Effects of prophylactic ramosetron and ondansetron on corrected QT interval during general anesthesia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether ramosetron increases the corrected QT (QTc) interval. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: 135 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated to three groups to receive ondansetron 4 mg (Group O4), ramosetron 0.3 mg (Group R), or ondansetron 8 mg (Group O8). The study drugs were administered intravenously approximately 15 minutes before the end of surgery. MEASUREMENT: The QT interval for 10 minutes after administration was recorded. The QTc interval was calculated according to the Fridericia (QTcF) formula. The primary outcome was the QTcF interval among the three groups during the 10 minutes after administration of the study drugs. MAIN RESULTS: The QTcF interval was not significantly prolonged after administration of ondansetron 4 mg and ramosetron. It was significantly increased from one minute after administration until 7 minutes after ondansetron 8 mg (Group O8). The QTcF interval was significantly longer in Group O8 at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic administration 0.3 mg of ramosetron does not increase the QTc interval. Ondansetron 8 mg increases the QTc interval more so than 4 mg of ondansetron.

The effect of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery with intravenous patient controlled analgesia using fentanyl: aprepitant plus ramosetron vs ramosetron alone.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of an aprepitant, neurokinin-1(NK1) receptor antagonist, for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for up to 24 hours in patients regarded as high risk undergoing gynecological surgery with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) using fentanyl. METHODS: In this randomized, open label, case-control study 84 gynecological surgical patients receiving a standardized general anesthesia were investigated. Patients were randomly allocated to receive aprepitant 80 mg P.O. approximately 2-3 hours before operation (aprepitant group) or none (control group). All patients received ramosetron 0.3 mg IV after induction of anesthesia. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, and use of rescue antiemetics were evaluated for up to 24 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in the aprepitant group (50.0%) compared to the control group (80.9%) during the first 24 hours following surgery. The incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the aprepitant group (4.7%) compared to the control group (42.8%) during the first 24 hours following surgery. In addition, the severity of nausea was less among those in the aprepitant group compared with the control group over a period of 24 hours post-surgery (P < 0.05). Use of rescue antiemetics was lower in the aprepitant group than in the control group during 24 hours postoperatively (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients regarded as high risk undergoing gynecological surgery with IV PCA using fentanyl, the aprepitant plus ramosetron ware more effective than ramosetron alone to decrease the incidence of PONV, use of rescue antiemetics and nausea severity for up to 24 hours postoperatively.

The analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided transverse abdominis plane block after laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The ultrasound-guided transverse abdominis plane block (TAPB) reduces postoperative pain after laparoscopic abdominal surgery. But, its effect post laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal hernia repair (TEP) is not clear. In this study, we evaluated the analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided TAPB in TEP. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized study, forty adult patients (ASA I-II) scheduled for a TEP under general anesthesia were studied. In the TAPB group (n = 20), an ultrasound-guided bilateral TAPB was performed with 0.375% ropivacaine 15 ml on each side after the induction of general anesthesia. The control group (n = 20) did not have TAPB performed. Fentanyl 50 µg was repeatedly injected as per the patient's request in the recovery room. Pain scores at rest and on coughing were assessed postoperatively in the recovery room (20 min, at discharge) and at 4, 8, and 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS: In the recovery room, pain scores (numeric rating scale, 0-10) at postoperative 20 min were lower in the TAPB group (3.9 ± 1.6, 4.9 ± 1.8) than the control group (6.9 ± 1.6, 8.0 ± 1.6) at rest and on coughing. Also, pain scores upon discharge from the recovery room were lower in the TAPB group (3.2 ± 1.2, 4.2 ± 1.5) than the control group (5.3 ± 1.6, 6.5 ± 1.8) at rest and on coughing. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound-guided TAPB in patients that had undergone TEP reduced postoperative pain scores and the fentanyl requirement in the recovery room. Also, pain scores on coughing were reduced until postoperative 8 hours.

Suspected anaphylactic reaction associated with microemulsion propofol during anesthesia induction.

Although rare, intraoperative anaphylaxis can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Aquafol® (Daewon Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea), a microemulsion propofol, was developed to eliminate lipid solvent-related adverse events, and was used in clinical anesthesia since 2009 with little data about severe side effects such as anaphylaxis. A healthy 16-yr-old male patient who had past medical history with two previous operations of no complications developed cardiovascular shock with generalized erythema following administration of microemulsion propofol during anesthesia induction. Intravenous injection of epinephrine and steroid rescued him. He remained in a stable state without any problems postoperatively and was discharged. Clinicians should consider this rare but serious complication during induction of anesthesia with propofol.