[Update on PONV-What is new in prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting? : Summary of recent consensus recommendations and Cochrane reviews on prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting]. / Update PONV ­ Was gibt es Neues bei der Prophylaxe und Therapie von postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativem Erbrechen? : Zusammenfassung rezenter Konsensusempfehlungen sowie Cochrane-Reviews zu Prophylaxe und Therapie postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativen Erbrechens.

The prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative pain to enhance patient comfort has been a primary goal of anesthesiologists for the last decades; however, avoiding postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is, from a patient's perspective, a highly relevant and equally important goal of anesthesia. Recent consensus-based guidelines suggest the assessment of risk factors including female gender, postoperative opioid administration, non-smoking status, a history of PONV or motion sickness, young patient age, longer duration of anesthesia, volatile anesthetics and the type of surgery and reducing the patient's baseline risk (e.g. through the use of regional anesthesia and administration of non-opioid analgesics as part of a multimodal approach). In general, a liberal PONV prophylaxis is encouraged for adult patients and children, which should also be administered when no risk assessment is made. The basis for every adult patient should be a standard prophylaxis with two antiemetics, such as dexamethasone in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. In patients at high risk, this should be supplemented by a third and potentially a fourth antiemetic prophylaxis with a different mechanism of action. A recently published comprehensive Cochrane meta-analysis comparing available antiemetic prophylaxes reported the highest effectiveness to prevent PONV for the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant (relative risk, RR 0.26), followed by ramosetron (RR 0.44), granisetron (RR 0.45), dexamethasone (RR 0.51) and ondansetron (RR 0.55), thereby revising the dogma that every antiemetic is equally effective. Adverse events of antiemetics were generally rare and reported in less than half of the included studies, yielding a low quality of evidence for these end points. In general, combinations of different antiemetics were more effective than single prophylaxes. In children above 3 years of age, the same principles should be applied as in adults. For these patients, there is a high degree of evidence for the combination of dexamethasone and 5­HT3 receptor antagonists. When PONV occurs, the consensus guidelines suggest that antiemetics from a class different than given as prophylaxis should be administered. To decrease the incidence of PONV and increase the quality of care, the importance of the implementation of institutional-level guidelines and protocols as well as assessment of PONV prophylaxis and PONV incidence is highly recommended.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia: An abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT3-, D2-, NK1-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia. RESULTS: 585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing. CONCLUSIONS: There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

The analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride for the prevention of postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a prolonged release formulation of conventional bupivacaine designed for prolonging local or peripheral regional single injection anesthesia. To this day, the benefit of the new substance on relevant end points is discussed controversial. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative pain scores and morphine consumption between patients treated with LB and bupivacaine hydrochloride in a systematic review and meta-analysis. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified in Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science up to May 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methodology. Primary end points were the mean pain score difference and the relative morphine equivalent (MEQ) consumption expressed as the ratio of means (ROM) 24 and 72 hours postoperatively. FINDINGS: 23 RCTs including 1867 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. The mean pain score difference at 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the LB group, at -0.37 (95% CI -0.56 to -0.19). The relative MEQ consumption after 24 hours was also significantly lower in the LB group, at 0.85 (0.82 to 0.89). At 72 hours, the pain score difference was not significant at -0.25 (-0.71 to 0.20) and the MEQ ratio was 0.85 (0.77 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: The beneficial effect on pain scores and opioid consumption was small but not clinically relevant, despite statistical significance. The effect was stable among all studies, indicating that it is independent of the application modality.

Treatment of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine during caesarean section: Results from HYPOTENS, a national, multicentre, prospective, noninterventional study.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, hypotension induced by spinal anaesthesia is commonly treated with a combination of cafedrine hydrochloride (C, 200 mg) and theodrenaline hydrochloride (T, 10 mg) in 2 ml. We compared the effectiveness of C/T with ephedrine. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the speed of onset and the ability to restore blood pressure without an increase in heart rate. Secondary objectives were to evaluate maternal/foetal outcomes and the number of required additional boluses or other additional measures. DESIGN: HYPOTENS was a national, multicentre, prospective, open-label, two-armed, noninterventional study comparing C/T with ephedrine in two prospectively defined cohorts. This study relates to the cohort of patients receiving spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SETTING: German hospitals using either C/T or ephedrine in their routine clinical practice. PATIENTS: Women aged at least 18 years receiving spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. INTERVENTIONS: Bolus administration of C/T or ephedrine at the discretion of the attending anaesthesiologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Endpoints within 15 min after initial administration of C/T or ephedrine were area under the curve between the observed SBP and the minimum target SBP; and incidence of newly occurring heart rate of at least 100 beats min-1. RESULTS: Although effective blood pressure stabilisation was achieved with both treatments, this effect was faster and more pronounced with C/T (P < 0.0001). The incidence of tachycardia and changes in heart rate were higher with ephedrine (P < 0.01). Fewer additional boluses (P < 0.01) were required with C/T. Although favourable neonatal outcomes were reported in both groups, base deficit and lactate values were greater with ephedrine (P < 0.01). Physician satisfaction was higher with C/T. CONCLUSIONS: After C/T, tachycardia was not a problem, providing an advantage over ephedrine. Fewer additional boluses were required with C/T, suggesting greater effectiveness. An increased base deficit with ephedrine suggests reduced oxygen supply or increased demands in foetal circulation. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02893241, German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00010740.

Context-sensitive decrement times for inhaled anesthetics in obese patients explored with Gas Man®.

Anesthesia care providers and anesthesia decision support tools use mathematical pharmacokinetic models to control delivery and especially removal of anesthetics from the patient's body. However, these models are not able to reflect alterations in pharmacokinetics of volatile anesthetics caused by obesity. The primary aim of this study was to refine those models for obese patients. To investigate the effects of obesity on the elimination of desflurane, isoflurane and sevoflurane for various anesthesia durations, the Gas Man® computer simulation software was used. Four different models simulating patients with weights of 70 kg, 100 kg, 125 kg and 150 kg were constructed by increasing fat weight to the standard 70 kg model. For each modelled patient condition, the vaporizer was set to reach quickly and then maintain an alveolar concentration of 1.0 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC). Subsequently, the circuit was switched to an open (non-rebreathing) circuit model, the inspiratory anesthetic concentration was set to 0 and the time to the anesthetic decrements by 67% (awakening times), 90% (recovery times) and 95% (resolution times) in the vessel-rich tissue compartment including highly perfused tissue of the central nervous system were determined. Awakening times did not differ greatly between the simulation models. After volatile anesthesia with sevoflurane and isoflurane, awakening times were lower in the more obese simulation models. With increasing obesity, recovery and resolution times were higher. The additional adipose tissue in obese simulation models did not prolong awakening times and thus may act more like a sink for volatile anesthetics. The results of these simulations should be validated by comparing the elimination of volatile anesthetics in obese patients with data from our simulation models.

Risk-adapted strategy or universal multimodal approach for PONV prophylaxis?

The issue of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains important in surgical practice, contributing to patient distress, slower recovery, and increased use of healthcare resources. Many surgical patients report it to be a worse problem than pain. Numerous findings of research indicate that PONV significantly affects patients' well-being and is among the important determinants of patient satisfaction with perioperative care. Numerous investigations have confirmed the efficacy of combining pharmacological interventions indicating that PONV is a clinical complication that is in principle avoidable. Nonetheless, PONV continues to be bothersome for too many patients. Thus, perhaps the biggest challenge across the field is to achieve a uniformly high standard of PONV management using the currently available resources. Although a risk-adapted approach has been advocated in the past, the current trend incorporated in clinical guidelines support a more liberal approach of multimodal antiemetic prevention. The current article emphasizes pros and cons of the various approaches to PONV prophylaxis and depicts most promising strategies to achieve a "PONV-free hospital."

Side Effect Rates of Opioids in Equianalgesic Doses via Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Side effects of opioids used for the treatment of acute pain frequently limit their analgesic quality. Many studies have compared opioid side effects in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), but it remains unclear whether there are specific side effect profiles that can be exploited when choosing an opioid for a patient. In this review, we wanted to determine the risk ratios (RRs) for the most common side effects when using different opioids for intravenous PCA in equianalgesic doses and rank the substances accordingly. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Web of Science identified 63 randomized controlled trials comparing opioids under equianalgesic conditions. Inclusion criteria were comparable pain stimulus between groups, equal coanalgesic treatment, and comparable resulting pain scores. Quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with 6 items. Frequentistic network meta-analysis was conducted with morphine as the comparator. This method not only summarizes all estimated effects from direct comparisons of different interventions but also allows for indirect comparisons between interventions that can be linked via the common comparator, in which case the indirect evidence can be used to enhance the precision of the direct comparisons. Primary end points of this study were RRs for nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and events of sedation, as well as mean differences for scores of sedation. Events of respiratory depression were counted. Secondary end point was patient satisfaction (mean difference). The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017062355). RESULTS: Sixteen opioid interventions were compared in the largest network (nausea and vomiting outcome) and 7 opioid interventions in the smallest network (sedation events outcome). Most interventions did not differ from morphine on the primary outcomes (side effects), with some exceptions. Buprenorphine had a significantly higher RR of nausea and vomiting, whereas fentanyl had a lower RR of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine, butorphanol, methadone, and pethidine/meperidine had a lower risk of pruritus. Respiratory depression was rare (22 of 2452 patients). Pethidine/meperidine, fentanyl, and oxymorphone caused significantly lower sedation scores. Tramadol caused significantly lower satisfaction scores, whereas oxycodone, alfentanil, remifentanil, fentanyl, and pethidine/meperidine caused significantly higher satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: The opiate chosen for treatment most likely has little effect on the incidence of pruritus and nausea/vomiting, although considerable differences exist in terms of better and worse opioids in the presented rankings. Larger differences between drugs were observed with regard to sedation and patient satisfaction, and choosing the appropriate opioid may help to improve PCA in this regard.

[Patient-controlled Analgesia (PCA): an Overview About Methods, Handling and New Modalities]. / Patientenkontrollierte Analgesie: Methoden, Handhabung und Ausbaufähigkeit.

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is one of the well established methods for the treatment of postoperative pain. A cochrane-review concluded that PCA is associated with better postoperative pain ratings and improved patient-satifaction compared to traditional way of administering opioids. Some prerequisites concerning patient selection, education of the patient and the medical staff, and supervision during PCA therapy are mandatory for a safe use of PCA. Current PCA modalities (intravenous and epidural routes of application) are expanded by newer, less invasive routes of drug administration, e.g. by the iontophoretic transdermal and the sublingual route. Their role in improving safety and the quality of pain therapy on the one hand side, and costs on the other hand side are discussion.

Cafedrine/Theodrenaline (20:1) Is an Established Alternative for the Management of Arterial Hypotension in Germany-a Review Based on a Systematic Literature Search.

A 20:1 combination of cafedrine:theodrenaline (Akrinor®) is widely used in Germany for the treatment of hypotensive states during anesthesia and in emergency medicine. Although this drug formulation has been available since 1963, there are few studies relating to its use and many of the data are only available in German. In this article, we summarize the available data and propose mechanisms for the effects of cafedrine/theodrenaline on cardiac muscle cells and vascular smooth muscle cells. Cafedrine/theodrenaline leads to a rapid increase in mean arterial pressure that is characterized by increased cardiac preload, stroke volume, and cardiac output. Systemic vascular resistance and heart rate remain mostly unchanged. Factors which impact the effects of cafedrine/theodrenaline are gender, high arterial pressure at baseline, use of ß-blockers, and heart failure. Importantly, the drug is frequently used in obstetric anesthesia without detrimental effects on umbilical cord pH or APGAR score.

Use of Fentanyl Iontophoretic Transdermal System (ITS) (IONSYS®) in the Management of Patients with Acute Postoperative Pain: A Case Series.

Fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system (ITS) [IONSYS®, The Medicines Company, Parsippany, NJ, USA] is a needle-free, patient-controlled, postoperative opioid pain management treatment. It is indicated for the short-term management of acute postoperative pain in adults requiring opioid analgesia in the hospital. The safety and effectiveness of fentanyl ITS for acute postoperative pain management has been demonstrated in a range of surgery and patient types studied in seven phase 3 trials (three placebo-controlled trials and four active-comparator trials). The majority of the patients in the phase 3 trials had undergone either abdominal/pelvic, orthopedic, or thoracic surgery. Consistent with the prescribing information, physicians in clinical practice may treat patients with this system following any type of surgery including those that may not have been included in the phase 3 trials. The purpose of this case series is to illustrate how fentanyl ITS is being utilized for postoperative pain management in real-world clinical practice following a variety of surgeries and in current pain management protocols that may have evolved since the completion of the phase 3 program. There are seven cases from three clinical centers described within this case series, each using fentanyl ITS according to the prescribing information. The surgery types included are bariatric (N = 3), prostate (N = 2), colorectal (N = 1), and perirectal abscess drainage (N = 1). A systematic review of each patient chart was conducted via a standardized retrospective assessment by the clinicians who managed each patient. Additionally, each healthcare professional was interviewed regarding their overall experience and key learnings using fentanyl ITS. Overall, fentanyl ITS was effective and well tolerated in these case reports in current-day clinical practice settings. These case studies are informative about fentanyl ITS use shortly after product approval and set the stage for additional clinical research.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery.

BACKGROUND: The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects including nausea and constipation. These adverse effects prevent smooth postoperative recovery. On the other hand not all patients may be suited to, and take benefit from, epidural analgesia used to enhance postoperative recovery. The non-opioid lidocaine was investigated in several studies for its use in multi-modal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 5 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), and reference lists of articles. We searched the trial registry database ClinicalTrials.gov, contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with epidural analgesia in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The intravenous lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively prior to incision and continued at least until the end of surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was independently assessed by two authors according to the methodological procedures specified by the Cochrane Collaboration. Data were extracted by two independent authors. We collected trial data on postoperative pain, recovery of gastrointestinal function, length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, surgical complication rates, and adverse effects of the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 trials involving 2802 participants. Two trials compared intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia. In all the remaining trials placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (12), laparoscopic abdominal (13), or various other surgical procedures (20).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.We found evidence of effect for intravenous lidocaine on the reduction of postoperative pain (visual analogue scale, 0 to 10 cm) compared to placebo or no treatment at 'early time points (one to four hours)' (mean difference (MD) -0.84 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.10 to -0.59; low-quality evidence) and at 'intermediate time points (24 hours)' (MD -0.34 cm, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; low-quality evidence) after surgery. However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain at 'late time points (48 hours)' (MD -0.22 cm, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.03; low-quality evidence). Pain reduction was most obvious at 'early time points' in participants undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.78; low-quality evidence) and open abdominal surgery (MD -0.72, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.47; moderate-quality evidence). No evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain in participants undergoing all other surgeries (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.28; low-quality evidence). Quality of evidence is limited due to inconsistency and indirectness (small trial sizes).Evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on gastrointestinal recovery regarding the reduction of the time to first flatus (MD -5.49 hours, 95% CI -7.97 to -3.00; low-quality evidence), time to first bowel movement (MD -6.12 hours, 95% CI -7.36 to -4.89; low-quality evidence), and the risk of paralytic ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.99; low-quality evidence). However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on shortening the time to first defaecation (MD -9.52 hours, 95% CI -23.24 to 4.19; very low-quality evidence).Furthermore, we found evidence of positive effects for lidocaine administration on secondary outcomes such as reduction of length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea, intraoperative and postoperative opioid requirements. There was limited data on the effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects (e.g. death, arrhythmias, other heart rate disorders or signs of lidocaine toxicity) compared to placebo treatment as only a limited number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects of the lidocaine intervention.The comparison of intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia revealed no evidence of effect for lidocaine on relevant outcomes. However, the results have to be considered with caution due to imprecision of the effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low to moderate evidence that this intervention, when compared to placebo, has an impact on pain scores, especially in the early postoperative phase, and on postoperative nausea. There is limited evidence that this has further impact on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as gastrointestinal recovery, length of hospital stay, and opioid requirements. So far there is a scarcity of studies that have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects; the optimal dose; timing (including the duration of the administration); and the effects when compared with epidural anaesthesia.

Impact of medical training and clinical experience on the assessment of oxygenation and hypoxaemia after general anaesthesia: an observational study.

In Germany it is common practice to use pulse oximetry and supplementary oxygen only on request in patients breathing spontaneously transferred to the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) following surgery under general anaesthesia. The main aim was to study the influence of medical training and clinical experience on assessing SpO(2) and detecting hypoxaemia in these patients. The second aim was to do a preliminary assessment whether this practice can be found in countries other than Germany. Anaesthetists, nurses and medical students estimated SpO(2) in patients breathing room air at the end of transfer to the PACU following surgery (including all major surgical fields) under general anaesthesia. Estimated SpO(2) was compared to SpO(2) measured by pulse oximetry. A survey was carried out among European anaesthesists concerning the use of pulse oximetry and supplementary oxygen during patient transfer to the PACU. Hypoxaemia (SpO(2) < 90 %) occurred in 154 (13.5 %) out of 1,138 patients. Anaesthetists, nurses, and medical students identified only 25, 23, and 21 patients of those as being hypoxaemic, respectively. Clinical experience did not improve detection of hypoxaemia both in anaesthetists (p = 0.63) and nurses (p = 0.18). Use of pulse oximetry and supplemental oxygen during patient transfer to the PACU in European countries differs to a large extent. It seems to be applied only on request in many hospitals. Considering the uncertainty about deleterious effects of transient, short lasting hypoxaemia routine use of pulse oximetry is advocated for patient transfer to the PACU.

Feasibility and precision of subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in patients undergoing CABG surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate if subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring (sCGM) is feasible in cardiac surgery and if reliable glucose values are reported under hypothermic extracorporeal circulation. DESIGN: Feasibility trial. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Ten consecutive patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. INTERVENTIONS: Prior to surgery, during hypothermic extracorporeal bypass, and 48 hours postoperatively, arterial blood glucose samples were compared with sCGM every 30 minutes. Statistical analysis utilized Clarke's error grid and Bland-Altman plot. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-one pairs of glucose measurements were recorded including 59 during hypothermic extracorporeal circulation. Agreement between these measurements was acceptable, with a regression line slope of 0.88 and an offset of 17.4 (p = 0.87). Error grid analysis indicated a safe margin of 99.1% within zone A (no clinical action needed) or zone B (values would not lead to inappropriate treatment). Only 0.9% were plotted in zone D (potentially dangerous failure). Measurements during hypothermic extracorporeal circulation were comparable. Correlation coefficient was 0.760. The offset regression line was more pronounced (50.9) with a flatter slope (0.640). Within the error grid all plot values were in zone A or B. CONCLUSIONS: sCGM compared with arterial blood gas glucose monitoring under hypothermic extracorporeal circulation appears to be feasible and reliable.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting: how to deal with refractory PONV.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) constitutes a significant factor in delaying recovery after anesthesia and impairing patient satisfaction. To date the prevention of PONV using single or multimodal interventions, usually based on risk assessment, has gained some popularity. However, comprehensive implementation and knowledge transfer of the latest accomplishments in the prevention of PONV is only slowly being adopted into clinical practice. Preventing PONV is the first step in avoiding refractory PONV. This review comments mainly on the management of refractory PONV. As the data on coping with established PONV are rare, further studies focusing on treatment of established PONV are needed.

Quantifying prognosis with risk predictions.

Prognosis is a forecast, based on present observations in a patient, of their probable outcome from disease, surgery and so on. Research methods for the development of risk probabilities may not be familiar to some anaesthesiologists. We briefly describe methods for identifying risk factors and risk scores. A probability prediction rule assigns a risk probability to a patient for the occurrence of a specific event. Probability reflects the continuum between absolute certainty (Pi = 1) and certified impossibility (Pi = 0). Biomarkers and clinical covariates that modify risk are known as risk factors. The Pi as modified by risk factors can be estimated by identifying the risk factors and their weighting; these are usually obtained by stepwise logistic regression. The accuracy of probabilistic predictors can be separated into the concepts of 'overall performance', 'discrimination' and 'calibration'. Overall performance is the mathematical distance between predictions and outcomes. Discrimination is the ability of the predictor to rank order observations with different outcomes. Calibration is the correctness of prediction probabilities on an absolute scale. Statistical methods include the Brier score, coefficient of determination (Nagelkerke R2), C-statistic and regression calibration. External validation is the comparison of the actual outcomes to the predicted outcomes in a new and independent patient sample. External validation uses the statistical methods of overall performance, discrimination and calibration and is uniformly recommended before acceptance of the prediction model. Evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials should be obtained to show the effectiveness of risk scores for altering patient management and patient outcomes.

Possibilities and limitations in the pharmacological management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after a standard anaesthetic technique consisting of inhalational anaesthetics and opioids and no PONV prophylaxis is up to 30%. Being one of the most common complaints following surgery under general anaesthesia, it is not surprising that PONV is a considerable cause of dissatisfaction with recovery from anaesthesia and remains one of the most commonly used items in surveys assessing patient satisfaction with the perioperative period and in scoring systems for the quality of recovery following anaesthesia. The weakest link in the chain from research to patient benefit is the implementation of well proven strategies. Rather than simply following existing consensus guidelines, anaesthesiologists should critically assess whether the algorithms introduced produce the desired effect. Risk-adapted strategies may work, but recent implementation studies suggest that compliance with these algorithms may be poor and that high-risk patients often do not receive appropriate antiemetic prophylaxis. Multimodal prevention may represent a more simple approach and, thus, a more reliable strategy to reduce the incidence of PONV. Such an approach would circumvent the inherent weaknesses of the need to undertake a risk assessment for each individual patient. Anaesthesiologists need to know about the new agents available to manage PONV, such as the NK1-antagonists or the newer 5-HT3 antagonists, but should not forget the traditional and well established antiemetics that are valuable components in the current portfolio. The low cost of most of the currently available antiemetics and the low incidence of side-effects suggests that a liberal antiemetic prophylaxis regimen is a meaningful option in order to eliminate or substantially reduce the 'big little problem'.

Impact of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone on the incidence of surgical site infections: a case-control study.

AIMS: Dexamethasone is recommended in several international guidelines to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, a problem especially frequent in gynecological patients. Despite the increasing use of dexamethasone for this indication there are limited data concerning potential harmful effects of corticosteroids in surgical patients, especially the potential negative impact on wound healing and surgical site infection (SSI). This case-control study was conducted to look for potentially harmful effects of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone with respect to the occurrence of SSI in gynecological and obstetric surgery patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 3449 patients undergoing inpatient gynecological or obstetric surgical procedures for the occurrence of deep SSI requiring surgical intervention or prolonged antibiotic treatment. These case patients were matched to control patients according to the surgeon performing the procedure, the type of surgery, biometric data, and known risk factors for SSI. Furthermore, timely linearity of dexamethasone use and SSI rate was exploratorily analyzed using several auto-regressive, integrated, moving-average models. RESULTS: Forty patients with deep SSI were matched to 158 controls. The risk profile for wound infections of both groups was comparable. Forty-five percent (95% confidence interval: 29-62%) of the case patients were treated with dexamethasone and 49% (95% confidence interval: 41-57%) of the control group received the drug. An increasing use of dexamethasone over time was not followed by an increased SSI rate. There were no timely correlations between dexamethasone usage and the occurrence of SSI. CONCLUSION: In this case-control study we could not detect any evidence for an increased risk for SSI after a single-dose of dexamethasone (4-8 mg) in gynecological patients.