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
Comparative Study
. 2010 May-Jun;10(3):245-8.
doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2010.00364.x. Epub 2010 Mar 2.

Aprepitant vs. multimodal prophylaxis in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following extended-release epidural morphine

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Aprepitant vs. multimodal prophylaxis in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following extended-release epidural morphine

Craig T Hartrick et al. Pain Pract. 2010 May-Jun.

Abstract

Background: Extended-release epidural morphine (EREM) is an effective option for postoperative analgesia following major orthopedic surgery; however, postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) is a recognized limitation. The incidence of PONV following prophylactic aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 antagonist, was compared with prophylactic multimodal antiemetic therapy in patients receiving EREM for postoperative analgesia following unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods: Prospectively collected quality assurance data were examined with Institutional Review Board approval. A sequential, open-label, active matched case-control study compared PONV following EREM in patients receiving ondansetron and dexamethasone, and either metoclopramide, diphenhydramine, or prochlorperazine every 6 hours for the 48-hour study period, to patients receiving aprepitant 40 mg given as a single oral dose in the preoperative holding area. Cases were matched for procedure (TKA), age, epidural morphine dose, and known major risk factors for PONV (sex, smoking, previous PONV/motion sickness).

Results: Twelve consecutive patients (3 male; 9 female) receiving aprepitant prior to EREM were matched to 12 patients of the same sex of similar age (range 51 to 84 years.) and EREM dose (range 5 to 12.5 mg) receiving the multimodal regime. The incidence of PONV was significantly less for the aprepitant group where 3 of 12 (25%) had PONV compared with 9 of 12 (75%) in the multimodal group (P = 0.039, Fisher's Exact Test; odds ratio = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.018 to 0.706, P = 0.03).

Conclusion: While aprepitant significantly reduced the incidence of PONV compared with a multimodal antiemetic regime, used alone it did not eliminate PONV.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources