Literature DB >> 24105403

Impact of risk assessments on prophylactic antiemetic prescription and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a cluster-randomized trial.

Teus H Kappen1, Karel G M Moons, Leo van Wolfswinkel, Cornelis J Kalkman, Yvonne Vergouwe, Wilton A van Klei.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction models have been shown to have moderate sensitivity and specificity, yet their use will depend on implementation in clinical practice. The authors hypothesized that implementation of a prediction model for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) would lower the PONV incidence by stimulating anesthesiologists to administer more "risk-tailored" prophylaxis to patients.
METHODS: A single-center, cluster-randomized trial was performed in 12,032 elective surgical patients receiving anesthesia from 79 anesthesiologists. Anesthesiologists were randomized to either exposure or nonexposure to automated risk calculations for PONV (without patient-specific recommendations on prophylactic antiemetics). Anesthesiologists who treated less than 50 enrolled patients were excluded during the analysis to avoid too small clusters, yielding 11,613 patients and 57 anesthesiologists (intervention group: 5,471 and 31; care-as-usual group: 6,142 and 26). The 24-h incidence of PONV (primary outcome) and the number of prophylactic antiemetics administered per patient were studied for risk-dependent differences between allocation groups.
RESULTS: There were no differences in PONV incidence between allocation groups (crude incidence intervention group 41%, care-as-usual group 43%; odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.87-1.1; risk-dependent odds ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.1). Nevertheless, intervention-group anesthesiologists administered more prophylactic antiemetics (rate ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.6-2.4) and more risk-tailored than care-as-usual-group anesthesiologists (risk-dependent rate ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3-2.0).
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a PONV prediction model did not reduce the PONV incidence despite increased antiemetic prescription in high-risk patients by anesthesiologists. Before implementing prediction models into clinical practice, implementation studies that include patient outcomes as an endpoint are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24105403     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  5 in total

1.  Clinical practice guideline for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES).

Authors:  Joseph C Carmichael; Deborah S Keller; Gabriele Baldini; Liliana Bordeianou; Eric Weiss; Lawrence Lee; Marylise Boutros; James McClane; Scott R Steele; Liane S Feldman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  A systematic review of near real-time and point-of-care clinical decision support in anesthesia information management systems.

Authors:  Allan F Simpao; Jonathan M Tan; Arul M Lingappan; Jorge A Gálvez; Sherry E Morgan; Michael A Krall
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Statistical methods for validation of predictive models.

Authors:  Marcio Augusto Diniz
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  [PONV after strabismus surgery : Risk adapted prophylaxis?].

Authors:  R Wolf; E Morinello; G Kestler; B Käsmann-Kellner; M Bischoff; T Hager; J Schöpe; L H J Eberhart
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 1.041

5.  Phenothiazine vs 5HT3 antagonist prophylactic regimens to prevent Post-Anesthesia Care Unit rescue antiemetic: an observational study.

Authors:  Joseph R Ruiz; Joe E Ensor; Jeffrey W Lim; Antoinette Van Meter; Thomas F Rahlfs
Journal:  Open J Anesthesiol       Date:  2015-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.