Dexamethasone in Combination with Dolasetron for Prophylaxis in the Ambulatory Setting

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (6) ◽  
pp. 1346-1350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margarita Coloma ◽  
Paul F. White ◽  
Scott D. Markowitz ◽  
Charles W. Whitten ◽  
Amy R. Macaluso ◽  
...  

Background Postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains a common problem despite routine antiemetic prophylaxis. Therefore, the authors investigated the effect of administering 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone as an adjunct to a 5-HT3 antagonist (12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron) with respect to patient outcome. Methods Outpatients (N = 140) were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, institutional review board-approved protocol involving two antiemetic treatment groups. After induction of anesthesia, the control group received 1 ml intravenous saline, whereas the dexamethasone group received 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone. Both groups received 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron at the time of gallbladder removal. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic episodes, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea score, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores were assessed at 24 h after surgery. Results Although there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the early recovery period, the dexamethasone group had a shorter stay in the day-surgery unit (136 +/- 57 vs. 179 +/- 62 min) and more rapidly achieved discharge criteria (161 +/- 32 vs. 209 +/- 39 min). In addition, fewer patients in the dexamethasone group experienced nausea at home within 24 h after discharge (13 vs. 28%, P < 0.05). Finally, the dexamethasone group reported higher quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores (P < 0.05). Conclusions The authors conclude that the adjunctive use of 4 mg intravenous dexamethasone shortened the time to achieve discharge criteria and improved the quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores after laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures in outpatients receiving prophylaxis with 12.5 mg intravenous dolasetron.

2002 ◽  
Vol 97 (6) ◽  
pp. 1387-1392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margarita Coloma ◽  
Paul F. White ◽  
Babatunde O. Ogunnaike ◽  
Scott D. Markowitz ◽  
Philip M. Brown ◽  
...  

Background This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. Methods After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand; and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. Results The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs.40%, P <0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. Conclusions Acustimulation with the ReliefBand can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.


2002 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 1075-1081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul F. White ◽  
Tijani Issioui ◽  
Jie Hu ◽  
Stephanie B. Jones ◽  
Jayne E. Coleman ◽  
...  

Background Antiemetic drugs are costly, are associated with variable efficacy, and can produce unwanted side effects when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. This clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation using a ReliefBand to ondansetron (Zofran) when utilized alone or in combination for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after plastic surgery. Methods A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study design was conducted to compare three prophylactic antiemetic treatment regimens in 120 outpatients undergoing plastic surgery procedures with routine low-dose droperidol prophylaxis: (1) ondansetron (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) acustimulation (n = 40), 2 ml intravenous saline and an active ReliefBand; and (3) combination (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and an active ReliefBand. The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for "rescue" antiemetics, were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. The outcome variables assessed included recovery times, quality of recovery score, time to resumption of normal diet, and patient satisfaction with the prophylactic antiemetic therapy. Results Use of the ReliefBand in combination with ondansetron significantly reduced nausea (20 vs. 50%), vomiting (0 vs. 20%), and the need for rescue antiemetics (10 vs. 37%) compared with ondansetron alone at 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, the ability to resume a normal diet (74 vs. 35%) within 24 h after surgery was significantly improved when the ReliefBand was used to supplement ondansetron (vs. ondansetron alone). Finally, the quality of recovery (90 +/- 10 vs.70 +/- 20) and patient satisfaction (94 +/- 10 vs. 75 +/- 22) scores were significantly higher in the combination group the ondansetron group. There were no significant differences between the ReliefBand and ondansetron when administered as adjuvants to droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis. Conclusions The ReliefBand compared favorably to ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the acustimulation device enhanced the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron after plastic surgery.


1970 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Gautam ◽  
BR Shrestha ◽  
P Lama ◽  
S Rai

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common distressing experience in patients following laparoscopic surgeries. This study was aimed at comparing the efficacies of Ondansetron-Dexamethasone combination with each drug alone as a prophylaxis against PONV in patients after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy done under general anaesthesia. Materials and methods: Hundred and fifty ASA I and II patients, aged 23 to 65 yrs, were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial to receive one of three treatment regimens: 4 mg Ondansetron (Group O), 8 mg Dexamethasone (Group D) or 4 mg Ondansetron plus 8 mg Dexamethasone (Group OD) (n=50 for each). A standardized balanced general anaesthetic technique was employed. Any episode of PONV and need for rescue antiemetic were assessed at six, 12 and 24 hrs post operation. Complete response was defined as no PONV in 24 hrs and need for rescue antiemetic was considered as failure of prophylaxis. Pain scores, time to first analgesia demand, amount of Meperidine consumption, adverse event(s) and duration of hospital stay were recorded. Results: Complete response occurred in 66.7, 66.0 and 89.4% in Groups O, D and OD respectively. Rescue antiemetics were required in 29.2, 31.9 and 8.5% of patients in Groups O, D, and OD respectively. Significantly high incidence of vomiting and failure of prophylaxis (19.1%) occurred in group D during the first six hrs (P=0.023 versus O & 0.008 versus OD). More frequent antiemetic rescue was required in group O at 6 to 24 hr interval as compared to group OD (P=0.032). Conclusion: Combination of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone is better than each drug alone in preventing PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dexamethasone alone is significantly less effective in preventing early vomiting compared to its combination with Ondansetron; whereas Ondansetron alone is less effective against late PONV as compared with combination therapy. Key words: Antiemetic prophylaxis; Dexamethasone; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Ondansetron; postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) doi: 10.3126/kumj.v6i3.1706 Kathmandu University Medical Journal (2008), Vol. 6, No. 3, Issue 23, 319-328


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila Capasso

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) continue to be a serious problem in the ambulatory setting. These symptoms are among the most undesired complications following surgery and can adversely affect the quality of recovery for many patients. Previous research has concluded that the identification of risk factors for PONV/PDNV is a first step in developing effective prevention strategies. The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of PONV/ PDNV in the ambulatory setting in female clients who were treated with transdermal scopolamine (TDS) for motion sickness as compared to those patients who were not treated with TDS. The study design was a two-group retrospective chart review. Of the group identified with a positive history and not treated with TDS, 54% (n=6) developed PONV /PDNV as compared to 26% (n=3) that were treated. This pilot study provided preliminary support that preoperative identification of PONV/PDNV risk factors and treatment with TDS reduces PONV/PDNV. Standardized, comprehensive risk factor identification in the preoperative period is indicated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document