Biomedical subjects

L H Eberhart

Publications and source records attributed to L H Eberhart.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

[Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia. A quantitative systematic overview (meta-analysis) of randomized controlled studies].

BACKGROUND: Transient neurologic symptoms (TNS) after spinal anesthesia (SPA) is defined as back pain with radiation or dysesthesia in the buttocks, thighs, hips and calves, occurring within 24 h after recovery from otherwise uneventful SPA. The symptoms last for about 1-3 days but neurophysiologic evaluation does not show pathologic findings. The type and the preparation of the local anesthetic drug (baricity, concentration, additives or preservatives) are most often discussed as the underlying cause of TNS. METHODS: Randomized controlled comparative studies reporting the incidence of TNS were systematically searched. Descriptive statistics are presented summarizing the identified trials and the pooled relative risk (RR), the number-needed-to-harm (NNH) with their 95% confidence intervals (95%-CI) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies with a 2,813 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Summarizing all patients in these trials without further adjustment, the incidence of TNS was 16.9% after lidocaine, 19.1% after mepivacaine, but only 1.1% after bupivacaine and 1.7% after prilocaine. For tetracaine, procaine, and ropivacaine there were too few studies to draw meaningful conclusions. Using meta-analysis techniques these data were confirmed: the pooled relative risk (RR) for suffering from TNS was 6.7-fold higher after lidocaine (95%-CI: 2.5-18) than after SPA with bupivacaine and 5.5-fold higher (95%-CI: 2-15) than after prilocaine. Furthermore, data show that baricity, concentration of the local anesthetic, and addition of vasoconstrictors have no significant influence on the occurrence of TNS. CONCLUSION: Prilocaine and bupivacaine for SPA are associated with less TNS than lidocaine and mepivacaine. For the other local anesthetics there were not enough comparative trials to give conclusive recommendations.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

PubMed2001

The influence of a dominating centre on a quantitative systematic review of granisetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: We performed a meta-analysis on granisetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and further investigated whether total results and the dose-response characteristics may be significantly affected by a single centre. METHODS: Systematically searched randomised controlled trials (RCT) using granisetron for the prevention of PONV after general anaesthesia were included in the analysis. The pooled relative risks (RR) and numbers needed to treat (NNT) with their corresponding 95%-confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. For all centres, one dominating centre and other centres pooled, comparisons were performed according to all doses, low dose ( 20 microg/kg) granisetron. RESULTS: A total of 27 RCT with 2938 patients were included in the analysis. RR (CI) to suffer from PONV with granisetron when all comparisons were considered was 0.46 (0.39-0.54), 0.7 (0.6-0.81) and 0.34 (0.28-0.41) for all doses, low and high dose, respectively. RR of the dominating centre (1867 patients) were significantly better compared to the remaining centres (1071 patients), with 0.41 (0.34-0.49) and 0.60 (0.49-0.73), respectively. In the dominating centre low dose granisetron was ineffective with a RR of 0.84 (0.68-1.04), while high dose granisetron led to a strong decrease with a RR of 0.30 (0.26-0.36). In contrast, the RR of other centres pooled for low and high dose granisetron were comparable with 0.62 (0.49-0.79) and 0.56 (0.42-0.75), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall results and dose-response characteristics of meta-analyses may be significantly altered by one dominating centre. Further, if data of a dominating centre do not appear to be valid for other centres, it may seem advisable to either exclude them from the analysis or to perform sub-group analyses so that results without the data from the dominating centre are available.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2001

[Droperidol and dimenhydrinate alone or in combination for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting].

BACKGROUND: Droperidol and dimenhydrinate are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Droperidol, especially, has been studied extensively in the past, but there are no studies that used the combination of both drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Thus, the aim of this randomised controlled and double-blinded study was to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy and the side effects of such a combination therapy. METHODS: 240 inpatients undergoing ENT surgery under general anaesthesia were randomised to receive one of four antiemetic regimes: placebo, dimenhydrinate (1 mg x kg-1), droperidol (15 micrograms x kg-1), or the combination of both drugs (droperidol 15 micrograms x kg-1 + dimenhydrinate 1 mg x kg-1) was administered after induction of anaesthesia and repeated 6 hours after the first administration. For general anaesthesia a standardised technique including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2, vecuronium, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil was used. Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic rescue medication were standardised. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional antiemetics were recorded for 24 hours. The main goal of the study was to increase the number of patients who were completely free from PONV (chi 2-test with Fisher-Yates' correction). Furthermore, the severity of PONV was analysed using a standardised scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Data of 227 patients could be analysed. The incidence of patients who suffered from PONV was 41.3% (95%-confidence interval: 29-55%) in the placebo-group. Dimenhydrinate alone reduced PONV to 34.5% (95%-CI: 22-48%). This marginal effect and the effect of droperidol (PONV: 26.4% (95%-CI: 15-40%)) could not be proven statistically, since the power of the study was too small. The combination of both drugs decreased PONV to 19.6% (95%-CI: 10-32%) and also reduced the severity of the symptoms to a clinically acceptable level. CONCLUSION: Dimenhydrinate failed to reduce the incidence and severity of PONV. The efficiency of droperidol given alone was within the ranges previously known from metaanalytic data. The combination of both drugs showed a moderate synergistic effect.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide alone or in combination for prophylaxis of PONV.

PURPOSE: Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Metoclopramide, especially, has been studied extensively in the past, but there are no studies on the combination of both drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: One hundred and sixty male inpatients undergoing endonasal surgery were randomized to receive one of four antiemetic regimens in a double-blind manner: placebo, 1 mg x kg(-1) dimenhydrinate, 0.3 mg x kg(-1) metoclopramide, or the combination of both drugs was administered after induction of anesthesia. Patients received a second dose of these drugs six hours after the first administration to mitigate their short half-life. Standardized general anesthesia included benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2 vecuronium, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil. Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic rescue medication were standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional antiemetics were recorded for 24 hr. The incidences of PONV were analyzed with Fisher's Exact test and the severity of PONV (rated by a standardized scoring algorithm) with the Jonckheere-Terpestra-test. RESULTS: The incidence of patients free from PONV was 62.5% in the placebo-group and increased to 72.5% in the metoclopramide-group (P = 0.54), 75.0% in the dimenhydrinate-group (P = 0.34), and 85.0% in the combination- group (P = 0.025). In the latter group, the severity of PONV was reduced compared with placebo treatment (P = 0.017; Jonckheere-Terpestra-test). CONCLUSION: Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide were ineffective in reducing the incidence and the severity of PONV. Their combination reduced the incidence of PONV compared with placebo.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

[Dexamethasone for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies].

OBJECTIVE: Randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of dexamethasone alone or in combination with other antiemetics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were included in a meta-analysis to estimate the relative efficacy of these treatments. METHODS: Studies were systematically searched using Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane-Library, and by manual screening the reference lists and current issues of locally available anaesthesia journals. Studies identified were divided into four different groups. For each subgroup an independent analysis was performed: 1. Dexamethasone vs. placebo, 2. Dexamethasone + other antiemetic vs. other antiemetic alone, 3. Dexamethasone + other antiemetic vs. dexamethasone alone, 4. Dexamethasone vs. other antiemetics. The main end point in each study was defined as complete absence of nausea, retching, and vomiting after prophylactic antiemetic treatment. The pooled odds-ratios, the relative risk (RR) and the numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) with their corresponding 95%-confidence intervals (given in parentheses) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies with 2561 patients were analysed. 1. As a sole antiemetic agent dexamethasone is superior to placebo to prevent PONV (RR: 0.49 (0.15-0.42); NNT: 3.4 (2.5-5.3)). 2. When dexamethasone and an other antiemetic (e.g. a 5-HT3-antagonist) are combined this drug combination is significantly more effective than the single antiemetic without dexamethasone (RR: 0.60 (0.46-0.78); NNT: 7.3 (5.7-10.2)). 3. A similar result was obtained when the dexamethasone combination was compared with dexamethasone alone. The combination is statistically superior (RR: 0.16 (0.08-0.32); NNT: 3.2 (2.2-6.3)). 4. Dexamethasone was usually compared with 5-HT3-antagonist and to a less extends also with dopamine antagonists. Summarising these studies, there was no significant difference concerning effectiveness (RR: 1.35 (0.99-1.85); NNT: 10.6 (5.6-92.6)). CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone has antiemetics effects that are superior to placebo treatment and are comparable with conventional antiemetic agents (e.g. 5-HT3-antagonist, dopamine antagonists). The drug is especially useful in combination with other antiemetics and increases the efficacy of the antiemetic partner drug.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2000

[The menstruation cycle in the postoperative phase. Its effect of the incidence of nausea and vomiting].

OBJECTIVE: Several studies suggest that the menstrual cycle has an impact on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, many studies report inconsistent results. Thus, in this systematic review the results of all available studies are compared and statistically synthesised. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed (Medline, the Cochrane-Library, reference lists of matching articles). The main end point in each study was defined as occurrence of PONV during an observation interval of at least 12 h postoperatively. These data were extracted from each article and the pooled incidences of PONV for each day of the menstrual cycle were calculated. These incidences were analysed using the chi 2-test. Furthermore the pooled incidences of PONV during the following phases of the menstrual cycle were calculated: days 1-7, 8-12, 13-15, 16-24, and 25-end of cycle. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies with 2625 patients containing informations on the incidence of PONV on different days or phases of the menstrual cycle were analysed. The total incidence of PONV was 37.3%. The incidence of PONV was lowest (26.9%) on day 20 and reached its maximum on day 5 (45.0%) with no statistically significant differences concerning the incidences of PONV between the different days (p = 0.75). Furthermore there were no clinically relevant differences in the incidences of PONV during the phases of the menstrual cycle: day 1-7: 40.4%; day 8-12: 32.9%; day 13-15: 38.1%; day 16-24: 34.5%; day 25-end of cycle: 41.5%. Prophylactic administration of an antiemetic in some of the studies had no impact on these results. CONCLUSION: Studies investigating the influence of the menstrual cycle on the incidence of PONV show inconsistent results. Summarising the data of these studies suggests that the phase of the menstrual cycle has no impact on the occurrence of PONV.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2000

[Effects of carotid artery thrombendarterectomy on pulsatile ocular blood flow].

UNLABELLED: Successful operations of clinically significant carotid artery stenosis by carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are leading to a better perfusion in the region of this artery. It still creates problems to make a statement about cerebral and ocular perfusion during the operation. METHODS: In 10 patients who underwent a CEA the pulse amplitude (PA) of the intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured intraoperatively by a pneumotomography (OBF-Systems, U.K.) and the so called pulsatile ocular blood flow (pOBF) was determined. The middle arterial blood pressure (MAP) was taken invasively during the operation. RESULTS: During the clamping phases no PA could be recorded. PA (p = 0.04) and pOBF (p = 0.028) increased on the side which had been operated on. No correlations of PA and pOBF to MAP were found. CONCLUSION: This method can prove an increased pulsatile ocular blood flow after successful CEA.

Aged↗

PubMed2000

Evaluation of three risk scores to predict postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: So far there are three different scores to predict postoperative vomiting (PV: Apfel et al., 1998) or postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV: Koivuranta et al., 1997; Palazzo and Evans, 1993). All three scores used logistic regression analysis to identify and create weights for the risk factors for PV or PONV. In short, these were sex, age, history of previous PONV, motion sickness, duration of anaesthesia, and use of postoperative opioids. However, an external evaluation and a comparison of these scores has not been performed so far. METHODS: Patients undergoing a variety of surgical procedures under general anaesthesia were studied prospectively. Preoperatively, they completed a questionnaire concerning potential risk factors for the occurrence of PV or PONV implemented in the three risk scores. Balanced anaesthesia (induction agent, nondepolarising neuromuscular blocker, opioid, and inhalation agent in nitrous oxide/oxygen) was performed. No intravenous anaesthesia or any antiemetic prophylaxis was applied. Postoperatively, the patients were observed in the recovery room for the occurrence of PV and PONV and were visited twice on the ward within the 24-h observation period. Both the patients and the nursing staff were asked whether PV or PONV was present. The severity of PONV was categorised using a standardised scoring algorithm. A total of 1,444 patients was finally included into the analysis. Using information of the predicted risk for the individual patients and the actual occurrence of PV or PONV, Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC-curves) were drawn. The area under each ROC-curve was calculated as a means of the predictive properties of each score and was compared for statistical differences. RESULTS: For prediction of PONV (any severity) the AUC-values (AUC=area under the curve) and the corresponding 95%-confidence intervals were: Apfel: 0.70 (0.67-0.72); Koivuranta: 0.71 (0.69-0.73); Palazzo: 0.68 (0.65-0.70). For prediction of PV: Apfel: 0.73 (0.71-0.75); Koivuranta: 0.73 (0.70-0.75); Palazzo: 0.68 (0.65-0.70). Thus, all three scores appeared to have a moderate accuracy as measured by the AUC. The score of Koivuranta predicts PONV (P=0.007) and also PV (P=0.002) significantly better than Palazzo's score. Furthermore, for predicting of PV the score of Apfel was also superior to Palazzo's score (P=0.005). All three scores predict PV with the same accuracy as PONV. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of PV and PONV in patients undergoing surgery under balanced anaesthesia can be predicted with moderate but acceptable accuracy using one of the available risk scores, regardless of local surgical or anaesthesiological circumstances. For clinical practice, we recommend the score published by Koivuranta, since its calculation is very simple.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Droperidol and 5-HT3-receptor antagonists, alone or in combination, for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Droperidol and 5-HT3-receptor antagonists are among the most potent antiemetics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Combinations of these drugs have been used to increase the efficacy of antiemetic treatment. However, so far the quantitative effect of this combination has not been evaluated systematically. METHODS: Results from randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of 5-HT3-receptor antagonists or droperidol alone versus the combination of both drugs to prevent PONV were included in a meta-analysis. Studies were systematically searched using Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane-Library, and by manually screening the reference lists of matching review articles and current issues of locally available peer-reviewed anaesthesia journals. Seven papers with data on granisetron published by Fujii and co-workers were not considered. The main end point in each study was defined as occurrence of nausea, retching, or vomiting within 6 h ("early PONV") and within 48 h ("late PONV") after surgery. The relative risks (RR) and the numbers needed to treat (NNT) of the pooled data with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (given in parentheses) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies with 881 patients (adults: n=801; children (mean age: 8 yr): n=80) were included in the analysis. Droperidol was applied to 340 patients, 5-HT3-receptor antagonists to 198, and 343 were treated with a combination of both drugs. Seven out of these eight studies reported increased antiemetic efficacy of the combination group compared with the single drugs (droperidol and 5-HT3-receptor antagonists respectively). However, in none of the trials did this difference reach statistical significance. When a meta-analytic analysis based on these results was performed the combination of droperidol with a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist was not associated with a significantly increased antiemetic efficacy. In 12 to 13 patients a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist has to be added to droperidol prophylaxis to prevent one additional patient from PONV who would have had suffered from PONV when treated with droperidol alone (RR "early PONV": 1.52 (0.95-2.44); RR "late PONV": 1.24 (0.89-1.74)). Similar results were obtained when the antiemetic effect of adding droperidol to a prophylaxis with 5-HT3-receptor antagonists was analysed. In this case 10 to 12 patients have to be treated with the 5-HT3-droperidol combination instead of with a 5-HT3-receptor antagonist alone to prevent one additional patient from PONV (RR "early PONV": 1.55 (0.68-3.52); RR "late PONV": 1.29 (0.77-2.17)). There were no reports of an increased incidence of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: The data on the combination of droperidol with 5-HT3-receptor antagonists suggest that there is a trend towards increased efficacy of the combination therapy compared to the single drugs. However, so far there are insufficient data to recommend this combination treatment for prophylaxis.

Antiemetics↗

PubMed2000

[Clonidine compared to midazolam for intravenous premedication for ambulatory procedures. A controlled double blind study in ASA 1 patients].

OBJECTIVE: Midazolam is frequently used for premedication in day-case surgical patients whereas clonidine is rarely administered for this indication. However, clonidine has several useful effects that make the drug an interesting alternative to conventional premedicants. Thus, in this randomised, double-blind, and controlled study the anxiolytic effect of midazolam was compared to that of clonidine. Furthermore, effects on postoperative complaints and minor complications, and readiness for discharge were investigated. METHODS: 100 ASA-1 patients undergoing wisdom teeth extraction on a day-case basis were included into the analysis. A further 50 patients who received no premedication served as a control group. General anaesthesia was standardised (propofol-fentanyl-isoflurane in N2O/O2). The anxiolytic effect of the premedication was assessed using the Erlanger anxiety- and tension scale (EAS). The test was applied before and after intravenous premedication with 1.5 micrograms/kg clonidine or 50 micrograms/kg midazolam and repeated once postoperatively. During recovery the incidence and severity of pain, nausea and vomiting, and shivering were recorded. The readiness for discharge was assessed using standardised discharge criteria. The recording of data was completed by a telephone interview on the day after surgery. RESULTS: The demographic data of the groups did not differ. In the two treatment groups there was a time-dependent decrease of anxiety and tension. However, postoperatively there was no difference between the levels of anxiety and inner tension between the premedicated patients and the untreated control group. Furthermore there was no difference in the incidence and severity of any postoperative complications. Time until the patients were ready for discharge did not differ between the three groups. CONCLUSION: The effects of an intravenous premedication with 1.5 micrograms/kg clonidine or 50 micrograms/kg midazolam, respectively in young ASA-1 patients undergoing minor surgical procedures on a day-case basis are restricted to decrease of anxiety and inner tension before surgery. No beneficial effects were found during the postoperative period compared with untreated control patients.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

PubMed2000

[Impact of environmental factors on the incidence of posteropative nausea and vomiting. Influence of the weather and cycle of the moon].

OBJECTIVE: In a survey concerning postoperative nausea and vomiting an unexpected high number of the participants stressed the impact of environmental factors, like weather and--even more surprising--the phase of the moon, on the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the influence of these factors on the incidence of PONV. METHODS: On 203 days within the 19-month study period, 2488 patients were followed up for at least 24 hours postoperatively to determine the occurrence of PONV. For each day the actual incidence of PONV was compared with the mean predicted risk of PONV calculated with two risk scores for prediction of PONV (Koivuranta, 1997; Apfel, 1998). 32 days with the most significant difference between actual and predicted incidence of PONV were analysed retrospectively by two biometeorological experts, who were blind to the information whether each day was associated with a high or low incidence of PONV, evaluated the possible impact of the weather of these days. To analyse the influence of the cycle of the moon it was prospectively classified into four different phases. RESULTS: The two biometeorologists rated 22 out of the presented 32 days correctly. The likelihood p that this rating happened by chance is 0.0251, assuming that the likelihood for predicting each day correctly is 0.5 (independent Bernoulli-experiments, e.g. throwing a coin). However, days with a high or low incidence of PONV were equally distributed within the four phases of the moon (p = 0.97; chi 2-test with Yates' correction). CONCLUSION: Results from this analysis suggest that the weather may have some impact on the occurrence of PONV. However, our data do not support the hypothesis that the phases of the moon have any influence on this symptom.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

[The effect of low droperidol dosages on postoperative anxiety, internal tension, general mood and PONV].

BACKGROUND: Droperidol even in low doses such as 0.5 mg to 1.25 mg can increase postoperative anxiety and state of tension. The aim of this study was to determine whether these side effects occur frequently following low-dose droperidol and to see whether these are dose related. METHODS: 184 female in- and outpatients ASA grade 1 and 2 undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy were recruited to this prospective, double-blind study. General anaesthesia was standardized (induction with thiopentone, fentanyl 2 micrograms/kg and vecuronium 0.1 mg/kg, tracheal intubation, maintainance with enflurane in N2O/O2). Patients were randomly allocated to receive saline (n = 45), 0.625 mg (n = 46), 1.25 mg (n = 47) or 2.5 mg (n = 46) droperidol i.v. 10 minutes before the end of surgery. 1,3,6, and 24 hours postoperatively, the patients' anxiety, state of tension and overall mood was evaluated using two psychological questionnaires which had been tested for the perioperative period (Erlanger anxiety and tension-scale/BSKE-EWL-test). Sedation was evaluated by the staff of the recovery room. In addition, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was assessed using a 100 mm visual analogue scale and by counting the episodes of retching or vomiting. PONV was then rated over the whole observation period as none, mild, moderate or severe using a fixed scoring algorithm. Statistical analysis was performed using the ANOVA and the chi2-test. RESULTS: The patients did not differ with regard to biometric data, duration of surgery and anaesthesia. The postoperative scores for anxiety, state of tension and overall mood were not different between the groups at any observation time (Fig. 1: anxiety and tension: P = 0.5687; figure 2: overall mood: P = 0.0647). Quality of sleep in the first night after surgery was the same in all groups (Table 2 and 3). Sedation was not significantly different (Table 4; P = 0.0704). Furthermore, duration of stay in the recovery room did not differ (P = 0.4353). On the other hand, three patients from the 2.5 mg droperidol group had to stay unexpectedly on the ward overnight, because they had been too much sedated to be discharged at home. This was not the case with any patient from the other groups. Compared to placebo, PONV over the whole 24 h observation period was significantly reduced by droperidol (Fig. 3; P = 0.0338): completely free from PONV: placebo: 41.3%, 0.625 mg droperidol: 67.4%, 1.25 mg droperidol: 53.2%, 2.5 mg droperidol: 71.7%. Also the severity of PONV was reduced. CONCLUSION: In gynaecological laparoscopy under general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation, we recommend droperidol 0.625 mg in the prevention of PONV, as it reduces PONV as well as 2.5 mg with no severe sedation in this dosage. Psychological side effects did not occur more frequently after droperidol compared to placebo in any of the investigated dosages.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

PubMed1999

[Validation of a risk score for prediction of vomiting in the postoperative period].

BACKGROUND: A risk score to predict postoperative vomiting was presented in a recent issue of this journal. In the present study this score was evaluated at another hospital under different surgical and anaesthetic conditions. Furthermore, we examined whether the score, which was originally designed to predict the occurrence of postoperative vomiting (POV) only, is also useful for prediction of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: The risk score was applied to 226 patients undergoing inpatient orthopaedic surgery under standardised general anaesthesia (propofol, desflurane in N(2)O/O(2), fentanyl, vecuronium, postoperative opioid analgesia). For 24 hours postoperatively, the patients were followed up for the occurrence of nausea, retching, and vomiting. Perioperatively, risk factors for POV were recorded (gender, age, smoking habits, history of previous PONV or motion sickness, duration of anaesthesia). Using these risk factors the individual risk for suffering POV was calculated for each patient. With these data two ROC-curves (for prediction of POV and PONV respectively) were constructed and the area under the ROC-curve (AUC) as a means of the prediction probabilities of the score was calculated. RESULTS: The incidence of POV as predicted by the score (22,8%) fits well to the actual incidence of this event (19,5%). The score predicts the occurrence of POV significantly better than can be expected by a random estimation. In spite of different surgical and anaesthetic conditions, the accuracy of the prediction in the present dataset was not significantly different from that reported by the authors of the scores in their validation set. Furthermore, the prediction properties for POV (AUC: 0,73) were not different from the prediction of PONV (AUC: 0,72). CONCLUSION: The present risk score provides valid prognostic results even under modified surgical and anaesthetic conditions, and, thus, may obviously be applied to other institutions. Furthermore our results support the hypothesis, that individual risk factors rather than the type of surgery or anaesthetic management have a major impact on the occurrence of POV and PONV.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

[The incidence of perioperative events with optimized documentation discipline].

AIM: The German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine evaluated the standardized reporting of perioperative anaesthesia-related incidents, events, and complications (IEC). As part of the data validation efforts, the problem of variation in documentation procedure was evaluated. METHODS: A study group of particularly motivated and instructed residents and attendants was scrutinized at a University teaching hospital from April through June 96. IEC assessment was completed according to the Society's definitions. RESULTS: Out of 4242 anaesthetics during the study period 839 (19.8%) were completed by the study group. In the univariate analysis, the incidence of IECs was significantly (P < 0.001) more reported by the physicians studied (36.4%) than by the control group (18.6%). In a multivariate analysis, while adjusting for all covariables, reported incidence of IEC was 2.4-fold significantly increased (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study is another step in validating the assessment of IECs. The results gain importance with respect to upcoming nationwide quality comparisons among anaesthesia providers. In addition, they give a better estimate of economic implications from IECs within the institution.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed1999

Dimenhydrinate for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting in female in-patients.

Dimenhydrinate is an inexpensive antihistaminic drug, that is frequently used as an anti-emetic during anaesthesia. The popularity of the drug is contrasted by the lack of modern studies concerning its efficacy in reducing the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting. Thus, dimenhydrinate was compared with placebo in this prospective, randomized, double-blind study. One hundred and thirty-three female in-patients were studied. They were stratified according to the type of surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy, thyroid resection or knee arthroscopy) to ensure an homogeneous distribution in both groups. General anaesthesia was induced with etomidate, fentanyl, vecuronium and maintained with enflurane in N2O/O2. Neuromuscular block was reversed with pyridostigmine/atropine. Patients in the dimenhydrinate group (n = 67) received 62 mg dimenhydrinate intravenously after induction of anaesthesia. Placebo patients (n = 66) received saline. Administration of dimenhydrinate (and placebo) was repeated three times during the 48-h study to mitigate the short half-life of the drug. Post-operative analgesia and anti-emetic rescue medication was standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching and the need for additional anti-emetics were recorded. Nausea was assessed using a 10-cm visual analogue scale. Post-operative nausea and vomiting was rated as 'none', 'mild', 'moderate' and 'severe' using a fixed scoring algorithm. There were no differences between the two groups with regard to biometric data, type of surgery and distribution of risk factors for developing post-operative nausea and vomiting. In the dimenhydrinate group, more patients remained completely free from post-operative nausea and vomiting compared with placebo (dimenhydrinate: 38.8%; placebo: 15.1%; P = 0.004). The incidence of severe post-operative nausea and vomiting was also reduced from 39.4% to 14.9%. No relevant side effects were observed. Intra-operative dimenhydrinate, followed by three further administrations after surgery, reduces the incidence and the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting without side effects. However, there still remained an unacceptable high number of patients who were not prevented completely from experiencing post-operative nausea and vomiting.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

Droperidol-supplemented anaesthesia decreases post-operative nausea and vomiting but impairs post-operative mood and well-being.

Post-operative nausea and vomiting is distressing for patients and can cause dissatisfaction and impaired well-being in the post-operative period. This study examined the question whether the reduced incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting inevitably translates into improved clinical status and well-being. In this context high doses of droperidol were investigated. On the one hand, droperidol is known to be a powerful anti-emetic, but on the other hand there is concern about psychological effects, both in the pre- and the post-operative period. In this prospective randomized double-blinded study, droperidol (5-7.5 mg) was compared with midazolam (5-7.5 mg) used to supplement fentanyl-N2O based anaesthesia, with respect to post-operative mood and well-being using a psychological questionnaire (Bf-S-test). Furthermore, the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting was recorded. Out of 160 patients undergoing thyroidectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, data from 150 patients were analysed. The administration of droperidol significantly lowered the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting from 77.8% to 55.1% compared with midazolam (P = 0.0059; chi 2-test). Although post-operative nausea and vomiting is an independent risk factor for post-operative discomfort and bad mood, patients receiving droperidol showed impaired well-being 6 h after surgery. Well-being scores returned to pre-operative base-line values and did not differ between the two groups 24 and 48 h post-operatively. The reduced incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting achieved with high dose droperidol does not equate with increased post-operative well-being. It is an important point at issue to decide whether smaller doses of droperidol that are commonly used for anti-emetic therapy are free of these side effects.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗

PubMed1999

Droperidol and dimenhydrinate alone or in combination for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting after nasal surgery in male patients.

Droperidol and dimenhydrinate are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Droperidol, especially, has been studied extensively, but there are no studies on the combination of both drugs for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting. One hundred and forty male hospitalized patients undergoing nasal surgery were randomized to receive one of four anti-emetic regimes: placebo, dimenhydrinate (1 mg kg-1), droperidol (15 micrograms kg-1), or the combination of both drugs (droperidol 15 micrograms kg-1 + dimenhydrinate 1 mg kg-1) administered after induction of anaesthesia. Patients in the dimenhydrinate-group and the combination-group received a second dose of dimenhydrinate 6 h after the first administration to mitigate the short half-life of the drug. For general anaesthesia a standardized technique, including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2, vecuronium, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil, was used. Post-operative analgesia and anti-emetic rescue medication were standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional anti-emetics were recorded for 24 h. The main endpoint of this study was the number of patients who were completely free of post-operative nausea and vomiting (Fisher's Exact Test). Furthermore, the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting was analysed using a standardized scoring algorithm. The incidence of patients completely free of post-operative nausea and vomiting was 62.9% in the placebo-group, 77.1% in the dimenhydrinate-group (P = 0.21), and 82.9% in the droperidol-group (P = 0.07). This increased to 94.3% in the combination-group (P = 0.0015). In all three treatment groups the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting was reduced significantly compared with placebo treatment (P = 0.0003). The incidence of side effects was similar in the four groups. Dimenhydrinate was ineffective in reducing the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting and droperidol only reduced the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting. However, the combination of both drugs significantly reduces the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting when compared with placebo treatment.

Adult↗

PubMed1999

[Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide for prevention of nausea and vomiting following septorhinoplasties in women].

OBJECTIVES: Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Metoclopramide, especially, has been studied extensively in the past, but there are no studies that used the combination of both drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: 120 female inpatients undergoing endonasal surgery were randomised to receive one of four antiemetic regimes: placebo, dimenhydrinate (1 mg x kg-1), metoclopramide (0.3 mg x kg-1), or the combination of both drugs (1 mg x kg-1 + 0.3 mg x kg-1) were administered intravenously after induction of anaesthesia and repeated 6 hours after the first administration. For general anaesthesia a standardised technique including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2 vecuronium and a continuous infusion of remifentanil was used. Postoperative analgesia (diclofenac or metamizole supplemented with piritramide) and antiemetic rescue medication (dolasetron and droperidol) were standardised. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional antiemetics were recorded in the recovery room and 2, 5, 8, and 24 hours after surgery. The main goal of the study was to increase the number of females staying completely free from PONV (Chi 2-test). Furthermore, the severity of PONV was analysed, using a standardised scoring algorithm. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups with regard to biometric data and distribution of risk factors for developing PONV. In all four groups nearly the similar number of patients stayed completely free from PONV: Placebo: 60.7%, metoclopramide: 66.7%, dimenhydrinate: 64.3%, combination: 64.4% (differences not significant). There was also no difference in the severity of nausea and emetic sequel. DISCUSSION: In females undergoing endonasal surgery under propofol-desflurane-remifentanil anaesthesia the incidence of PONV is about 40%. In this setting, both metoclopramide and dimenhydrinate were ineffective to reduce the incidence and the severity of PONV. The combination of both drugs revealed no additional synergistic effect.

Adult↗