Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Griffiths JD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4204618 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8130052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveObstetric patients who receive combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anaesthesia for elective caesarean section (CS) frequently experience intraoperative nausea and vomiting (N&V). Prophylactic therapy with antiemetic agents can have multiple adverse effects to the mother and baby. We designed a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of electrical P6 stimulation for prophylactic N&V treatment for scheduled elective CS performed under CSE anaesthesia.MethodsFollowing the Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent, a total of 180 patients were randomly allocated into three groups: (1) P6 stimulation (via a peripheral nerve stimulator), (2) intravenous (IV) antiemetics (metoclopramide and ondansetron), and (3) control (no IV antiemetic medications and no P6 stimulation), with 60 parturients in each group.ResultsSignificantly fewer patients experienced intraoperative N&V in the P6 group (nausea 36.7% and vomiting 13.3%) and IV antiemetic group (nausea 23.3% and vomiting 16.7%) than those in the control group (nausea 73.3% and vomiting 45%; p<0.001). In addition, significantly fewer patients required rescue antiemetic medications in the P6 group (35%) and the IV antiemetic group (31.7%) than those in the control group (73.3%; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the overall anaesthetic care satisfaction reported between the three study groups.ConclusionOur data suggest that P6 stimulation is as simple and as effective as our routine prophylactic IV antiemetic treatment for prevention of N&V during CS performed under CSE anaesthesia that could be of great interest to patients and obstetric anaesthesiologists who prefer treatments with fewer potential side effects.
| S-EPMC6499052 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8094506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of published studies to comprehensively compare and rank the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery.MethodsA systematic and comprehensive search will be performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases, beginning from their inceptions to July and August 2019. Only randomized clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery will be included.The primary endpoints will be the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the following recovery phases: before discharge (recovery phase I and II), after discharge but within 24 hours following surgery, and after discharge, after the initial 24-hour postoperative period.The incidences of delayed post-discharge nausea, post-discharge vomiting, and post-discharge nausea and vomiting, which occur after the initial 24-hour postoperative period, severities of PON, POV, and PONV, use of rescue antiemetics, and the incidence of complete response, as well as safety issues, including complications, such as headache, dizziness, and drowsiness, will be also assessed.We will conduct both pairwise meta-analysis and NMA. We will use surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and rankograms to present the hierarchy of the pharmacologic interventions. A comparison-adjusted funnel plot will be used to assess the presence of small-study effects. The quality of the studies included will be assessed using the risk of bias tool 2.0. All statistical analyses will be performed using Stata SE, version 15.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).ResultsThe results of this systematic review and NMA will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.ConclusionThis systematic review and NMA will provide comprehensive and convincing evidence summarizing the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery.Trial registration numberCRD42018103068.
| S-EPMC6708945 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8092483 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7386833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) risk factors have not been defined for obstetric patients. In this study, our objective was to identify potential risk factors for PONV after cesarean sections performed under spinal anesthesia.MethodsOne cohort of patients submitted to cesarean under spinal anesthesia was used to investigate potential risk factors for PONV. The best numerical risk factors were dichotomized using chi-squared method. A conditional independence (incremental association method) casual network was used to select the best predictors for PONV.ResultsTwo hundred and fifty of 260 patients remained in the study. Odds ratio for PONV of younger maternal age (< 25 years: 2.9 [1.49-5.96]), lower spinal bupivacaine dose (< 13 mg, inf [2.4-inf]), lower spinal morphine dose (< 80 mg, 0.03 [0-0.97]), history of motion sickness (2.5 [1.27-5.25]), significant nausea during the first trimester (0.3 [0.16-0.64]), intraoperative nausea and vomiting (8.2 [3.67-20.47]), and lower gestational age (< 38 weeks, 2.0 [1.01-4.08]) were statistically significant. The causal network selected absence of significant nausea during the first gestational trimester, intraoperative nausea, and gestational age < 38 weeks as the main direct risk factors for PONV.ConclusionsIntraoperative nausea and maternal age < 25 years were the main risk factors for PONV after cesareans under spinal anesthesia. Absence of self-reported nausea during the first trimester was a protective factor for post-cesarean nausea and vomiting.
| S-EPMC9373303 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6513634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRemifentanil has been suggested for its short duration of action to replace standard opioids for induction of general anaesthesia in caesarean section. While the stabilizing effect of remifentanil on maternal circulation has been confirmed, its effect on postnatal adaptation remains unclear, as currently published studies are not powered sufficiently to detect any clinical effect of remifentanil on the newborn.MethodsUsing a double-blinded randomized design, a total of 151 parturients undergoing caesarean delivery under general anaesthesia were randomized into two groups--76 patients received a bolus of remifentanil prior to induction, while 75 patients were assigned to the control group. Remifentanil 1 μg/kg was administered 30 seconds before the standard induction of general anaesthesia. The primary outcome measure was an assessment of neonatal adaptation using the Apgar score, while secondary outcomes included the need for respiratory support after delivery and differences in umbilical blood gas analysis (Astrup).ResultsThe incidence of lower Apgar scores between 0 and 7 was significantly higher in the remifentanil group at one minute (25% vs. 9.3% of newborns, p = 0.017); whilst at five minutes and later no Apgar score differences were observed. There was no difference in the need for moderate (nasal CPAP) or intensive (intubation) respiratory support, but significantly more neonates in the remifentanil group required tactile stimulation for breathing support (21% vs. 7% of newborns, p = 0.017). There was no difference in the parameters from umbilical cord blood gas analysis between the groups.ConclusionAt a dose of 1 μg/kg, remifentanil prior to induction of general anaesthesia increases the risk of neonatal respiratory depression during first minutes after caesarean delivery but duration of clinical symptoms is short.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01550640.
| S-EPMC4377196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Drugs to prevent PONV are only partially effective. An alternative approach is to stimulate the P6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.ObjectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV.Search strategyWe searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2008), EMBASE (January 1988 to September 2008), ISI Web of Science (January 1965 to September 2008), the National Library of Medicine publication list of acupuncture studies, and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaAll 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, capsicum plaster, an acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in patients undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the risks of nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We collected adverse effect information from the trials. We used a random-effects model and reported relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).Main resultsWe included 40 trials involving 4858 participants; four trials reported adequate allocation concealment. Twelve trials did not report all outcomes. Compared with sham treatment P6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced: nausea (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83); vomiting (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83), and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). Heterogeneity among trials was moderate. There was no clear difference in the effectiveness of P6 acupoint stimulation for adults and children; or for invasive and noninvasive acupoint stimulation. There was no evidence of difference between P6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the risk of nausea (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.13), vomiting (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13). The side effects associated with P6 acupoint stimulation were minor. There was no evidence of publication bias from contour-enhanced funnel plots.Authors' conclusionsP6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV. There was no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs.
| S-EPMC3113464 | biostudies-literature