STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of antiemetic selection on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and patient satisfaction after ambulatory surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Ambulatory surgery center in an academic medical center. PATIENTS: Five hundred fifty-four consecutive patients undergoing ambulatory surgical procedures of any kind. INTERVENTION: Data on antiemetic utilization, occurrence of PONV, and patient satisfaction were collected perioperatively. Multiple regression analyses for antiemetic choice were performed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy was administered to 292 (52.7%) patients, most often with droperidol (200 patients), metoclopramide (134), or dexamethasone (55). Forty-one (7.4%) patients had an episode of emesis in the postanesthesia care unit. Choice of antiemetic was not a significant predictor of PONV. Patient satisfaction for all patients was 9.5 on a 10-point scale, with no agent more or less successful than any other. CONCLUSION: As choice of antiemetic drug given for prophylaxis had little impact on clinical outcome or patient satisfaction, traditional agents should form the core of antiemetics used for PONV prophylaxis in ambulatory surgery patients.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of antiemetic selection on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and patient satisfaction after ambulatory surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Ambulatory surgery center in an academic medical center. PATIENTS: Five hundred fifty-four consecutive patients undergoing ambulatory surgical procedures of any kind. INTERVENTION: Data on antiemetic utilization, occurrence of PONV, and patient satisfaction were collected perioperatively. Multiple regression analyses for antiemetic choice were performed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Prophylactic antiemetic therapy was administered to 292 (52.7%) patients, most often with droperidol (200 patients), metoclopramide (134), or dexamethasone (55). Forty-one (7.4%) patients had an episode of emesis in the postanesthesia care unit. Choice of antiemetic was not a significant predictor of PONV. Patient satisfaction for all patients was 9.5 on a 10-point scale, with no agent more or less successful than any other. CONCLUSION: As choice of antiemetic drug given for prophylaxis had little impact on clinical outcome or patient satisfaction, traditional agents should form the core of antiemetics used for PONV prophylaxis in ambulatory surgery patients.
Authors: C C Apfel; A Bacher; A Biedler; K Danner; O Danzeisen; L H J Eberhart; H Forst; G Fritz; M Hergert; G Frings; A Goebel; H-B Hopf; H Kerger; P Kranke; M Lange; F Mertzlufft; J Motsch; A Paura; N Roewer; E Schneider; K Stoecklein; J Wermelt; C Zernak Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Christian C Apfel; Kari Korttila; Mona Abdalla; Heinz Kerger; Alparslan Turan; Ina Vedder; Carmen Zernak; Klaus Danner; Ritva Jokela; Stuart J Pocock; Stefan Trenkler; Markus Kredel; Andreas Biedler; Daniel I Sessler; Norbert Roewer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-06-10 Impact factor: 91.245