16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effective Dose of Ramosetron for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in High-Risk Patients

      other

      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) are common adverse events with an incidence of up to 80% in high-risk patients. Ramosetron, a selective 5-HT 3 receptor antagonist, is widely used to prevent PONV. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effective dose of ramosetron for the prevention of PONV in high-risk patients. Methods. Fifty-one patients were randomly allocated to 3 groups and were administered ramosetron 0.3 mg (group A), 0.45 mg (group B), or 0.6 mg (group C), at the end of their surgery. The episodes of PONV were assessed 1, 6, 24, and 48 hours after the injection and all the adverse events were observed. Results. The complete response rate in the postoperative period 6–24 hours after the anesthesia was higher in group C than in group A: 93% versus 44%. Group C's experience score of Rhodes index was lower than group A's: 0.81 ± 2.56 versus 3.94 ± 5.25. No adverse drug reaction could be observed in all groups. Conclusions. The effective dose of ramosetron to be injected for the near-complete prophylaxis of PONV 6 to 24 hours after surgery in high-risk patients is a 0.6 mg bolus injection at the end of the surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

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

          A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers.

          Recently, two centers have independently developed a risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study investigated (1) whether risk scores are valid across centers and (2) whether risk scores based on logistic regression coefficients can be simplified without loss of discriminating power. Adult patients from two centers (Oulu, Finland: n = 520, and Wuerzburg, Germany: n = 2202) received inhalational anesthesia (without antiemetic prophylaxis) for various types of surgery. PONV was defined as nausea or vomiting within 24 h of surgery. Risk scores to estimate the probability of PONV were obtained by fitting logistic regression models. Simplified risk scores were constructed based on the number of risk factors that were found significant in the logistic regression analyses. Original and simplified scores were cross-validated. A combined data set was created to estimate a potential center effect and to construct a final risk score. The discriminating power of each score was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Risk scores derived from one center were able to predict PONV from the other center (area under the curve = 0.65-0.75). Simplification did not essentially weaken the discriminating power (area under the curve = 0.63-0.73). No center effect could be detected in a combined data set (odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.59). The final score consisted of four predictors: female gender, history of motion sickness (MS) or PONV, nonsmoking, and the use of postoperative opioids. If none, one, two, three, or four of these risk factors were present, the incidences of PONV were 10%, 21%, 39%, 61% and 79%. The risk scores derived from one center proved valid in the other and could be simplified without significant loss of discriminating power. Therefore, it appears that this risk score has broad applicability in predicting PONV in adult patients undergoing inhalational anesthesia for various types of surgery. For patients with at least two out of these four identified predictors a prophylactic antiemetic strategy should be considered.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Postoperative nausea and vomiting. Its etiology, treatment, and prevention.

            In a recent editorial, Kapur described perioperative nausea and vomiting as "the big 'little problem' following ambulatory surgery."257 Although the actual morbidity associated with nausea is relatively low in health outpatients, it should not be considered an unavoidable part of the perioperative experience. The availability of an emesis basin for every patient in the postanesthesia recovery unit is a reflection of the limited success with the available therapeutic techniques.257 There had been little change in the incidence of postoperative emesis since the introduction of halothane into clinical practice in 1956. However, newer anesthetic drugs (e.g. propofol) appear to have contributed to a recent decline in the incidence of emesis. Factors associated with an increased risk of postoperative emesis include age, gender (menses), obesity, previous history of motion sickness or postoperative vomiting, anxiety, gastroparesis, and type and duration of the surgical procedure (e.g., laparoscopy, strabismus, middle ear procedures). Anesthesiologists have little, if any, control over these surgical factors. However, they do have control over many other factors that influence postoperative emesis (e.g., preanesthetic medication, anesthetic drugs and techniques, and postoperative pain management). Although routine antiemetic prophylaxis is clearly unjustified, patients at high risk for postoperative emesis should receive special considerations with respect to the prophylactic use of antiemetic drugs. Minimally effective doses of antiemetic drugs can be administered to reduce the incidence of sedation and other deleterious side effects. Potent nonopioid analgesics (e.g., ketorolac) can be used to control pain while avoiding some of the opioid-related side effects. Gentle handling in the immediate postoperative period is also essential. If emesis does occur, aggressive intravenous hydration and pain management are important components of the therapeutic regimen, along with antiemetic drugs. If one antiemetic does not appear to be effective, another drug with a different site of action should be considered. With the availability of new antiserotonin drugs, the incidence of recurrent (intractable) emesis could be further decreased. Research into the mechanisms of this common postoperative complication may help in improving the management of emetic sequelae in the future. As suggested in a recent editorial, improvement in antiemetic therapy could have a major impact for surgical patients, particularly after ambulatory surgery. Patients as well as those involved in their postoperative care look forward to a time when the routine offering of an emesis basin after surgery becomes a historical practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Can postoperative nausea and vomiting be predicted?

              Iletrospective studies fail to identify predictors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The authors prospectively studied 17,638 consecutive outpatients who had surgery to identify predictors. Data on medical conditions, anesthesia, surgery, and PONV were collected in the post-anesthesia care unit, in the ambulatory surgical unit, and in telephone interviews conducted 24 h after surgery. Multiple logistic regression with backward stepwise elimination was used to develop a predictive model An independent set of patients was used to validate the model Age (younger or older), sex (female or male), smoking status (nonsmokers or smokers), previous PONV, type of anesthesia (general or other), duration of anesthesia (longer or shorter), and type of surgery (plastic, orthopedic shoulder, or other) were independent predictors of PONV. A 10-yr increase in age decreased the likelihood of PONV by 13%. The risk for men was one third that for women. A 30-min increase in the duration of anesthesia increased the likelihood of PONV by 59%. General anesthesia increased the likelihood of PONV 11 times compared with other types of anesthesia. Patients with plastic and orthopedic shoulder surgery had a sixfold increase in the risk for PONV. The model predicted PONV accurately and yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.785+/-0.011 using an independent validation set. A validated mathematical model is provided to calculate the risk of PONV in outpatients having surgery. Knowing the factors that predict PONV will help anesthesiologists determine which patients will need antiemetic therapy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Biomed Res Int
                Biomed Res Int
                BMRI
                BioMed Research International
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2314-6133
                2314-6141
                2015
                14 July 2015
                : 2015
                : 951474
                Affiliations
                Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju 519-763, Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                *Seongwook Jeong: anesman@ 123456gmail.com

                Academic Editor: Jacques Cabaret

                Article
                10.1155/2015/951474
                4516817
                59d1041b-22c2-47ab-bc67-ca39a2910a26
                Copyright © 2015 Seongheon Lee et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 26 March 2015
                : 1 July 2015
                : 7 July 2015
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Comments

                Comment on this article