帕洛诺司琼-地塞米松与恩丹司琼-地塞米松预防中耳手术后恶心呕吐的比较:一项随机临床研究

Vinit Kumar Srivastava , Saima Khan , Sanjay Agrawal , Sweta Anil Deshmukh , Pooja Shree , Partha Pratim Misra
{"title":"帕洛诺司琼-地塞米松与恩丹司琼-地塞米松预防中耳手术后恶心呕吐的比较:一项随机临床研究","authors":"Vinit Kumar Srivastava ,&nbsp;Saima Khan ,&nbsp;Sanjay Agrawal ,&nbsp;Sweta Anil Deshmukh ,&nbsp;Pooja Shree ,&nbsp;Partha Pratim Misra","doi":"10.1016/j.bjan.2020.04.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60−80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron‐dexamethasone and ondansetron‐dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Sixty‐four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron‐dexamethasone and ondansetron‐dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2−6<!--> <!-->hours only (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0−24<!--> <!-->hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron‐dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number‐needed‐to‐treat was 4. The patient's satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.026).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The combination of palonosetron‐dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron‐dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21261,"journal":{"name":"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bjan.2020.04.016","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparação entre palonosetrona‐dexametasona e ondansetrona‐dexametasona na prevenção de náuseas e vômitos no pós‐operatório de cirurgia do ouvido médio: estudo clínico randomizado\",\"authors\":\"Vinit Kumar Srivastava ,&nbsp;Saima Khan ,&nbsp;Sanjay Agrawal ,&nbsp;Sweta Anil Deshmukh ,&nbsp;Pooja Shree ,&nbsp;Partha Pratim Misra\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bjan.2020.04.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60−80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron‐dexamethasone and ondansetron‐dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Sixty‐four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron‐dexamethasone and ondansetron‐dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2−6<!--> <!-->hours only (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0−24<!--> <!-->hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron‐dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number‐needed‐to‐treat was 4. The patient's satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.026).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The combination of palonosetron‐dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron‐dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21261,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bjan.2020.04.016\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034709420304013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista brasileira de anestesiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034709420304013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

背景术后恶心和呕吐是术后疼痛之后的第二大常见主诉。在未进行止吐预防的中耳手术中,术后恶心和呕吐的发生率为60 ~ 80%。由于术后恶心和呕吐的发生率很高,我们的目的是评估帕洛诺司琼-地塞米松和昂丹司琼-地塞米松联合用药预防中耳手术患者术后恶心和呕吐的效果。方法64例中耳手术患者随机分为两组,分别在麻醉诱导前静脉给予帕洛诺司琼-地塞米松和昂丹司琼-地塞米松联合用药。所有患者麻醉技术均标准化。记录术后恶心呕吐发生率、严重程度、抢救止吐药需求、不良反应及患者满意度评分。结果各研究组的人口统计学特征相似。在2 ~ 6小时的时间间隔内,O组和P组的恶心发生率差异有统计学意义(P = 0.026)。在整个研究期间,O组和P组呕吐的发生率和严重程度比较,差异均无统计学意义。术后0 ~ 24小时恶心呕吐发生率O组为37.5%,P组为9.4% (P = 0.016)。帕洛诺司琼-地塞米松的绝对风险降低率为28%,相对风险降低率为75%,需要治疗的人数为4人。P组患者满意度评分高于O组(P = 0.016)。O组抢救用药频次高于P组(P = 0.026)。结论帕洛诺司琼-地塞米松联合用药预防中耳术后恶心呕吐的效果优于昂丹司琼-地塞米松。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparação entre palonosetrona‐dexametasona e ondansetrona‐dexametasona na prevenção de náuseas e vômitos no pós‐operatório de cirurgia do ouvido médio: estudo clínico randomizado

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60−80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron‐dexamethasone and ondansetron‐dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.

Methods

Sixty‐four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron‐dexamethasone and ondansetron‐dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.

Results

Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2−6 hours only (p = 0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0−24 hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (p = 0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron‐dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number‐needed‐to‐treat was 4. The patient's satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (p = 0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (p = 0.026).

Conclusion

The combination of palonosetron‐dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron‐dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology is the official journal of the Brazilian Anesthesiology Society. It publishes articles classified into the following categories: -Scientific articles (clinical or experimental trials)- Clinical information (case reports)- Reviews- Letters to the Editor- Editorials. The journal focuses primarily on clinical trials, with scope on clinical practice, aiming at providing applied tools to the anesthesiologist and critical care physician. The Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology accepts articles exclusively forwarded to it. Articles already published in other journals are not accepted. All articles proposed for publication are previously submitted to the analysis of two or more members of the Editorial Board or other specialized consultants.
期刊最新文献
Atualização sobre reações de hipersensibilidade perioperatória: documento conjunto da Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA) e Associação Brasileira de Alergia e Imunologia (ASBAI) – Parte II: etiologia e diagnóstico Propofol‐cetamina versus dexmedetomidina‐cetamina para sedação durante endoscopia digestiva alta em pacientes pediátricos: estudo clínico randomizado Comparação entre morfina subaracnoidea e bloqueio do nervo femoral para analgesia após reconstrução ligamentar de joelho: estudo clínico randomizado Sequência de segurança de intubação: o algoritmo 10 “Ps” e ferramenta cognitiva para manuseio de vias aéreas em pacientes com COVID‐19 Dexametasona perineural em bloqueio de plexo braquial interescalênico com levobupivacaína guiado por ultrassonografia para artroscopia de ombro em regime ambulatorial: ensaio clínico controlado e randomizado
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1