Umeå University's logo

Background: The reported incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic bariatric surgery is up to 60–80%. Hower, studies are limited, and larger studies are warranted. As PONV is usually evaluated in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), studying early PONV can be a valuable tool for exploring risk and associated factors for PONV.

Methods: Using prospectively collected data from the Swedish perioperative registry (SPOR) from 2016 to 2022, we explore the incidence and associated factors for early PONV after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Laparoscopic gastric bypass and laparoscopic gastric sleeve procedures in adult patients (≥ 18 years) were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV in the PACU. Secondary outcomes were factors associated with PONV, which were analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model.

Results: In total, 14,098 procedures were identified in the registry during the study period, and 8426 unique patients from 32 hospitals in Sweden were included in the final study cohort. PONV in PACU was present in 36% (n = 3018) of patients. Factors associated with early PONV were female sex, age, moderate-severe pain, gastric sleeve procedures, duration in PACU, and hospital.

Conclusions: In this national register-based cohort study, one third of patients experienced early PONV in the PACU after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Several risk factors were associated with increased occurrence of PONV, and there was variability among hospitals in the incidence of PONV.

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04433676

BACKGROUND: Approximately 25% of ambulatory surgery patients experience post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). We aimed to investigate whether palonosetron, a long-acting anti-emetic, decreases the incidence of PDNV in high-risk patients.

METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 170 male and female patients undergoing ambulatory surgery under general anaesthesia, with a high predicted risk for PDNV, were randomised to receive either palonosetron 75 μg i.v. (n=84) or normal saline (n=86) before discharge. During the first 3 postoperative days (PODs), we measured outcomes using a patient questionanaire. The primary outcome was the incidence of a complete response (no nausea, vomiting, or use of rescue medication) until POD 2. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PDNV each day until POD 3.

RESULTS: The incidence of a complete response until POD 2 was 48% (n=32) in the palonosetron group and 36% (n=25) in the placebo group (odds ratio 1.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.85-3.37]; P=0.131). No significant difference in the incidence of PDNV was observed between the two groups on the day of surgery (47% vs 56%; P=0.31). Significant differences in the incidence of PDNV were found on POD 1 (18% vs 34%; P=0.033) and POD 2 (9% vs 27%; P=0.007). No differences were observed on POD 3 (15% vs 13%; P=0.700).

CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, palonosetron did not reduce the overall incidence of PDNV up to POD 2. The lower incidence of PDNV on POD 1 and POD 2 in the palonosetron group requires further investigation.

BACKGROUND: The overall risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anaesthesia is approximately 30% even with prophylactic medications. Studies exploring the risk after regional anaesthesia including intrathecal morphine are limited but indicate that intrathecal morphine is highly emetogenic and is additive to the PONV risk associated with other forms of anaesthesia. The aim of this observational study was to investigate the risk of PONV after spinal blockade combined with intrathecal morphine and to explore associations with patient and perioperative factors, including given PONV-prophylaxis. We hypothesized that a large number of patients in a clinical setting receive less prophylaxis than the recommendations in guidelines (suboptimal prophylaxis), leading to a higher risk for PONV compared to those receiving adequate PONV prophylaxis.

METHODS: The study was conducted as a prospective observational cohort study regarding PONV in patients undergoing hip/knee replacement under spinal anaesthesia including intrathecal morphine. Patients were included at a county hospital in Sweden during April-November 2013 (n = 59) and September 2014-June 2015 (n = 40). One hundred eight patients entered the study with 99 patients analysed in the final cohort. Patients were followed the first three postoperative days with a questionnaire regarding PONV and peri- and postoperative data was collected. PONV risk is presented as the proportion of patients (%) with PONV and was related to the level of perioperative PONV-prophylaxis (suboptimal/optimal). Univariate analysis was used to analyse factors associated with PONV.

RESULTS: Forty-six patients (46%) experienced PONV during the 3-day study period whereof 36 patients (36%) until noon the first day after the procedure. 19/27 patients (70%) that received suboptimal PONV-prophylaxis experienced PONV compared to 27/72 (38%) that received optimal PONV-prophylaxis (p = 0.015). Further, female gender and/or a history of motion sickness were associated with an increased PONV-risk.

CONCLUSIONS: There was a high risk for PONV after spinal anaesthesia including morphine. PONV risk was associated with the level of prophylaxis and with known risk factors for PONV. Our findings suggest that a more liberal use of PONV prophylaxis might be motivated.