Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting

被引:58
作者
Coloma, M
White, PF
Ogunnaike, BO
Markowitz, SD
Brown, PM
Lee, AQ
Berrisford, SB
Wakefield, CA
Issioui, T
Jones, SB
Jones, DB
机构
[1] Univ Texas, SW Med Ctr, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Management, Dallas, TX 75390 USA
[2] Univ Texas, SW Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Dallas, TX 75390 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00000542-200212000-00009
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background. This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand(R) compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. Methods: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONY in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand(R); (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand(R); and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand(R). A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONY symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. Results: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs. 40%, P < 0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. Conclusions: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand(R) can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONY. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand(R) device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.
引用
收藏
页码:1387 / 1392
页数:6
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting -: Conclusions from cross-validations between two centers [J].
Apfel, CC ;
Läärä, E ;
Koivuranta, M ;
Greim, CA ;
Roewer, N .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1999, 91 (03) :693-700
[2]  
BODNER M, 1991, ANESTH ANALG, V73, P250
[3]   Acute myocardial ischemia after administration of ondansetron hydrochloride [J].
Bosek, V ;
Hu, P ;
Robinson, LA .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2000, 92 (03) :885-887
[4]   Dexamethasone in combination with dolasetron for prophylaxis in the ambulatory setting - Effect on outcome after laparoscopic cholecystectomy [J].
Coloma, M ;
White, PF ;
Markowitz, SD ;
Whitten, CW ;
Macaluso, AR ;
Berrisford, SB ;
Thornton, KC .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2002, 96 (06) :1346-1350
[5]   Comparative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis [J].
Domino, KB ;
Anderson, EA ;
Polissar, NL ;
Posner, KL .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1999, 88 (06) :1370-1379
[6]   EFFECT OF STIMULATION OF THE P6 ANTIEMETIC POINT ON POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND VOMITING [J].
DUNDEE, JW ;
GHALY, RG ;
BILL, KM ;
CHESTNUTT, WN ;
FITZPATRICK, KTJ ;
LYNAS, AGA .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1989, 63 (05) :612-618
[7]   The ''big little problem'' of postoperative nausea and vomiting - Do we know the answer yet? [J].
Fisher, DM .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1997, 87 (06) :1271-1273
[8]   A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of ondansetron versus droperidol as antiemetics for elective outpatient surgical procedures [J].
Fortney, JT ;
Gan, TJ ;
Graczyk, S ;
Wetchler, B ;
Melson, T ;
Khalil, S ;
McKenzie, R ;
Parrillo, S ;
Glass, PSA ;
Moote, C ;
Wermeling, D ;
Parasuraman, TV ;
Duncan, B ;
Creed, MR ;
Amoroso, M ;
Belo, S ;
Bowie, MB ;
Buckley, N ;
Cheng, E ;
Chung, F ;
Clayborn, L ;
Coda, B ;
Conlay, L ;
Cosman, S ;
Duncalf, D ;
Fanciullo, G ;
Fortney, J ;
Freid, E ;
Graczyk, SG ;
Graf, G ;
Gratz, I ;
Greenberg, C ;
Hall, R ;
Haynes, G ;
Kallar, S ;
Kataria, B ;
Khalil, S ;
Knox, D ;
Koehntop, DE ;
Levy, L ;
Lucas, S ;
Lui, A ;
Maltby, R ;
McKenzie, R ;
Melson, T ;
Miguel, R ;
Moote, C ;
O'Hara, D ;
Pavlin, J ;
Rung, G .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1998, 86 (04) :731-738
[9]   FDA "black box" warning regarding use of droperidol for postoperative nausea and vomiting: Is it justified? [J].
Gan, TJ ;
White, PF ;
Scuderi, PE ;
Watcha, MF ;
Kovac, A .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2002, 97 (01) :287-287
[10]   Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ondansetron, droperidol, or placebo [J].
Hill, RP ;
Lubarsky, DA ;
Phillips-Bute, B ;
Fortney, JT ;
Creed, MR ;
Glass, PSA ;
Gan, TJ .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2000, 92 (04) :958-967