Habib Ashraf S, Gan Tong J
Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
J Clin Anesth. 2005 Feb;17(1):62-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2004.04.004.
To compare the effectiveness of treating established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with an antiemetic acting at a different receptor with that of treating PONV with the antiemetic used for prophylaxis.
Analysis of data collected in a previously published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
Outpatient surgical procedures from 50 institutions in North America.
Patients (N = 2061) undergoing outpatient surgical procedures planned to last no more than 2 hours.
Patients were randomized to receive ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 1.25, droperidol 0.625 mg, or placebo. In the postoperative anesthesia care unit, patients who developed PONV received rescue antiemetics at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist. The following antiemetics were used for rescue: ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg, and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg.
The complete response rate (no nausea, no emesis, and no need for further rescue) after administration of the rescue antiemetic in patients with established PONV was calculated. The complete response rate after administration of each of the different rescue antiemetics was compared with that after administration of the same antiemetic used for PONV prophylaxis.
In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron 4 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher (P = .02) after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (78%) than after rescue with ondansetron 4 mg (46%). In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol 0.625 and 1.25 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (77%; P = .02) and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg (78%; P = .04) than after rescue with droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg (56%).
In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol, promethazine was significantly more effective than the agent used for prophylaxis for the treatment of PONV. In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol, dimenhydrinate was also more effective than droperidol for the treatment of established PONV in the postoperative anesthesia care unit.
比较作用于不同受体的止吐药与预防性使用的止吐药治疗已发生的术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的效果。
对先前发表的一项随机、双盲、安慰剂对照研究中收集的数据进行分析。
北美50家机构的门诊手术。
计划持续时间不超过2小时的门诊手术患者(N = 2061)。
患者被随机分为接受4毫克昂丹司琼、1.25毫克氟哌利多、0.625毫克氟哌利多或安慰剂。在术后麻醉护理单元,发生PONV的患者由主治麻醉师酌情给予急救止吐药。以下止吐药用于急救:4毫克昂丹司琼、0.625至1.25毫克氟哌利多、10毫克甲氧氯普胺、6.25至25毫克异丙嗪和25至50毫克茶苯海明。
计算已发生PONV的患者使用急救止吐药后的完全缓解率(无恶心、无呕吐且无需进一步急救)。将每种不同急救止吐药给药后的完全缓解率与预防性使用相同止吐药后的完全缓解率进行比较。
在4毫克昂丹司琼预防性治疗失败的患者中,6.25至25毫克异丙嗪急救后的完全缓解率(78%)显著高于4毫克昂丹司琼急救后的完全缓解率(46%)(P = 0.02)。在0.625和1.25毫克氟哌利多预防性治疗失败的患者中,6.25至25毫克异丙嗪急救后的完全缓解率(77%;P = 0.02)和25至50毫克茶苯海明急救后的完全缓解率(78%;P = 0.04)显著高于0.625至1.25毫克氟哌利多急救后的完全缓解率(56%)。
在昂丹司琼或氟哌利多预防性治疗失败的患者中,异丙嗪治疗PONV的效果显著优于预防性使用的药物。在氟哌利多预防性治疗失败的患者中,茶苯海明在术后麻醉护理单元治疗已发生的PONV方面也比氟哌利多更有效。