Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2005 Mar;54(3):201-9.
doi: 10.1007/s00101-005-0803-8.

[A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting]

[Article in German]
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

[A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting]

[Article in German]
C C Apfel et al. Anaesthesist. 2005 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown.

Methods: In a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design, 5,199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of 6 prophylactic interventions: 1) 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 2) 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 3) 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; 4) propofol or a volatile anesthetic; 5) nitrogen or nitrous oxide; 6) remifentanil or fentanyl. The primary aim parameter was nausea and vomiting within 24 h after surgery, which was evaluated blindly.

Results: Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26%, propofol reduced the risk by 19%, and nitrogen by 12%. The risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics alone. All the interventions acted independently of each other and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. However, absolute risk reduction was a critical function of patients' baseline risk.

Conclusions: Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Anesthesiol Clin North America. 2002 Sep;20(3):709-722 - PubMed
    1. Anesth Analg. 1998 Feb;86(2):274-82 - PubMed
    1. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Dec;24(6):736-51 - PubMed
    1. Anaesthesia. 1997 May;52(5):443-9 - PubMed
    1. J Clin Anesth. 1999 Sep;11(6):453-9 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources