens were similar, although 61% of patients in the elastomeric pump group needed morphine for rescue analgesia compared to 33% in the PCA group (P < .05). In the PCA group, 81% of the patients said they would repeat the analgesic treatment compared to only 56% in the elastomeric pump group (P = .05). The mean number of nursing interventions was 16 for the PCA group and 19 for the elastomeric pump group. The mean cost of the treatment (not including the PCA pump, provided by the manufacturer) was Euros 41.35 for the PCA group and Euros 56.22 for the elastomeric pump group. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic efficacy of the 2 regimens was similar. However, patient satisfaction was greater with PCA and use of an elastomeric pump was more expensive. In the setting of the present study, postoperative PCA proved to be more advantageous than continuous elastomeric pump infusion.