Japanese
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Pain Practice

Aprepitant vs. multimodal prophylaxis in the prevention of nausea and vomiting following extended-release epidural morphine.

登録ユーザーのみが記事を翻訳できます
ログインサインアップ
リンクがクリップボードに保存されます
Craig T Hartrick
Yeong-Shiuh Tang
David Hunstad
John Pappas
Kathy Muir
Cecile Pestano
Daniel Silvasi

キーワード

概要

BACKGROUND

Extended-release epidural morphine (EREM) is an effective option for postoperative analgesia following major orthopedic surgery; however, postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) is a recognized limitation. The incidence of PONV following prophylactic aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 antagonist, was compared with prophylactic multimodal antiemetic therapy in patients receiving EREM for postoperative analgesia following unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Prospectively collected quality assurance data were examined with Institutional Review Board approval. A sequential, open-label, active matched case-control study compared PONV following EREM in patients receiving ondansetron and dexamethasone, and either metoclopramide, diphenhydramine, or prochlorperazine every 6 hours for the 48-hour study period, to patients receiving aprepitant 40 mg given as a single oral dose in the preoperative holding area. Cases were matched for procedure (TKA), age, epidural morphine dose, and known major risk factors for PONV (sex, smoking, previous PONV/motion sickness).

RESULTS

Twelve consecutive patients (3 male; 9 female) receiving aprepitant prior to EREM were matched to 12 patients of the same sex of similar age (range 51 to 84 years.) and EREM dose (range 5 to 12.5 mg) receiving the multimodal regime. The incidence of PONV was significantly less for the aprepitant group where 3 of 12 (25%) had PONV compared with 9 of 12 (75%) in the multimodal group (P = 0.039, Fisher's Exact Test; odds ratio = 0.11; 95% CI: 0.018 to 0.706, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

While aprepitant significantly reduced the incidence of PONV compared with a multimodal antiemetic regime, used alone it did not eliminate PONV.

Facebookページに参加する

科学に裏打ちされた最も完全な薬草データベース

  • 55の言語で動作します
  • 科学に裏打ちされたハーブ療法
  • 画像によるハーブの認識
  • インタラクティブGPSマップ-場所にハーブをタグ付け(近日公開)
  • 検索に関連する科学出版物を読む
  • それらの効果によって薬草を検索する
  • あなたの興味を整理し、ニュース研究、臨床試験、特許について最新情報を入手してください

症状や病気を入力し、役立つ可能性のあるハーブについて読み、ハーブを入力して、それが使用されている病気や症状を確認します。
*すべての情報は公開された科学的研究に基づいています

Google Play badgeApp Store badge