24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of palonosetron, ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in video cholecystectomy with total venous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil – randomized clinical trial Translated title: Efeito da palonosetrona, ondansetrona e dexametasona na prevenção de náusea e vômito pós-operatório em videocolecistectomia com anestesia venosa total com propofol-remifentanil – ensaio clínico randomizado duplo cego

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Introduction and objectives

          The incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) after video cholecystectomy is high. Progress in pharmacological PONV prophylaxis includes a new generation of 5-HT 3 antagonists. This study aims to assess the effect of the 5-HT 3 antagonist in postanesthetic antiemetic management of patients submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy with total intravenous anesthesia.

          Methods

          Sixty individuals who underwent video cholecystectomy were randomized into three groups of 20 individuals according to the treatment administered: 0.125 mg of palonosetron (Group 1); 4 mg of ondansetron associated with 4 mg of dexamethasone (Group 2); 4 mg of dexamethasone (Group 3). General intravenous anesthesia was performed with propofol, remifentanil and rocuronium. The group to which the participant belonged was concealed from the investigator who assessed drug effect. PONV was assessed using the Rhodes Scale at 12 and 24 hours after surgery. Rescue medication was 0.655 to 1.5 mg of droperidol.

          Results

          Group 1 presented a lower incidence of PONV and required less rescue medication in the first postoperative hour. There was no significant difference among the three groups regarding PONV incidence in the first 12 postoperative hours. Groups 1 and 2 were superior to Group 3 regarding the control of PONV from 12 to 24 hours, and after rescue medication from 12 to 24 hours. Group 1 showed significantly superior nausea control in the first 12 postoperative hours.

          Conclusions

          The present study showed evidence that palonosetron is superior to the drugs compared regarding a protracted antiemetic effect and less requirement of rescue drugs, mainly related to its ability to completely inhibit the uncomfortable symptom of nausea.

          Resumo

          Justificativa e objetivo

          Náuseas e Vômitos (NVPO) têm alta incidência após videocolecistectomia. Avanços na profilaxia farmacológica de NVPO incluem a nova geração de antagonista 5-HT3. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar o efeito do antagonista 5-HT3 no controle antiemético pós-anestésico em videocolecistectomia com anestesia venosa total.

          Método

          Estudo realizado no HC-UFU (Hospital terciário). Sessenta indivíduos submetidos a videocolecistectomia foram randomizados em três grupos de igual número, sendo administrados 0,125 mg de palonosetrona (Grupo 1); 4 mg de ondasetrona e 4 mg de dexametasona (Grupo 2); ou 4 mg de dexametasona (Grupo 3). A anestesia geral venosa foi realizada com propofol, remifentanil e rocurônio. O avaliador do efeito da droga desconhecia o grupo ao qual o indivíduo pertencia. NVPO foi avaliada aplicando a Escala de Rhodes após 12 e 24 horas do término da cirurgia. Para resgate terapêutico, foi estabelecido 0,655–1,5 mg de droperidol.

          Resultado

          Observou-se no Grupo 1 menor incidência de NVPO e de resgate terapêutico na primeira hora de PO. Não foi observada diferença significativa entre os três grupos com relação a ocorrência de NVPO nas primeiras 12 horas de pós-operatório. Os grupos 1 e 2 foram superiores ao Grupo 3 no que se refere ao controle de NVPO de 12 a 24 horas e após o resgate de 12–24 horas. Observou-se que o controle de náuseas nas primeiras 12 horas de pós-operatório do Grupo 1 foi significantemente superior.

          Conclusão

          O presente estudo mostrou evidências da superioridade da palonosetrona às demais drogas empregadas no que se refere ao efeito antiemético prolongado e menor necessidade de resgate, principalmente na capacidade de inibir completamente o desconfortável sintoma de náusea.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • 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

            Fourth Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

            This consensus statement presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of guidelines for the care of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in both adult and pediatric populations. The guidelines are established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of the American Society of Enhanced Recovery and Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia based on a comprehensive search and review of literature up to September 2019. The guidelines provide recommendation on identifying high-risk patients, managing baseline PONV risks, choices for prophylaxis, and rescue treatment of PONV as well as recommendations for the institutional implementation of a PONV protocol. In addition, the current guidelines focus on the evidence for newer drugs (eg, second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 [5-HT3] receptor antagonists, neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonists, and dopamine antagonists), discussion regarding the use of general multimodal PONV prophylaxis, and PONV management as part of enhanced recovery pathways. This set of guidelines have been endorsed by 23 professional societies and organizations from different disciplines (Appendix 1).Guidelines currently available include the 3 iterations of the consensus guideline we previously published, which was last updated 6 years ago; a guideline published by American Society of Health System Pharmacists in 1999; a brief discussion on PONV management as part of a comprehensive postoperative care guidelines; focused guidelines published by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada, the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain & Ireland and the Association of Perianesthesia Nursing; and several guidelines published in other languages.The current guideline was developed to provide perioperative practitioners with a comprehensive and up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on the risk stratification, prevention, and treatment of PONV in both adults and children. The guideline also provides guidance on the management of PONV within enhanced recovery pathways.The previous consensus guideline was published 6 years ago with a literature search updated to October 2011. Several guidelines, which have been published since, are either limited to a specific populations or do not address all aspects of PONV management. The current guideline was developed based on a systematic review of the literature published up through September 2019. This includes recent studies of newer pharmacological agents such as the second-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, a dopamine antagonist, neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonists as well as several novel combination therapies. In addition, it also contains an evidence-based discussion on the management of PONV in enhanced recovery pathways. We have also discussed the implementation of a general multimodal PONV prophylaxis in all at-risk surgical patients based on the consensus of the expert panel.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Multiple Comparisons Using Rank Sums

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Braz J Anesthesiol
                Braz J Anesthesiol
                Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
                Elsevier
                0104-0014
                2352-2291
                03 September 2020
                Sep-Oct 2020
                03 September 2020
                : 70
                : 5
                : 464-470
                Affiliations
                [a ]Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Faculdade de Medicina, Disciplina de Anestesiologia, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
                [b ]Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA), Comissão de Normas Técnicas, Brasil
                [c ]CET−FMUF, Uberlândia, MG, Brasil
                [d ]Coordinator of CE 26.06001–Equipamento Respiratório e de Anestesia da ABNT and Delegate of ABNT no ISO/TC 121–Anaesthetic and Respiratory Equipment, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
                [e ]Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
                [f ]Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Curso de Medicina, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
                [g ]Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Curso de Medicina, Departamento de Cirurgia, Disciplina de Cirurgia Vascular, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. neubermf@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S0104-0014(20)30144-5
                10.1016/j.bjane.2020.08.005
                9373594
                33010934
                123d0150-6c14-4f45-b4f5-168a750b7771
                © 2020 Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 28 February 2020
                : 8 August 2020
                Categories
                Clinical Research

                anesthesia, adverse effects,antiemetics, therapeutic use,cholecystectomy, laparoscopic, adverse effects,anestesia, efeitos adversos,antiémeticos, uso terapêutico,colecistectomia laparoscópica, efeitos adversos

                Comments

                Comment on this article