Grover R. Mims

Multimodal antiemetic management prevents early postoperative vomiting after outpatient laparoscopy.

Because no completely effective antiemetic exists for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), we hypothesize that a multimodal approach to management of PONV may reduce both vomiting and the need for rescue antiemetics in high-risk patients. After IRB approval, women undergoing outpatient laparoscopy were randomized to one of three groups. Group I (n = 60) was managed by using a predefined multimodal clinical care algorithm. Patients undergoing the same surgical procedure who received a standard balanced outpatient anesthetic with ondansetron 4 mg (Group II, n = 42) or placebo (Group III, n = 37) prophylaxis were chosen to establish baseline incidence of nausea and vomiting. None of the Group I patients vomited before discharge, compared with 7% in Group II (P = 0.07) and 22% in Group III (P = 0.0003). However, one patient (2%) in Group I required treatment for symptoms in the postanesthesia care unit, compared with 24% in Group II (P < 0.0001) and 41% in Group III (P < 0.0001). Time to discharge-ready was significantly shorter in Group I (128, 118–139 min; mean, 95% confidence interval) versus Group II (162, 145–181 min;P = 0.0015) and Group III (192, 166–222 min;P = 0.0001). Patient satisfaction with control of PONV was not different between Group I and Group II. Return to normal daily activity and overall satisfaction were not different among groups. Multimodal management resulted in a 98% complete response rate and a 0% incidence of vomiting before discharge; however, this improvement did not result in an increased level of patient satisfaction when compared with routine monotherapy prophylaxis. We conclude that both multimodal management and routine monotherapy antiemetic prophylaxis resulted in an increased level of patient satisfaction than symptomatic treatment in this high-risk population. Implications Use of a multimodal clinical care algorithm eliminates predischarge vomiting and improves satisfaction in patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopy.

Antiemetic prophylaxis does not improve outcomes after outpatient surgery when compared to symptomatic treatment

BACKGROUND Although prophylactic administration of antiemetics reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both (PONV), there is little evidence to suggest this improves patient outcomes. The authors hypothesized that early symptomatic treatment of PONV will result in outcomes, including time to discharge, unanticipated admission, patient satisfaction, and time to return to normal daily activities, that are similar to those achieved with routine prophylaxis. METHODS Men and women (n = 575) scheduled for outpatient surgery during general anesthesia were randomized to receive either 4 mg intravenous ondansetron or placebo before operation and either 1 mg intravenous ondansetron or placebo if postoperative symptomatic treatment of PONV was necessary. Patients were stratified into subgroups by risk factors for PONV. RESULTS No differences occurred in the time to discharge, rate of unanticipated admission, or time to return to normal activity between the prophylaxis and treatment groups. The reported level of satisfaction with control of PONV was 93% in the treatment arm and 97% in the prophylaxis arm, which fall within the limits defined a priori as clinically equivalent. Female patients with a history of motion sickness or PONV who were undergoing highly emetogenic procedures had a higher reported level of satisfaction with prophylaxis than with treatment (100% vs. 90%, P = 0.043); however, the level of satisfaction with the overall outpatient surgical experience was not different. CONCLUSION Although PONV is unpleasant, the data indicate little difference in outcomes when routine prophylactic medications are administered versus simply treating PONV should symptoms occur.

Small-dose propofol by continuous infusion does not prevent postoperative vomiting in females undergoing outpatient laparoscopy

This study was designed to test the hypothesis that there is a direct prophylactic antiemetic effect of small-dose propofol given by continuous infusion. Sixty female patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopy under general anesthesia were randomized to receive, in a double-blind fashion, either a bolus of 0.1 mg/kg followed by a constant infusion of 1 mg [center dot] kg-1 [center dot] h-1 of propofol or an equivalent volume of 10% Intralipid[R] (placebo) beginning 30 min before induction of anesthesia and continuing until discharge from Stage I postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Anesthesia was induced and maintained in a standard fashion in all patients. The number of emetic episodes before and after discharge from PACU, nausea scores (11-point numerical scale), and time to discharge were evaluated. No significant differences between Intralipid[R] and propofol were found for any of the outcome variables tested. While small-dose propofol is an effective adjuvant in reducing chemotherapy-induced emesis, we were unable to demonstrate any beneficial effect of propofol in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting when used as the sole prophylactic medication in this patient population. Propofol may have a synergistic effect when administered with other antiemetics, or the specific antiemetic effect of propofol, if it exists, may be dose-dependent and the dose used in this study was below the efficacy threshold. (Anesth Analg 1997;84:71-5)

A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled comparison of droperidol, ondansetron, and metoclopramide for the prevention of vomiting following outpatient strabismus surgery in children

STUDY OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of ondansetron, droperidol, or metoclopramide with placebo in preventing postoperative vomiting following strabismus surgery. STUDY DESIGN Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING University outpatient surgery center. PATIENTS 160 ASA physical status I and II children ages 1 to 12 years who were scheduled for strabismus surgery. INTERVENTIONS Administration of either ondansetron 100 mcg/kg, metoclopramide 250 mcg/kg, droperidol 75 mcg/kg, or placebo intravenously after induction of anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Both ondansetron and droperidol were superior to metoclopramide and placebo in preventing predischarge vomiting, with incidences of 5%, 5%, 32%, and 25%, respectively. However, there was no difference in the incidence of postdischarge vomiting among the groups (ondansetron 25%, droperidol 25%, metoclopramide 20%, and placebo 25%). CONCLUSIONS While both ondansetron and droperidol are more effective than metoclopramide when compared with placebo in decreasing the incidence of predischarge vomiting, none of these drugs was more effective than placebo in decreasing the incidence of postdischarge vomiting. Recovery from anesthesia was not significantly different among the groups as assessed by time to awakening, initial Steward score, and time to discharge.

Oxygen administration during transport and recovery after outpatient surgery does not prevent episodic arterial desaturation

STUDY OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of two different oxygen (O2) delivery systems in preventing episodic arterial desaturation in the immediate postoperative period. STUDY DESIGN Randomized, prospective, nonblinded comparison in patients. SETTING Operating room and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) of a university outpatient surgery center. PATIENTS 100 ASA status I and II adults, male and female, age greater than 18 years, undergoing outpatient surgical procedures not involving the upper airway. INTERVENTIONS Group I received supplemental O2 administered by bag-valve-mask during transport, followed by 40% face shield in the PACU. Group 2 received supplemental O2 by nasal cannula at 4 L/min both during transport and during PACU stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Arterial O2 saturation (SpO2) was collected by computer from a recording pulse oximeter at 15-second intervals beginning before extubation and continuing until O2 administration was discontinued in PACU. Neither mode of therapy was successful in completely eliminating arterial desaturation defined as SpO2 less than 90%, nor was there any difference in efficacy between the two treatment groups. Group 1 had 8 patients desaturate on 9 different occasions (5 times during transport, 4 times in PACU). Group 2 had 5 patients desaturate on 9 different occasions (4 times during transport, 5 times in PACU). CONCLUSION Routine O2 administration during transport and PACU stay did not abolish episodic desaturation, even in healthy patients undergoing minor surgical procedures. Given the marked difference in acquisition cost, it would appear that O2 administration by nasal cannula is a more cost-effective alternative for routine postoperative O2 administration in certain groups of patients undergoing general anesthesia for outpatient surgery.

Anesthesia Considerations During Nephrolithotomy with Slush

A retrospective study was made of 113 patients who underwent nephrolithotomy between 1962 and 1973. Multiple parameters from a surgical and anesthesia viewpoint were tabulated. The main findings were a high incidence of pulmonary complications (37 per cent), a general lowering of body temperature during anesthesia and operation and initial decreases in blood pressure, apparently related to the use of d-tubocurarine. Currently, prospective studies are underway to more clearly delineate these problems and perhaps find ways to eliminate them.