| JOURNAL HOME | CME HOME | THIS MONTH | PAST ISSUES | ETOC | COLLECTIONS |
| AUTHORS | REVIEWERS | EDITORIAL BOARD | FEEDBACK | RSS | HELP |
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital and Department of Anesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Abha Saxena, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. Address e-mail to saxenas{at}medinst.ernet.in
We aimed to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy, safety, and clinical utility of prophylactic ondansetron administered at the end of the surgery for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in a homogenous population of 54 women undergoing modified radical mastectomy (MRM). A standard general anesthetic and perioperative analgesic technique were used. After surgery, patients received either saline placebo or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Episodes of PONV, as well as rescue antiemetic requirements, were recorded for the first 24 h after surgery. The 24-h incidence of PONV (33.3% vs 81.5%; P = 0.0010) was significantly lower in the ondansetron group. The severity of PONV, evaluated by the number of emetic episodes per patient (1.59 ± 1.90 vs 0.29 ± 0.66; P = 0.0029), and the rescue antiemetic requirement (59.2% vs 14.8%; P = 0.0019) was significantly lower, in the ondansetron group. Patient satisfaction scores and number needed to prevent PONV (2.07) were significantly better and therapeutically more favorable in the ondansetron group. The incidence of adverse events such as headache, dizziness, and increased liver enzyme levels (number needed to harm = 
) was similar in both groups. Administered at the end of the surgery in adult female patients undergoing general anesthesia for MRM, ondansetron 4 mg is effective and safe in preventing PONV. We recommend the clinical practice of routine prophylactic ondansetron to prevent PONV after MRM, as it significantly improves perioperative patient satisfaction and outcome.
Implications: We evaluated the antiemetic efficacy, safety, and routine use of prophylactic ondansetron, a "gold standard" antiemetic, in women undergoing radical breast surgery who were at a high risk of postoperative vomiting. We analyzed more meaningful "true" and "therapeutic" outcome measures, and we conclude that prophylactic ondansetron is safe and effective and that its routine use is justified.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. F. White, O. Sacan, N. Nuangchamnong, T. Sun, and M. R. Eng The Relationship Between Patient Risk Factors and Early Versus Late Postoperative Emetic Symptoms Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2008; 107(2): 459 - 463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. F. White, M. A. Hamza, A. Recart, J. E. Coleman, A. R. Macaluso, L. Cox, O. Jaffer, D. Song, and R. Rohrich Optimal Timing of Acustimulation for Antiemetic Prophylaxis as an Adjunct to Ondansetron in Patients Undergoing Plastic Surgery Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2005; 100(2): 367 - 372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P.A. Ioannidis, S. J.W. Evans, P. C. Gotzsche, R. T. O'Neill, D. G. Altman, K. Schulz, D. Moher, and for the CONSORT Group* Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement Ann Intern Med, November 16, 2004; 141(10): 781 - 788. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Biedler, J. Wermelt, O. Kunitz, A. Muller, W. Wilhelm, J. Dethling, and C. C. Apfel A risk adapted approach reduces the overall institutional incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting: [Une approche preventive adaptee aux risques reduit l'incidence generale de nausees et de vomissements postoperatoires en milieu hospitalier] Can J Anesth, January 1, 2004; 51(1): 13 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Pierre, H. Benais, and J. Pouymayou Apfel's simplified score may favourably predict the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting: [La cotation d'Apfel simplifiee peut predire favorablement le risque de nausees et de vomissements postoperatoires] Can J Anesth, March 1, 2002; 49(3): 237 - 242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
X. Chen, J. Tang, P. F. White, R. H. Wender, R. Quon, A. Sloninsky, R. Naruse, R. Kariger, T. Webb, and E. Norel The Effect of Timing of Dolasetron Administration on its Efficacy as a Prophylactic Antiemetic in the Ambulatory Setting Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2001; 93(4): 906 - 911. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. S. Kreisler, B. F. Spiekermann, C. M. Ascari, H. A. Rhyne, R. L. Kloth, L. M. Sullivan, and M. E. Durieux Small-Dose Droperidol Effectively Reduces Nausea in a General Surgical Adult Patient Population Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2000; 91(5): 1256 - 1261. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Figueredo, S. Sadhasivam, A. Saxena, S. Kathirvel, and T. R. Kannan Ondansetron and Evidence-Based Medicine Response Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2000; 91(2): 496 - 497. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Zarate, M. F. Watcha, P. F. White, K. W. Klein, M. S. Rego, and D. G. Stewart A Comparison of the Costs and Efficacy of Ondansetron Versus Dolasetron for Antiemetic Prophylaxis Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2000; 90(6): 1352 - 1358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. F. White and M. F. Watcha Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Prophylaxis Versus Treatment Anesth. Analg., December 1, 1999; 89(6): 1337 - 1337. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
