Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Nausea”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting by tropisetron (Navoban) alone or in combination with other antiemetic agents.

We report an open, three-armed, multicenter study being carried out to assess the optimum treatment for acute and delayed emesis and nausea in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Eighty-seven patients were randomized to receive tropisetron (Navoban; Sandoz Pharma Ltd, Basel, Switzerland), tropisetron plus dexamethasone, or tropisetron plus metoclopramide during chemotherapy. Tropisetron in combination with dexamethasone produced the best control of both acute and delayed emesis. Acute vomiting was prevented in 69% of patients by tropisetron monotherapy, and the addition of dexamethasone significantly increased the total control of vomiting to 92% (P < .01). Similarly for delayed vomiting, total control of emesis was seen in approximately 70% of patients on tropisetron alone during days 2 and 3; this control rate increased to almost 90% with combined tropisetron/ dexamethasone treatment. In all patients receiving cisplatin, the tropisetron/dexamethasone combination produced total control of acute emesis. The tropisetron and dexamethasone combination also provided the best control of acute and delayed nausea. Tropisetron produced total control of acute nausea in 69% of patients. The addition of dexamethasone increased this control rate to 81%. Similarly for delayed nausea, on days 2 and 3 of treatment, dexamethasone plus tropisetron provided total control of nausea in more than 80% of patients compared with a control rate of more than 60% achieved using tropisetron. The combination of tropisetron and metoclopramide did not improve significantly on the control of nausea and vomiting achieved using tropisetron alone. Evaluation of quality of life events by patients indicated no appreciable change in their mental or physical condition during chemotherapy, irrespective of antiemetic therapy. In the tropisetron and tropisetron plus metoclopramide treatment groups, a decreased food intake was observed due to delayed nausea while the addition of dexamethasone prevented loss of appetite. The antiemetic treatments were similarly well tolerated. The most common adverse events were constipation (15%) and tiredness (7%).

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Gastroesophageal disease and nausea: does fundoplication help or hurt?

HYPOTHESIS: Nausea associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease is cured by laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of unselected patients who underwent LNF from January 1, 1995, through March 31, 1999. Patients were followed up by a physician for 6 to 36 months. SETTING: A large community teaching hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred consecutive patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease who underwent LNF; all patients were followed up. Patients were grouped according to the presence (group A, n = 33) or absence (group B, n = 67) of preoperative nausea. Interventions were LNF, esophageal manometry, 24-hour pH monitoring, and nuclear gastric emptying studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Resolution of symptoms after LNF. RESULTS: Nausea was the most common atypical symptom of gastroesophageal reflux disease, occurring in 33 patients (33%). There were no differences in esophageal manometry or 24-hour pH results between groups. There was a female preponderance in group A (55% vs 33%; P = .003). Patients in group A had a higher prevalence of preoperative dysphagia (P = .02). Patients with persistent postoperative nausea had a higher prevalence of cough (P = .003) and dysphagia (P = .009). The LNF was more effective in reducing heartburn (95% reduction) and regurgitation (95% reduction) than cough and dysphagia (60% reduction). There was a 79% reduction in the number of patients with nausea (33 to 7; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is effective in eliminating nausea associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease and is not contraindicated in these patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Drug therapy to prevent PONV is only partially effective. An alternative approach is to stimulate a P6 acupoint on the wrist. Although there are many trials examining this technique, the results are conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2003), EMBASE (January 1988 to January 2003) and the National Library of Medicine publication list of acupuncture studies up to and including January 2003. Reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews were consulted for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the P6 acupoint compared with: sham treatment or drug therapy for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, acustimulation device and acupressure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed methodological quality and extracted the data. Primary outcomes were incidences of nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects. A random effects model was used and relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) are reported. Egger's test was used to measure the asymmetry of the funnel plot. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six trials (n = 3347) were included, none of which reported adequate allocation concealment. There were significant reductions in the risks of nausea (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89), vomiting (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.91) and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00) in the P6 acupoint stimulation group compared with the sham treatment, although many of the trials were heterogeneous. There was no evidence of difference in the risk of nausea and vomiting in the P6 acupoint stimulation group versus individual antiemetic groups. However, when different antiemetics were pooled, there was significant reduction in the risk of nausea but not vomiting in the P6 acupoint stimulation group compared with the antiemetic group (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29 respectively). The side effects associated with P6 acupoint stimulation were minor. There was some evidence of asymmetry of the funnel plot. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review supports the use of P6 acupoint stimulation in patients without antiemetic prophylaxis. Compared with antiemetic prophylaxis, P6 acupoint stimulation seems to reduce the risk of nausea but not vomiting.

Acupuncture Points↗
PubMed2006

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed2006

Inverse association between severe nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and some congenital abnormalities.

The objective of the study was to investigate the possible association between nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy and congenital abnormalities. The prevalence of medically-recorded severe nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy in cases with congenital abnormalities and their available matched population controls without any defect was compared in the population-based large data set of the Hungarian Case-Control Surveillance System of congenital abnormalities, 1980-1996. Of 22,843 cases with as 25 different congenital abnormality groups, 1,713 (7.5%) cases had mothers with medically recorded and treated severe nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Of 38,151 matched population controls, 3,777 (9.9%) had mothers with severe nausea and vomiting (adjusted prevalence odds ratio (POR) with 95% CI: 0.74, 0.68-0.79). Five congenital abnormality groups: cleft lip with or without cleft palate (0.50, 0.37-0.70), posterior cleft palate (0.53, 0.32-0.89), renal a/dysgenesis (0.23, 0.06-0.96), obstructive defects of urinary tract (0.32, 0.18-0.58), and cardiovascular malformations (0.68, 0.57-0.81) had mothers with a lower prevalence of severe nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (adjusted PORs with 95% CI included in parentheses). Of 25 congenital abnormality groups, 22 had POR lower than 1. Thus in this study the mothers of cases with congenital abnormalities were 26% less likely to have had severe nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy than the mothers of population controls without congenital abnormalities.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Delayed nausea and vomiting in children receiving antineoplastics.

BACKGROUND: The nature and prevalence of delayed antineoplastic-induced nausea and vomiting have not been well-described in children. This study describes the extent of delayed nausea and vomiting in children receiving antineoplastic agents as well as the drug therapies initiated in an attempt to prevent or manage it. PROCEDURE: All children receiving antineoplastics were eligible for study entry. The date and time of each emetic episode were recorded on each day antineoplastics were given and for 3 days thereafter. Nausea was self-assessed daily by children who were older than 3 years and were not developmentally delayed. Diet was also assessed daily. The emetic response, median nausea rating and median diet achieved were described. RESULTS: The emetic response of 124 children who received 174 antineoplastic cycles was evaluated. Most cycles (137/174;79%) were not associated with delayed vomiting. Cycles which included cisplatin, carboplatin, or cyclophosphamide; involved antineoplastic therapy given over 2 or more consecutive days; or were accompanied by vomiting during the acute phase were associated with a significantly higher incidence of delayed vomiting. Moderate to severe nausea was reported on 58% (267/459) of study days. No antiemetics were given on most study days (412/522;79%); nevertheless, most of the study days (381/412;93%) which were unaccompanied by antiemetic support during the delayed phase were completely free from vomiting. Antiemetics were most often given as single agents (ondansetron: 54 study days; dimenhydrinate: 17 study days; dexamethasone: 6 study days). Diet was largely unaffected during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Antineoplastic-induced delayed nausea and vomiting may be less prevalent in children than in adults. Routine antiemetic administration during the delayed phase may not be warranted in all patients. Med Pediatr Oncol 2001;37:115-121.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Single high-dose dexamethasone improves the effect of ondansetron on acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting but impairs the control of delayed symptoms.

The introduction of serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonists has improved the control of acute nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy, but they seem to have little or no effect on delayed symptoms. Corticosteroids are known to reduce both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that a single high dose of dexamethasone (20 mg), a long-acting corticosteroid, given after cisplatin and in addition to ondansetron (8 mg three times a day), would enhance the control of both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. A group of 104 chemotherapy-naive ovarian cancer patients, scheduled for at least three cycles of combination chemotherapy including cisplatin (50 mg/m2), were randomly allocated to receive either dexamethasone or placebo in addition to ondansetron. Two-thirds of the patients received doxorubin and melphalan on the day before cisplatin and 1/3 received doxorubicin immediately before cisplatin. Unexpectedly we found, in all three chemotherapy cycles, that patients receiving dexamethasone suffered from more delayed nausea and vomiting than patients receiving placebo. In patients with no acute nausea or vomiting, the boomerang effect of dexamethasone could be seen on the first day after chemotherapy. In a follow-up study on 5 patients not included in the randomized trial, dexamethasone induced a pronounced reduction in urinary cortisol excretion on the day after chemotherapy with a return to normal excretion on day 2. It is concluded that a single high dose of dexamethasone does not seem appropriate for controlling delayed nausea and vomiting.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed1994

The menstrual cycle and nausea or vomiting after wisdom teeth extraction.

We have investigated 195 pre-menopausal women undergoing third molar extractions, in a prospective study, to assess the influence of the day of the menstrual cycle on the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting. In the 95 patients taking the oral contraceptive pill the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting was higher on days 9 to 15 of the menstrual cycle (P < 0.05) than on days one to eight and days 16 to the end of cycle. In the 100 patients who were not taking the oral contraceptive pill the incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting was not higher on days 9 to 15. The strongest predictor for postoperative nausea or vomiting in our study was a previous episode of postoperative nausea or vomiting (P < 0.005). Patients with a tendency to motion sickness did not have a higher incidence of postoperative nausea or vomiting.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Post discharge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory laparoscopy is not reduced by promethazine prophylaxis.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) following outpatient laparoscopic procedures in women, and to assess the efficacy of the prophylactic administration of promethazine prior to discharge from hospital. METHODS: Ninety-five healthy women scheduled for ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy or gynecological surgery completed this double blind, placebo controlled study. A standardized fentanyl-propofol-nitrous oxide-isoflurane anesthetic was used, and all patients received 0.5 mg droperidol i.v., intraoperatively. Subjects were randomized to receive 0.6 mg x kg(-1) promethazine or placebo i.m. prior to transfer from the post-anesthetic recovery (PAR) unit. The incidence and severity of nausea, pain, and drowsiness were documented using patient diaries at four time intervals during the first 24 hr postoperatively using four-point self-assessment scales. RESULTS: After discharge home, the overall incidence of nausea was 48%, moderate to severe nausea 30%, vomiting 17% and rescue antiemetic use 28%, with no difference between those receiving saline or promethazine. The need for antiemetics in the PAR was associated with subsequent PDNV, with those requiring PAR antiemetics being four times as likely to vomit after discharge (P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Despite the prophylactic administration of 0.5 mg droperidol i.v., patients undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery reported a high incidence of nausea after discharge. Patients requiring antiemetics in the PAR were at higher risk for PDNV. The incidence of nausea was not altered by prophylactic administration of 0.6 mg x kg(-1) promethazine i.m. before discharge.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Oral sodium citrate increases nausea amongst elective Cesarean delivery patients.

PURPOSE: Historically, aspiration of gastric contents with subsequent pneumonia was a major cause of anesthesia-related maternal mortality. Before elective Cesarean delivery, gastric fluid can be neutralized with histamine-2 blockers or with oral sodium citrate. Although sodium citrate is commonly used, many patients dislike its taste. We designed this study to determine whether or not patients are more likely to experience nausea during Cesarean delivery when sodium citrate is administered preoperatively. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-three healthy women carrying a singleton fetus and scheduled for elective Cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomized to receive either sodium citrate 30 mL p.o. and saline 2 mL i.v. (sodium citrate group), or water 30 mL p.o. and famotidine 20 mg i.v. (famotidine group). Spinal anesthesia consisted of 1.6 mL of 0.75% bupivacaine (12 mg), fentanyl 20 microg, and preservative-free morphine 200 microg. Patients were asked to rate the degree of nausea present at one and five minutes after spinal placement, at the time of uterine exteriorization, and upon arrival to the recovery room. At each time point, the patient's systolic blood pressure and heart rate were recorded. RESULTS: At all recorded intervals, the average degree of nausea was greater in the sodium citrate group compared to the famotidine group. The frequency of nausea was also greater in the sodium citrate group compared with the famotidine group (37% vs 14% respectively, P < 0.05) five minutes after establishment of spinal anesthesia. The frequencies of nausea were not significantly different between groups at other time periods. CONCLUSION: Nausea is more common during Cesarean delivery in women who receive oral sodium citrate rather than i.v. famotidine for aspiration prophylaxis.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2004

Premedication with H1 and H2 blocking agents reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing anaesthesia and surgery frequently complain about postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Whether pretreatment with H1 and H2 blocking agents reduces the incidence of PONV remains controversial. To answer this question, we performed a randomised, prospective, placebo-controlled clinical study to evaluate the efficacy of a premedication with H1 and H2 receptor antagonists. MATERIAL AND SUBJECTS: 1149 patients (both sexes) undergoing surgery were randomly assigned to three treatment groups and one control group. Patients in the treatment groups were premedicated with the following H1 + H2 receptor antagonists:Group 1 (n = 335): 5 mg/kg cimetidine i.v. + 0.1 mg/kg dimetindene i.v. 20 min before induction of anaesthesiaGroup 2 (n = 337): 1.25 mg/kg ranitidine i.v. + 0.1 mg/kg dimetindene i.v. 20 min before induction of anaesthesiaGroup 3 (n = 316): 300 mg ranitidine p.o. + 0.1 mg/kg dimetindene i.v. 1 to 2 h before induction of anaesthesiaGroup 4 (n = 161): 20 ml saline solution i.v. 20 min before induction of anaesthesiaPatients from the treatment groups 1, 2 and 3 received regional or general anaesthesia depending on the clinical decision. All control patients received general anaesthesia consisting of fentanyl, a thiobarbiturate, enflurane, nitrous oxide, oxygen, and vecuronium. RESULTS: The incidence of nausea and vomiting was 8.5%, 6.8% and 5.4% in patients from the treatment groups (1, 2 and 3) who underwent general anaesthesia (n = 545), with no statistically significant differences between groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting in the control group (n = 161) was 28.3% (nausea) and 27.5% (vomiting), respectively. In patients who underwent regional anaesthesia (n = 443), the incidence of nausea and vomiting was 2.5% and 1.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with H1 and H2 blocking agents significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

[Ondansetron as prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting. A prospective randomized double-blind comparative study with droperidol].

Ondansetron, a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, has recently been shown, in a dose of 8 mg, to be superior to 1.25 mg droperidol in preventing postoperative vomiting. There are indications that a dose of 4 mg of ondansetron may be just as effective in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting as a dose of 8 mg. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and the adverse effects of 4 mg ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared to droperidol in patients undergoing surgery with inhalation anaesthesia supplemented with alfentanil. METHODS. Following institutional approval, 40 ASA physical status I and II women scheduled for minor gynaecological surgery gave informed consent to participate in this randomized, double-blind comparative study. Five minutes before induction of general anaesthesia, 20 patients received a single intravenous (i.v.) dose of 4 mg of ondansetron and the remaining 20 received 1.25 mg droperidol i.v. Anaesthesia was induced with 2.1-4 mg/kg of thiopental and 0.1 mg of alfentanil i.v. and maintained with 65% nitrous oxide and 1.5%-3% enflurane in oxygen. On pain stimuli another 0.2-0.4 mg of alfentanil was given. Total effective antiemetic response was defined as the absence of nausea and vomiting for 24 h postoperatively. The incidence of nausea, vomiting and the number of patients showing total antiemetic response as well as the incidence of adverse effects were compared with the chi 2 test and P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS. Patients were similar with respect to age, height, body weight and total anaesthetic agents received. Duration of anaesthesia and the time until awakening was not significantly different among groups. Postoperatively 7 out of 20 patients given 4 mg of ondansetron and 3 out of 20 patients with droperidol vomited (n.s.). The incidence of nausea was 11 out of 20 in the ondansetron group, and 4 out of 20 in the droperidol group (P < 0.05). Sixteen patients in the droperidol group and 8 patients in the ondansetron group showed a total effective antiemetic response (P < 0.05). Postoperative sedation and well-being scores did not differ significantly among groups. CONCLUSION. Our results show that for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting 4 mg of Ondansetron was inferior to 1.25 mg of droperidol. The drugs were given intravenously prior to general anaesthesia for minor gynaecological surgery with nitrous oxide and enflurane in oxygen supplemented with small boluses of alfentanil.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Effects of cannabinoids on lithium-induced conditioned rejection reactions in a rat model of nausea.

RATIONALE: Marijuana has been reported to suppress nausea produced by chemotherapy treatment in human cancer patients. Although there is abundant evidence that cannabinoid agonists attenuate vomiting in emetic species, there has been little experimental evidence of their anti-nausea potential. Considerable evidence suggests that conditioned rejection reactions in rats reflect nausea. The present experiments evaluated the potential of low doses of the cannabinoid agonists, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; 0.5 mg/kg, i.p.), and HU-210 (0.001 mg/kg and 0.01 mg/kg, i.p.), and the CB(1) antagonist SR-141716A in modulating the establishment and the expression of lithium-induced conditioned rejection reactions in rats. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of cannabinoids on conditioned rejection reactions, a rat model of nausea. METHODS: In experiments 1 and 2, respectively, rats were injected with cannabinoid agonists, THC (0.5 mg/kg, i.p.) and HU-210 (0.001, 0.005 or 0.01 mg/kg), 30 min prior to exposure to 0.1% saccharin solution by intraoral infusion. Immediately following saccharin exposure, they were injected with 20 ml/kg 0.15 M lithium chloride or saline. On each of two test trials, the rats were injected with the cannabinoid or vehicle 30 min prior to exposure to saccharin. In experiment 3, rats were injected with the CB(1) antagonist, SR-141716A (2.5 mg/kg) or a combination of SR-141716A and HU-210 (0.01 mg/kg) 30 min prior to an infusion of saccharin followed by injection of lithium or saline. They were given a single drug-free test trial. Experiment 4 replicated and extended the findings of experiment 3. RESULTS: delta-9-THC and HU-210 interfered with the establishment and the expression of lithium-induced conditioned rejection reactions. The suppressive effect of HU-210 on rejection reactions was reversed by pretreatment with SR-141716A. Administration of SR-141716A prior to conditioning potentiated lithium-induced conditioned rejection reactions. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the establishment and the expression of lithium-induced conditioned rejection reactions are suppressed by pretreatment with cannabinoid agents. These effects appear to be mediated by their action on the CB(1) receptor, because they are reversed by pretreatment with SR-141716A. Finally, our results suggest that endogenous cannabinoids play a role in modulation of nausea, because the antagonist potentiated lithium-induced nausea.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Effect of drainage on postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a high incidence of postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Pneumoperitoneum created during the operation and residual gas after the operation are two of the factors in postoperative pain and nausea. We studied the effects of a subdiaphragmatic gas drain, which is intended to decrease the residual gas, on postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients were randomized into two demographically and clinically comparable groups: drainage and control. Postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting were measured by verbal grading and visual analog scale 2-72 h postoperatively. Analgesic and antiemetic use and incidence of retching, vomiting and other complaints were also recorded. RESULTS: Subdiaphragmatic drain effectively reduced the incidence and amount of subdiaphragmatic gas bubble. The incidence and severity of nausea was lower in the drainage group at 72 h. Although severity of pain was lower at 8 and 12 h in the drainage group, the difference was not significant. There was also no difference between the groups in regard to analgesic and antiemetic use. CONCLUSIONS: Subdiaphragmatic drain offers only minor, if any, benefit on postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and this effect is probably clinically irrelevant.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

The effectiveness of progressive muscle relaxation training in managing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in Chinese breast cancer patients: a randomised controlled trial.

This study was a randomised controlled trial designed to assess the effectiveness of progressive muscle relaxation training (PMRT) in the clinical management of chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting as an adjuvant intervention to accompany pharmacological antiemetic treatment (metoclopramide and dexamethasone i.v.). Seventy-one chemotherapy-naive breast cancer patients of an outpatient oncology unit of a university hospital in Hong Kong participated, with 38 subjects randomised to the experimental group and 33 to the control group. The intervention included the use of PMRT 1 h before chemotherapy was administered and daily thereafter for another 5 days (for a total of six PMRT sessions). Each session lasted for 25 min and was followed by 5 min of imagery techniques. The instruments used for data collection included the Chinese versions of the Profile of Mood States and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (measured before chemotherapy and then at day 7 and day 14 after chemotherapy), and the Morrow Assessment of Nausea and Vomiting Scale, which was used daily for the first 7 post-chemotherapy days. The use of PMRT considerably decreased the duration of nausea and vomiting in the experimental group compared with the control group ( P<0.05), whereas there were trends toward a lower frequency of nausea and vomiting ( P=0.07 and P=0.08 respectively). Neither nausea nor vomiting differed in intensity between the two groups. The significant effects were mainly evident on the first 4 post-chemotherapy days, when differences were statistically significant. Although there was a significantly less severe overall mood disturbance in the experimental group over time ( P<0.05), this did not apply in the case of anxiety. Such findings suggest that PMRT is a useful adjuvant technique to complement antiemetics for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and that incorporation of such interventions in the care plan can enhance the standards of care of cancer patients who experience side effects of chemotherapy.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life.

GOAL OF WORK: The objectives of this prospective observational study were to estimate the frequency of patients who reported an impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) on their daily life and to evaluate the determinants of such an impact. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult cancer patients at seven Italian oncology centers who were receiving cisplatin-containing regimens reported incidence and intensity of CINV for eight consecutive days in a diary and completed a Functional Living Index for Emesis (FLIE) questionnaire. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 34% of patients reported vomiting and 62% reported nausea after chemotherapy. On days 1 to 5 after receiving chemotherapy, 67% of patients who had at least one emetic episode and 77% of those who suffered from at least mild nausea experienced an impact on their daily activities as measured on the FLIE questionnaire. More than 90% of all patients with both acute and delayed nausea or vomiting reported an impact on their daily life. Both acute and delayed vomiting contributed in similar measure to impact daily life; however, the importance of delayed nausea was greater than that of acute nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Despite antiemetic prophylaxis, CINV is still prevalent and often impacts the daily life of patients in Italy, especially in the delayed phase. The duration more than the severity seems to be responsible for the impact of CINV on the patients' daily lives.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

The effect of craniotomy location on postoperative pain and nausea.

PURPOSE: At least one retrospective study has suggested that the need for postoperative control of pain and nausea depends on the location of the cranial surgery. This prospective study was performed to examine the hypothesis that patients who have had infratentorial craniotomy experience more severe pain and more frequent nausea than those with supratentorial procedures. METHODS: We compared postoperative outcomes in 28 patients with infratentorial craniotomy, 53 with supratentorial craniotomy, and 47 with complex spinal cord surgery (the control group). Anesthesia was standardized for all three groups and the concentration of isoflurane was titrated to keep mean arterial pressure within 30% of preoperative values. Severity of pain and frequency of nausea and vomiting were recorded for 24 h after surgery. Pain was assessed with a verbal pain score scale of 0-10, with 10 being the worst pain imaginable. Data were collected for 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Because nausea and pain diminish drastically 2 h after surgery, pairwise differences were assessed at each point within the first 2 h. Within 30 min of extubation, median pain scores in the supratentorial and spine groups rose to 2 and in the infratentorial group to 5. The statistical differences between groups were not significant ( P > 0.06) by logistic regression. Also, the incidence of nausea was not significantly different (57% supratentorial, 57% spine, 67% infratentorial; P = 0.62) by Dunn's procedure. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the severity of pain or the frequency of nausea based on the craniotomy site.

Craniotomy↗
PubMed1995

Reduction of pain and nausea after laparoscopic sterilization with bupivacaine, metoclopramide, scopolamine, ketorolac, and gastric suctioning.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether postoperative pain and nausea after laparoscopic sterilization can be reduced with a combination of bupivacaine, metoclopramide, scopolamine, ketorolac, and gastric suctioning. METHODS: Women undergoing outpatient laparoscopic sterilization were randomized to protocol management or nontreatment groups. Each patient received standard general endotracheal anesthesia. Protocol subjects received intramuscular ketorolac 60 mg and scopolamine 0.25 mg, intravenous metoclopramide 10 mg, and gastric suctioning; bupivacaine (2.5 mg/mL) with epinephrine (5 micrograms/mL) was injected at trocar sites and dripped onto the fallopian tubes. The nontreatment group served as controls. Visual analogue scales were used to evaluate pain and nausea (measured in millimeters). Demographic characteristics, postoperative requirements for analgesics and antiemetics, time to discharge, and unscheduled admission were also evaluated. RESULTS: During a 7-month period, 71 women were enrolled. Protocol subjects (N = 35) reported pain severity of 27.9 +/- 19.1 mm (mean +/- standard deviation), whereas controls (N = 36) reported 59.3 +/- 23.3 mm (P < .001). Fourteen protocol patients requested additional pain medication, compared with 29 controls (P < .001). Protocol patients indicated a nausea severity of 9.9 +/- 18.7 mm, whereas the controls reported 38.8 +/- 35.5 mm (P < .001). Only one protocol patient required nausea medication, compared with nine controls (P < .02). Severity of pain correlated with severity of nausea (r = 0.38166, P < .001). Protocol patients were discharged from the outpatient surgery unit in 148.6 +/- 45.0 minutes, compared with 176.4 +/- 58.5 minutes for controls (P < .03). CONCLUSION: This regimen reduced the severity of pain and nausea after outpatient laparoscopic sterilization. The need for additional analgesics and antiemetics was also reduced. Protocol patients were discharged earlier than controls. These benefits seem to accrue without significant risk. We believe that this regimen may also be useful in other ambulatory laparoscopic procedures.

Analgesics, Non-Narcotic↗