Aromatherapy for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hines S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6494172 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ContextPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after ambulatory surgery performed under general anesthesia. Anecdotal evidence suggests that caffeine may be useful in preventing PONV.AimsThe aim of the study was to determine efficacy of intravenous (IV) caffeine given prior to surgery is effective prophylaxis against PONV.Settings and designWe conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.Subject and methodsPatients at moderate or high risk of PONV were randomized to receive IV caffeine (500 mg) or saline placebo during general anesthesia; all patients received dexamethasone and dolasetron.Statistical analysisStatistical comparisons were tested using bivariable linear and logistic regression for each outcome and then adjusted for high/low risk.ResultsNausea in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) was more common in the caffeine (16 of 62 patients) than the placebo group (seven of 69; P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in the use of rescue antiemetics in the PACU, in the incidence of nausea or vomiting over 24 h postoperatively, nor in other outcomes (headache, fatigue, or overall satisfaction) either in the PACU or at 24 h; time-to-discharge was similar for both groups.ConclusionCaffeine was not effective in the prevention of PONV or headache, and did not improve time-to-discharge or patient satisfaction.
| S-EPMC3819849 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8477787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient's risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.
| S-EPMC7429924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen patients are asked what they find most anxiety provoking about having surgery, the top concerns almost always include postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Only until recently have there been any published recommendations, mostly derived from expert opinion, as to which regimens to use once a patient develops PONV. The goal of this study was to assess the responses to a written survey to address the following questions: 1) If no prophylaxis is administered to an ambulatory patient, what agent do anesthesiologists use for treatment of PONV in the ambulatory Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU)?; 2) Do anesthesiologists use non-pharmacologic interventions for PONV treatment?; and 3) If a PONV prophylaxis agent is administered during the anesthetic, do anesthesiologists choose an antiemetic in a different class for treatment?MethodsA questionnaire with five short hypothetical clinical vignettes was mailed to 300 randomly selected USA anesthesiologists. The types of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for PONV treatment were analyzed.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 106 anesthesiologists (38% response rate), who reported that on average 52% of their practice was ambulatory. If a patient develops PONV and received no prophylaxis, 67% (95% CI, 62%-79%) of anesthesiologists reported they would administer a 5-HT3-antagonist as first choice for treatment, with metoclopramide and dexamethasone being the next two most common choices. 65% (95% CI, 55%-74%) of anesthesiologists reported they would also use non-pharmacologic interventions to treat PONV in the PACU, with an i.v. fluid bolus or nasal cannula oxygen being the most common. When PONV prophylaxis was given during the anesthetic, the preferred PONV treatment choice changed. Whereas 3%-7% of anesthesiologists would repeat dose metoclopramide, dexamethasone, or droperidol, 26% (95% confidence intervals, 18%-36%) of practitioners would re-dose the 5-HT3-antagonist for PONV treatment.Conclusion5-HT3-antagonists are the most common choice for treatment of established PONV for outpatients when no prophylaxis is used, and also following prophylactic regimens that include a 5HT3 antagonist, regardless of the number of prophylactic antiemetics given. Whereas 3%-7% of anesthesiologists would repeat dose metoclopramide, dexamethasone, or droperidol, 26% of practitioners would re-dose the 5-HT3-antagonist for PONV treatment.
| S-EPMC1525160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives To determine whether preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative vomiting in patients undergoing elective bowel surgery and whether it is associated with other measurable benefits during recovery from surgery, including quicker return to oral diet and reduced length of stay.Design Pragmatic two arm parallel group randomised trial with blinded postoperative care and outcome assessment.Setting 45 UK hospitals.Participants 1350 patients aged 18 or over undergoing elective open or laparoscopic bowel surgery for malignant or benign pathology.Interventions Addition of a single dose of 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone at induction of anaesthesia compared with standard care.Main outcome measures Primary outcome: reported vomiting within 24 hours reported by patient or clinician.Secondary outcomesvomiting with 72 and 120 hours reported by patient or clinician; use of antiemetics and postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24, 72, and 120 hours rated by patient; fatigue and quality of life at 120 hours or discharge and at 30 days; time to return to fluid and food intake; length of hospital stay; adverse events.Results 1350 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to additional dexamethasone (n=674) or standard care (n=676) at induction of anaesthesia. Vomiting within 24 hours of surgery occurred in 172 (25.5%) participants in the dexamethasone arm and 223 (33.0%) allocated standard care (number needed to treat (NNT) 13, 95% confidence interval 5 to 22; P=0.003). Additional postoperative antiemetics were given (on demand) to 265 (39.3%) participants allocated dexamethasone and 351 (51.9%) allocated standard care (NNT 8, 5 to 11; P<0.001). Reduction in on demand antiemetics remained up to 72 hours. There was no increase in complications.Conclusions Addition of a single dose of 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone at induction of anaesthesia significantly reduces both the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 hours and the need for rescue antiemetics for up to 72 hours in patients undergoing large and small bowel surgery, with no increase in adverse events.Trial registration EudraCT (2010-022894-32) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN21973627).
| S-EPMC5482348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common adverse outcomes after strabismus surgery. The primary outcome of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the incidences of nausea or vomiting, and patient satisfaction of ondansetron and ramosetron after strabismus surgery under general anesthesia. The secondary outcome was to investigate whether the number of involved extraocular muscles (EOMs) in strabismus surgery was related to PONV.One hundred and five patients (aged 18-60 years) undergoing strabismus surgery were allocated randomly to one of the three groups: placebo, ondansetron, or ramosetron. Patients received 2 ml placebo, 4 mg ondansetron, or 0.3 mg ramosetron at the end of surgery. Each of the three groups was subdivided into two subgroups according to the number of EOMs involved in the surgery: subgroup S, single-muscle correction; subgroup M, multiple-muscle correction. The incidences of nausea or vomiting, and patient satisfaction at 2, 24 and 48 h after surgery were analyzed as primary outcome. With regard to subgroups S and M in the placebo, ondansetron and ramosetron groups, incidences of nausea or vomiting, and patient satisfaction at 2, 24 and 48 h after surgery were analyzed as seconadary outcome.The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in the ramosetron group at 2 h (9.4 %) than in the placebo (45.2 %) and ondansetron (34.7 %) groups (P < 0.05). The incidence of nausea was also significantly lower in the ramosetron group at 24 h than in the other groups (P < 0.05). Patients in the ramosetron group were more satisfied at 2 h (8.11 ± 0.98) and 24 h (8.50 ± 0.67) after surgery than those in the other groups (P < 0.05). With regard to subgroups S and M in the placebo, ondansetron and ramosetron groups, there were no significant differences in either the incidence of nausea or patient satisfaction.Ramosetron has superior antiemetic activity to ondansetron in adult strabismus surgery patients. The number of EOMs involved in strabismus surgery was not related to the incidence of PONV.Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) Identifier: KCT0000688 . Date of registration: 27 February 2013.
| S-EPMC4957928 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Postoperative 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. OBJECTIVES:To determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV. SEARCH STRATEGY:We 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 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, 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 ANALYSIS:Two 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 RESULTS:We 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' CONCLUSIONS:P6 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
Project description:There is empirical evidence that smokers are less likely to suffer from postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We sought to investigate whether transcutaneus nicotine prevents PONV.Non-smokers receiving general anaesthesia for surgery were randomly allocated to Nicotinell Patch 10cm(2) (TTS 10), containing 17.5mg of nicotine (average delivery rate, 7mg?24h(-1) ) or matching placebo patch. Patches were applied 1h before surgery and were left in situ until 24h after surgery (or until the first PONV symptoms occurred).We randomized 90 patients (45 nicotine, 45 placebo). In the post-anaesthetic care unit, the incidence of nausea was 22.2% with nicotine and 24.4% with placebo (P= 0.80), and the incidence of vomiting was 20.0% with nicotine and 17.8% with placebo (P= 0.78). Cumulative 24h incidence of nausea was 42.2% with nicotine and 40.0% with placebo (P= 0.83), and of vomiting was 31.1% with nicotine and 28.9% with placebo (P= 0.81). PONV episodes tended to occur earlier in the nicotine group. Postoperative headache occurred in 17.8% of patients treated with nicotine and in 15.6% with placebo (P= 0.49). More patients receiving nicotine reported a low quality of sleep during the first postoperative night (26.7% vs. 6.8% with placebo; P= 0.01).Non-smokers receiving a prophylactic nicotine patch had a similar incidence of PONV during the first 24h and tended to develop PONV symptoms earlier compared with controls. They had a significantly increased risk of insomnia during the first postoperative night.
| S-EPMC3045547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:OPRM1-A118G polymorphism (A > G, rs1799971) is associated with interindividual variability in both response to postoperative pain and opioid treatment. The aim of this meta-analysis is to identify the predictive strength in the current literature of OPRM1-A118G polymorphism to postoperative anesthetic reactions, including nausea, vomiting, pruritus and dizziness. METHODS:PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar and CNKI database were searched to find gene-association researches exploring the impacts of OPRM1-A118G polymorphism on postoperative side effects (time: up to July 2016). Odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated in allele model, homozygote model, heterozygote model, dominant model and recessive model. Sensitivity analysis and potential bias were also assessed. RESULTS:137 articles were retrieved from databases. 17 eligible studies, including 4690 patients were considered in the meta-analysis. The ORs with 95% CIs of postoperative nausea, vomiting, nausea and vomiting (PONV), pruritus and dizziness in the five genetic models mentioned above were determined. Postoperative vomiting was significantly associated with OPRM1-A118G polymorphism in homozygote (OR: 0.422; 95% CI: 0.254, 0.701; P = 0.001), dominant (OR: 0.765; 95% CI: 0.592, 0.987; P = 0.040) and recessive (OR: 0.439; 95% CI: 0.268, 0.717; P = 0.001) models. The 118G allele was associated with a reduced risk of vomiting. No other associations were detected. There was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS:OPRM1-A118G polymorphism (A > G) is associated with a reduced risk of postoperative vomiting, but not nausea, pruritus and dizziness. The results should be interpreted with caution due to limited sample and possible heterogeneity between the included studies. Well-designed and large-scale studies are necessary to confirm our results.
| S-EPMC6176240 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture therapy for preventive and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV), a condition which commonly present after anaesthesia and surgery is a subject of growing interest.ObjectiveThis paper included a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of different type of acupuncture and acupoint selection in PONV prevention and treatment.MethodsRandomised controlled trials(RCTs) comparing acupuncture with non-acupuncture treatment were identified from databases PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, Ovid, CNKI and Wanfangdata. Meta-analysis on eligible studies was performed using fixed-effects model with RevMan 5.2. Results were expressed as RR for dichotomous data, with 95%CI.ResultsThirty RCTs, 1276 patients (intervention) and 1258 patients (control) were identified. Meta-analysis showed that PC6 acupuncture significantly reduced the number of cases of early vomiting (postoperative 0-6h) (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.19,0.71; P=0.003) and nausea (postoperative 0-24h) (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.10,0.61; P=0.002), but not early nausea (postoperative 0-6h) (RR=0.64, 95%CI 0.34,1.19; P=0.150) and vomiting (postoperative 0-24h) (RR=0.82, 95%CI 0.48,1.38; P=0.450). PC6 acupressure significantly reduced the number of cases of nausea (RR=0.71, 95%CI 0.57,0.87; P=0.001) and vomiting (RR=0.62, 95%CI 0.49,0.80; P=0.000) at postoperative 0-24h. PC6 electro-acupoint stimulation significantly reduced the number of cases of nausea (RR=0.49, 95%CI 0.38,0.63; P<0.000) and vomiting (RR=0.50, 95%CI 0.36,0.70; P<0.000) at postoperative 0-24h. Stimulation of PC6 with other acupoint(s) significantly reduced the number of cases of nausea and vomiting (RR=0.29, 95%CI 0.17,0.49; P<0.000) at postoperative 0-24h. Stimulation of other acupoint(s)(non PC6) also significantly reduced the number of cases of nausea and vomiting (RR=0.63, 95%CI 0.49,0.81; P=0.000) at postoperative 0-24h. However, the quality of study was generally low in studies of PC6 combined with other acupoint(s) and other acupoint(s). Details of blinding were not reported in most reports.ConclusionsBesides PC6, PC6 combined with other acupoint(s) and other alternative acupoint(s) might be beneficial in prevention and treatment of PONV, the evidence justifies future high-quality studies.
| S-EPMC3862842 | biostudies-literature