Isopropyl alcohol inhalation versus 5-HT3 antagonists for treatment of nausea: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Nausea is a common and unpleasant sensation for which current therapies such as serotonin (5-HT3) antagonists are often ineffective, while also conferring a risk of potential adverse events. Isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been proposed as a treatment for nausea. We aimed to compare IPA with 5-HT3 antagonists for the treatment of nausea across all clinical settings. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from inception to 17 July 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inhaled IPA and a 5-HT3 antagonist for treatment of nausea. Severity and duration of nausea, rescue antiemetic use, adverse events and patient satisfaction were the outcomes sought. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Combination of meta-analyses and narrative review was used to synthesise findings. The evidence was appraised using GRADE. RESULTS: From 1242 records, 4 RCTs were included with 382 participants. Participants receiving IPA had a significantly lower mean time to 50% reduction in nausea (MD - 20.06; 95% CI - 26.26, - 13.85). Nausea score reduction at 30 min was significantly greater in the IPA group (MD 21.47; 95% CI 15.47, 27.47). IPA led to significantly reduced requirement for rescue antiemetics (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.37, 0.95; p = 0.03). IPA led to no significant difference in patient satisfaction when compared with a 5-HT3 antagonist. The overall GRADE assessment of evidence quality ranged from very low to low. CONCLUSION: IPA may provide rapid, effective relief of nausea when compared with 5-HT3 antagonists.

Infant peripherally inserted central catheter insertion without general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Avoiding anesthesia for infant peripherally inserted central catheter insertion beyond the neonatal period has been the subject of very little research despite this being a high-risk age group. In our institution, we introduced a "Fast, Feed, and Wrap" technique, previously described for magnetic resonance imaging scans, for infants up to 6 months and weighing under 5.5 kg undergoing peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. AIMS: The aim was to report our experience using "Fast, Feed, and Wrap," in particular the success rate and proportion of qualifying infants who were managed this way. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken using electronic records and case notes to determine patient age, weight, indication for procedure, anesthetic technique (general anesthesia or "Fast, Feed, and Wrap"), peripherally inserted central catheter details (site of insertion, gauge, and number of lumens), and length of procedure. RESULTS: Fifty-one infants qualified for "Fast, Feed, and Wrap" over a 42-month period, 43 were attempted this way and 40 were successful. All infants were greater than 40 weeks postconceptual age at the time of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion under "Fast, Feed, and Wrap," though 26% were preterm. The average age of babies undergoing "Fast, Feed, and Wrap" was 35 days (IQR 18-55), and the median weight was 3.78 kg (IQR 3.48-4.77). CONCLUSIONS: Infants younger than 6 months and under 5.5 kg can be managed without general anesthesia for peripherally inserted central catheter insertion using a Fast, Feed, and Wrap technique.