Aprepitant as a fourth antiemetic prophylactic strategy in high-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most important causes of patient discomfort after laparoscopic surgeries despite the use of a multimodal pharmacological approach. This study assessed whether the addition of aprepitant to a multimodal regimen would further decrease the incidence of PONV in high-risk patients. METHODS: Apfel-score three or four patients, scheduled for laparoscopic procedures to treat abdominal or pelvic cancer, were randomized to receive oral starch (control group) or 80 mg of oral aprepitant (treatment group) before induction of anaesthesia in a double-blind study. All patients received 4-8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone (at induction) and 4-8 mg of ondansetron (at the end) and a standardized total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) technique combined with neuraxial blockade. PONV was defined as any episode of nausea, vomiting or retching in the first 24 h after anaesthesia. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients completed the study. Vomiting occurred in 13/32 (40.6%) patients in the control group and in 1/34 (2.9%) patients in the treatment group (P = 0.0002, 95%CI: 18-54%) in the first 24 h after anaesthesia. Severe nausea occurred in two (6.3%) patients, and severe vomiting occurred in four (12.5%) patients in the control group. One patient presented with severe vomiting in the treatment group in the first 24 post-operative hours. CONCLUSION: Eighty milligrams of aprepitant added to a three-drug multimodal prophylaxis strategy can bring benefits to a high-risk population by reducing PONV episodes and rescue antiemetic requirements. This study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 02357693) database.

Does previous chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting predict postoperative nausea and vomiting?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a problem in the postoperative period. Previous PONV in oncology patients has recently been associated with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). We assessed if CINV could improve Apfel's heuristic for predicting PONV. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 1500 consecutive patients undergoing intermediate or major cancer surgery between April and July 2011. PONV was assessed in the first postoperative day during post-anaesthesia care. The assigned anaesthetist completed an electronic medical record with all of the studied variables. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to assess whether any of the variables could add predictive ability to Apfel's tallying heuristic, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were modelled. The areas under the curve (AUC) were used to compare the model's discriminating ability for predicting patients who vomited from those who did not vomit. RESULTS: The overall incidence of PONV was 26%. Multiple logistic regressions identified two independent predictors for PONV (odds ratio; 95% CI), Apfel's score (1.78; 1.23-2.63) and previous chemotherapy-induced vomiting (3.15; 1.71-5.9), Hosmer-Lemeshow's P < 0.0001. Previous CINV was the most significant predictor to be added to Apfel's heuristic in this population. CONCLUSIONS: A history of chemotherapy-induced nausea vomiting was a strong predictor for PONV and should be investigated as an added risk factor for PONV in the preoperative period of oncology surgery in prospective studies.

Percutaneous sciatic nerve block with tramadol induces analgesia and motor blockade in two animal pain models

Local anesthetic efficacy of tramadol has been reported following intradermal application. Our aim was to investigate the effect of perineural tramadol as the sole analgesic in two pain models. Male Wistar rats (280-380 g; N = 5/group) were used in these experiments. A neurostimulation-guided sciatic nerve block was performed and 2 percent lidocaine or tramadol (1.25 and 5 mg) was perineurally injected in two different animal pain models. In the flinching behavior test, the number of flinches was evaluated and in the plantar incision model, mechanical and heat thresholds were measured. Motor effects of lidocaine and tramadol were quantified and a motor block score elaborated. Tramadol, 1.25 mg, completely blocked the first and reduced the second phase of the flinching behavior test. In the plantar incision model, tramadol (1.25 mg) increased both paw withdrawal latency in response to radiant heat (8.3 ± 1.1, 12.7 ± 1.8, 8.4 ± 0.8, and 11.1 ± 3.3 s) and mechanical threshold in response to von Frey filaments (459 ± 82.8, 447.5 ± 91.7, 320.1 ± 120, 126.43 ± 92.8 mN) at 5, 15, 30, and 60 min, respectively. Sham block or contralateral sciatic nerve block did not differ from perineural saline injection throughout the study in either model. The effect of tramadol was not antagonized by intraperitoneal naloxone. High dose tramadol (5 mg) blocked motor function as well as 2 percent lidocaine. In conclusion, tramadol blocks nociception and motor function in vivo similar to local anesthetics.

Percutaneous sciatic nerve block with tramadol induces analgesia and motor blockade in two animal pain models.

Local anesthetic efficacy of tramadol has been reported following intradermal application. Our aim was to investigate the effect of perineural tramadol as the sole analgesic in two pain models. Male Wistar rats (280-380 g; N = 5/group) were used in these experiments. A neurostimulation-guided sciatic nerve block was performed and 2% lidocaine or tramadol (1.25 and 5 mg) was perineurally injected in two different animal pain models. In the flinching behavior test, the number of flinches was evaluated and in the plantar incision model, mechanical and heat thresholds were measured. Motor effects of lidocaine and tramadol were quantified and a motor block score elaborated. Tramadol, 1.25 mg, completely blocked the first and reduced the second phase of the flinching behavior test. In the plantar incision model, tramadol (1.25 mg) increased both paw withdrawal latency in response to radiant heat (8.3 ± 1.1, 12.7 ± 1.8, 8.4 ± 0.8, and 11.1 ± 3.3 s) and mechanical threshold in response to von Frey filaments (459 ± 82.8, 447.5 ± 91.7, 320.1 ± 120, 126.43 ± 92.8 mN) at 5, 15, 30, and 60 min, respectively. Sham block or contralateral sciatic nerve block did not differ from perineural saline injection throughout the study in either model. The effect of tramadol was not antagonized by intraperitoneal naloxone. High dose tramadol (5 mg) blocked motor function as well as 2% lidocaine. In conclusion, tramadol blocks nociception and motor function in vivo similar to local anesthetics.

Tenoxicam controls pain without altering orthodontic movement of maxillary canines.

OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy of tenoxicam for pain control, its potential for preemptive analgesia, and its influence on the orthodontic movement of upper canine teeth. DESIGN: This was a randomized controlled double-blind cross-over study. The patients were divided into three groups. Two groups received tenoxicam in daily doses of 20 mg orally for 3 days. Group A received the first dose of the drug before orthodontic activation and group B, just afterwards. Group C (control) received a placebo for 3 days. All groups had access to 750 mg of paracetamol up to four times a day. Three orthodontic activations were performed at 30-day intervals. Each patient belonged to two different groups. Pain intensity was assessed using a descriptive Pain Scale and a Visual Analog Scale. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Private clinic; 36 patients undergoing bilateral canine tooth retraction. RESULTS: The statistical analysis did not show any difference in movement between the active groups and the control at any time. There was no statistical difference between the groups that received tenoxicam. Pain intensity in these groups was lower than in the placebo group. The difference in pain intensity between the active groups and the control was greatest at the assessment made 12 h after activation and it tended to zero, 72 h after activation. CONCLUSIONS: Tenoxicam did not influence orthodontic movement of the upper canines. It was effective for pain control and did not present any preemptive analgesic effect.