Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on February 22, 2007
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007 98(4):470-476; doi:10.1093/bja/aem001
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
98/4/470    most recent
aem001v2
aem001v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, H.
Right arrow Articles by Mar Fan, G. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by White, H.
Right arrow Articles by Mar Fan, G. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Randomized comparison of two anti-emetic strategies in high-risk patients undergoing day-case gynaecological surgery

H. White1,*, R. J. Black2, M. Jones3 and G. C. Mar Fan4

1 Director of Intensive Care, Logan Hospital, Armstrong Rd, Meadowbrook, 4131 QLD, Australia
2 Department of Anaesthesia, Gold Coast Hospital, Nerang St, Southport, 4215 QLD, Australia
3 School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Ipswich Rd, Woolloongabba, 4102 QLD, Australia
4 Director of Anaesthetic and Acute Pain Management, Queen Elizabeth II Jubilee Hospital, Kessels Rd, Coopers Plains, 4108 QLD, Australia

* Corresponding author: Director of Intensive Care, Logan Hospital, Armstrong Rd, Meadowbrook, 4131 QLD, Australia. E-mail: hayden_white{at}health.qld.gov.au

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a significant cause of morbidity among patients undergoing general anaesthesia. The optimal strategy for prevention of PONV, however, remains unclear. This study compared two commonly used prophylactic strategies in high-risk, day-case, gynaecological surgery patients.

Methods: We conducted a randomized trial comparing sevoflurane combined with dolasetron (SD), with propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) in 126 high-risk patients undergoing day-case gynaecological surgery. The primary endpoints included the incidence and severity of nausea or vomiting before discharge and the incidence of nausea or vomiting between discharge and 24 h. To identify the factors most predictive of a complete response (no PONV at any time within the 24 h period), multiple logistic regression models were fitted.

Results: Before discharge, there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups with respect to nausea and vomiting outcomes (P = 0.3). Post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV), however, were significantly more common for patients in the TIVA group (nausea, P = 0.004 and vomiting, P = 0.03). Type of anaesthetic, adjusted for weight and anaesthesia duration was significantly associated with complete response (odds ratio = 2.7, 95% confidence interval = 1.15 to 6.4).

Conclusions: Although both TIVA and dolasetron prophylaxis reduce the predicted rate of PONV in the early postoperative period, the anti-emetic effects of propofol are short-lived. A longer-acting drug such as dolasetron may therefore be necessary to prevent PDNV.

Keywords: anaesthesia, day-case; anaesthesia, total i.v.; anaesthetics i.v., propofol; PONV


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.