Nausea

About: Nausea is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 11168 publications have been published within this topic receiving 263455 citations.

A Simplified Risk Score for Predicting Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Conclusions from Cross-validations between Two Centers

Abstract: BackgroundRecently, two centers have independently developed a risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study investigated (1) whether risk scores are valid across centers and (2) whether risk scores based on logistic regression coefficients can be simplified without

Postoperative nausea and vomiting. Its etiology, treatment, and prevention.

Abstract: In a recent editorial, Kapur described perioperative nausea and vomiting as "the big 'little problem' following ambulatory surgery."257 Although the actual morbidity associated with nausea is relatively low in health outpatients, it should not be considered an unavoidable part of the perioperative experience. The availability of an emesis basin for every patient in the postanesthesia recovery unit is a reflection of the limited success with the available therapeutic techniques.257 There had been little change in the incidence of postoperative emesis since the introduction of halothane into clinical practice in 1956. However, newer anesthetic drugs (e.g. propofol) appear to have contributed to a recent decline in the incidence of emesis. Factors associated with an increased risk of postoperative emesis include age, gender (menses), obesity, previous history of motion sickness or postoperative vomiting, anxiety, gastroparesis, and type and duration of the surgical procedure (e.g., laparoscopy, strabismus, middle ear procedures). Anesthesiologists have little, if any, control over these surgical factors. However, they do have control over many other factors that influence postoperative emesis (e.g., preanesthetic medication, anesthetic drugs and techniques, and postoperative pain management). Although routine antiemetic prophylaxis is clearly unjustified, patients at high risk for postoperative emesis should receive special considerations with respect to the prophylactic use of antiemetic drugs. Minimally effective doses of antiemetic drugs can be administered to reduce the incidence of sedation and other deleterious side effects. Potent nonopioid analgesics (e.g., ketorolac) can be used to control pain while avoiding some of the opioid-related side effects. Gentle handling in the immediate postoperative period is also essential. If emesis does occur, aggressive intravenous hydration and pain management are important components of the therapeutic regimen, along with antiemetic drugs. If one antiemetic does not appear to be effective, another drug with a different site of action should be considered. With the availability of new antiserotonin drugs, the incidence of recurrent (intractable) emesis could be further decreased. Research into the mechanisms of this common postoperative complication may help in improving the management of emetic sequelae in the future. As suggested in a recent editorial, improvement in antiemetic therapy could have a major impact for surgical patients, particularly after ambulatory surgery. Patients as well as those involved in their postoperative care look forward to a time when the routine offering of an emesis basin after surgery becomes a historical practice.

Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Abstract: Importance Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. Objective To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. Data Sources Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. Data Extraction and Synthesis Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. Results A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.46 [95% CI, −0.80 to −0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, −0.12 [95% CI, −0.24 to 0.01]; 5 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. Conclusions and Relevance There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

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

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 We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. results Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another 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. Absolute risk reduction, though, 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.