Review and recommendations for the prevention, management, and treatment of postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting.

Patients have rated severe nausea to be worse than postoperative pain. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is 25%-30% and can lead to delayed discharge and unanticipated hospital admission. After outpatient surgery, the overall incidence of postdischarge nausea has been reported to be 17% and of vomiting 8%, higher than nausea and vomiting reported during the procedure or recovery. Patients who experienced postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) were unable to resume normal daily activities as quickly. This paper addresses the frequency, pathophysiology and patient perception of PONV and PDNV and reviews antiemetics and adjunctive medications used for the prevention, management, and treatment of PONV and PDNV. For each, the indication, mechanism of action, adverse effects, drug interactions, and implications for oral surgery and outpatient sedation are provided. Because many antiemetics are available for prevention, management, and treatment of PONV and PDNV, optimal medication choices are important for each procedure and patient.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The common and distressing complications of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the main concern of 40-70% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The first step in preventing PONV after LC is to reduce the risk factors involving patient characteristics, surgical procedure, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care. Particularly, the use of propofol-based anesthesia can reduce the incidence of PONV after LC. Second, prophylactic antiemetics including antihistamines (dimenhydrinate), phenothiazines (perphenazine), butyrophenones (droperidol), benzamides (metoclopramide), dexamethasone, and serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, and ramosetron) are available for preventing PONV after LC. Third, antiemetic therapy combined with a serotonin receptor antagonist (ondansetron, granisetron) and droperidol or dexamethasone is highly effective in the prevention of PONV after LC. Fourth, acupressure at the P6 point is a nonpharmacologic technique that is as effective as ondansetron for preventing PONV after LC. Knowledge regarding the risk factors for PONV and antiemetics is needed for the management of PONV after LC.

[Guidelines for prophylaxis and treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting]. / Recommandations pour la prévention et le traitement des nausées et vomissements induits par la chimiothérapie.

For the past two decades, significant developments have been made in supportive care for the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). A better understanding of the pathophysiology of vomiting and the introduction of two new classes of antiemetic agents with a high therapeutic index (serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists [anti-5HT3 or setrons] in the 1990s and neurokinin type 1 receptor antagonists [anti-NK1] in 2000), possibly combined with corticosteroids, have helped to improve the management of this distressing side effect, constantly feared by patients. It is essential to distinguish between the anticipatory, acute (first 24 hours) and delayed phases of CINV, to take into account the emetogenic potential of the different chemotherapy protocols (very low, low, moderate and high) together with individual risk factors. The authors would like to propose methodological and therapeutic recommendations for the primary and secondary prophylaxis of the acute and delayed phases of CINV, based on recent publications by international learned societies.

[New antiemetic strategies - not only in oncology]. / Neue antiemetische Strategien - nicht nur in der Onkologie.

Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in daily clinical practice. For appropriate diagnostics the knowledge of the pathopysiologic origin of nausea and vomiting is indispensable. Furthermore the diagnostic pathway usually has to be approached by an interdisciplinary team. Due to the broad spectrum of emetogenic causes several symptom-based treatment strategies are nowadays available. These include several kinds of antiemetics with different mechanisms of action and with an varying antiemetic potential. The antiemetic strategy is based on individual patient factors as well as on the receptor specific mechanism of action of the antiemetic drug and also the expected side effects. A number of modern antiemetic agents are available for the management of nausea and vomiting, including 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists and NK(1) receptor antagonists. However, other conventional antiemetic drugs are still in use and should not be underestimated.

[Postoperative nausea and vomiting--what's new in anti-emetic pharmacotherapy?]. / Alles beim Alten in der Pharmakotherapie von PONV?

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists represent a new approach in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and show an efficacy comparable with those of common antiemetics with some evidence for superiority with regard to vomiting. Currently, only aprepitant is available as an oral preparation. Palonosetron is a new representative of the serotonin-3 receptor antagonists but without the hoped for superiority on the 2nd and 3rd postoperative days. However, available data do suggest that palanosetron does not prolong the OT (c) interval. When using 5-HT (3)-receptor antagonists for the prevention of PONV, anaesthetists should be aware of negative interactions with analgesics. Low-dose droperidol has regained approval and should be considered as first choice among the current available neuroleptics.

Nausea and vomiting in the ambulatory surgical setting.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a significant problem in the ambulatory surgical setting. PONV results in delayed discharge, increased cost, and decreased patient satisfaction. Treating patients at risk for PONV preemptively before surgery can minimize these negative outcomes. Nurses play a key role in preventing PONV by first identifying patients at risk. Administering medication and fluids, providing comfort measures, and assessing the patient throughout the postoperative course are crucial nursing functions in the treatment of PONV. However, successful patient outcomes require a multidisciplinary approach. There have been great advances in the treatment of this common postoperative complication with improved anesthesia techniques and newer antiemetic drugs. Future research is needed to determine optimal combinations and timing of medications. Effective prevention and treatment of PONV improve patient outcomes and provide a more pleasant postoperative experience for the patient.

Antiemetics: an update and the MASCC guidelines applied in clinical practice.

Nausea and vomiting are two of the most severe problems for patients treated with chemotherapy. Until the late 1970s, nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy was an almost neglected research area. With the introduction of cisplatin, the cytotoxin with the highest emetic potential, research was stimulated and has now resulted in the development of two new classes of antiemetics, the serotonin and neurokinin antagonists. A large number of trials have fine-tuned antiemetic therapy and made evidence-based recommendations possible for the majority of patients receiving chemotherapy. This Review discusses the pathophysiology of nausea and vomiting, the development of antiemetics, highlights some of the newest antiemetics, and finally summarizes recommendations from the evidence-based guidelines developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: cost effective pharmacologic treatments.

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) can range from morning sickness to moderate NVP to hyperemesis gravidarum (HG). If it is left unmanaged, health plans may pay for expensive unproven outpatient therapies that are not necessary for treatment of simple morning sickness or moderate NVP. Meanwhile, patients with serious hyperemesis gravidarum whose treatment is delayed may suffer needlessly, ending up with multiple hospitalizations or emergency room (ER) visits. Two expensive, heavily marketed outpatient therapies with scant supportive evidence in the treatment of NVP have recently emerged and some health plans are providing coverage without a thorough review of the medical evidence or cost implications. Health plans may have an opportunity to save a significant amount and to improve member satisfaction by utilizing evidence-based knowledge of pharmacologic interventions that are driven, in order, by known safety, proven efficacy, and cost effectiveness.

Fármacos antieméticos / Antivomiting drugs

En este artículo se presentan los diferentes fármacos utilizados para el tratamiento de las náuseas y vómitos. Se describen sus modos de acción, sus efectos adversos y las precauciones y advertencias de su uso.

Psychiatric and behavioral side effects of the newer antiepileptic drugs in adults with epilepsy.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric/behavioral side effects (PSEs) are common in patients taking antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The objective of the study described here was to compare the PSE profiles of the newer AEDs. METHODS: We examined the charts of 1394 adult outpatients seen at the Columbia Comprehensive Epilepsy Center who had taken one of the newer AEDs. We compared the rate of AED-related PSEs in patients newly started on the newer AEDs both before and after controlling for non-AED predictors of PSEs. RESULTS: Overall, 221 of 1394 (16%) patients experienced PSEs. The average rate of AED-related PSEs for a single AED was 8.4%, with 6.1% resulting in dosage change and 4.3% resulting in AED discontinuation. Significantly fewer PSEs were attributed to gabapentin (n=160, 0.6% incidence, P<0.001) and lamotrigine (n=547, 4.8% incidence, P<0.001), and significantly more PSEs were attributed to levetiracetam (n=521, 15.7% incidence, P<0.001; 8.8% discontinued LEV because of PSEs). Vigabatrin, felbamate, and oxcarbazepine were associated with similarly low rates of PSEs in many analyses but with fewer of patients. Tiagabine was associated with high PSE rates (similar to those for levetiracetam), but was used much less commonly at our center. Intermediate rates of PSEs were attributed to topiramate and zonisamide (both nonsignificant). Psychiatric history was the most significant nondrug predictor of AED-related PSEs (PSEs occurred in 23% of patients with a psychiatric history vs 12% of patients without such a history, P<0.001). The relative rates of AED-related PSEs were similar when controlling for non-AED predictors and when analyzing only patients on monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between the newer AEDs in terms of their PSE profiles. Patients taking levetiracetan experience significantly more PSEs than average, and patients taking gabapentin and lamotrigine experience significantly fewer PSEs. Even with the medication with the highest rate of PSEs (levetiracetam), less than 10% of patients discontinued it because of PSEs. A past psychiatric condition is the most significant nondrug predictor of AED-related PSEs.

New antiemetic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Important progress in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced acute and delayed emesis has been achieved but some fundamental needs still remain that requires new, efficacious antiemetic drugs. METHODS: A critical review of the results of published studies of aprepitant, a new NK1 receptor antagonist, and of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with a longer half-life. RESULTS: Aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 antagonist significantly increased the control of acute emesis with respect to dexamethasone and a 5-HT3 antagonist alone after cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. For cisplatin nausea, aprepitant combined with dexamethasone significantly increased the control of delayed emesis with respect to dexamethasone alone, while for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy aprepitant is superior to a 5-HT3 antagonist in the control of delayed emesis. Palonosetron showed superior or similar efficacy to ondansetron and dolasetron in patients submitted to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy and similar efficacy to ondansetron in patients submitted to cisplatin. CONCLUSIONS: More studies are necessary comparing aprepitant alone or combined with dexamethasone with respect to the recommended antiemetic drugs for the prevention of delayed emesis induced by cisplatin and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy as well as for palonosetron combined with dexamethasone with respect to other 5-HT3 antagonists combined with dexamethasone.

¿Es útil el tratamiento de las náuseas y vómitos postoperatorios con fármacos congéneres en caso de fracaso de la profilaxis? / When prophylaxis fails: is treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting with sameclass antiemetics useful?

No disponible

Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: The physiology, risk factors, and prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are discussed. SUMMARY: Factors to consider when determining a patient's risk for PONV include sex, history of PONV, history of motion sickness, smoking status, duration of anesthesia, use of opioids, and type of surgery. Receptors that, when activated, can cause nausea or vomiting or both include dopamine type 2, serotonin type 3, histamine type 1, and muscarinic cholinergic type 1 receptors. Patients at moderate to high risk for PONV benefit from the administration of a prophylactic antiemetic agent that blocks one or more of these receptors. Effective agents include transdermal scopolamine, prochlorperazine, promethazine, droperidol, ondansetron, dolasetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone. In high-risk patients, combining two or more antiemetics with different mechanisms of action has been shown to be more effective than using a single agent. In addition to administering a prophylactic antiemetic, it is important to reduce the patient's risk by considering regional anesthesia, considering inducing and maintaining general anesthesia with propofol, ensuring good intravenous hydration, avoiding hypotension, and providing effective analgesia. If PONV occurs in the immediate postoperative period, it is best treated with an antiemetic agent from a pharmacologic class different from that of the prophylactic agent. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy for PONV is effective, but combinations of agents may be necessary for high-risk patients. Nonpharmacologic strategies are also important.

Evaluation of new antiemetic agents and definition of antineoplastic agent emetogenicity--an update.

Development of effective antiemetic therapy depends upon an understanding of both the antiemetic agents and the emetogenic challenges these agents are designed to address. New potential antiemetic agents should be studied in an orderly manner, proceeding from phase I to phase II open-label trials and then to randomized double-blind phase III trials comparing new agents and regimens to best standard therapy. Use of placebos in place of antiemetic therapy against highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy is unacceptable. Nausea and vomiting should be evaluated separately and for both the acute and delayed periods. Defining the emetogenicity of new antineoplastic agents is a challenge, since such data are often not reliably recorded during early drug development. A four-level classification system is proposed for emetogenicity of intravenous antineoplastic agents. A separate four-level classification system for emetogenicity of oral antineoplastic agents, which are often given over an extended period of time, is also proposed.