Post operative nausea and vomiting, its causes, and the way of its prevention and treatment

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is still occurring in one third of the patient undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia even after following the guidelines and using multi modal approach for its prevention. Lots of studies have been done for its prevention but very few studies are done for its treatment in Post anaesthetic care unit after the failure of prophylaxis. The purpose of this article is to know about the risk factor, incidence of nausea and vomiting after surgery, its mechanism, available medication (pharmacological and nonpharmacological), reducing risk factor, and mainly to know about the method of using the antiemetic medication in PACU after the failure of the prophylactic medication.

Antiemetic medication efficacy during EPOCH and R-EPOCH treatment

Introduction This study aims to determine the adequacy of current institutional standard practice for CINV prophylaxis for EPOCH and R-EPOCH at The Ohio State University James Cancer Hospital. Methods Single-center, retrospective analysis was performed including all patients receiving EPOCH or R-EPOCH chemotherapy for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas from 1/1/2012 to 6/30/2017. The primary endpoint was rate of CINV events, which included usage of more than 50 percent of available doses of breakthrough antiemetics while inpatient, hospitalization due to CINV or related complications, or adjustments made to the CINV prophylactic or breakthrough regimen during current or subsequent cycles. Secondary endpoints included determining prescriber adherence to institutional standard CINV prophylaxis, characterization of adjustments to the antiemetic regimen following the incidence of CINV, and identification of high-risk patients that may benefit from additional CINV prophylaxis. Results Of 111 patients, 54 (48.6%) experienced CINV events with any cycle of EPOCH or R-EPOCH chemotherapy. Of those patients, 17 (31.5%) received institutional standard CINV prophylaxis at baseline, 8 (14.8%) received additional scheduled antiemetics, and 26 (48.1%) were prescribed additional breakthrough antiemetics with their first cycle of EPOCH or R-EPOCH. Younger age, diagnosis of anxiety, and previous susceptibility to nausea were significantly associated with CINV events. Conclusion This study illustrates the inadequacy of current institutional standard for CINV prophylaxis for patients receiving EPOCH and R-EPOCH, highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens. With nearly half of included patients experiencing CINV events, and most initially receiving more than our standard prophylaxis, changes to our standard antiemetics used with this chemotherapy regimen are needed.

Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting with Fosaprepitant and Granisetron in Pediatric Patients after Allogeneic HSCT

1. Background Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a feared and burdensome complication after emetogenic chemotherapy (EC), especially in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Antiemetic prophylaxis (AEP) is thus a substantial factor in the transplantation management. Guidelines recommend a comprehensive AEP with NK1R-antagonists (neurokinin-1 receptor), 5-HT3R-antagonists (5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor), and corticosteroids. The water-soluble aprepitant derivative fosaprepitant (NK1R-antagonist) was shown to be highly effective in adult patients with moderately to highly EC when combined with granisetron (5-HT3R-antagonist). There is very little experience with fosaprepitant in pediatric patients. 2. Patients and Methods In this single-center retrospective study, 80 pediatric patients during allogeneic HSCT who received AEP either with intravenous fosaprepitant and granisetron (fosaprepitant group; FG) or a standard prophylaxis regimen with granisetron two times per day(historical control group; CG) were analyzed for safety and efficacy of the prophylaxis regimen. Efficacy of the two AEP regimen was evaluated comparing the vomiting frequency, percentages of patients vomiting and the need for rescue medication (dimenhydrinate) during the acute (<24h) and the delayed (24-120h) CINV phase in both groups. Safety was evaluated comparing drug-related clinical and laboratory-chemical side-effects (exanthema, gastrointestinal symptoms, sweating, liver and kidney parameters, and electrolytes). Exclusion criteria were vomiting or receiving antiemetic medication within 48 hours before the start of antiemetic prophylaxis. 3. Results A total of 80 pediatric patients with a median age of 9 years (range 2-17 years) who underwent allogeneic HSCT between 2015 and 2018 were consecutively enrolled and analyzed. Patients were transplanted for the treatment of acute leukemia (acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), ALL-relapse, AML-relapse; total: 36.5% of the patients), myelodysplastic syndromes (4.8% of the patients) solid tumors and lymphoma (neuroblastoma, brain tumor, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma; 44.9% of the patients), and non-malignant hematopoietic diseases (thalassemia major, sickle cell anemia; 13.8% of the patients). The patients received allogeneic grafts from matched unrelated donors (48.4%), matched family donors (16.2%) and mismatched family donors (35.5%). Distribution of the patient characteristics was not significantly different in both study groups (p>0.05). The patients of the FG (n=40; HSCT between 2017 and 2018) received a single dose of fosaprepitant (3.5-4 mg per kg bodyweight (mg/kg); maximum 150 mg; intravenous (IV) infusion) directly before starting the myeloablative conditioning and as PRN (pro re nata) medication every five days after HSCT (same dosage; IV infusion), as well as granisetron (2x20 µg/kg per day; starting on the first day of the conditioning; max. 3 mg; IV infusion <30 min.). The patients of the historical CG (n=40; patients transplanted between 2013 and 2014) received granisetron only at the same dosages. Discontinuation of the antiemetic medication was not necessary for any of the patients (CG and FG). Clinical side-effects and laboratory-chemical changes were not significantly different in both study groups (p>0.05). When compared to the patients of the CG, significantly less patients of the FG experienced vomiting in both, the acute (p<0.001) and the delayed CINV phase (p<0.0001); accordingly, significantly less vomiting events (p<0.0001) were observed during both CINV phases in the FG. Furthermore, the FG received significantly fewer doses of dimenhydrinate in comparison to the CG (p<0.001). 4. Conclusions The prophylaxis regimen with fosaprepitant in combination with granisetron was safe and more effective in comparison to the standard prophylaxis regimen with granisetron only in pediatric patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT with a myeloablative conditioning. However, larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate these findings. 5. Keywords Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting; antiemetic prophylaxis; fosaprepitant; pediatric patients 6. Acknowledgments This study was supported by the Stefan-Morsch-Stiftung, Birkenfeld, Germany. Disclosures Schlegel: Miltenyi Biotec: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Seitz:Miltenyi Biotec: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Lang:Miltenyi Biotec: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Handgretinger:Miltenyi Biotec: Patents & Royalties: Co-patent holder of TcR alpha/beta depletion technologies, Research Funding.

Topical Promethazine Side Effects: Our Experience and Review of the Literature

Promethazine hydrochloride is a first-generation H1 receptor antagonist, antihistamine, and antiemetic medication that can also have strong sedative effects. The apparent ability of topical H1r/2r antagonists to target epidermal H1/2r was translated into increased efficacy in the treatment of inflammatory dermatoses, likely due to decreased inflammation and enhanced barrier function.

Incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after highly and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in the era of NK-1 receptor antagonists. Perception versus reality

e20636 Background: Physicians and nurses had underestimated the incidence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) after both high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) (Grumberg, Cancer 2004;100:2261–8; Erazo Valle, Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:2403–10). We have assessed if physicians and nurses’ perception of CNIV in their own practices after the introduction of Aprepitant was closer to reality. Methods: A prospective, observational unicenter study of adult patients receiving their first chemotherapy cycle was performed. Medical oncologists and oncology nurses also estimated the incidence of acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2–5) CINV after first administration of HEC and MEC. Eligible patients completed a 6-day diary including emetic episodes, nausea assessment, and antiemetic medication use. Observed incidence rates of acute and delayed CINV were compared with physician/nurse predictions. Results: Twenty-nine physicians and nurses and 95 patients (86.3% receiving HEC and 13.7%MEC) were recruited. Acute nausea and emesis were observed in 14.3% and 2.4% respectively of HEC patients receiving Aprepitant, and delayed nausea and emesis were observed in 14.3% and 7.1% of these patients, respectively. Physicians and nurses accurately predicted the incidence of acute and delayed CINV after HEC patients receiving Aprepitant. Acute nausea and emesis were observed in 22.2% and 0% respectively of MEC patients and delayed nausea and emesis in 33.3% and 22.2% of MEC patients, respectively. All physicians and nurses underestimated the incidence of acute nausea and delayed nausea and emesis after MEC by 15, 28 and 18 percentage points, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of aprepitant in the prevention of CINV after HEC allows a better control of CINV that is perceived accurately by physicians and nurses. By contrary, physicians and nurses continue markedly underestimating the incidence of CINV after MEC. CINV still remain important targets for improved therapeutic intervention and physicians and nurses must be aware about the real incidence of CNIV. No significant financial relationships to disclose.