Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Braz J Anesthesiol ; 70(5): 471-476, 2020.
Artigo em Português | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33032806

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a multifactorial surgical complication with an unclear underlying cause. Anesthetic methods, patients' characteristics and the type of surgery are considered as factors affecting PONV. This study was designed to compare the effect of inhalational and intravenous anesthesia in abdominal surgery on the incidence and severity of PONV. METHODS: A single-blinded prospective randomized clinical trial on 105 patients aged 18-65 years was carried out. Patients were divided in two groups of Total Intravenous Anesthesia (TIVA) and Inhalational anesthesia. The incidence and severity of PONV were examined at 0, 2, 6, 12, and 24hours after the surgery. The use of a rescue antiemetic was also evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty point nine percent of the patients in the inhalation group and 17.3% of the patients in the intravenous group developed PONV (p <0.001). The incidence of vomiting was reported in 11.3% of the Inhalational group and 3.8% of the TIVA group (p=0.15), and 24.5% of patients in the Inhalation group and 9.6% of patients in the intravenous group needed an antiemetic medication (p=0.043). CONCLUSION: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and the need for administration of an antiemetic rescue drug, and the severity of nausea in patients were significantly lower in the TIVA group.


Assuntos
Anestésicos Inalatórios/administração & dosagem , Anestésicos Intravenosos/administração & dosagem , Laparotomia/métodos , Náusea e Vômito Pós-Operatórios/epidemiologia , Abdome/cirurgia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Anestésicos Inalatórios/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Intravenosos/efeitos adversos , Antieméticos/administração & dosagem , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Método Simples-Cego , Adulto Jovem
2.
Rev. bras. anestesiol ; 70(5): 471-476, Sept.-Oct. 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês, Português | LILACS | ID: biblio-1143969

RESUMO

Abstract Background: Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a multifactorial surgical complication with an unclear underlying cause. Anesthetic methods, patients' characteristics and the type of surgery are considered as factors affecting PONV. This study was designed to compare the effect of inhalational and intravenous anesthesia in abdominal surgery on the incidence and severity of PONV. Methods: A single-blinded prospective randomized clinical trial on 105 patients aged 18 − 65 years was carried out. Patients were divided into two groups of Total Intravenous Anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalational anesthesia. The incidence and the severity of PONV were examined at 0, 2, 6, 12 and 24 hours after the surgery. The use of a rescue antiemetic was also evaluated. Results: 50.9% of the patients in the inhalation group and 17.3% of the patients in the intravenous group developed PONV (p < 0.001). The incidence of vomiting was reported in 11.3% of the inhalational group and 3.8% of the TIVA group (p = 0.15). 24.5% of patients in the inhalation group and 9.6% of patients in the intravenous group needed an antiemetic medication (p = 0.043). Conclusion: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and the need for administration of an antiemetic rescue drug and the severity of nausea in patients were significantly lower in the TIVA group.


Resumo Justificativa: Náusea e Vômito no Pós-Operatório (NVPO) é uma complicação multifatorial com etiologia não esclarecida. A técnica anestésica, as características dos pacientes e o tipo de cirurgia são considerados fatores que afetam a NVPO. O presente estudo foi desenhado para comparar o efeito da anestesia inalatória com anestesia intravenosa na incidência e gravidade de NVPO na cirurgia abdominal. Método: Foi realizado estudo clínico mono-cego prospectivo randomizado com 105 pacientes com idades de 18 − 65 anos. Os pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos, Anestesia Total Intravenosa (TIVA) e anestesia inalatória. A incidência e gravidade de NVPO foram avaliadas em cinco momentos: 0, 2, 6, 12 e 24 horas pós-cirurgia. O uso de antiemético de resgate também foi avaliado. Resultados: NVPO ocorreu em 50,9% dos pacientes no grupo inalatória e 17,3% dos pacientes no grupo TIVA (p< 0,001). A incidência de vômitos relatados foi 11,3% no grupo Inalatória e 3,8% no grupo TIVA (p = 0,15). Necessitaram de medicação antiemética 24,5% dos pacientes no grupo Inalatória e 9,6% dos pacientes no grupo TIVA (p = 0.043). Conclusão: A incidência de náusea e vômito no pós-operatório, a necessidade de administração de droga antiemética de resgate e a gravidade da náusea foram significantemente mais baixas no grupo TIVA.


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Adulto Jovem , Anestésicos Intravenosos/administração & dosagem , Anestésicos Inalatórios/administração & dosagem , Náusea e Vômito Pós-Operatórios/epidemiologia , Laparotomia/métodos , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Método Simples-Cego , Incidência , Anestésicos Intravenosos/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Inalatórios/efeitos adversos , Abdome/cirurgia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Antieméticos/administração & dosagem
3.
Bull Cancer ; 102(5): 405-10, 2015 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25887176

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: PostOperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV)is a major side effect related to surgery and anesthesia. Our institution is equipped with Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS). We used this database to assess and follow the effect of our quality assurance program for PONV. METHODS: Our AIMS system permits automatic storage of vital signs while other information are indexed by anesthesia providers and PACU personnel. Intra-operative and PACU events were extracted from a database by sequential query language (SQL) interrogation from year 2005 to 2010. A new prophylactic antiemetic protocol was issued for high-risk patients in our institution (dexamethasone, droperidol in the operating room and odansetron in the PACU) and initiated in 2006; in parallel, adjuvant measures influencing PONV were taken for anesthetic interventions. PONV scores and related medications, intra- and postoperative opioids and inhalational anesthetics consumption were extracted, and results were regularly shared with anesthesia providers and PACU personnel as part of quality assurance program. RESULTS: The study concerned 40,045 patients, exhaustivity or completeness was 70% in 2005 but reached 90% in 2010. PONV scores significantly improved during the years after the instauration of the new protocol (31% in 2005 vs. 13% in 2010). Concomitantly, morphine consumption and intra-operative nitrous oxide showed a steady decrease. No significant difference was noticed in the use of inhalational anesthetics. CONCLUSION: Using our AIMS database, we indirectly monitored the effectiveness of our PONV protocol but also other possible component of a multimodal approach toward these side effects.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia , Antieméticos/administração & dosagem , Sistemas de Informação Hospitalar , Neoplasias/cirurgia , Náusea e Vômito Pós-Operatórios/prevenção & controle , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Período de Recuperação da Anestesia , Anestésicos/efeitos adversos , Dexametasona/administração & dosagem , Droperidol/administração & dosagem , Esquema de Medicação , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ondansetron/administração & dosagem , Náusea e Vômito Pós-Operatórios/epidemiologia , Avaliação de Programas e Projetos de Saúde , Fatores de Risco , Adulto Jovem
4.
Rev. colomb. anestesiol ; 37(1): 13-20, feb.-abr. 2009. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS | ID: lil-594569

RESUMO

Objetivo: evaluar el efecto profiláctico antiemético de la combinación dexametasona – metoclopramida en pacientes llevados a procedimientos otorrinolaringológicos. Materiales y Métodos: En este estudio doble ciego y placebo controlado, 208 pacientes ambulatorios anestesiados con una técnica anestésica convencional, fueron aleatorizados para recibir dexametasona 8 mg durante la inducción anestésica y metoclopramida, 10 mg al final de la cirugía (Grupo A), dexametasona, 8 mg durante la inducción anestésica y placebo al final de la cirugía (Grupo B), placebo durante la inducción anestésica y metoclopramida, 10 mg al final de la cirugía (Grupo C) o placebo durante la inducción anestésica y al final de la cirugía (Grupo D). La ausencia de vómito y de náusea moderada y no solicitud de administración de medicación antiemética de rescate, se consideraron componentes de la respuesta completa al tratamiento antiemético. Resultados: Durante el período pre-alta del hospital, el número de pacientes que experimentaron respuesta completa al tratamiento profiláctico fue significativamente mayor en los grupos B (90.4%) y A (86.5%) al compararlos con los grupos D (55.8%) y C (75%). A las 24 horas, la proporción de pacientes con una respuesta completa fue significativamente mayor en el grupo A (96.2%) en comparación con los grupo C (67.3%) y D (78.8%) y de igual forma en el grupo B (88%) en comparación con el grupo C (67.3%). Conclusiones: La combinación de dexametasona con metoclopramida no es significativamente más efectiva que la administración de dexametasona sola en la profilaxis de náusea y vómito postoperatorios.


Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prophylactic antiemetic effects of the combination dexamethasone – metoclopramide in patients undergoing ear-nose-throat procedures. Materials and methods: In this placebo-controlled, double-blind study, 208 outpatients under standardized anesthetic were randomized to receive dexamethasone 8 mg before anesthesia induction and metoclopramide, 10 mg at the end of surgery (Group A), dexamethasone 8 mg before anesthesia induction and placebo at the end of surgery (Group B), placebo before anesthesia induction and metoclopramide, 10 mg at the end of surgery (Group C) or placebo before anesthesia induction and at the end of surgery (Group D). Complete response to prophylactic antiemetic medication was defined as no vomiting no sustained moderate nausea and no requesting of antiemetic drug. Results: During predischarge period, the number of patients with complete response to prophylactic antiemetic medication was significantly higher in groups B (90.4%) and A (86.5%) in comparison with groups D (55.8%) and C (75%). At the 24 h follow-up evaluation, complete response was higher in group A (96.2%) in comparison with groups C (67.3%) and D (78.8%). Conclusions: combination dexamethasone-metoclopramide is not more effective than administration of dexamethasone alone in the posoperative profylaxis of nausea and vomiting.


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Adulto , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Dexametasona , Metoclopramida , Náusea , Vômito
5.
Anest. analg. reanim ; 21(2): 3-3, 2006. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: lil-694187

RESUMO

RESUMEN Las náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios (NVPO) son una de las complicaciones anestésicas más frecuentes y que se presentan en el 20-30% de los casos. OBJETIVO: el objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la eficacia de la dexametasona a dosis de 8 mg I/V, para la prevención de las NVPO. METODOLOGÍA: se realizó un estudio prospectivo, randomizado, doble ciego, controlado con placebo, en 104 pacientes de cirugía de coordinación. Los pacientes fueron aleatorizados en 2 grupos: Grupo P (placebo) y Grupo D (dexametasona 8 mg I/V). Se administró una única dosis de 8 mg de dexametason (2 ml) o de suero fisiológico (2 ml) durante la inducción anestésica. Los pacientes fueron evaluados las primeras horas del postoperatorio en Sala de Recuperación Postanestésica (SRPA), y a las 24 horas en la Sala. Se consignó la presencia de NVPO, necesidad de antieméticos y otras complicaciones. RESULTADOS: El grupo P estuvo integrado por 53 pacientes y el grupo D por 51 pacientes. La incidencia total de NVPO (precoces y tardíos) fue de 36% en el grupo P y 12% en el grupo D (p < 0.01). En el grupo P hubo un 23% de pacientes que presentaron NVPO en SRPA y en el grupo D 12% (p > 0.05). La frecuencia de NVPO en la sala (hasta las 24 hrs.) fue del 25% en el grupo P y 2% en el grupo D (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONES: La dexametasona a dosis de 8 mg fue efectiva para reducir la frecuencia de NVPO, fundamentalmente las tardías.


SUMMARY Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are one of the most frequent anesthetic complications with an incidence rate of 20-30%. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of dexamethasone at a dose of 8 mg I.V. for PONV prevention. METHODOLOGY: we ran a prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study in 104 patients who underwent elective surgery. Patients were randomized in 2 groups: Group P (Placebo) and Group D (Dexamethasone 8 mg I.V.). A single dose of 8 mg dexamethasone (2 ml) or saline solution (2 ml) was administered during anesthetic induction. During the first postoperative hours, patients were evaluated in the Postanesthetic Care Unit (PACU), and then, at 24 hours, in their rooms. Patients were assessed for PONV, anti-emetic therapy requirements, and other complications. RESULTS: Group P had a total of 53 patients, and Group D had a total of 51 patients. The total rate of PONV (early and late) was 36% in Group P and 12% in Group D (p < 0.01). 23% of the patients in Group P and 12% in Group D, reported PONV in PACU (p > 0.05). Frequency of NVPO in the ward (up to 24 hours) was 25% for Group P and 2% for Group D (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone at a dose of 8 mg was very effective for reducing the frequency of PONV, mainly late ones.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...