| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
* From the Division d'Anesthésiologie,
Département APSIC, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Genève, Switzerland and Abteilung Chirurgie, Kreisspital Oberengadin, Samedan, Switzerland.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Martin R. Tramèr, Division of Anaesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals, 24, Rue Micheli-du-Crest, CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland. Phone: 41-22-382-7403; Fax: 41-22-372-7690; E-mail: martin.tramer{at}hcuge.ch
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Methods: Systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, hand-searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to May 1999) for randomised comparisons of droperidol with placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (up to six hours postoperatively), and late PONV (24 hr), and adverse effects. Combined data were analysed using relative risk and NNT.
Results: In 76 trials, 5,351 patients received 24 different regimens of droperidol. The average incidence of early and late PONV in controls was 34% and 51%, respectively. Droperidol was more efficacious than placebo in preventing PONV. In adults, the anti-nausea effect was short-lived, and there was no dose-responsiveness; with 0.25 to 0.30 mg the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent early nausea was 5. For both early and late anti-vomiting efficacy there was dose-responsiveness; best efficacy was with 1.5 mg to 2.5 mg (NNT, 7). In children, there was dose-responsiveness; best efficacy was with 75 µg•kg–1 (NNT to prevent early and late vomiting, 4). Two children had extrapyramidal symptoms with droperidol (NNT in children, 91; in any patient, 408). There was dose-responsiveness for sedation and drowsiness (with 2.5 mg the NNT was 7.8). Droperidol prevented postoperative headache (NNT, –25).
Conclusions: Droperidol is anti-emetic in the surgical setting. The effect on nausea is short-lived but more pronounced than the effect on vomiting. Sedation and drowsiness are dose-dependent, extrapyramidal symptoms are rare, and there is a protective effect against headache.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Droperidol was first reported to have anti-emetic efficacy in men in 1963.3 Since then, droperidol has been widely used as an anti-emetic in perioperative medicine. Textbooks suggested that 10 to 20 µg•kg–1 (0.6 to 1.2 mg for a 60 kg patient) may be the optimal dose for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).1 Higher doses (2.5 to 5 mg intramuscularly or intravenously) have been proposed for the treatment of established PONV.4 However, the anti-emetic dose-responsiveness for droperidol efficacy has not been established for prevention of PONV or for the treatment of established PONV. More recently, the use of newer anti-emetic drugs such as 5-HT3 receptor antagonists has been advocated for the control of PONV. A frequent argument in favour of the use of newer anti-emetic drugs is the apparent increased risk of major adverse reactions with the use of older anti-emetic drugs, such as droperidol. Indeed, as a drug which acts at dopamine receptors, droperidol has the potential of provoking extrapyramidal reactions.5
The aim of this quantitative review of systematically searched randomised controlled trials, was first, to estimate droperidol's anti-emetic efficacy compared with placebo in the prevention of PONV; second, to test the evidence of dose-responsiveness; third, to compare anti-nausea with anti-vomiting efficacy; and fourth, to investigate droperidol's potential risk for toxic effects in the surgical setting.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Critical appraisal
Independently, authors read each report that met the inclusion criteria, and scored them for inclusion and methodological validity using the three-item, five-point, Oxford-scale.7 The minimum score of an included randomised controlled trial was one, the maximum score was 5. Consensus was reached by discussion.
Data extraction
We took information about patients, surgery, dose, and route of administration of droperidol, study end points, and adverse effects from each included report. We extracted the cumulative incidence of PONV within six hours after surgery and within 24 hr. Incidences of PONV during the two time periods (0 to 6 hr, and 0 to 24 hr) were used as indicators of "early" (short-term) and "late" (long-term) anti-emetic efficacy, respectively. Thus, data of the "early" period may be included in the (cumulative) "late" period. A true "delayed" period (for instant, 6-24 hr) could not be analysed, since the original trials did not report data on such a period. When multiple doses of droperidol were given (for instance, a first dose at induction and a subsequent dose 12 hr after surgery), we considered the first dose (in this case the dose given at induction) for estimation of early efficacy, and the cumulative dose (in this case the sum of both doses) for late efficacy. When several events were reported at different times, we analysed the cumulative values nearest to the sixth and twenty-fourth postoperative hours. Two different PONV events, both early and late, were extracted in dichotomous form: nausea, and vomiting (including retching). These events were treated separately. We did not take into account nausea scores, number of, or time to first vomiting episodes, number of patients needing anti-emetic rescue medication, delay until discharge, post hoc analyses, stratified data analyses (by sex, for instance), or scores of patient satisfaction, because these endpoints were inconsistently reported.
Qualitative analysis
We used the scatter of event rates (incidence of PONV) with droperidol (i.e. experimental event rate) against event rates with control (i.e. control event rate) as a graphical means to explore consistency of droperidol's efficacy and homogeneity of the data.8 On such plots, a scatter lying predominantly between the line of equality and the axis of the control intervention would suggest consistent efficacy with droperidol and relative homogeneity.
Quantitative analysis
We defined anti-emetic efficacy as prevention of a PONV event with droperidol or control. We combined data only when they represented clinically homogenous subgroups (i.e., the same PONV event, the same observation period, the same dose and route of administration of droperidol, and only adults or only children).
We used both relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat as estimates of antiemetic efficacy and harm. As an estimate of the statistical significance of a difference between droperidol and control we calculated relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CI).9 For combined data, a fixed effect model that considers within-study variation10 was used when data from no more than two trials were combined or when there was no significant heterogeneity (i.e., P > 0.1). In all other situations, we used a random effects model.11 If any cell of a sample was zero, then 0.5 was added to all cells of that sample to calculate the relative risk.12 When the 95%CI around the relative risk did not include 1, we assumed a statistically significant difference between droperidol and control. As an estimate of the clinical relevance of a treatment effect we calculated the number-needed-to-treat (NNT)13 using the weighted means of the pooled experimental and control event rates.14 A positive NNT indicated how many patients had to be exposed to droperidol for one patient to show a particular endpoint (for instance, not to vomit), who would not have shown this endpoint (for instance, who would have vomited) had they all received a placebo. We made a pre-hoc decision that a NNT of 5 or less to prevent PONV compared with placebo would represent a clinically relevant degree of efficacy in this clinical setting.15 A negative NNT suggested that the endpoint happened more often with placebo compared with droperidol. A 95%CI around the NNT point estimate was obtained by taking the reciprocals of the values defining the 95%CI for the absolute risk reduction.16 In tables the actual upper and lower limits of the 95%CI around the NNT, independent if they were positive or negative, are reported. The 95%CI will contain exclusively positive numbers if the difference between droperidol and control is statistically significant (i.e. P < 0.05) in favour of droperidol; it will contain exclusively negative values if this difference is statistically significant in favour of control. A 95%CI ranging from a positive limit to a negative limit indicates a result which is not statistically significant (i.e. the confidence interval includes infinity).
Dose-responsiveness
There was an attempt to test the evidence for dose-responsiveness using pre-set criteria.17 A statistically significant difference between two doses would be assumed when the 95%CI of the corresponding NNTs did not overlap; this was then interpreted as strong evidence of a dose-response. An increase in efficacy of at least 20% (i.e., a decrease of the NNT of 5 to 4, for instance) was considered as a clinically relevant improvement, and, therefore, would justify an increase in the dose, even when 95%CIs overlapped.
Sensitivity analysis
We calculated relative risk and NNT for nausea and vomiting outcomes separately for the best-documented regimens within two predefined ranges of control event rates: early outcomes within 20% to 60% of control event rate, and late outcomes within 40% to 80% of control event rate.18 Data outside these ranges were excluded from the sensitivity analysis. Thus, we could estimate droperidol's relative efficacy compared with other anti-emetic interventions without the need for direct comparisons.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We analysed data from 74 randomised controlled trials, published in 74 reports.38–111 There were data on 13,352 patients, of whom 5,351 (43%) received droperidol, 3,372 received a placebo or "no treatment", and 4,629 received another anti-emetic intervention. A "no treatment" control was used in fourteen trials,59,63,65,66,73,75,76,80,83,98,108–111 all others used placebos. Data from "no treatment" groups were regarded as placebos.112 The median number of patients per trial was 165 (range, 40 to 2,061). The median validity score was 3 (range, 1 to 5). Twenty-four different droperidol regimens were tested: oral, intramuscular and intravenous routes; fixed doses (full milligram) and variable doses (micrograms per kilogram); single, and double administrations per 24 hr. Forty-seven trials were in adults, twenty-nine of them in women only. Twenty-nine trials were done in children.
Qualitative analysis
The event rate scatter for both early and late outcomes suggested improved efficacy with droperidol compared with placebo (Figure 1
). The average incidence of early nausea with droperidol and placebo was 16% (range, 3% to 41%) and 33% (range, 15% to 80%), respectively. The average incidence of early vomiting with droperidol and placebo was 14% (range, 0% to 56%) and 29% (range, 6% to 86%), respectively. The average incidence of late nausea with droperidol and placebo was 45% (range, 1% to 86%) and 58% (range, 11% to 96%), respectively. The average incidence of late vomiting with droperidol was 28% (range, 4% to 83%) and 46% (range, 12% to 97%), respectively.
|
EARLY EVENTS (0-6 HR) IN ADULTS
All outcomes indicated an improvement with droperidol compared with placebo, except for prevention of vomiting with 0.5 mg to 0.75 mg iv in 88 treated patients, and for prevention of both nausea and vomiting with 2.5 mg im in 50 treated patients (Table Ia). There was no evidence of dose-responsiveness for early anti-nausea efficacy with intravenous doses (Table Ia, Figure 2); 95% CIs overlapped and NNT point estimates did not improve with increasing doses. For the lowest dose range tested, 0.25 mg to 0.30 mg, the NNT to prevent nausea was about 5, and higher doses did not further increase this efficacy (Table Ia). There was, however, some weak evidence of dose-responsiveness for early anti-vomiting efficacy with intravenous doses (Table Ia, Figure 2). For the two lowest dose ranges tested, 0.25 to 0.3 mg, and 0.5 to 0.75 mg, the NNT to prevent early vomiting was about 10; for the most frequently reported dose ranges, 1 mg to 1.25 mg, and 1.5 to 2.5 mg, the NNT improved (i.e. decreased) to about 7 (Table Ia). All confidence intervals overlapped; however, the NNT point estimates improved by 45%.
|
|
a). For 2.5 mg, NNTs to prevent early nausea and vomiting were very high or did not indicate any statistical significance; for 5 mg, NNTs improved to about 7. For all doses and routes of administration, droperidol's anti-nausea effect was more pronounced (i.e. NNTs were lower) than its anti-vomiting effect (Table Ia, Figure 2).
LATE EVENTS (0-24 HR) IN ADULTS
All outcomes indicated an improvement with droperidol compared with placebo, except for prevention of late nausea and vomiting with 5.4 mg (= 90 µg•kg–1) droperidol given orally in 30 patients, and for prevention of late vomiting with 3-5 mg im in 66 patients (Table Ib). For anti-nausea efficacy there was some evidence of dose-responsiveness with the two best documented dose ranges: 0.5 to 0.75 mg had a NNT of 11 to prevent late nausea in more than 550 patients, and 1 to 1.25 mg had a NNT of about 7 in more than 1,000 patients; 95% CIs overlapped (Table Ib, Figure 2). For anti-vomiting efficacy, interpretation was more difficult because of the variability in the average control event rates. The lowest dose range tested, 0.5 to 0.75 mg, seemed to provide best efficacy (NNT 3.4). The average control event rate was 52%. Higher doses did not achieve the same degree of efficacy; NNTs with doses as high as 5 mg were no better than about 7 (Table Ib). The average control event rate, however, was only 27%. Intramuscular and oral doses were poorly documented.
EARLY EVENTS (0-6 HR) IN CHILDREN
All outcomes showed an improvement with droperidol compared with placebo. There was some evidence of dose-responsiveness for early anti-vomiting efficacy with iv doses (Table Ic, Figure 3). For the lowest dose range tested, 10-20 µg•kg–1, the NNT to prevent early vomiting was 7.8. For 40-50 µg•kg–1, the NNT decreased to 6.6 (with a CI including 307). For the most frequently tested dose, 75 µg•kg–1, the NNT further decreased to 4.2. Although confidence intervals overlapped, the NNT point estimates improved by 86%. Intramuscular and oral regimens were poorly documented.
|
d, Figure 3). For the lowest dose-range, 5-20 µg•kg–1, the NNT to prevent late vomiting was 7.3. For 50 µg•kg–1, the NNT decreased to 4.4. For the most frequently used dose, 75 µg•kg–1, the NNT further decreased to 3.8. Confidence intervals overlapped; however, NNT point estimates improved by 92%.
Sensitivity analyses
CONTROL EVENT RATE BANDING
Some trials reported early incidences of nausea or vomiting with placebo below the 20% or above the 60% boundary of the comparator control event-rate ranges.40,46,50,53,54,59,61,83,84,88,96,98,105,107,109 Some trials reported late incidences of nausea or vomiting with placebo below the 40% or above the 80% boundary, respectively.38,39,42,70,78,91,93 Data from these trials were excluded from the sensitivity analysis with truncated control event rates (Table IIa). In both adults and children, results on dose-responsiveness were maintained despite restriction of the analysed data to a predefined range of control event rates.
|
b).
In eight trials, droperidol 75 µg•kg–1 was given at induction. In those, the NNT to prevent early vomiting was 5.3. In three trials, 75 µg•kg–1 droperidol was given either intraoperatively, or at the end of surgery, or postoperatively (in the recovery room). In those, the NNT to prevent early vomiting was 2.4. Confidence intervals of the NNTs of the two subgroups did not overlap. The control event rate for the first subgroup was 43%, for the second was 70%, suggesting that droperidol's efficacy when given at the end of surgery may have been exaggerated. The relative risk, however, showed the same tendency as the NNT, although 95% CIs of the relative risk did not overlap. For late outcomes, no impact of the time of administration was apparent (Table IIb).
Adverse drug reactions
EXTRAPYRAMIDAL SYMPTOMS, RESTLESSNESS, AND ABNORMAL MOVEMENTS
Presence or absence of extrapyramidal symptoms was described in 12 trials with a total of 815 treated adults and children (Table IIIa). In two children69 who had received 75 µg•kg–1 droperidol, extrapyramidal symptoms were reported; the NNT point estimate for extrapyramidal symptoms in children alone was 91. When the data of adults and children of all 12 trials were combined, the NNT point estimate was 408. Restlessness or abnormal movements were reported in 7% of adults treated with droperidol, and in 5% of controls (Table IIIa). When all neurological outcomes (i.e. extrapyramidal symptoms, restlessness, abnormal movements) were combined, the NNT point estimate was 88. None of these results was statistically significant.
|
b), and in one trial in children,39 with a total of 2,098 patients. In adults, there was some evidence of dose-responsiveness. With the lowest range of doses, 0.25-0.625 mg, there was no increased risk of sedation or drowsiness with droperidol compared with placebo. With increasing doses, the NNT decreased (i.e. the additional risk of sedation or drowsiness increased); all differences between droperidol and controls were statistically significant. With 5 mg droperidol iv, the NNT was 7; 95% CIs overlapped.
HEADACHE
Postoperative headache was reported in 151 of 1,057 (14%) adults receiving droperidol, and in 167 of 913 controls (18%) (Table IIIc). The NNT for postoperative headache with droperidol compared with placebo was –25. This difference in favour of droperidol was statistically significant. Droperidol doses ranged between 0.25 mg and 5.4 mg (90 µg•kg–1); there was a lack of evidence for dose-responsiveness.
DIZZINESS AND VERTIGO
In eight trials, 115 of 910 (13%) adults treated with droperidol, 0.25 mg to 1.25 mg, reported dizziness and vertigo compared with 92 of 771 (12%) controls (Table IIId). The NNT for dizziness and vertigo with droperidol was 142 compared with placebo; a result, which was not statistically significant.
OTHER ADVERSE REACTIONS
Other adverse reactions, possibly related to droperidol, were anxiety,49,50,100 hypotension,49,65,106 visual disturbances,72,91,105 nightmares,72,84 occulogyric crisis,108 and urinary retention.97,99 For none of these reactions was there a statistically significantly difference between droperidol and placebo.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This systematic review suggests strongly that droperidol, contrary to metoclopramide, is indeed anti-emetic compared with placebo in the surgical setting. It has to be stressed though, that these trials represent clinical settings with a moderate to high risk of PONV. The incidence of early PONV in placebo patients was on average 34%, and of late PONV was about 50%. Even higher control event rates have been reported in ondansetron trials.17 Because of these differences in the average of control event rates (and thus in the underlying risk) we performed a sensitivity analysis with truncated data18 (Table IIa) to enable indirect comparisons of droperidol with other anti-emetic interventions.
The meta-analytical approach enabled us to test the evidence for dose-responsiveness over a wide range of doses in both adults and children, and to compare relative anti-nausea and anti-vomiting efficacy. The major methodological problem was the important variability in control event rates among trials (Figure 1). This variability may be a reflection of different underlying risks. Again, the sensitivity analysis with truncated data was used to circumvent the variability. Results on dose-responsiveness were unchanged whether data were analysed across all trials or within the restricted range of control event rates.
In adults, there were three main results. First, there was dose-responsiveness for the anti-vomiting but not the anti-nausea effect of droperidol. With the lowest range of doses tested, 0.25-0.30 mg, about five patients need to be treated for one not to feel nauseated at short-term who would have felt nauseated had they all received a placebo (Table Ia). Increasing the dose did not improve the early anti-nausea efficacy of droperidol. However, to maintain this degree of efficacy long-term, higher doses were needed (Table Ib). Thus, repeated boluses of low doses of droperidol (for instance, 0.5 mg iv 12-hourly) should be used to control postoperative nausea. This strategy has been advocated by others, and it has been shown to be cost-effective.104 For anti-vomiting efficacy, the two lowest ranges of doses tested, 0.25-0.30 mg, and 0.5-0.75 mg iv, were clearly not efficacious. With increasing doses, droperidol's anti-vomiting efficacy improved considerably, although doses beyond 2.5 mg did not further increase efficacy (Table Ib).
Second, within the standardised restricted range of control event rates (Table IIa), 1-1.25 mg droperidol in adults achieved a degree of anti-vomiting efficacy which was similar to ondansetron 4 or 8 mg in adults, analysed within the same range of control event rates.17 This equivalence, based on data from indirect comparisons, has been confirmed in randomised trials of direct comparisons between droperidol and ondansetron.6
Third, the anti-nausea efficacy of droperidol was consistently superior to its anti-vomiting efficacy. This stands in contrast to ondansetron, where all regimens, iv or po, consistently achieved a better effect on vomiting than on nausea.17 Thus, it may be worthwhile to study more intensively the anti-emetic efficacy of drugs or drug combinations which block both dopamine and 5-HT3 receptors. An optimal control of both nausea and vomiting may then be achieved. There is some evidence of an increased anti-emetic efficacy with a combination of droperidol and ondansetron in the surgical setting.114,115 Further research is needed to establish optimal doses of this combination. Metoclopramide, however, is a molecule, which acts at both dopamine and 5-HT3 receptors, and which theoretically combines the anti-emetic properties of droperidol and ondansetron, did not show any clinically relevant anti-emetic efficacy in the surgical setting at the doses currently used (i.e. 10 mg).113 This may be because inadequate doses of metoclopramide are used in anesthetic practice.
In children, dose-responsiveness of the anti-vomiting efficacy of droperidol was suggested both graphically (Figure 3) and quantitatively (Tables Ic, Id). Analyses with data from all trials, independent of control event rates (Table I), and a sensitivity analysis within the restricted range of control event rates (Table II), suggested that 75 µg•kg–1 iv is likely to be the most effective prophylactic dose. Numbers-needed-to-treat indicated that four to five children must be treated for one not to vomit at short- or at long-term who would have done so had they received placebo. This degree of anti-emetic efficacy may be regarded as clinically relevant. However, it has to be stressed that this dose, extrapolated to an adult, is excessive; it corresponds to about 5 mg iv, a dose which has only rarely been tested in adults. The next lower dose tested in children, 50 µg•kg–1, showed less efficacy both in the short- and long-term, although this dose was tested in a limited number of patients only (Tables Ic, Id). The slightly decreased efficacy at 24 hr (NNT 4.4 with 50 µg•kg–1 vs NNT 3.8 with 75 µg•kg–1) may not be perceived as being clinically relevant. Taken together with the dose-dependency of droperidol-related sedation and drowsiness (Table IIIb) one may consider 50 µg•kg–1 to be the best prophylactic dose in children, when sedation and drowsiness should be prevented, as for instance in day case surgery.
Droperidol and other, older anti-emetic drugs have been repeatedly discredited because of their apparent increased risk of potentially major adverse drugs reactions. Systematic review suggested that there was no such risk with metoclopramide.113 For metoclopramide, however, doses used in perioperative medicine are likely to be too low. The situation with droperidol is different, because this drug is clearly anti-emetic in the doses used in clinical practice. Its anti-nausea effect, for instance, is likely to be the best currently available. Thus, it may be worthwhile to balance the estimates of the anti-emetic efficacy of droperidol against its estimates for harm. Extrapyramidal symptoms, a major adverse reaction of drugs acting at the dopamine receptor, were reported in two children receiving droperidol, but in no adults. In children alone, the additional risk for extrapyramidal symptoms was about 1 in 90 (Table IIIa). When all negative adult data were added, this risk decreased to about 1 in 400. This may indicate that children are more vulnerable to droperidol-related extrapyramidal symptoms. It may also suggest that extrapyramidal symptoms are dose-related, since both affected children had received 75 µg•kg–1. Such high doses were rarely used in adults. There was a lack of data to test dose-responsiveness; it can only be speculated that lower doses of droperidol would decrease the risk of extrapyramidal reactions. Visual disturbances, urinary retention, and occulogyric crisis have been described. The clinical relevance of these events and their relation to droperidol, however, is unclear.
It has been known for a long time that droperidol, as a CNS depressant, produces a drowsy and placid subject who tends to fall into a sleep from which he can be readily aroused.116 Indeed, droperidol increased the likelihood of sedation and drowsiness; an obvious dose-response could be described. With the lowest doses tested, 0.25 to 0.625 mg, there was no difference between droperidol and placebo (Table IIIb). With increasing doses, the likelihood of droperidol-related sedation or drowsiness increased consistently. With 1.25 mg the additional risk was one in 24, with 2.5 mg it was one in 8, and with 5 mg it was even one in 7. We do not know from these data how long sedation and drowsiness lasted, and what degree of sedation or drowsiness has to expected with different doses of droperidol. However, two conclusions can be drawn. First, these data do not support the general view, that the anti-nausea efficacy of droperidol may simply be due to sedation, since the anti-nausea effect was not dose-dependent. Second, when sedation is not warranted (for instance, in day case surgery) minimal effective doses of droperidol should be used. This is another argument in favour of using repeated low doses of prophylactic droperidol rather than one large bolus dose.
There was strong evidence for a protective effect of droperidol against postoperative headache. This puts into question general statements on the increased risk of toxicity with droperidol. We do not know if there is a relationship between an increased risk of sedation and the anti-headache effect. The favourable effect on headache is yet another reason why droperidol should be combined with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, since 5-HT3 receptor antagonists increase the risk of headache.17,117
There was some evidence that the timing of administration of prophylactic droperidol may have an impact on its early anti-emetic efficacy, but not thereafter (Table IIb). Trials on the impact of timing of the administration of ondansetron on the incidence of PONV came to contradictory results.118,119 From a pharmacokinetic point of view it seems to be reasonable to administer a prophylactic anti-emetic intervention shortly before the patient awakes and possibly needs the anti-emetic protection.
In conclusion, droperidol is anti-emetic in the surgical setting. The anti-nausea effect is not dose-dependent, is more pronounced than the anti-vomiting effect, and is short-lived. Sedation and drowsiness are dose-dependent, extrapyramidal symptoms are rare, and there is a protective effect against headache. We speculate that improved control of PONV may be achieved with the combination of droperidol with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Accepted for publication January 24, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
2
Borison HL, Wang SC. Physiology and pharmacology of vomiting. Pharmacol Rev 1953; 5: 193–230.
3 Janssen P, Niemegeers C, Schellekens K, Verbruggen F, van Nueten JM. The pharmacology of dehydrobenzperidol, a new potent and short acting neuroleptic agent chemically related to haloperidol. Arzneimittel-Forsch 1963; 13: 205.
4 Marshall BE, Langnecker DE. General anesthetics. In: Goodman Gilman A, Goodman LS, Rall TW, Murad F (Eds.). Goodman and Gilman's. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 7th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990: 306–7.
5 Melnick B. Extrapyramidal reactions to low-dose droperidol. Anesthesiology 1988; 69: 424–6.[Medline]
6
Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. When placebo controlled trials are essential and equivalence trials are inadequate. BMJ 1998; 317: 875–80.
7 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1–12.[Medline]
8 L'Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 224–33.
9 Morris JA, Gardner MJ. Calculating confidence intervals for relative risk, odds ratios, and standardised ratios and rates. In: Gardner MJ, Altman DG (Eds.). Statistics with Confidence - Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines. London: British Medical Journal, 1995: 50–63.
10 Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, Collins R, Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1985; 27: 335–71.[Medline]
11 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–88.[Medline]
12 Cooper H, Hedges LV. Combining estimates of effect size. In: The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994: 261–80.
13 Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1728–33.[Medline]
14
McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 712–20.
15
Tramèr M, Moore A, McQuay H. Propofol anaesthesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled studies. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 247–55.
16
Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995; 310: 452–4.
17 Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Efficacy, dose-response, and safety of ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Anesthesiology 1997; 87: 1277–89.[Medline]
18
Tramèr M, Moore A, McQuay H. Meta-analytic comparison of prophylactic antiemetic efficacy for postoperative nausea and vomiting: propofol anaesthesia vs omitting nitrous oxide vs a total i.v. anaesthesia with propofol. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78: 256–9.
19
Melnick B, Sawyer R, Karambelkar D, Phitayakorn P, Uy NTL, Patel R. Delayed side effects of droperidol after ambulatory general anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1989; 69: 748–51.
20 Fassolt A. The prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after inhalation-anaesthesia with droperidol (Dehydrobenzperidol®). (German) Prakt Anästh 1977; 12: 292–7.
21 Wetchler BV, Collins IS, Jacob L. Antiemetic effects of droperidol on the ambulatory surgery patient. Anesthesiology Review 1982; 9: 23–6.
22 Layfield DJ, Walker AKY. Premedication for children with oral trimeprazine and droperidol. Anaesthesia 1984; 39: 32–4.[Medline]
23 Campbell LC, Weis FR Jr. Comparison of three techniques on time to awakening, time to orientation and incidence of nausea and vomiting using alfentanil in balanced anesthesia in an outpatient surgical setting. AANA J 1990; 58: 241–7.[Medline]
24
Ellis FR, Wilson J. An assessment of droperidol as a premedicant. Br J Anaesth 1972; 44: 1288–90.
25 Suzuki A, Nagahata T, Shimokawa M. Comparison of methylprednisolone and droperidol in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following major gynaecological surgery. (Japanese) Masui 1991; 40: 1603–7.
26 Güldous F, Sarihasan B, Esener Z, Karakaya D, Tür A, Üstün E. The effect of a single dose of ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting. (Arabic) Türk Anest Rean Cem 1994; 22: 77–80.
27 Lawhorn CD, Bower C, Brown RE Jr, et al. Ondansetron decreases postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients undergoing tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1996; 36: 99–108.[Medline]
28 Kauste A, Tuominen M, Heikkinen H, Gordin A, Korttila K. Droperidol, alizapride and metoclopramide in the prevention and treatment of post-operative emetic sequelae. Eur J Anaesth 1986; 3: 1–9.
29
Korttila K, Kauste A, Auvinen J. Comparison of domperidone, droperidol, and metoclopramide in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting after balanced general anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1979; 58: 396–400.
30 Korttila K, Kauste A, Tuominen M, Salo H. Droperidol prevents and treats nausea and vomiting after enflurane anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesth 1985; 2: 379–85.[Medline]
31 Köhler J, Zöller J. Droperidol zur Prophylaxe des postoperativen Erbrechens nach skelettverlagernden Eingriffen in der Mund-Kiefer-Gesichtschirurgie. Dtsch Z Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 1988; 12: 339–42.[Medline]
32 VandenBerg AA, Lambourne A, Yazji NS, Laghari NA. Vomiting after ophthalmic surgery. Effects of intra-operative antiemetics and postoperative oral fluid restriction. Anaesthesia 1987; 42: 270–6.[Medline]
33 Van den Berg AA, Lambourne A, Clyburn PA. The oculo-emetic reflex. A rationalisation of postophthalmic anaesthesia vomiting. Anaesthesia 1989; 44: 110–7.[Medline]
34 Jellish WS, Leonetti JP, Murdoch JR, Fowles S. Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1995; 112: 262–7.[Medline]
35 Jellish WS, Leonetti JP, Fluder E, Thalji Z. Ondansetron versus droperidol or placebo to prevent nausea and vomiting after otologic surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 118: 785–9.[Medline]
36 Beattie WS, Lindblad T, Buckley DN, Forrest JB. Menstruation increases the risk of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopy. A prospective randomized study. Anesthesiology 1993; 78: 272–6.[Medline]
37 Schettini G, Mastronardi P, Scanni E, et al. Antiemetic effect of L-sulpiride. (Italian) Minerva Anestesiol 1989; 55: 239–43.
38 Abramowitz MD, Elder PT, Friendly DS, Broughton WL, Epstein BS. Antiemetic effectiveness of intraoperatively administered droperidol in pediatric strabismus outpatient surgery - preliminary report of a controlled study. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strab 1981; 18: 22–7.[Medline]
39 Abramowitz MD, Oh TH, Epstein BS, Ruttimann UE, Friendly DS. The antiemetic effect of droperidol following outpatient strabismus surgery in children. Anesthesiology 1983; 59: 579–83.[Medline]
40 Badaoui R, Yagoubi A, Pouilly A, Carpentier F, Riboulot M, Ossart M. Comparaison de l'ondansetron et du droperidol pour la prévention des nausées et des vomissements après cholecycstéctomie par voie laparoscopique. Cah Anesthesiol 1998; 46: 171–4.
41 Brown RE Jr, James DJ, Weaver RG, Wilhoit RD, Bauman LA. Low-dose droperidol versus standard-dose droperidol for prevention of postoperative vomiting after pediatric strabismus surgery. J Clin Anesth 1991; 3: 306–9.[Medline]
42 Cetica P, Di Filippo A, Rizzo L, Benvenuti S, Novelli GP. Prevenzione della nausea e del vomito postoperatrorio nella chirurgia strabologica in etá pediatrica. Minerva Anestesiol 1994; 60(Suppl 1/1-2): 41–3.
43 Cohen SE, Woods WA, Wyner J. Antiemetic efficacy of droperidol and metoclopramide. Anesthesiology 1984; 60: 67–9.[Medline]
44
Cozanitis D, Asantila R, Eklund P, Paloheimo M. A comparison of ranitidine, droperidol or placebo in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after hysterectomy. Can J Anaesth 1996; 43: 106–9.
45
Davies DR, Doughty AG. Premedication in children. A trial of intramuscular droperidol, droperidol- phenoperidine, papaveretum-hyoscine and normal saline. Br J Anaesth 1971; 43: 65–75.
46 Davis PJ, McGowan FX Jr, Landsman I, Maloney K, Hoffmann P. Effect of antiemetic therapy on recovery and hospital discharge time. A double-blind assessment of ondansetron, droperidol, and placebo in pediatric patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiology 1995; 83: 956–60.[Medline]
47 Desilva PHDP, Darvish AH, McDonald SM, Cronin MK, Clark K. The efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron, droperidol, perphenazine, and metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after major gynecologic surgery. Anesth Analg 1995; 81: 139–43.[Abstract]
48 Fassoulaki A, Galanaki E. The antiemetic effect of droperidol: is it dose dependent? Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1989; 40: 179–82.[Medline]
49 Fortney JT, Gan TJ, Graczyk S, et al. A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of ondansetron versus droperidol as antiemetics for elective outpatient surgical procedures. Anesth Analg 1998; 86: 731–8.[Abstract]
50 Foster PN, Stickle BR, Laurence AS. Akathisia following low-dose droperidol for antiemesis in day-case patients. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 491–4.[Medline]
51 Friesen RH, Lockhart CH. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate for preanesthetic medication of pediatric day surgery patients with and without droperidol as a prophylactic anti-emetic. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 46–51.[Medline]
52
Fujii Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with granisetron: a randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol. Can J Anaesth 1995; 42: 852–6.
53 Fujii Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. The effects of dexamethasone on antiemetics in female patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. Anesth Analg 1997; 85: 913–7.[Abstract]
54
Fujii Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. Prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of granisetron in patients with and without previous postoperative emesis. Can J Anaesth 1997; 44: 273–7.
55 Fujii Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. Prevention of nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing breast surgery: a comparison with granisetron, droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1998; 42: 220–4.[Medline]
56 Fujii Y, Tanaka H. Prophylactic therapy with granisetron in the prevention of vomiting after paediatric surgery. A randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol and metoclopramide. Paediatr Anaesth 1998; 8: 149–53.[Medline]
57 Furst SR, Rodarte A. Prophylactic antiemetic treatment with ondansetron in children undergoing tonsillectomy. Anesthesiology 1994; 81: 799–803.[Medline]
58
Gan TJ, Collis R, Hetreed M. Double-blind comparison of ondansetron, droperidol and saline in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72: 544–7.
59 Goldhill DR, Fraser E. A combination of oral diazepam and droperidol for premedication. A double blind comparison with diazepam alone. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1985; 36: 53–60.[Medline]
60 Goodarzi M. A double blind comparison of droperidol and ondansetron for prevention of emesis in children undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 1998; 8: 325–9.[Medline]
61 Grunwald Z, Schreiner MS, Parness J, Potsic WP, Templeton JJ. Droperidol decreases the incidence and the severity of vomiting after tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy in children. Paediatr Anaesth 1994; 4: 163–7.
62 Hardy J-F, Charest J, Girouard G, Lepage Y. Nausea and vomiting after strabismus surgery in preschool children. Can Anaesth Soc J 1986; 33: 57–62.[Medline]
63 Heinke von W, Frank T, Meier P, Wiegel M, Korth D. Postoperative vomiting after pars plana vitrectomy. (German) Anaesthesiol Reanim 1996; 21: 47–50.
64 Helmy SAK. Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron in laparascopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anaesthesia. A ramdomised, double-blind comparison with droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo. Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 266–96.[Medline]
65 Iwamoto K, Schwartz H. Antiemetic effect of droperidol after ophthalmic surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 1978; 96: 1378–9.[Abstract]
66 Jellish WS, Leonetti JP, Murdoch JR, Fowles S. Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 292–6.[Medline]
67 Jellish WS, Thalji Z, Fluter E, Leonetti JP. Ondansetron versus droperidol or placebo when given prophylactically for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing middle ear procedures. J Clin Anesth 1997; 9: 451–6.[Medline]
68 Jorgensen NH, Coyle JP. Intravenous droperidol decreases nausea and vomiting after alfentanil anesthesia without increasing recovery time. J Clin Anesth 1990; 2: 312–6.[Medline]
69 Khalil SN, Berry JM, Howard G, et al. The antiemetic effect of lorazepam after outpatient strabismus surgery in children. Anesthesiology 1992; 77: 915–9.[Medline]
70 Klockgether-Radke A, Feldmann M, Braun U, Mühlendyck H. Droperidol vs. Metoclopramid. Antiemetic effects of droperidol versus metoclopramide after strabismus surgery in children. (German) Anaesthesist 1992; 41: 254–9.[Medline]
71 Klockgether-Radke A, Neumann S, Neumann P, Braun U, Mühlendyck H. Ondansetron, droperidol and their combination for the prevention of post-operative vomiting in children. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1997; 14: 362–7.[Medline]
72 Koivuranta M, Laara E, Ranta P, Ravaska P, Alahuhta S. Comparison of ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery in women. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1997; 41: 1273–9.[Medline]
73 Kraus GB, Giebner M, Palackal R. Prophylaxis of postoperative emesis after pediatric strabismus surgery. (German) Anaesthesist 1991; 40: 92–5.[Medline]
74 Kymer PJ, Brown REJr, Lawhorn CD, Jones E, Pearce L. The effects of oral droperidol versus oral metoclopramide versus both oral droperidol and metoclopramide on postoperative vomiting when used as a premedicant for strabismus surgery. J Clin Anesth 1995; 7: 35–9.[Medline]
75 Larsson S, Jonmarker C. Postoperative emesis after pediatric strabismus surgery: the effect of dixyrazine compared to droperidol. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1990; 34: 227–30.[Medline]
76 Lerman J, Eustis S, Smith DR. Effect of droperidol pretreatment on postanesthetic vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery. Anesthesiology 1986; 65: 322–5.[Medline]
77 Lim KS, Lim BL, Tee CS, Vengadasalam D. Nausea and vomiting after termination of pregnancy as day surgery cases: comparison of 3 different doses of droperidol and metoclopramide as anti-emetic prophylaxis. Singapore Med J 1991; 32: 342–3.[Medline]
78 Lin DM, Furst SR, Rodarte A. A double-blinded comparison of metoclopramide and droperidol for prevention of emesis following strabismus surgery. Anesthesiology 1992; 76: 357–61.[Medline]
79 Liu YC, Kang HM, Liou CM, Tso HS. Comparison of antiemetic effect among ephedrine, droperidol and metoclopramide in pediatric inguinal hernioplasty. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin 1992; 30: 37–42.
80
Lunn DV, Lauder GR, Williams AR, Pickering RM, McQuillan PJ. Low-dose droperidol reduces postoperative vomiting in paediatric day surgery. Br J Anaesth 1995; 74: 509–11.
81
Madej TH, Simpson KH. Comparison of the use of domperidone, droperidol and metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following gynaecological surgery in day cases. Br J Anaesth 1986; 58: 879–83.
82
Madej TH, Simpson KH. Comparison of the use of domperidone, droperidol and metoclopramide in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following major gynaecological surgery. Br J Anaesth 1986; 58: 884–7.
83 Martin J, Williams D, Weis FR Jr. Comparison of three anesthetic techniques on emetic symptoms using sufentanil for outpatient surgery. AANA J 1987; 55: 245–9.[Medline]
84 McGarry PMF. A double-blind study of diazepam, droperidol, and meperidine as premedication in children. Can Anaesth Soc J 1970; 17: 157–65.[Medline]
85
McKenzie R, Wadhwa RK, Uy NT, et al. Antiemetic effectiveness of intramuscular hydroxyzine compared with intramuscular droperidol. Anesth Analg 1981; 60: 783–8.
86 Millar JM, Hall PJ. Nausea and vomiting after prostaglandins in day case termination of pregnancy. The efficacy of low dose droperidol. Anaesthesia 1987; 42: 613–8.[Medline]
87 Morin AM, Bezler T, Eberhart LHJ, et al. Einfluss verschiedener niedriger Droperidol-Dosierungen auf postoperative Angst, innere Anspannung, allgemeine Befindlichkit und PONV. Anaesthesist 1999; 48: 19–25.[Medline]
88 Mortensen PT. Droperidol (Dehydrobenzperidol): postoperative anti-emetic effect when given intravenously to gynaecological patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1982; 26: 48–52.[Medline]
89 Munoz HL, Bugedo GT, Mutizabal G. Efecto antiemetico del droperidol en colecistectomias electivas por laparotomia. Rev Arg Anest 1993; 51: 3–8.
90 O'Donovan N, Shaw J. Nausea and vomiting in day-case dental anaesthesia. The use of low-dose droperidol. Anaesthesia 1984; 39: 1172–6.[Medline]
91 Paech MJ, Pavy TJG, Evans SF. Single-dose prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting after major abdominal surgery: ondansetron versus droperidol. Anaesth Intensive Care 1995; 23: 548–54.[Medline]
92
Pandit SK, Kothary SP, Pandit UA, Randel G, Levy L. Dose-response study of droperidol and metoclopramide as antiemetics for outpatient anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1989; 68: 798–802.
93
Patton CM Jr, Moon MR, Dannemiller FJ. The prophylactic antiemetic effect of droperidol. Anesth Analg 1974; 53: 361–4.
94 Paxton LD, McKay AC, Mirakhur RK. Prevention of nausea and vomiting after day case gynaecological laparoscopy. A comparison of ondansetron, droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 403–6.[Medline]
95 Paxton D, Taylor RH, Gallagher TM, Crean PM. Postoperative emesis following otoplasty in children. Anaesthesia 1995; 50: 1083–5.[Medline]
96 Pendeville PE, Veyckemans F, Van Boven MJ, Steinier JR. Open placebo controlled comparison of the antiemetic effect of droperidol, metoclopramide or a combination of both in pediatric strabismus surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1993; 44: 3–10.[Medline]
97 Pertusa V, Bellver J, Marqués A, et al. Antiemetic prophylaxis after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparative study of dehydrobenzperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron and placebo. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 1996; 43: 239–42.[Medline]
98 Prescott RJ, Espley AJ, Davie IT, Slawson KB, Ruckley CV. Double-blind clinical trial of anaesthetic premedication for use in major day surgery. Lancet 1976; 1: 1148–50.[Medline]
99 Pueyo FJ, Carrascosa F, Lopez L, Iribarren MJ, Garcia-Pedrajas F, Saez A. Combination of ondansetron and droperidol in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 117–22.[Abstract]
100 Purhonen S, Kauko M, Koski EMJ, Nuutinen L. Comparison of tropisetron, droperidol, and saline in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic surgery. Anesth Analg 1997; 84: 662–7.[Abstract]
101 Rita L, Goodarzi M, Seleny F. Effect of low dose droperidol on postoperative vomiting in children. Can Anaesth Soc J 1981; 28: 259–62.[Medline]
102
Rothenberg DM, Parnass SM, Litwack K, McCarthy RJ, Newman LM. Efficacy of ephedrine in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 1991; 72: 58–61.
103 Scuderi PE, Weaver RG Jr, James RL, Mims G, Elliott WG, Weeks DB. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled comparison of droperidol, ondansetron, and metoclopramide for the prevention of vomiting following outpatient strabismus surgery in children. J Clin Anesth 1997; 9: 551–8.[Medline]
104 Tang J, Watcha MF, White PF. A comparison of costs and efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for elective outpatient gynecologic procedures. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 304–13.[Abstract]
105 Tigerstedt I, Salmela L, Aromaa U. Double-blind comparison of transdermal scopolamine, droperidol and placebo against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1988; 32: 454–7.[Medline]
106
Tornetta FJ. A comparison of droperidol, diazepam, and hydroxyzine hydrochloride as premedication. Anesth Analg 1977; 56: 496–500.
107 Valanne J, Korttila K. Effect of a small dose of droperidol on nausea, vomiting and recovery after outpatient enflurane anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1985; 29: 359–62.[Medline]
108 Van der Walt J, Nicholls B, Bentley M, Tomkins DP. Oral premedication in children. Anaesth Intensive Care 1987; 15: 151–7.[Medline]
109 Verhasselt L, Troch E, Verheecke G. Dehydrobenzperidol as peroperative anti-emetic: most effective administration time. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1988; 39: 43–8.
110 Watcha MF, Simeon RM, White PF, Stevens JL. Effect of propofol on the incidence of postoperative vomiting after strabismus surgery in pediatric outpatients. Anesthesiology 1991; 75: 204–9.[Medline]
111 Yang L-C, Jawan B, Chen C-N, Ho RT, Chang K-A, Lee JH. Comparison of P6 acupoint injection with 50% glucose in water and intravenous droperidol for prevention of vomiting after gynecological laparoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1993; 37: 192–4.[Medline]
112
Tramèr M, Moore A, McQuay H. Prevention of vomiting after paediatric strabismus surgery: a systematic review using the numbers-needed-to-treat method. Br J Anaesth 1995; 75: 556–61.
113
Henzi I, Walder B, Tramèr MR. Metoclopramide in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review of randomised placebo-controlled studies. Br J Anaesth 1999; 83: 761–71.
114 McKenzie R, Uy NTL, Riley TJ, Hamilton DL. Droperidol/ondansetron combination controls nausea and vomiting after tubal banding. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 1218–22.[Abstract]
115 Wrench IJ, Ward JEH, Walder AD, Hobbs GJ. The prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting using a combination of ondansetron and droperidol. Anaesthesia 1996; 51: 776–8.[Medline]
116 Ferrari HA, Stephen CR. Neuroleptanalgesia: pharmaclogy and clinical experiences with droperidol and fentanyl. Sth Med J 1966; 59: 815.
117 Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJM, Stoner NS, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review. Eur J Cancer 1998; 34: 1836–44.
118 Tang J, Wang B, White PF, Watcha MF, Qi J, Wender RH. The effect of timing of ondansetron administration on its efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting. Anesth Analg 1998; 86: 274–82.[Abstract]
119 Ploner F, Kainzwaldner A. Evaluierung der Applikationszeit von Ondansetron. Ein Prophylaktikum für postoperative Übelkeit und Erbrechen: prospektive, randomisierte Doppelblindstudie an 120 Patienten. Anaesthesist 1997; 46: 583–7.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  Y. L. Yang, H. Y. Lai, J. J. Wang, P. K. Wang, T. Y. Chen, C. C. Chu, and Y. Lee The timing of haloperidol administration does not affect its prophylactic antiemetic efficacy: [Le moment choisi pour l'administration d'haloperidol n'affecte pas son efficacite anti-emetique prophylactique] Can J Anesth, May 1, 2008; 55(5): 270 - 275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. S. Habib and T. J. Gan Haloperidol for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Are We Reinventing the Wheel? Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2008; 106(5): 1343 - 1345. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
