JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Pan, P. H. Articles by Harris, L. C. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pan, P. H. Articles by Harris, L. C. Related Collections Ambulatory Postanesthetic Care Unit Complications Clinical Pharmacology Pharmacology

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

Antiemetic Prophylaxis for Postdischarge Nausea and Vomiting and Impact on Functional Quality of Living During Recovery in Patients with High Emetic Risks: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of Two Prophylactic Antiemetic Regimens

From the Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Peter H. Pan, MSEE, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157. Address e-mail to ppan{at}wfubmc.edu.

BACKGROUND: We compared two antiemetic prophylaxis regimens, their efficacy for preventing postdischarge nausea and vomiting, and their impact on quality of living, during recovery.

METHODS: Sixty-four women undergoing outpatient gynecological surgery and at high risk for emesis were randomized into one of two groups. The study group received intraoperative IV dexamethasone 8 mg and ondansetron 4 mg, followed with an 8 mg oral disintegrating ondansetron tablet, to be taken on discharge and in the morning of postoperative days 1 and 2. The control group received only the IV ondansetron 4 mg intraoperatively. The incidence and severity of emetic symptoms and pain were assessed while patients were in the recovery room and via telephone and patient diary for 5 days after discharge. A modified functional living index of emesis was used to assess the impact on quality of living during recovery.

RESULTS: Sixty patients, 30 in each group, completed the study. The incidences for postdischarge nausea were 57% and 20%, and for postdischarge vomiting 20% and 3% in the control and study groups, respectively, for the period between the 8th and 120th hours postanesthesia (P < 0.05). Thirty-three percent of the study and 60% of the control group reported that emetic symptoms negatively affected their quality of living (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: When compared with a single dose of intraoperative IV ondansetron prophylaxis, our study regimen of additional intraoperative dexamethasone and once a day ondansetron significantly reduced the incidence of postdischarge nausea and vomiting and its negative impact on quality of living during the first 5 days of recovery.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. L. Lichtor and P. S. A. Glass We're Tired of Waiting Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2008; 107(2): 353 - 355. [Full Text] [PDF]

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999