Search

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs commonly in surgical patients despite widespread prophylactic antiemetic use. Rescue options are currently limited. 5HT3 antagonists are most frequently used for prophylaxis, but if they fail, additional doses are not effective as rescue medication. Intravenous (IV) amisulpride, a well-studied D2/D3 antagonist, has been shown in trials to prevent PONV. This study was designed to determine if amisulpride could be used to treat established PONV in patients at low-to-moderate risk of PONV who had not received any prior prophylaxis., Methods: Men and women aged over 18 years were permitted to enroll if they were to undergo general inhalational anesthesia, expected to last at least 1 hour, for an outpatient or inpatient surgical procedure. Patients who then suffered PONV were randomized equally to 1 of 3 single-dose IV regimens: placebo or 5 or 10 mg amisulpride. The primary end point was complete response, defined as no emesis in the period 30 minutes to 24 hours after study drug treatment and no use of rescue medication in the entire 24-hour period., Results: One thousand nine hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled preoperatively, of whom 560 were randomized to a treatment arm. Complete response occurred in 39 of 181 patients (21.5%) in the placebo group compared to 60 of 191 patients (31.4%; P = .016) and 59 of 188 patients (31.4%; P = .016) in the amisulpride 5 and 10 mg groups, respectively. The adverse event profile of amisulpride at either dose was similar to placebo., Conclusions: IV amisulpride at 5 and 10 mg was safe and efficacious in the treatment of established PONV in surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia with no prior PONV prophylaxis.

Background: Although antiemetics are commonly used to prevent postoperative nausea or vomiting, the failure rate is appreciable and there is currently no generally accepted standard for rescue treatment of postoperative nausea or vomiting after failed prophylaxis. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicenter study was designed to test the hypothesis that intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3-antagonist, is superior to placebo at treating established postoperative nausea or vomiting after failed prophylaxis., Methods: A total of 2,285 adult patients undergoing surgery under general inhalational anesthesia and receiving standard antiemetic prophylaxis were enrolled at 23 sites in Canada, France, Germany, and the United States. Of these, 702 patients experienced postoperative nausea or vomiting in the 24-h period after surgery and were randomized to receive a single dose of 5 or 10 mg intravenous amisulpride or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue antiemetic use for 24 h after study drug administration, excluding emesis in the first 30 min. Secondary endpoints included incidence of emesis and rescue medication use, nausea burden, time to treatment failure, and length of stay in postanesthesia care unit and hospital., Results: Complete response occurred in significantly more patients receiving 10 mg amisulpride (96 of 230, 41.7%) than placebo (67 of 235, 28.5%), a 13.2% difference (95% CI, 4.6 to 21.8; odds ratio, 1.80; P = 0.006). A 5-mg dose of amisulpride did not show a significant benefit (80 of 237, 33.8%); the difference from placebo was 5.2% (95% CI, 3.1 to 13.6; odds ratio, 1.24; P = 0.109). The total number of adverse events recorded and proportion of patients with at least one adverse event were comparable between the placebo and amisulpride groups. No clinically relevant toxicities were observed., Conclusions: A single 10-mg dose of intravenous amisulpride was safe and more effective than placebo at treating established postoperative nausea or vomiting in patients failing postoperative nausea or vomiting prophylaxis.

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting causes distress for patients and can prolong care requirements. Consensus guidelines recommend use of multiple antiemetics from different mechanistic classes as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The prophylactic efficacy of the dopamine D2/D3 antagonist amisulpride in combination with other antiemetics was investigated., Methods: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter trial was conducted in 1,147 adult surgical patients having three or four postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous amisulpride (5 mg) or matching placebo at induction of general anesthesia, in addition to one standard, nondopaminergic antiemetic, most commonly ondansetron or dexamethasone. Vomiting/retching, nausea, and use of rescue medication were recorded for 24 h after wound closure. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue medication use in the 24-h postoperative period., Results: Complete response occurred in 330 of 572 (57.7%) of the amisulpride group and 268 of 575 (46.6%) of the control group (difference 11.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3 to 16.8; P < 0.001). The incidences of emesis (13.8% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.003), any nausea (50.0% vs. 58.3%, P = 0.002), significant nausea (37.1% vs. 47.7%, P < 0.001), and rescue medication use (40.9% vs. 49.4%, P = 0.002) were significantly lower in the amisulpride group. Adverse events and laboratory and electrocardiogram abnormalities occurred no more frequently with amisulpride than with placebo., Conclusions: Intravenous amisulpride was safe and effective as prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting when given in combination with an antiemetic from another class to adult patients at high risk for suffering postoperative nausea and vomiting undergoing elective surgery under inhalational general anesthesia., Visual Abstract: An online visual overview is available for this article at http://links.lww.com/ALN/B727.

Background: Two essentially identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III studies evaluated the efficacy of intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3 antagonist, in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult surgical patients., Methods: Adult inpatients undergoing elective surgery during general anesthesia and having at least two of the four Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting were enrolled at 9 U.S. and 10 European sites. A single 5-mg dose of amisulpride or matching placebo was given at induction of anesthesia. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting/retching and no use of antiemetic rescue medication in the 24-h postoperative period. Nausea incidence was a secondary endpoint., Results: Across the two studies, 689 patients were randomized and dosed with study medication, of whom 626 were evaluable per protocol. In the U.S. study, 46.9% (95% CI, 39.0 to 54.9) of patients achieved complete response in the amisulpride group compared to 33.8% (95% CI, 26.2 to 42.0) in the placebo group (P = 0.026). In the European study, complete response rates were 57.4% (95% CI, 49.2 to 65.3) for amisulpride and 46.6% (95% CI, 38.8 to 54.6) for placebo (P = 0.070). Nausea occurred less often in patients who received amisulpride than those who received placebo. There was no clinically significant difference in the safety profile of amisulpride and placebo; in particular, there were no differences in terms of QT prolongation, extrapyramidal side effects, or sedation., Conclusions: One of the two trials demonstrated superiority, while pooling both in a post hoc change to the plan of analysis supported the hypothesis that amisulpride was safe and superior to placebo in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a population of adult inpatients at moderate to high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Background: This study compared palonosetron and ondansetron as rescue medications for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients who received prophylactic ondansetron. Although guidelines recommend use of an agent from a different class when prophylaxis has failed, palonosetron has unique properties relative to other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Prior trials assessing its use for rescue have had conflicting results. Although palonosetron has compared favorably with ondansetron for PONV prevention, the drugs have not been compared in the rescue setting of failure of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist prophylaxis., Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravenous palonosetron 0.075 mg and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg in patients experiencing PONV following laparoscopic abdominal or gynecological surgery despite prophylactic ondansetron., Results: Of 239 patients screened, 220 were enrolled and 98 were treated for PONV: 48 and 50 in the palonosetron and ondansetron arms, respectively. Complete control during 72 hours after study drug administration was achieved in 25.0% of palonosetron recipients and 18.0% of ondansetron recipients (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.2, 23.3; p = 0.40). Corresponding incidences of vomiting were 29.2% for palonosetron and 48.0% for ondansetron (95% CI, -0.06, 37.7; p = 0.057), and 62.5% and 56.0% required additional rescue treatment, respectively (95% CI, -25.9, 12.9; p = 0.52). Other than a similar incidence of procedural pain in the 2 groups, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, which were generally mild, were headache (14.6% vs 12.0%), constipation (8.3% vs 10.0%), and dizziness (6.3% vs 8.0%), for the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively., Conclusions: Palonosetron and ondansetron did not show differences in the primary efficacy endpoint of CC during the 72 hours after study drug administration. There was a trend toward less emesis in the 0-72 h time period favoring palonosetron. While larger studies are needed to fully assess any clinical benefits of palonosetron to rescue patients who have failed ondansetron prophylaxis for PONV, the benefit, if any, would be limited based on this study., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00967499 (Registered August 27, 2009).

The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications after surgery. Neurokinin-1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonists have been shown to be safe and effective for the prevention and treatment of PONV in humans. Rolapitant is a potent, selective NK1 receptor antagonist that is rapidly absorbed, has a remarkably long half-life (up to180 hours), and appears to have a low potential for drug-drug interactions. We evaluated the dose response for rolapitant for the prevention of PONV in subjects at high risk for this condition, and rolapitant's effects on preventing delayed PONV were explored up to 5 days after surgery., Methods: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, dose-ranging study of rolapitant was conducted with placebo and active control groups. Six hundred nineteen adult women undergoing open abdominal surgery were randomly assigned in equal ratios to 1 of 6 study arms: oral rolapitant in 5-mg, 20-mg, 70-mg, or 200-mg doses; IV ondansetron 4 mg; or placebo, stratified by history of PONV or motion sickness. The primary study endpoint was absence of emetic episodes, regardless of use of rescue medication, at 24 hours after extubation., Results: Groups assigned to rolapitant 20-mg, 70-mg, and 200-mg had a higher incidence of no emesis in comparison with placebo at 24 hours after surgery. A linear relationship between rolapitant dose and primary outcome was seen. The probability of an emetic episode was significantly lower in the rolapitant 70-mg and 200-mg groups in comparison with placebo (P ≤ 0.001 based on the log-rank test). No significant differences were noted between rolapitant and the active control (ondansetron) at 24 hours after surgery, but there was a higher incidence of no emesis (regardless of rescue medication use) in the rolapitant 200- and 70-mg groups at 72 and 120 hours, respectively., Conclusion: Rolapitant is superior to placebo in reducing emetic episodes after surgery and reduces the incidence of vomiting in a dose-dependent manner. No differences in side effect profile were observed between rolapitant and placebo.

Purpose: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are common problems after surgery. Prophylactic combination antiemetic therapy is recommended for patients at high risk for developing PONV and PDNV. Granisetron, a serotonin antagonist, is an effective antiemetic that is devoid of sedative side effect. Although promethazine is effective, commonly used doses are associated with sedation. This study investigates the combination of low doses of granisetron and promethazine for the prevention of PONV., Methods: Women undergoing ambulatory gynecological laparoscopy were enrolled. A standard general anesthetic regimen was prescribed. Fifteen minutes before the expected end of surgery, the patients were randomly assigned to receive granisetron 0.1 mg iv, promethazine 6.25 mg iv, or a combination of the two drugs. Prophylaxis with oral promethazine 12.5 mg, granisetron 1 mg, or both was started in the respective groups 12 hr after the end of surgery and continued every 12 hr until postoperative day 3 (a total of five oral doses). The following outcomes were recorded: total response rate (defined as no vomiting, no more than mild nausea, and no use of rescue antiemetic); incidence of nausea, vomiting, and use of rescue antiemetics; severity of nausea; patient activity level; and patient satisfaction with PONV management., Results: Patients in the combination group had a higher total response rate at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hr after surgery compared with those who received promethazine alone (at 24 hr, Combination 69.6%, Promethazine 36.2%, Granisetron 53.3%; P = 0.0079). The maximum nausea scores were also lower in the combination group at 6, 24, 48, and 72 hr (Combination 1.7 +/- 2.2, Promethazine 4.0 +/- 3.6, Granisetron 3.1 +/- 3.2 at 24 hr; P < 0.05). There was no difference in the sedation scores, incidence of drowsiness, patient activity level, and satisfaction with PONV management., Conclusions: Low-dose granisetron and promethazine combination was more effective in reducing PONV and PDNV than promethazine monotherapy. The combination also reduced the severity of nausea.

Background: In this prospective, multicenter, observational study, we evaluated the incidence and time course of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), assessed prophylactic and rescue antiemetic use in high-risk patients, and determined population-based effectiveness of antiemetics, including the impact of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and American Society of Perianesthesia Nurses (ASPAN) guideline compliance., Methods: Eligible patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or major plastic surgery possessed two or more of the following Apfel PONV risk factors: female gender, history of PONV or motion sickness, and nonsmoking status. Antiemetic use, emetic episodes, severity of nausea, and functional interference due to PONV were documented during the first 72 h after surgery. Complete response (CR) was defined as no emesis or rescue medication use, and complete control was defined as CR and no moderate-severe nausea. The effect of compliance (versus noncompliance) with ASA and ASPAN guidelines on PONV outcomes was also analyzed., Results: The proportion of patients experiencing postoperative emesis ranged from 18% to 40% depending on the number of antiemetics administered. The rate of rescue medication (45%) was similar to the reported incidences of moderate-to-severe nausea (47%) and functional interference due to emetic symptoms (44%). The administration of three or more antiemetics produced better patient outcomes overall compared to <1 prophylactic antiemetic. CR rates were <70% despite adherence to current organizational PONV management guidelines (ASA: 69%; ASPAN: 63%). The complete control rates were 10% lower than CR rates over the 3 day study period., Conclusions: Administration of three or more prophylactic antiemetics had the most positive impact on emetic outcomes over 72 hrs in patients at risk of developing PONV. Although compliance with organizational PONV management guidelines improved patient outcomes, postoperative emetic symptoms and interference with patient functioning still occurred in more than 30% of these high-risk patients.

Background: In this randomized, double-blind study we assessed the efficacy and safety of three different doses of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist palonosetron, compared with placebo, on the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) for 72 h postsurgery., Methods: Five hundred seventy-four patients undergoing either outpatient abdominal or gynecological laparoscopic surgery were stratified according to gender, history of PONV or motion sickness, and nonsmoking status. Patients with > or =2 PONV risk factors were eligible and randomized to receive one of three doses of IV palonosetron (0.025 mg, 0.050 mg, or 0.075 mg) or placebo immediately prior to induction of anesthesia. Co-primary efficacy end-points included complete response (CR: no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) during the 0 to 24 h and 24 to 72 h postoperative time intervals., Results: A dose-response trend in the proportion of patients with a CR was observed with increasing doses of palonosetron in the first 24 hrs. CR rates for placebo and palonosetron 0.075 mg were 26% and 43%, respectively, for the 0 to 24 h postoperative interval (P = 0.004), and 41% and 49%, respectively, for the 24 to 72 h interval (P = 0.188). Compared with placebo, palonosetron 0.075 mg was associated with a significant downward shift toward less intense nausea (P = 0.042) and with significant reduction in the impact of PONV on patient functioning (P = 0.004) during the 0 to 24 h interval., Conclusions: A single 0.075-mg IV dose of palonosetron significantly increased the CR rate (no emetic episodes and no rescue medication) from 0 to 24 h, decreased nausea severity and patients experienced significantly less interference in their postoperative function due to PONV.

Introduction: Patients with an increased risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequently given prophylactic doses of a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 antagonist (5HT3). In chemotherapy patients, it has been demonstrated that after unsuccessful treatment with one 5HT3 administering a different 5HT3 alleviated symptoms. We hypothesized that we could define a benefit of a 5HT3, cross-over in a pilot study of PONV. Two-hundred-fifty female patients received prophylactic ondansetron 4 mg at the end of a surgical procedure requiring general anesthesia and were then followed postoperatively for 4 h., Methods: Eighty-eight women developed PONV and were randomly assigned to receive a repeat dose of ondansetron 4 mg (n = 30), granisetron 1 mg (n = 30), or granisetron 0.1 mg (n = 28) and then followed for 24 h., Results: Patients receiving the repeat dose of ondansetron showed a complete response of 57%. Those receiving 1 or 0.1 mg doses of granisetron had rates of 60% and 68%, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.773)., Conclusion: Unlike patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, perioperative patients who failed ondansetron prophylaxis did not have a significant response to cross-over dosing with granisetron.

Background: Some patients treated with ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting do not respond to therapy. One possible mechanism for this failure is ultrarapid drug metabolism via the cytochrome P-450 system, specifically the enzyme 2D6 (CYP2D6). Ultrarapid metabolism is seen in patients with multiple functional copies (>/= 3) of the CYP2D6 allele. This study was designed to determine whether patients who were given prophylactic ondansetron and had multiple CYP2D6 alleles had an increased rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting., Methods: Two hundred fifty female patients undergoing standardized general anesthesia were given 4 mg ondansetron 30 min before extubation. Patients were observed for symptoms of nausea and vomiting. DNA was extracted from blood in all patients and was analyzed by using a gene-specific probe to determine the CYP2D6 gene copy number and genotyped by polymerase chain reaction amplification with a custom oligonucleotide microarray to determine the specific CYP2D6 genotypes., Results: Eighty-eight patients experienced nausea, and 37 of those patients also had vomiting. In patients with one, two, or three CYP2D6 copies, the incidences of vomiting were 3 in 33 (27%), 27 in 198 (14%), and 7 in 23 (30%), respectively. The incidence of vomiting in subjects with three CYP2D6 copies was significantly different from those with two copies, but not from those with one copy. When analyzed by genotype, the incidences of vomiting in poor, intermediate, extensive, and ultrarapid metabolizers were 1 in 12 (8%), 5 in 30 (17%), 26 in 176 (15%), and 5 in 11 (45%), respectively (P < 0.01 vs. all other groups). There were no differences between groups in the incidence of nausea based on CYP2D6 copy number or genotype., Conclusions: Patients with three copies of the CYP2D6 gene, a genotype consistent with ultrarapid metabolism, or both have an increased incidence of ondansetron failure for the prevention of postoperative vomiting but not nausea.