Poor Knowledge of Acute Mountain Sickness in Latin American Medical Students.

INTRODUCTION: Acute altitude exposure is a common event in Latin America that can result in mild to severe altitude illness. Medical students from some Latin American countries receive little information on this topic. Our aim was to determine the knowledge and incidence of acute mountain sickness (AMS), as well as the methods used to prevent AMS among medical students attending the Pan-American Student Meeting in Cusco, Peru, a city at high altitude (3400 m). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study on medical students attending a conference. Participants completed a questionnaire on the day of registration that collected demographic data and investigated students' knowledge of AMS, its prophylaxis, and their personal experience of symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 840 students attended the meeting. Two hundred eighty-eight returned surveys, 51 from high altitude locations. Respondent age was 23±3 y (mean±SD), and 72% were female. Thirty-two percent had basic knowledge about symptoms of AMS. Headache was recognized as a symptom by 79%. Knowledge of AMS prophylaxis was reported by 70%. Coca leaf products and dimenhydrinate were mentioned by 30 and 16%, respectively, whereas acetazolamide was recognized by only 10% of participants. AMS incidence was 42%. Prophylactic measures were adopted by 47% of the participants in our study. Thirty-six percent used dimenhydrinate and 27% used coca tea. Less than 1% used acetazolamide as recommended. CONCLUSIONS: We found poor knowledge of AMS and effective prophylaxis among medical students from several South American countries traveling to 3400 m.

Efficacy and Pharmacological Appropriateness of Cinnarizine and Dimenhydrinate in the Treatment of Vertigo and Related Symptoms.

Vertigo is not itself a disease, but rather a symptom of various syndromes and disorders that jeopardize balance function, which is essential for daily activities. It is an abnormal sensation of motion that usually occurs in the absence of motion, or when a motion is sensed inaccurately. Due to the complexity of the etiopathogenesis of vertigo, many pharmacological treatments have been tested for efficacy on vertigo. Among these drugs, cinnarizine, usually given together with dimenhydrinate, appears to be the first-line pharmacotherapy for the management of vertigo and inner ear disorders. Based on these considerations, the present non-interventional study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of cinnarizine (20 mg) and dimenhydrinate (40 mg) in patients suffering from vertigo-related symptoms. To this end, we enrolled 120 adults-70 males, and 50 females-with an average age of 64 years. Before beginning pharmacological treatment, all patients were screened for the intensity of vertigo, dizziness, and concomitant symptoms through the Visual Scale of Dizziness Disorders and Dizziness Handicap Inventory scales. At the end of the anamnestic evaluation, patients received the fixed-dose combination of cinnarizine (20 mg) plus dimenhydrinate (40 mg) 3 times daily, for 60 days. The results of this study provide further insight regarding the efficacy of the fixed combination when used to reduce symptoms of vestibular vertigo of central and/or peripheral origin, after both the 15- and 60-day therapies. Independent of the type of vertigo, the fixed combination was able to reduce dizziness- and vertigo-associated symptoms in more than 75% of all patients treated, starting from 15 days of therapy, and improving 60 days after starting the therapy. Interestingly, we also found differences between male and female patients in the framework of the pharmacological effects of therapy. This study provides further details concerning the therapeutic efficacy of the fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate, and also focuses attention on the possibility that these drugs could act in a gender-specific manner, paving the way for further research.

Comparison of efficacy dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide in the treatment of nausea due to vertigo; a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide in patients with nausea and vertigo. METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was performed on patients who presented to the emergency department (ED) with nausea and vertigo in the six month period between Nov 1st 2012 and May 1st 2013. Adult patients who were 18 to 65 years old presenting to the ED with nausea and vertigo or motion sickness were included in the study. A total of 200 patients were divided into 2 groups who were admitted to ED with complaints of vertigo accompanied by nausea. In the first group, 50 mg dimenhydrinate and 10 mg metoclopramide infusions were given intravenously for 15 min. The efficacy of treatment was measured by using a 10 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) performed at 0, 15 and the 30th minute. The primary outcome variable was a reduction in vertigo intensity documented on the VAS at the 30th minute after medication administration. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were included in the randomization (n=100 in both groups). The baseline vertigo VAS scores were 7.57±1.42 in the dimenhydrinate (DMT) group and 7.27±1.40 in the metoclopramide (MTP) group (p=0.09). In the 30th minute of treatment, the average vertigo VAS score was 2.46 ± 2.39 in the DMT group and 2.31±1.96 in the MTP group; no significant differences were detected between groups. The baseline nausea VAS scores were 7.62±1.48 in the DMT group and 7.45±1.27 in the MTP group (p=0.36). In the 30th minute of treatment the average vertigo VAS score decreased to 2.27±2.24 in the DMT group and 2.70±2.48 in the MTP group, no significant differences were detected between groups. No significant differences were detected between nausea VAS changes and vertigo VAS changes at 30th minutes of the treatment (p=0.06, p=0.85 respectively). Rescue medication need was similar in both treatment groups (p=0.94). No significant differences were detected about the side effects which are sedation (p=0.56) and hypotension (p=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this prospective, double-blind, randomized study showed that both DMT and MTP have similar efficacy in reducing nausea and vertigo symptoms in the ED.

Antiemetics in Children With Acute Gastroenteritis: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Several antiemetics have been used in children with acute gastroenteritis. However, there is still controversy over their use. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and safety of antiemetics for controlling vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, and gray literature, until December 2018. STUDY SELECTION: We selected randomized clinical trials comparing metoclopramide, ondansetron, domperidone, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, and granisetron. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included (3482 children). Ondansetron revealed the largest effect in comparison to placebo for cessation of vomiting (odds ratio = 0.28 [95% credible interval = 0.16 to 0.46]; quality of evidence: high) and for hospitalization (odds ratio = 2.93 [95% credible interval = 1.69 to 6.18]; quality of evidence: moderate). Ondansetron was the only intervention that reduced the need for intravenous rehydration and the number of vomiting episodes. When considering side effects, dimenhydrinate was the only intervention that was worse than placebo. LIMITATIONS: Most treatment comparisons had low- or very low-quality evidence, because of risk of biases and imprecise estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron is the only intervention that revealed an effect on the cessation of vomiting, on preventing hospitalizations, and in reducing the need for intravenous rehydration. Ondansetron was also considered a safe intervention.

The Impact of Betahistine versus Dimenhydrinate in the Resolution of Residual Dizziness in Patients with Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of betahistine with dimenhydrinate on the resolution of residual dizziness (RD) of patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) after successful Epley maneuver. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, patients with posterior semicircular canal type of BPPV were included. After execution of the Epley maneuver, patients were assigned randomly to one group for 1 week: betahistine, dimenhydrinate or placebo. The primary outcomes were scores of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and the modified Berg balance scale (mBBS). All patients were asked to describe the characteristics of their subjective residual symptoms. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the predictors of improved RD. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 19.0. RESULTS: In total, 117 patients (age range: 20-65 years) participated in this study. After the Epley maneuver, 88 participants had RD. After the intervention, 38 patients exhibited an improved RD. Less than 50% of participants in the three groups showed mild to moderate dizziness handicap. However, there was no significant difference between mBBS scores of groups before or after the intervention. Logistic regression was shown that patients with receiving betahistine were 3.18 times more likely to have no RD than the placebo group. Increasing age was associated with a decreased likelihood of improving RD (P = .05). CONCLUSION: The analysis of data showed that the use of betahistine had more effect on improving RD symptoms. We recommended future studies using objective indicators of residual dizziness.

Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed Combination of Cinnarizine 20 mg and Dimenhydrinate 40 mg vs Betahistine Dihydrochloride 16 mg in Patients with Peripheral Vestibular Vertigo: A Prospective, Multinational, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Non-inferiority Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Vertigo derived from peripheral vestibular disorders is quite frequently encountered in daily clinical practice and can be a severely disabling symptom associated with substantial impairment of health-related quality of life for the affected patients. Betahistine, a structural analogue of histamine and presumably the most widely prescribed anti-vertigo drug worldwide, has previously been shown to be an effective and safe treatment for these patients. The objective of the present study was to evaluate whether the fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate (Arlevert®) is non-inferior and thus a potentially useful alternative to betahistine dihydrochloride in the treatment of patients suffering from peripheral vestibular vertigo. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, non-inferiority clinical trial, outpatients from 8 ENT clinics in Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Russia were randomly assigned to receive three times daily one tablet of either the fixed combination cinnarizine 20 mg/dimenhydrinate 40 mg or betahistine dihydrochloride 16 mg for 4 weeks. Primary endpoint was the reduction of the mean vertigo score (MVS), a validated 12-item composite score defined as the mean of 6 vertigo symptoms (dystasia and walking unsteadiness, staggering, rotary sensation, tendency to fall, lift sensation, blackout) and 6 trigger factors for vertigo (change of position, bowing, getting up, driving by car/train, head movements, eye movement), after 4 weeks of therapy, as judged by the patient on a 5-point visual analogue scale (VAS). The non-inferiority margin was set to 0.3. Secondary outcomes included the patient's and investigator's judgment of global efficacy, the patient's rating of impairment of daily activities, and safety/tolerability of the treatments. RESULTS: Three hundred and six patients (mean age 53.5 years, approximately 60% female) were enrolled and randomized to the fixed combination cinnarizine/dimenhydrinate (n = 152) or betahistine (n = 154) groups; 297 patients completed the study and 294 (146 and 148, respectively) were valid for the per-protocol analysis, which was used for the non-inferiority analysis. Treatment with cinnarizine/dimenhydrinate led to a stronger reduction of the MVS [least squares mean (LSM)] after 4-week therapy (primary endpoint) in comparison to betahistine (0.395 vs 0.488; difference: - 0.093, 95% CI - 0.180; - 0.007, p = 0.035); since the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval was not only below the non-inferiority margin of 0.3, but also entirely below 0, superiority of the fixed combination could be demonstrated. The combination preparation was also more effective after 1 week of therapy and received more favorable patient's ratings on overall efficacy and impairment of daily activities. Both treatments were very well tolerated. Only 12 patients (3.92%) reported 13 non-serious adverse events; 2 cinnarizine/dimenhydrinate-treated patients discontinued the study prematurely due to adverse events as compared to 5 betahistine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: The fixed combination of cinnarizine 20 mg and dimenhydrinate 40 mg was found to be not only non-inferior, but superior to betahistine 16 mg in the improvement of peripheral vestibular vertigo. Furthermore, taking into account a good and slightly favorable safety profile, the present study provides evidence that the fixed-combination preparation is a potent and even superior alternative to betahistine in the treatment of vertigo related to peripheral vestibular disorders. STUDY REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 2011-004025-27.

Effect of common antivertiginous agents on the high velocity vestibulo-ocular reflex.

OBJECTIVE: It has long been suggested that antivertiginous medications exert their symptomatic effect through inhibition of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). We tested this hypothesis by directly measuring the VOR after administration of three agents from different substance classes: an antihistamine, a benzodiazepine and a calcium channel antagonist. METHODS: The gain and the variability of the high velocity VOR was assessed using video head impulses (vHIT) under the following conditions: baseline, after dimenhydrinate, after diazepam and after cinnarizine. RESULTS: We found that all three medications did not change any VOR gain or variability parameter: At 60ms, the gain was 0.95 at baseline, 0.99 under dimenhydrinate, 0.99 under diazepam and 0.96 under cinnarizine. The gain variability across repetitive head impulses remained also uninfluenced. CONCLUSIONS: The human high frequency VOR remains robust to pharmacological perturbations at common clinical doses and the assumption that symptomatic vertigo relief is achieved merely through impairment of the VOR requires re-examination. SIGNIFICANCE: Alternative mechanisms of pharmacological action might be operant, such as the modulation of vestibulo-cortical pathways, a differential effect on the low frequency VOR and an altered sensitivity to drugs in acute unilateral vestibulopathy.

Antivertiginous drug therapy does not hinder the efficacy of individualized vibrotactile neurofeedback training for vestibular rehabilitation - a randomized trial.

Vestibular rehabilitation using individualized vibrotactile neurofeedback training (IVNT) can lead to significant improvement in the postural stability of patients with vestibular symptoms of different origins. However, some of these patients have complex, severe dizziness, meaning that a pharmacological pretreatment or parallel (to vestibular rehabilitation) treatment can help them perform the rehabilitation exercises. Hence, the present study investigated the influence of a pharmacological treatment on the efficacy of vibrotactile neurofeedback training in patients with chronic, noncompensated vestibulopathies. All participants performed IVNT for ∼10 min each day for 2 weeks. In addition, every second participant was selected randomly to receive oral medication (20 mg cinnarizine and 40 mg dimenhydrinate per tablet), taking three tables per day. Trunk and ankle sway and postural stability were measured. In addition, the dizziness handicap inventory was evaluated immediately before training on the last day of training and 6 months after training. After the 10-day period of IVNT, both groups showed a statistically significant improvement in all parameters tested. A follow-up analysis after 6 months showed a long-term efficacy for the IVNT, that is, the patients remained significantly improved in their postural stability. The antivertiginous therapy did not hinder the efficacy of the IVNT. The present results indicate that IVNT even in combination with an antivertiginous drug therapy is an effective treatment regime for patients with disabling vertigo of different origins.

Prevención de las náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios con dimenhidrinato en pacientes con riesgo moderado (según escala de Apfel) intervenidos de colecistectomía laparoscópica en régimen ambulatorio / Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with dimenhydrinate in outpatients with moderate risk (as scale Apfel) undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Introducción: Las náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios (NVPO) constituyen uno de los principales problemas asociados a las intervenciones quirúrgicas. En la actualidad, estos episodios se siguen produciendo en un 20-30 % de los pacientes que son sometidos a una intervención quirúrgica. Además del alto grado de disconfort que este problema puede generar en los pacientes, pueden acarrear otras consecuencias negativas como deshidratación y alteraciones hidroelectrolíticas por vómitos recurrentes, evisceración o dehiscencia de suturas debido a la mecánica del esfuerzo, retraso en la reinstauración de la dieta por vía oral, retraso del alta en las unidades de cirugía ambulatoria, etc. (1-3). Todas estas complicaciones suponen también un aumento del gasto sanitario (2,3). Material y métodos: La evidencia actual muestra que los fármacos más efectivos son droperidol, ondansetrón y dexametasona. Nuestro estudio trata de profundizar en el conocimiento de los fármacos antieméticos menos usados, como el dimenhidrinato, con el fin de proporcionar nuevas alternativas con una buena relación coste/efectividad para la prevención de las NVPO. Para ello se han comparado la combinación dimenhidrinato + dexametasona frente a ondasentrón + dexametasona para la prevención de las NVPO en pacientes de riesgo moderado según la escala de Apfel, intervenidos de colecistectomía laparoscópica en régimen ambulatorio. Resultados: En este estudio no se han observado diferencias significativas en ambos grupos, tanto en la eficacia como en la seguridad. Conclusión: Podemos concluir que el dimenhidrinato es una buena alternativa para la prevención de las NVPO en pacientes de riesgo moderado que precisan una doble terapia (AU)

Introduction: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the main problems associated with surgical procedures. Currently these episodes still occur in 20-30 % of patients who undergo an surgery. In addition to the high degree of discomfort that this problem can be generated in patients, they may lead to other negative consequences such as dehydration and electrolyte disturbances by recurrent vomiting, evisceration or wound dehiscence due to mechanical effort, delay in reinstating the oral diet, delayed discharge in outpatient surgery units, etc. (1-3). All of these complications are also an increase in spending health (2,3). Objective and methods: The evidence shows that the most effective drugs are: droperidol, ondansetron and dexamethasone. Our study seeks to deepen the unders-tanding of antiemetic drugs less used as dimenhydrinate, in order to provide new alternatives with a good cost / effectiveness in the case of PONV. This has been compared the dimenhydrinate combination + dexamethasone versus dexamethasone + ondansetron for the prevention of PONV in outpatients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy moderate risk according to the scale of Apfel. Results: In this study we have observed no significant differences in both groups in both efficacy and safety. Conclusion: We can conclude that dimenhydrinate is a good alternative for the prevention of PONV in moderate-risk patients who require dual therapy (AU)

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

Meniere's disease.

Meniere's disease (MD) is a disorder of the inner ear that causes vertigo attacks, fluctuating hearing loss, tinnitus and aural fullness. The aetiology of MD is multifactorial. A characteristic sign of MD is endolymphatic hydrops (EH), a disorder in which excessive endolymph accumulates in the inner ear and causes damage to the ganglion cells. In most patients, the clinical symptoms of MD present after considerable accumulation of endolymph has occurred. However, some patients develop symptoms in the early stages of EH. The reason for the variability in the symptomatology is unknown and the relationship between EH and the clinical symptoms of MD requires further study. The diagnosis of MD is based on clinical symptoms but can be complemented with functional inner ear tests, including audiometry, vestibular-evoked myogenic potential testing, caloric testing, electrocochleography or head impulse tests. MRI has been optimized to directly visualize EH in the cochlea, vestibule and semicircular canals, and its use is shifting from the research setting to the clinic. The management of MD is mainly aimed at the relief of acute attacks of vertigo and the prevention of recurrent attacks. Therapeutic options are based on empirical evidence and include the management of risk factors and a conservative approach as the first line of treatment. When medical treatment is unable to suppress vertigo attacks, intratympanic gentamicin therapy or endolymphatic sac decompression surgery is usually considered. This Primer covers the pathophysiology, symptomatology, diagnosis, management, quality of life and prevention of MD.

Successful Treatment of Paroxysmal Movement Disorders of Infancy With Dimenhydrinate and Diphenhydramine.

BACKGROUND: Paroxysmal movement disorders including paroxysmal tonic upward gaze of infancy and paroxysmal dystonia of infancy are benign but uncommon movement disorders seen in young children. Although symptoms are intermittent and resolve spontaneously, they can cause discomfort and distress for the child. Current treatment options are limited to dopaminergic agents or anticonvulsants with limited efficacy. PATIENT DESCRIPTION: The authors present a child with paroxysmal tonic upward gaze of infancy and another with paroxysmal dystonia of infancy, both of whom responded successfully to treatment with low-dose dimenhydrinate or diphenhydramine, respectively. DISCUSSION: Dimenhydrinate and diphenhydramine both exert anticholinergic activity and have limited toxicity at low doses. This property makes either compound an attractive therapeutic option for paroxysmal movement disorders in infancy. These agents are generally well tolerated.

Cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate in the treatment of vertigo in medical practice.

The efficacy and safety of the fixed combination of cinnarizine 20 mg and dimenhydrinate 40 mg in the treatment of vertigo of various origins have been investigated in a prospective, noninterventional study involving private practices throughout Germany. A total of 1275 patients with an average age of 61.2 years participated in the study. The vertigo symptoms, measured by a validated mean vertigo score (primary efficacy endpoint) improved by 61 % in the course of the observational period (median: 6 weeks). Concomitant symptoms frequently associated with vertigo such as nausea, vomiting and tinnitus were also markedly reduced by 84, 85 and 51 %, respectively. Overall efficacy has been rated by the physicians as 'very much improved' or 'much improved' in 95 % of the patients. A total of 47 patients (3.7 %) reported 51 adverse drug reactions (all nonserious). The results indicate a good tolerability and efficacy of the fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate in the treatment of vertigo in daily medical practice, which is in line with previous findings of numerous interventional, randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trials.

Fixed combination of cinnarizine and dimenhydrinate in the prophylactic therapy of vestibular migraine: an observational study.

Vestibular migraine (VM) is one of the most frequent causes of episodic vertigo, with a lifetime prevalence of 0.98%. Prophylactic therapy includes calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, antiepileptic drugs and antidepressants. We studied the association of cinnarizine 20 mg and dimenhydrinate 40 mg (Arlevertan) in a group of 22 patients affected by definite VM. Proposed therapy included one tablet twice a day for 1 month, which was repeated three times with 1 month of interval between drug intake; results were compared with those of a control group of 11 VM patients who asked to observe only lifestyle measures for migraine. The main outcome was the number of vertigo and headache crises in the 6 months before therapy and in the 6 months of follow-up. Subjects performing Arlevertan presented during the 6 months of therapy a decrease of vertigo attacks from 5.3 to 2.1 and of headaches from 4.3 to 1.7 (p < 0.0001); 68% of these subjects reported a decrease of at least 50% of vertigo attacks, while 63% of headaches. Conversely, vertigo attacks decreased from 3.5 to 2.2 and headaches from 2.6 to 2 in patients observing only lifestyle; 18% of these subjects reported a decrease of at least 50% of vertigo crises and 27% of headaches. Our data do not differ from those of previous works assessing efficacy of different prophylactic therapies for VM and reporting consistent reduction of vertigo spells in a rate of patients ranging from 60 and 80%.

[Antiemetic therapy in preclinical emergency medicine - a literature review]. / Antiemetische Therapie in der präklinischen Notfallmedizin - Aktuelle Studienlage.

Nausea and vomiting are frequent symptoms in emergency medicine and require a targeted drug intervention. Despite known disadvantages in terms of efficacy and side effects, metoclopramide is still often used in the emergency medical service to treat nausea and vomiting. Recent studies show that, especially in the therapy of opioid-triggered vomiting, metoclopramide is not significantly effective when compared to placebo. Dimenhydrinate seems to be an effective drug for various forms of nausea, but can often be relatively or absolutely contraindicated in emergency medicine due to its sedative effect. Based on a literature review, 5-HT3-antagonists appear to be a good alternative for the treatment of emesis in the emergency service. However, as for all antiemetics, the maximum dosage and potential side effects need to be paid attention to. In addition, neither of the 5-HT3-antagonists are approved for therapy of non-chemotherapy-induced vomiting or PONV. In conclusion, it may be considered to include 5-HT3-antagonists in addition to dimenhydrinate in the ambulance medical equipment. The routine use of a specific antiemetic is not recommended.

Dexametasona versus dimenhidrinato en la profilaxis de las náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios en pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía general y digestiva / Dexamethasone versus dimenhydrinate for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult patients undergoing general and digestive surgery

Introducción. Las náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios (NVPO) son complicaciones frecuentes en los pacientes quirúrgicos. Se han publicado una serie de guías clínicas y revisiones que recomiendan diferentes fármacos para la profilaxis y tratamiento de NVPO. Los fármacos dexametasona (DEX) y dimenhidrinato (DIM) son ampliamente utilizados para este fin; sin embargo, la evidencia científica que apoya la efectividad del DIM en el contexto de NVPO, es escasa. Objetivo. Determinar la dosis del fármaco (DIM o DEX con mayor efectividad en la profilaxis de náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios en pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía general y laparoscópica. Asimismo, determinar la aparición de náuseas, vómitos, náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios, necesidad de tratamiento de rescate y efectos adversos de ambos medicamentos. Material y Método. Ensayo clínico aleatorizado realizado en el Hospital II EsSalud de Talara, Piura, Perú con 102 participantes (18 hombres y 84 mujeres) con un riesgo bajo y moderado para NVPO (09 y 93 respectivamente), los que fueron asignados en dos grupos de 51 pacientes cada uno. Un grupo de pacientes recibió DEX (4 mg) y otro DIM (50 mg) luego de la inducción de la anestesia general. Resultados. La incidencia de NVPO en la población tratada con DEX fue de 7,84% y de 39,22% en la población de pacientes que recibieron DIM. Conclusiones. La administración de 4 mg de dexametasona en el acto anestésico provee mejor profilaxis de náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios respecto a 50 mg de dimenhidrinato.

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications in surgical patients. There have been a number of clinical guidelines and reviews that recommend different drugs for prophylaxis and treatment of PONV. Dexamethasone and dimenhydrinate drugs are widely used in our country for this purpose, but the scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of dimenhydrinate in the context of PONV, is scarce. Objective. To determine the dose of the drug (dimenhydrinate or dexamethasone) more effective in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult patients undergoing general and laparoscopic surgery. Also determine the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, PONV, need for rescue treatment and adverse effects of both drugs. Material and Method. Clinic randomized trial performed in the Hospital II Essalud Talara, Piura, Peru, with 102 participants (18 men and 84 women) with a low or moderate risk for PONV (09 and 93 respectively), which were assigned into two groups of 51 patients each. A group of patients received dexamethasone (4 mg) and another dimenhydrinate (50 mg) after induction of general anesthesia. Results. The incidence of PONV in the dexamethasonetreated population was 7,84% and 39,22% in the population of patients who received dimenhydrinate. Conclusions. The dexamethasone administration of 4 mg during anesthesia provides better prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting over dimenhydrinate administration of 50 mg.

Cyclic vomiting syndrome in adults.

Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is a functional disorder that can occur in all age groups. It is characterized by recurrent stereotypic episodes of nausea and vomiting. Between these episodes are nausea-free intervals. Lack of awareness leads often to delay in making the correct diagnosis. A specific test to identify patients with CVS is still missing. The correct diagnosis is based on the typical anamnestic report and the exclusion of other disorders that are associated with recurrent vomiting. Treatment of acute vomiting episode comprises antiemetic, antimigraine and sedative therapy. For prophylaxis of vomiting episodes, amitriptyline and propranolol are frequently used.