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]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eberhart, L. H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Seeling, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eberhart, L. H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Seeling, W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ambulatory
Right arrow Postanesthetic Care Unit
Right arrow Complications

Anesth Analg 2003;96:995-998
© 2003 International Anesthesia Research Society

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIA

Ginger Does Not Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Laparoscopic Surgery

Leopold H. J. Eberhart, MD*, Roswitha Mayer, MD{dagger}, Oliver Betz, MD{dagger}, Stergios Tsolakidis, MD{dagger}, Wolfgang Hilpert, MD{dagger}, Astrid M. Morin, MD*, Götz Geldner, MD*, Hinnerk Wulf*, and Wulf Seeling{dagger}

*Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Philipps-University of Marburg, Marburg; and {dagger}Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Leopold Eberhart, MD, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Philipps-University, Baldingerstrasse, D-35033 Marburg, Germany. Address e-mail to eberhart{at}mailer.uni-marburg.de


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

IMPLICATIONS: The potential antiemetic effect of two different oral doses of the herbal remedy ginger (Zingiber officinale) to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in 180 patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy was investigated in this randomized, double-blinded trial. Ginger failed to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after these procedures.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Ginger (Zingiber officinale) has traditionally been used in China for gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea and vomiting. As a part of oral premedication, ginger might be especially valuable, because it is inexpensive, lacks known relevant side effects (e.g., sedation), and has a high patient acceptance, because it is part of complementary medicine and is perceived by the public as "natural" and therefore safe (1). Gingerly, especially 8-gingerol, enhances gastrointestinal transport in an animal model (2). Eight-gingerol is a functional antagonist at ileal 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors (3). The subtype 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor has an important role in the etiology of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (4).

Ernst and Pittler (5) systematically reviewed trials investigating the antiemetic effect of ginger (Zingiber officinale). They performed a metaanalysis of three available studies investigating the herbal remedy in preventing PONV and further critically reviewed another three trials for nausea and vomiting of other conditions. They concluded that ginger was a promising antiemetic, but the clinical data were insufficient to draw firm conclusions. Thus, they called for further rigorous studies to establish whether ginger is effective for nausea and vomiting. In this context, this randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed to gain further data on the antiemetic properties of the herbal remedy and to evaluate effects on postoperative patient satisfaction.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
A total of 184 healthy, consenting women undergoing gynecologic laparoscopies were included in this randomized, placebo-controlled trial that was approved by the local ethics committee. They were randomly allocated to one of the following three treatment groups using computer-generated permuted blocks. This list was not broken before patient recruitment and validation of the data were completed. 1) placebo group: 3 x 2 placebo capsules (2 capsules preoperatively as well as 3 and 6 h postoperatively), 2) G300 group: 3 x 1 verum capsules and 3 x 1 placebo capsules (1 capsule preoperatively as well as 3 and 6 h postoperatively) (= 300 mg of ginger extract); and 3) G600 group: 3 x 2 verum capsules (2 capsules preoperatively as well as 3 and 6 h postoperatively) (= 600 mg of ginger extract).

One verum capsule contained 100 mg of standardized extract of the rhizome of Zingiber officinale (drug extract ratio 10–20:1; extraction agent: acetone). The gelatin capsules were aromatized with mint flavor to make the ginger and the identically looking placebo capsule indistinguishable with regard to smell and taste. These efforts were made because ginger can be smelled and tasted even when covered with a cellulose-microcrystalline (6).

All patients were orally premedicated with 20 mg of clorazepate. General anesthesia was induced with propofol, fentanyl (2 µg/kg), atracurium (0.3–0.5 mg/kg), and in some patients (n = 33), with shorter surgical procedures with succinylcholine (1–2 mg/kg). Desflurane (3–6 vol%) in nitrous oxide/oxygen (FIO2: 0.3) and additional fentanyl were used for maintenance. Fluid administration was standardized. Neuromuscular blockade was antagonized with pyridostigmine (0.1 mg/kg) and atropine (0.5 mg) when clinically indicated (n = 16). No additional antiemetics were applied.

Postoperatively, pain was treated with repeated small doses of an opioid (piritramid 2–3 mg) until the patient had reached a level of no or mild pain. If a patient requested therapy for PONV or experienced nausea for at least 10 min or had >=2 emetic episodes, rescue therapy for PONV was given (0.75–1 mg of droperidol, followed by 2 mg of tropisetron, if ineffective). Patients were visited 1, 3, 6, and 24 h postoperatively. Patients who were operated on a day-case basis were not discharged before the 6-h observation point and contacted 24 h postoperatively by telephone. Patients were asked to rate nausea and postoperative pain since the last visit using a four-point verbal rating scale (none, mild, moderate, severe) and to quantify the episodes of emetic symptoms (vomiting or retching). Twenty-four hours postoperatively, the Quality of Recovery score (7,8) was assessed during a standardized postoperative interview. Patients were also asked to grade their satisfaction using a six-step grading scale (1 = very good, 2 = good, ..., 6 = unsatisfactory).

A prospective power analysis assumed an incidence rate of PONV in the placebo group of 0.50 (9) and incidence rates of 0.4 and 0.3 in the G300 and G600 groups, respectively. Three hundred sixty patients provide a 90% chance of detecting a significant effect ({alpha} = 0.05) using the Cochran Armitage test. Because of the uncertainty with respect to the efficacy and dose responsiveness, an adaptive interim analysis (10) was prospectively planned after half of the foreseen number of patients (n = 180). This design allows stopping the study in case of a significant reduction of the PONV incidence for the verum groups (adapted P <= 0.0131) or if there is no realistic chance to detect a significant and relevant difference if the study is continued (P >= 0.30). For 0.0131 < P < 0.30, the study could be completed with the attempted number of patients. Additional descriptive analyses were performed for the incidences of nausea, vomiting, and need for antiemetic rescue treatment using 95% confidence intervals.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
A total of 202 consecutive female patients undergoing laparoscopy were screened. Eighteen patients were not suitable (body mass index >35, intellectual or linguistic deficits, previous intake of antiemetics, refusal to participate). The remaining 184 patients gave their informed consent but 4 women were not randomized (cancellation of surgery). Thus, 180 patients were finally randomized. Five of these were subsequently excluded for surgical reasons. No patient was excluded postoperatively or was lost to follow-up.

The patients were comparable with respect to their demographic data, type and duration of surgery, the anesthesia technique, and dosage of drugs applied. A simplified risk score (11) successfully validated in our institution (12) was used to demonstrate an identical mean baseline risk for all 3 groups (47%–49%; see Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Demographic Data, Information on Anesthesia and Surgery, and Risk Factors for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) of the 175 Patients Included in the Intention-to-Treat Analysis
 
In the interim analysis (n = 180 patients), the observed incidence of PONV was 49% (95% confidence interval: 36%–63%) in the placebo group, 58% (95% confidence interval: 44%–70%) in the G300 group, and 53% (39%–66%) in the G600 group (P = 0.69). Thus, the study was stopped according to the prospectively defined protocol. There was also no difference with regard to nausea, vomiting, and the need for antiemetic rescue treatment among the three groups at any of the four postoperative observation points (Table 2). Adverse events were infrequent for all treatment groups (placebo group = 11, G300 group = 8, G600 group = 13) and organ classes, respectively.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Incidences of Nausea, Vomiting, Need for Antiemetic Rescue Treatment and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV)
 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In a systematic review, Ernst and Pittler (5) concluded that ginger is a promising antiemetic herbal remedy, but the clinical data were insufficient to draw firm conclusions. Thus, they called for further rigorous studies to establish whether ginger is effective for clinical nausea and vomiting.

In our placebo-controlled, double-blinded study, we failed to demonstrate that ginger possesses antiemetic activity. Gynecologic laparoscopies were associated with a 48% incidence of PONV in the placebo group, very similar to that reported previously from our institution in an identical setting (9). Premedication with 100 or 200 mg of the extract of the ginger root and subsequently administering repetitive doses of 100 or 200 mg, respectively, did not decrease this incidence. This initial preoperative dose (approximately 1–2 g of the crude drug) is comparable with the doses used in previous studies on ginger observing an antiemetic effect [1 g: Bone et al. (13) and Phillips et al. (14)] and also in "negative" studies [0.5–1 g: Arfeen et al. (6) and Visalyaputra et al. (15)]. Furthermore, the total dose as applied in the G600 group is larger than the maximal dose of ginger recommended according to German monographs on ginger.1 The administration of the drug was repeated postoperatively, because it is known that some major pharmacologically active compounds of ginger have a short half-life (16).

General postoperative recovery was measured by using the score published by Myles et al. (7). It is one of the very few postoperative questionnaires carefully developed according to psychological standards and validated in a large number of patients (8). In addition, patients were asked to rate satisfaction with anesthesia care using a simple six-step grading system. Both methods had a fairly good correlation ({rho} = -0.3; P = 0.0004 with the Spearman rank correlation test) but none showed any significant difference among the three groups (see Table 2).


   Acknowledgments
 
Supported by Dr. Willmar Schwabe Pharmaceuticals, Karlsruhe, Germany.

We thank Dr. Willmar Schwabe Pharmaceuticals, Karlsruhe, Germany for providing a grant and the preparation of the study medication.


   Footnotes
 
1 Kommission E. Monographie Zingiberis rhizoma. Bundesanzeiger 1988;Nr. 8:5.5; Kommission E. Monographie Zingiberis rhizoma. Bundesanzeiger 1990;Nr. 50:13.3. Back


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Skinner CM, Rangasami J. Preoperative use of herbal medicines: a patient survey. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 792–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Yamahara J, Huang Q, Li Y, et al. Gastrointestinal motility enhancing effect of ginger and its active constituents. Chem Pharm Bull 1990; 38: 430–1.
  3. Yamahara J, Rong HQ, Iwamoto M, et al. Active components of ginger exhibiting antiserotonergic action. Phythotherapy Res 1989; 3: 70–1.
  4. Russell D, Kenny GN. 5-HT3 antagonists in postoperative nausea and vomiting. Br J Anaesth 1992; 69: 63–8.
  5. Ernst E, Pittler MH. Efficacy of ginger for nausea and vomiting: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 367–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Arfeen Z, Owen H, Plummer JL, et al. A double-blind randomized controlled trial of ginger for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesth Intensive Care 1995; 23: 449–52.[ISI][Medline]
  7. Myles PS, Hunt JO, Nightingale CE, et al. Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 83–90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Myles PS, Reeves MD, Anderson H, Weeks AM. Measurement of quality of recovery in 5672 patients after anaesthesia and surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 2000; 28: 276–80.[Medline]
  9. Morin AM, Bezler T, Eberhart LH, et al. Einfluß verschiedener niedriger Droperidol-Dosierungen auf postoperative Angst, innere Anspannung, allgemeine Befindlichkeit und PONV. Anaesthesist 1999; 48: 19–25.[Medline]
  10. Bauer P, Köhne K. Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1029–41.[ISI][Medline]
  11. Koivuranta M, Läärä E, Snåre L, Alahuhta S. A survey of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesthesia 1997; 52: 443–9.[ISI][Medline]
  12. Eberhart LH, Högel J, Seeling W, et al. Evaluation of three risk scores to predict postoperative nausea and vomiting. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2000; 44: 480–8.[ISI][Medline]
  13. Bone ME, Wilkinson DJ, Young JR, et al. Ginger root: a new antiemetic—the effect of ginger root on postoperative nausea and vomiting after major gynaecological surgery. Anaesthesia 1990; 45: 669–71.[ISI][Medline]
  14. Phillips S, Ruggier R, Hutchinson SE. Zingiber officinale (Ginger): an antiemetic for day case surgery. Anaesthesia 1993; 48: 715–7.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Visalyaputra S, Petchpaisit N, Somcharoen K, Choavaratana R. The efficacy of ginger root in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after outpatient gynaecological laparoscopy. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 486–510.[ISI][Medline]
  16. Ding G, Naora K, Hayashibara M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of [6]-gingerol after intravenous administration in rats. Chem Pharm Bull 1991; 39: 1612–4.
Accepted for publication December 26, 2002.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
S. M Wilhelm, M. L Dehoorne-Smith, and P. B Kale-Pradhan
Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Ann. Pharmacother., January 1, 2007; 41(1): 68 - 78.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
J. Golembiewski, E. Chernin, and T. Chopra
Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., June 15, 2005; 62(12): 1247 - 1260.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
F. Borrelli, R. Capasso, G. Aviello, M. H. Pittler, and A. A. Izzo
Effectiveness and Safety of Ginger in the Treatment of Pregnancy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting
Obstet. Gynecol., April 1, 2005; 105(4): 849 - 856.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 SURG INNOVHome page
A. Goldfaden and J. D. Birkmeyer
Evidence-Based Practice in Laparoscopic Surgery: Perioperative Care
Surgical Innovation, March 1, 2005; 12(1): 51 - 61.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eberhart, L. H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Seeling, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eberhart, L. H. J.
Right arrow Articles by Seeling, W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Ambulatory
Right arrow Postanesthetic Care Unit
Right arrow Complications

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