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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Nov;109(5):716-22.
doi: 10.1093/bja/aes233. Epub 2012 Jul 24.

Randomized, double-blind comparison of oral aprepitant alone compared with aprepitant and transdermal scopolamine for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Randomized, double-blind comparison of oral aprepitant alone compared with aprepitant and transdermal scopolamine for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

M S Green et al. Br J Anaesth. 2012 Nov.
Free article

Abstract

Background: Aprepitant blocks the emetic effects of substance P. Scopolamine antagonizes muscarinic type 1 and histamine type 1 receptors. This study compares monotherapy and multimodal therapy by looking at complete response, nausea, vomiting, and rescue medication in patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) treated with oral aprepitant with or without scopolamine.

Methods: We enrolled 120 patients in this randomized, double-blind trial. Inclusion criteria were: >18 yr old, ASA I-III, two or more Apfel four-point risk factors, undergoing an elective surgical procedure with a high risk of PONV expected to last at least 60 min. The primary outcome variable was complete response, that is, no emesis and no rescue therapy from 0 to 24 h. The outcomes measured included the incidences of nausea, vomiting, their composite, and the need for rescue medication.

Results: The aprepitant alone and aprepitant with scopolamine did not differ in complete responses (63% vs 57%, P=0.57) or net clinical benefit (26% vs 19%, P=0.38). The number who did not experience PONV and who used rescue medication did not differ. The incidence of PONV in the post-anaesthesia care unit did not differ nor did the use of rescue medications.

Conclusions: This trial evaluating the effectiveness of aprepitant alone and in combination with scopolamine showed no difference between treatment groups. The primary objective, complete response, and secondary objectives, incidences of nausea, vomiting, their composite, and the need for rescue medication, all showed no statistical difference.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources