JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 2008; 107:452-458
© 2008 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31817b842c
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, P. F.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by White, P. F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ambulatory
Right arrow Postanesthetic Care Unit
Right arrow Complications
Right arrow Clinical Pharmacology
Right arrow Pharmacology


AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

The Impact of Current Antiemetic Practices on Patient Outcomes: A Prospective Study on High-Risk Patients

Paul F. White, PhD, MD*, Jerome F. O'Hara, MD{dagger}, Charles R. Roberson, MD{ddagger}, Ronald H. Wender, MD§, Keith A. Candiotti, MD||, and The POST-OP Study Group

From the *Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; {dagger}Department of General Anesthesiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH; {ddagger}Department of Anesthesiology Scott & White Clinic, Temple, TX; §Department of Anesthesiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA; and ||Departments of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Medicine, and Pain Management, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Paul F. White, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management; University of TX Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas; 5161 Harry Hines Boulevard, CS 2. 282, Dallas, TX 75390-9068. Address e-mail to paul.white{at}utsouthwestern.edu.

BACKGROUND: In this prospective, multicenter, observational study, we evaluated the incidence and time course of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), assessed prophylactic and rescue antiemetic use in high-risk patients, and determined population-based effectiveness of antiemetics, including the impact of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and American Society of Perianesthesia Nurses (ASPAN) guideline compliance.

METHODS: Eligible patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or major plastic surgery possessed two or more of the following Apfel PONV risk factors: female gender, history of PONV or motion sickness, and nonsmoking status. Antiemetic use, emetic episodes, severity of nausea, and functional interference due to PONV were documented during the first 72 h after surgery. Complete response (CR) was defined as no emesis or rescue medication use, and complete control was defined as CR and no moderate-severe nausea. The effect of compliance (versus noncompliance) with ASA and ASPAN guidelines on PONV outcomes was also analyzed.

RESULTS: The proportion of patients experiencing postoperative emesis ranged from 18% to 40% depending on the number of antiemetics administered. The rate of rescue medication (45%) was similar to the reported incidences of moderate-to-severe nausea (47%) and functional interference due to emetic symptoms (44%). The administration of three or more antiemetics produced better patient outcomes overall compared to <1 prophylactic antiemetic. CR rates were <70% despite adherence to current organizational PONV management guidelines (ASA: 69%; ASPAN: 63%). The complete control rates were 10% lower than CR rates over the 3 day study period.

CONCLUSIONS: Administration of three or more prophylactic antiemetics had the most positive impact on emetic outcomes over 72 hrs in patients at risk of developing PONV. Although compliance with organizational PONV management guidelines improved patient outcomes, postoperative emetic symptoms and interference with patient functioning still occurred in more than 30% of these high-risk patients.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
J. L. Lichtor and P. S. A. Glass
We're Tired of Waiting
Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2008; 107(2): 353 - 355.
[Full Text] [PDF]




Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2008 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.