Anasthesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin, Schmerztherapie : AINS · 2002
[Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting FollowingGynaecological Laparoscopy].
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rüsch D, Palm S, Sauerwald M, Römer T, Wulf H
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Compared to other procedures, gynaecological laparoscopies are followed rather frequently by postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, we investigated the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide and droperidol under general anaesthesia with isoflurane (part 1). Given the rather unsatisfying results of this monoprophylaxis we examined the effects of a quintuple prophylaxis in this setting (part 2).
METHODS: Part 1: Following ethical committee approval and written informed consent 120 patients scheduled for elective gynaecological laparoscopy were allocated prospectively, randomly and observer-blinded to the following groups: group P (placebo): 2 ml NaCl 0.9 %, group D: 2.5 mg droperidol, group M: 10 mg metoclopramide. Part 2: Subsequently 50 patients scheduled for elective gynaecological laparoscopy and bearing a minimum risk of 25 % to experience postoperative vomiting were allocated prospectively and blinded to the observers to a quintuple prophylaxis group: group X: 10 mg metoclopramide, 2.5 mg droperidol, 12.5 mg dolasetron, 62.5 mg dimenhydrinate, 8mg dexamethasone. Part 1 and 2: Anaesthesia was induced with fentanyl, etomidate and succinycholine and maintained with isoflurane/N2O, fentanyl and cisatracurium. The antiemetics were applied intravenously 20 min prior to end of surgery.
RESULTS: Within the first 24 h postoperatively vomiting occurred more frequently in group P (44 %) compared to group D (21 %, p = 0.046) and group M (33 %, n. s.). Nausea also occurred more frequently in group P (61 %) compared to group D (24 %, p = 0.003) and group M (48 %, n. s.). Intensity of nausea was reduced both in group D and group M compared to group P (p = 0.03). Likewise the requirements for antiemetics as a rescue medication were reduced in group D (p = 0.02) and group M (p = 0.047) compared to group P. In group X no patient suffered from postoperative vomiting, no patient required a rescue antiemetic.
CONCLUSIONS: Whereas droperidol provides a reliable antiemetic effect, the prophylactic effect of metoclopramide is rather uncertain. Therefore, further studies regarding a dose response-relationship for metoclopramide are deemed necessary. Since a monoprophylaxis with droperidol or metoclopramide failed to attain a satisfying PONV-prophylaxis in patients at high risk for PONV, the quintuple antiemetic combination might be an effective and safe solution.
METHODS: Part 1: Following ethical committee approval and written informed consent 120 patients scheduled for elective gynaecological laparoscopy were allocated prospectively, randomly and observer-blinded to the following groups: group P (placebo): 2 ml NaCl 0.9 %, group D: 2.5 mg droperidol, group M: 10 mg metoclopramide. Part 2: Subsequently 50 patients scheduled for elective gynaecological laparoscopy and bearing a minimum risk of 25 % to experience postoperative vomiting were allocated prospectively and blinded to the observers to a quintuple prophylaxis group: group X: 10 mg metoclopramide, 2.5 mg droperidol, 12.5 mg dolasetron, 62.5 mg dimenhydrinate, 8mg dexamethasone. Part 1 and 2: Anaesthesia was induced with fentanyl, etomidate and succinycholine and maintained with isoflurane/N2O, fentanyl and cisatracurium. The antiemetics were applied intravenously 20 min prior to end of surgery.
RESULTS: Within the first 24 h postoperatively vomiting occurred more frequently in group P (44 %) compared to group D (21 %, p = 0.046) and group M (33 %, n. s.). Nausea also occurred more frequently in group P (61 %) compared to group D (24 %, p = 0.003) and group M (48 %, n. s.). Intensity of nausea was reduced both in group D and group M compared to group P (p = 0.03). Likewise the requirements for antiemetics as a rescue medication were reduced in group D (p = 0.02) and group M (p = 0.047) compared to group P. In group X no patient suffered from postoperative vomiting, no patient required a rescue antiemetic.
CONCLUSIONS: Whereas droperidol provides a reliable antiemetic effect, the prophylactic effect of metoclopramide is rather uncertain. Therefore, further studies regarding a dose response-relationship for metoclopramide are deemed necessary. Since a monoprophylaxis with droperidol or metoclopramide failed to attain a satisfying PONV-prophylaxis in patients at high risk for PONV, the quintuple antiemetic combination might be an effective and safe solution.