Ondansetron or droperidol for prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after intrathecal morphine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: There is a controversy regarding the best drug for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal morphine. The aim of this study was to examine efficacy and tolerability of droperidol compared with ondansetron for the prevention of morphine-induced nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 120 women undergoing Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia with intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg received intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (n = 40), droperidol 1.25 mg (n = 40) or saline (n = 40) immediately after umbilical-cord clamping. Nausea and vomiting were graded according to intensity at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h. RESULTS: Nausea or vomiting occurred in 14 patients (35%) in the placebo group, 4 (10%) in the ondansetron group and 10 (25%) in the droperidol group; the difference between ondansetron and placebo was statistically significant (P = 0.007). Eleven of the 14 placebo patients (27.5%) vomited, compared with none of the 4 ondansetron patients (vs. placebo, P = 0.0004) and 5 of the droperidol patients (vs. placebo, P = 0.18). Three of the 14 placebo patients (7.5%) were nauseous, compared with 4 (10%) receiving ondansetron and 5 (12.5%) receiving droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron was effective in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal morphine for Caesarean section.

Efficacy of prophylactic droperidol, ondansetron or both in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in major gynaecological surgery. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing droperidol 1.25 mg intravenously (i.v.) (group 1, n = 30), ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 2, n = 30), or both (group 3, n = 30) in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the first 24 h following major gynaecological procedures under combined general and epidural anaesthesia. PONV was analysed by a linear nausea/vomiting score, incidence of nausea and vomiting, and the need for antiemetic rescue. Our results showed a similar incidence of nausea and vomiting in all groups (G1 33%, G2 40%, G3 43%). However, when comparisons were made according to the time of assessment, combination therapy resulted in significantly lower PONV than droperidol in the first hour (0% vs. 13%, P < 0.05) and second hour (0% vs. 13%, P < 0.05), and than ondansetron on the first hour (0% vs. 13%, P < 0.05). A trend persisted up to the fourth hour but was not statistically significant in either group. In conclusion, droperidol and ondansetron are effective agents in the prevention of PONV, and their combination seems to provide slightly better results than either drug alone.

Effects of actual versus arbitrary awake and sleep times on analyses of 24-h blood pressure.

Investigators conducting hypertension trials with ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring have been analyzing study results using arbitrary times for day (wakefulness) and night (sleep). We prospectively evaluated the impact of using arbitrary times instead of patient reported awake and sleep times on mean 24-h, awake, and sleep BP, BP loads, and the awake-sleep BP difference in 50 subjects. Daytimes and nighttimes were derived from popular, arbitrary times reported in the literature. Compared to actual awake and sleep periods, arbitrary day and night division caused no significant differences in the mean awake and sleep BPs. However, limits of agreement for BP values derived for the actual and arbitrary times of wakefulness and sleep were substantial especially during sleep (awake systolic BP, -4 to 7 mm Hg; awake diastolic BP, -2 to 4 mm Hg; sleep systolic BP, -12 to 7 mm Hg; and sleep diastolic BP -7 to 4 mm Hg). Sleep BP loads (proportion of BPs > 120/80 mm Hg) were altered by greater than 10% in 20% to 30% of the subjects, depending on choice of time schedule. These data demonstrate that the calculation of BP and BP load during sleep may be altered by use of arbitrary, rather than actual, times of wakefulness and sleep in 24-h studies of ambulatory BP.

[Evaluation of severity of illness in the emergency service of the university hospital of UFSC]. / Avaliação da gravidade dos atendimentos no Serviço de Emergência do Hospital Universitário da UFSC.

In order to determine whether emergency wards are inappropriately used we undertook a prospective study to evaluate the severeness of condition of patients seen at the UFSC University Hospital Emergency Ward. The time required for adequate therapeutic intervention was used as the main criterion of severity. Patients considered themselves to be emergencies in 16.6% of cases, whereas physicians thought so in only 2.6% (initial evaluation) and 1.0% (final evaluation) of cases. Sixty five percent of the patients could have been taken care of at a primary care site. The main reasons that prevented the use of a primary care unit were the more rapid and more convenient emergency room facilities. We conclude that the UFSC University Hospital Emergency Room is inappropriately used and suggest possible measures to improve health care delivery to the general public.