Umeå University's logo

umu.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Publications (2 of 2) Show all publications
Moraitis, A., Myrberg, T., Hultin, M., Nyström, H. & Walldén, J. (2023). Palonosetron as prophylaxis for post-discharge nausea and vomiting: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in ambulatory surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Palonosetron as prophylaxis for post-discharge nausea and vomiting: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in ambulatory surgery
Show others...
2023 (English)In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, ISSN 0007-0912, E-ISSN 1471-6771Article in journal (Refereed) In press
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2023
Keywords
5HT-3 antagonist, PDNV, PONV, ambulatory surgery, day-care surgery, palonosetron, post-discharge nausea and vomiting, prophylaxis
National Category
Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-209021 (URN)10.1016/j.bja.2023.04.034 (DOI)37246062 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85160219043 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Region VästernorrlandVisare Norr
Available from: 2023-06-02 Created: 2023-06-02 Last updated: 2023-06-07
Moraitis, A., Hultin, M. & Wallden, J. (2020). Risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting in hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study after spinal anaesthesia including intrathecal morphine.. BMC Anesthesiology, 20, Article ID 242.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting in hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study after spinal anaesthesia including intrathecal morphine.
2020 (English)In: BMC Anesthesiology, ISSN 1471-2253, E-ISSN 1471-2253, Vol. 20, article id 242Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2020
Keywords
Arthroplasty, Injections, Morphine, Postoperative nausea and vomiting, Prevention & Control, Spinal
National Category
Anesthesiology and Intensive Care
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-175440 (URN)10.1186/s12871-020-01154-z (DOI)000575641500001 ()32972366 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-85091620720 (Scopus ID)
Funder
Visare Norr
Available from: 2020-09-29 Created: 2020-09-29 Last updated: 2023-03-24Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-0359-9085

Search in DiVA

Show all publications