Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association of nefopam use with postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynecological patients receiving prophylactic ramosetron: A retrospective study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA). Nefopam has been considered as a good candidate for inclusion in multimodal analgesia because of its opioid sparing effect, but it can be emetic. This study aims to examine whether the use of nefopam combined with fentanyl in IV PCA was associated with the higher incidence of PONV in patients receiving prophylactic ramosetron after gynecological surgery.

          Methods

          Data from 296 patients who underwent gynecological surgery were retrospectively reviewed. The patients received IV PCA containing either fentanyl 1500 μg and ketorolac 90 mg (Group K) or fentanyl 1500 μg and nefopam 80 mg (Group N). All patients in both groups received 0.3 mg of ramosetron at the end of surgery. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PONV during the 3-day postoperative period.

          Results

          No difference was observed in the incidence of PONV during the 3-day postoperative period between the two groups. However, the incidence of nausea on postoperative day 2 was significantly higher in Group N (10.3%) than in Group K (2.8%) ( P = 0.016). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the use of nefopam was not associated with a higher incidence of PONV (adjusted odds ratio, 1.616; 95% confidence interval, 0.952–2.743, P = 0.076). There were no differences in postoperative pain scores between the two groups.

          Conclusion

          The combined use of nefopam with fentanyl in IV PCA was not associated with the higher incidence of PONV compared with the use of ketorolac and fentanyl combination in patients who received ramosetron as PONV prophylactic agent. However, prospective trials are required for a confirmative conclusion.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A review of the use of fentanyl analgesia in the management of acute pain in adults.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and safety of patient-controlled opioid analgesia for acute postoperative pain. A quantitative systematic review.

            The usefulness of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids for postoperative analgesia is not well defined. We systematically searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, any language, to January 2000) for randomised trials comparing opioid-based PCA with the same opioid given intramuscularly, intravenously, or subcutaneously. Weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous data, relative risks (RR) and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for dichotomous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed and random effects models. Data from 32 trials were analysed: 22 (1139 patients) were with morphine, five (682) with pethidine, three (184) with piritramide, one (47) with nalbuphine and one (20) with tramadol. In three morphine and one pethidine trial (352 patients), more patients preferred PCA (89.7% vs. 65.8%, RR 1.41 (95%CI 1.11 to 1.80), NNT 4.2). Combined dichotomous data on pain intensity and relief, and the need for rescue analgesics from eight morphine, one pethidine, one piritramide, and one nalbuphine trial (691 patients), were in favour of PCA (RR 1.22 (1.00 to 1.50), NNT 8). In two morphine trials (152), pulmonary complications were more frequently prevented with PCA (100% vs. 93.3%, RR 1.07 (1.01 to 1.14), NNT 15). There was equivalence for cumulative opioid consumption, pain scores, duration of hospital stay, and opioid-related adverse effects. These trials provide some evidence that in the postoperative pain setting, PCA with opioids, compared with conventional opioid treatment, improve analgesia and decrease the risk of pulmonary complications, and that patients prefer them.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus conventional opioid analgesia for postoperative pain.

              Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne found a strong patient preference for PCA over conventional analgesia but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, Walder's review in 2001 did not find a significant differences in pain intensity and pain relief between PCA and conventionally treated groups. To evaluate the efficacy of PCA versus conventional analgesia (such as a nurse administering an analgesic upon a patient's request) for postoperative pain control. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1994 to 2004). Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers. RCTs of PCA versus conventional analgesia that employed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome were selected. These trials included RCTs that compared PCA without a continuous background infusion versus conventional parenteral analgesic regimens. Studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain were excluded. Trials were scored using the Oxford Quality Scale. Meta-analyses were performed of outcomes that included analgesic efficacy assessed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay and adverse effects. A sufficient number of the retrieved trials reported these parameters to permit meta-analyses. Fifty-five studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group met inclusion criteria. PCA provided better pain control and greater patient satisfaction than conventional parenteral 'as-needed' analgesia. Patients using PCA consumed higher amounts of opioids than the controls and had a higher incidence of pruritus (itching) but had a similar incidence of other adverse effects. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. This review provides evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to conventional systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Data curationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                28 June 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 6
                : e0199930
                Affiliations
                [001]Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
                International University of Health and Welfare School of Medicine, JAPAN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4679-6027
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3738-0081
                Article
                PONE-D-18-03563
                10.1371/journal.pone.0199930
                6023139
                29953514
                0cc8f309-a97f-46e5-ad05-16add610401a
                © 2018 Park et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 1 February 2018
                : 16 June 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 5, Pages: 11
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
                Gynecologic Surgery
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Nausea
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Nausea
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
                Laparoscopy
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Physiological Processes
                Vomiting
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Physiology
                Physiological Processes
                Vomiting
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Vomiting
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Vomiting
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmaceutics
                Drug Therapy
                Analgesia
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drugs
                Analgesics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pain Management
                Analgesics
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Multivariate Analysis
                Principal Component Analysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics (Mathematics)
                Statistical Methods
                Multivariate Analysis
                Principal Component Analysis
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article