Anthony L. Kovac

Consensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting

IMPLICATIONS We present evidence-based guidelines developed by an international panel of experts for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

The present guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) under the auspices of The Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel critically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. In brief, these guidelines identify risk factors for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic monotherapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis; recommend approaches for treatment of PONV when it occurs; and provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV.

Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Pain, nausea and vomiting are frequently listed by patients as their most important perioperative concerns. With the change in emphasis from an inpatient to outpatient hospital and office-based medical/surgical environment, there has been increased interest in the ‘big little problem’ of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Currently, the overall incidence of PONV is estimated to be 25 to 30%, with severe, intractable PONV estimated to occur in approximately 0.18% of all patients undergoing surgery. PONV can lead to delayed postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) recovery room discharge and unanticipated hospital admission, thereby increasing medical costs.The aetiology and consequences of PONV are complex and multifactorial, with patient-, medical- and surgery-related factors. A thorough understanding of these factors, as well as the neuropharmacology of multiple emetic receptors [dopaminergic, muscarinic, cholinergic, opioid, histamine, serotonin (5-hydroxy-tryptamine; 5-HT)] and physiology [cranial nerves VIII (acoustic-vestibular), IX (glossopharyngeal) and X (vagus), gastrointestinal reflex] relating to PONV are necessary to most effectively manage PONV. Commonly used older, traditional antiemetics for PONV include the anticholinergics (scopolamine), phenothiazines (promethazine), antihistamines (diphenhydramine), butyrophenones (droperidol) and benzamides (metoclopramide). These antiemetics have adverse effects such as dry mouth, sedation, hypotension, extrapyramidal symptoms, dystonic effects and restlessness.The newest class of antiemetics used for the prevention and treatment of PONV are the serotonin receptor antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron). These antiemetics do not have the adverse effects of the older, traditional antiemetics. Headache and dizziness are the main adverse effects of the serotonin receptor antagonists in the dosages used for PONV.The serotonin receptor antagonists have improved antiemetic effectiveness but are not as completely efficacious for PONV as they are for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Older, traditional antiemetics (such as droperidol) compare favourably with the serotonin receptor antagonists regarding efficacy for PONV prevention. Combination antiemetic therapy improves efficacy for PONV prevention and treatment.In the difficult-to-treat PONV patient (as in the chemotherapy patient), suppression of numerous emetogenic peripheral stimuli and central neuroemetic receptors may be necessary. This multimodal PONV management approach includes use of: (i) multiple different antiemetic medications (double or triple combination antiemetic therapy acting at different neuroreceptor sites); (ii) less emetogenic anaesthesia techniques; (iii) adequate intravenous hydration; and (iv) adequate pain control.

Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Comparison of Ondansetron Versus Placebo to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Ambulatory Gynecologic Surgery

BackgroundPostoperative nausea and emesis, especially in ambulatory surgical patients, remains a troublesome problem. This study was performed to compare the incidence of nausea and emesis during the 24-h postoperative period in ondan-setron-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients. MethodsUsing a randomized prospective double-blind study design, women between the ages of 18 and 70 yr undergoing gynecologic surgical procedures with general opioid anesthesia on an outpatient basis were enrolled. Ondansetron or placebo was administered prior to induction of anesthesia. Patients were stratified according to history of nausea and emesis during previous exposure to general anesthesia and randomized to dose received. ResultsData from the 544 women showed that all doses of intravenous ondansetron tested (1, 4, and 8 mg) were significantly more effective (62%, 76%, and 77%, respectively) than placebo (46%) in reducing the incidence of emesis following surgery until 24 h after recovery room entry. All these doses were more effective than placebo in patients with no prior history of emesis following surgery and the 4− and 8-mg doses were more effective than placebo in patients with a prior history of emesis following surgery. All doses of ondansetron tested were generally well tolerated with adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, and recovery room vital signs similar to those of placebo. Serum aspartate transaminase (AST) was increased in five patients (1 mg, 2 patients; 4 mg, 1 patient; 8 mg, 2 patients). In the three patients in whom subsequent analysis were performed, the serum AST had decreased to preoperative levels. ConclusionsOndansetron given intravenously to prevent postoperative nausea and emesis was highly effective in the 4− and 8-mg doses in women having ambulatory gynecologic surgery.

Controlling the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation

The hemodynamic response to the stress of laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation does not present a problem for most patients. However, patients with cardiovascular or cerebral disease may be at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from the tachycardia and hypertension resulting from this stress. These hemodynamic effects gained notice after the introduction and use of muscle relaxants, such as curare and succinylcholine, for endotracheal intubation at the time of anesthesia induction. A variety of anesthetic techniques and drugs are available to control the hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation. The method or drug of choice depends on many factors, including the urgency and length of surgery, choice of anesthetic technique, route of administration, medical condition of the patient, and individual preference. The possible solutions number as many as the medications and techniques available and depend on the individual patient and anesthesia care provider. This paper reviews these medications and techniques to guide the clinician in choosing the best methods.

Efficacy of repeat intravenous dosing of ondansetron in controlling postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial

STUDY OBJECTIVES To compare repeat intravenous (i.v.) dosing of ondansetron 4 mg with placebo for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients for whom prophylactic, preoperative ondansetron 4 mg i.v. was inadequate DESIGN Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING Ten outpatient surgical centers in the United States. PATIENTS 2,199 male and female ASA physical status I, II, and III patients > or = 12 years old scheduled to undergo outpatient surgical procedures and receive nitrous oxide-based general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS Ondansetron 4 mg i.v. was administered to all patients before induction of general anesthesia. Patients who experienced PONV or requested antiemetic therapy within 2 hours after discontinuation of inhaled anesthesia were randomized (1:1) to either a repeat i.v. ondansetron 4 mg dose or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Of the 2,199 patients prophylactically treated with ondansetron 4 mg before anesthesia induction, 1,771 (80.5%) did not experience PONV or request antiemetic therapy during the 2 hours following discontinuation of anesthesia. Of the 428 patients who experienced PONV or requested antiemetic therapy during the same period, and were randomized to additional treatment (214 randomized to ondansetron, 214 randomized to placebo), the incidence of complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication, no study withdrawal) was similar for both ondansetron-randomized and placebo-randomized groups for the 2-hour (34% and 43%, respectively, p = 0.074) and 24-hour (28% and 32%, respectively, p = 0.342) postrandomization study periods. Repeat ondansetron dosing was not more effective than placebo in controlling either postoperative emesis or the severity/duration of postoperative nausea. The administration of an additional dose of ondansetron 4 mg postoperatively did not result in an increased incidence of adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS In patients for whom preoperative prophylaxis with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. is not successful, a repeat dose of ondansetron 4 mg i.v. in the postanesthesia care unit does not appear to offer additional control of PONV.

Who is at risk for postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery

Background: About one in four patients suffers from postoperative nausea and vomiting. Fortunately, risk scores have been developed to better manage this outcome in hospitalized patients, but there is currently no risk score for postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) in ambulatory surgical patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter study of 2,170 adults undergoing general anesthesia at ambulatory surgery centers in the United States from 2007 to 2008. PDNV was assessed from discharge until the end of the second postoperative day. Logistic regression analysis was applied to a development dataset and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated in a validation dataset. Results: The overall incidence of PDNV was 37%. Logistic regression analysis of the development dataset (n = 1,913) identified five independent predictors (odds ratio; 95% CI): female gender (1.54; 1.22 to 1.94), age less than 50 yr (2.17; 1.75 to 2.69), history of nausea and/or vomiting after previous anesthesia (1.50; 1.19 to 1.88), opioid administration in the postanesthesia care unit (1.93; 1.53 to 2.43), and nausea in the postanesthesia care unit (3.14; 2.44–4.04). In the validation dataset (n = 257), zero, one, two, three, four, and five of these factors were associated with a PDNV incidence of 7%, 20%, 28%, 53%, 60%, and 89%, respectively, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 (0.69 to 0.73). Conclusions: PDNV affects a substantial number of patients after ambulatory surgery. We developed and validated a simplified risk score to identify patients who would benefit from long-acting prophylactic antiemetics at discharge from the ambulatory care center.

A randomized, double-blind comparison of the NK1 antagonist, aprepitant, versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND: Antiemetics currently in use are not totally effective. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic that have shown promise for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This is the first study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 805 patients receiving general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery to a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg orally, aprepitant 125 mg orally, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Vomiting, nausea, and use of rescue therapy were assessed over 48 h after surgery. Treatments were compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: Incidence rates for the primary end point (complete response [no vomiting and no use of rescue] over 0–24 h after surgery, tested for superiority of aprepitant) were not different across groups (45% with aprepitant 40 mg, 43% with aprepitant 125 mg, and 42% with ondansetron). The incidence of no vomiting (0–24 h) was higher with aprepitant 40 mg (90%) and aprepitant 125 mg (95%) versus ondansetron (74%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), although between-treatment use of rescue and nausea control was not different. Both aprepitant doses also had higher incidences of no vomiting over 0–48 h (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were seen among the side effect profiles of the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant was superior to ondansetron for prevention of vomiting in the first 24 and 48 h, but no significant differences were observed between aprepitant and ondansetron for nausea control, use of rescue, or complete response.

A Randomized, Double-blind Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Three Different Doses of Palonosetron Versus Placebo in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Over a 72-hour Period

BACKGROUND: We designed this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study to assess the efficacy and safety of three doses of palonosetron, compared with placebo, on the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in inpatients for 72 h after surgery. METHODS: Female patients undergoing either elective gynecological or breast surgery were stratified according to two additional PONV risk factors: nonsmoking status and history of PONV and/or motion sickness. Five hundred forty-four patients with one or both of these risk factors were randomized to receive one of the three doses of IV palonosetron (0.025 mg, 0.050 mg, 0.075 mg) or placebo immediately before induction of anesthesia. The primary efficacy end-point was complete response (CR: no emesis and no use of rescue medications) evaluated at the 0–24 and 24–72 h time intervals after surgery. RESULTS: CR rates for placebo and palonosetron 0.075 mg were 36% and 56% for 0–24 h (P = 0.001), 52% and 70% for 24–72 h (P = 0.002) and 36% and 52% (P = 0.010) for the 0–72 h postoperative interval. Palonosetron 0.075 mg was associated with less intense nausea (e.g., toward “mild” or “none”) versus placebo during the 0–24 h (P < 0.001) time interval and significantly delayed median time to emesis (P = 0.002) and treatment failure (P = 0.004). Although CR rates for both the 0.025 mg and 0.050 mg palonosetron doses were not statistically superior to placebo for the 0–24 h or 24–72 h periods, both lower doses reduced nausea severity during the 0–24 h period (P = 0.040 and P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: A single 0.075-mg IV dose of palonosetron effectively reduced the severity of nausea and delayed the time to emesis and treatment failure in the inpatient surgical setting; lower doses were not as effective.