PubMed · 7075929
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1982. Bendectin PPI available.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7075929/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a clinical problem with an unacceptably high incidence. Several studies have been performed that compare different antiemetics but thus far no successful monotherapy has been found. The reason for this is that the genesis of PONV is multifactorial and that patient characteristics and type of anesthesia and surgery may have an influence. It is possible to quantify the risk of PONV for a given patient using available risk score systems. In patients at great risk it is meaningful to recommend prophylactic antiemetics with a 2- or even 3-drug regimen, e.g. droperidol, ondansetron and dexamethasone. If the patients experience PONV despite treatment or prophylaxis, they should be treated with a drug from a group different from the one used earlier.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the antiemetic efficacy and adverse effects of cannabis used for sickness induced by chemotherapy. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, bibliographies), any language, to August 2000. STUDIES: 30 randomised comparisons of cannabis with placebo or antiemetics from which dichotomous data on efficacy and harm were available (1366 patients). Oral nabilone, oral dronabinol (tetrahydrocannabinol), and intramuscular levonantradol were tested. No cannabis was smoked. Follow up lasted 24 hours. RESULTS: Cannabinoids were more effective antiemetics than prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, chlorpromazine, thiethylperazine, haloperidol, domperidone, or alizapride: relative risk 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.62), number needed to treat 6 for complete control of nausea; 1.28 (1.08 to 1.51), NNT 8 for complete control of vomiting. Cannabinoids were not more effective in patients receiving very low or very high emetogenic chemotherapy. In crossover trials, patients preferred cannabinoids for future chemotherapy cycles: 2.39 (2.05 to 2.78), NNT 3. Some potentially beneficial side effects occurred more often with cannabinoids: "high" 10.6 (6.86 to 16.5), NNT 3; sedation or drowsiness 1.66 (1.46 to 1.89), NNT 5; euphoria 12.5 (3.00 to 52.1), NNT 7. Harmful side effects also occurred more often with cannabinoids: dizziness 2.97 (2.31 to 3.83), NNT 3; dysphoria or depression 8.06 (3.38 to 19.2), NNT 8; hallucinations 6.10 (2.41 to 15.4), NNT 17; paranoia 8.58 (6.38 to 11.5), NNT 20; and arterial hypotension 2.23 (1.75 to 2.83), NNT 7. Patients given cannabinoids were more likely to withdraw due to side effects 4.67 (3.07 to 7.09), NNT 11. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, the cannabinoids tested in these trials may be useful as mood enhancing adjuvants for controlling chemotherapy related sickness. Potentially serious adverse effects, even when taken short term orally or intramuscularly, are likely to limit their widespread use.