Patka J, Wu DT, Abraham P, Sobel RM.
Randomized Controlled Trial of Ondansetron vs. Prochlorperazine in Adults in the Emergency Department.
West J Emerg Med. 2011 Feb;12(1):1-5.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of ondansetron and prochlorperazine to treat vomiting. Secondary objectives were the effectiveness of ondansetron and prochlorperazine to treat nausea and their tolerability.
METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, active controlled, double-blinded study. Using a convenience sample, patients were randomized to either intravenous ondansetron 4mg (n=32) or prochlorperazine 10mg (n=32). The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with vomiting at 0-30, 31-60, and 61-120 minutes after the administration of ondansetron or prochlorperazine. Secondary outcomes were nausea assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline, 0-30, 31-60, and 61-120 minutes after the administration of ondansetron or prochlorperazine and the percentage of patients with adverse effects (sedation, headache, akathisia, dystonia) to either drug. We performed statistical analyses on the VAS scales at each time point and did a subgroup analysis to examine if nausea scores were affected if the patient had vomited at baseline.
RESULTS: The primary identified cause for nausea and vomiting was flu-like illness or gastroenteritis (19%). The number of patients experiencing breakthrough vomiting at 0-30, 31-60, and 61-120 minutes was similar between groups for these time periods; however, more patients receiving ondansetron experienced vomiting overall (7 [22%] vs. 2[3.2%] patients, p=not significant). Nausea scores at baseline and 0-30 minutes were severe and similar between groups; however, at 31-60 and 61-120 minutes, patients receiving prochlorperazine had better control of nausea (24.9 vs. 43.7 mm, p=0.03; 16.8 vs. 34.3 mm, p=0.05). Sedation scores were similar between groups. There were no cases of extrapyramidal symptoms as assessed by the treating physician and there were four cases of akathisia (prochlorperazine=3 [9%], ondansetron=1[3%]).
CONCLUSION: Prochlorperazine and ondansetron appear to be equally effective at treating vomiting in the emergency department.
Scorza K, Williams A, Phillips JD, Shaw J.
Evaluation of nausea and vomiting.
Am Fam Physician. 2007 Jul 1;76(1):76-84.
Abstract/Text
A comprehensive history and physical examination can often reveal the cause of nausea and vomiting, making further evaluation unnecessary. Acute symptoms generally are the result of infectious, inflammatory, or iatrogenic causes. Most infections are self-limiting and require minimal intervention; iatrogenic causes can be resolved by removing the offending agent. Chronic symptoms are usually a pathologic response to any of a variety of conditions. Gastrointestinal etiologies include obstruction, functional disorders, and organic diseases. Central nervous system etiologies are primarily related to conditions that increase intracranial pressure, and typically cause other neurologic signs. Pregnancy is the most common endocrinologic cause of nausea and must be considered in any woman of childbearing age. Numerous metabolic abnormalities and psychiatric diagnoses also may cause nausea and vomiting. Evaluation should first focus on detecting any emergencies or complications that require hospitalization. Attention should then turn to identifying the underlying cause and providing specific therapies. When the cause cannot be determined, empiric therapy with an antiemetic is appropriate. Initial diagnostic testing should generally be limited to basic laboratory tests and plain radiography. Further testing, such as upper endoscopy or computed tomography of the abdomen, should be determined by clinical suspicion based on a complete history and physical examination.
Quigley EM, Hasler WL, Parkman HP.
AGA technical review on nausea and vomiting.
Gastroenterology. 2001 Jan;120(1):263-86. doi: 10.1053/gast.2001.20516.
Abstract/Text
American Gastroenterological Association.
American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: nausea and vomiting.
Gastroenterology. 2001 Jan;120(1):261-3. doi: 10.1053/gast.2001.20515.
Abstract/Text
Herrell HE.
Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
Am Fam Physician. 2014 Jun 15;89(12):965-70.
Abstract/Text
Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy affects nearly 75% of pregnant women. The exact cause is unknown. In most cases, it is a mild, self-limited condition that can be controlled with conservative measures and has no adverse fetal sequelae. About 1% of women develop hyperemesis gravidarum, which may result in adverse outcomes for the mother and fetus. Patients with nausea and vomiting of pregnancy should be evaluated for other causes, particularly if symptoms are unremitting or presentation is atypical. Initial treatment is conservative and includes dietary changes, emotional support, and vitamin B6 supplementation. Several safe and effective pharmacologic therapies are available for women who do not improve with initial treatment. Women with hyperemesis gravidarum may require more aggressive interventions, including hospitalization, rehydration therapy, and parenteral nutrition.
Gadsby R, Barnie-Adshead AM, Jagger C.
A prospective study of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
Br J Gen Pract. 1993 Jun;43(371):245-8.
Abstract/Text
The symptoms of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy were described by 363 pregnant women who kept daily symptom diaries. All delivered a single live baby. The majority of information collected was prospective, with the median day from last menstrual period to initial interview by the study midwife being day 57. It was found that 80% of women had symptoms, 28% experienced nausea only, while 52% had nausea and vomiting. The mean number of days from last menstrual period to onset and cessation of symptoms was 39 and 84, respectively, and 40% of women's symptoms ended abruptly. Cessation of symptoms occurred at approximately the same day from the last menstrual period whether they had begun early or later, severely or mildly [corrected]. The median total number of hours of nausea per pregnancy in those 292 women experiencing symptoms was 56, with peak symptoms occurring in the ninth week. Eighty five per cent of women experienced days with two episodes of nausea. Fifty three per cent of episodes of vomiting occurred between 06.00 hours and 12.00 hours. The symptom complex can be defined as episodic daytime pregnancy sickness. Among the study population, 206 women were in paid employment. Seventy three of these women (35%) spent a mean of 62 hours away from their paid work because of symptoms of nausea and vomiting, showing the socioeconomic significance of this condition. The detailed information gathered should help in the investigation of the aetiology of nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.
Pater J, Slamet L, Zee B, Osoba D, Warr D, Rusthoven J.
Inconsistency of prognostic factors for post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting.
Support Care Cancer. 1994 May;2(3):161-6. doi: 10.1007/BF00417474.
Abstract/Text
A number of prognostic factors have been reported to influence the probability of developing nausea and vomiting after cytotoxic chemotherapy. This study used data collected in four randomized anti-emetic trials conducted by the Clinical Trials Group of the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC-CTG) to assess the consistency of the effects of these prognostic factors. A total of 582 patients, all of whom had received moderately emetogenic chemotherapy for the first time, but who were assigned to different anti-emetics, were included in the analysis. The major findings was that the probability of post-chemotherapy nausea and vomiting was much more strongly influenced by the type of chemotherapy given and the type of anti-emetic used than by patient (e.g., age, gender) or environmental (e.g., treatment location, time of administration) characteristics. Further, patient-related factors had different, and sometimes opposite, effects in different anti-emetic and chemotherapy subgroups. Finally, the relative potency of anti-emetics appeared to vary with chemotherapy regimens. Implications of these findings for future studies are discussed.
Basch E, Prestrud AA, Hesketh PJ, Kris MG, Feyer PC, Somerfield MR, Chesney M, Clark-Snow RA, Flaherty AM, Freundlich B, Morrow G, Rao KV, Schwartz RN, Lyman GH; American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Antiemetics: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update.
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Nov 1;29(31):4189-98. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.34.4614. Epub 2011 Sep 26.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for antiemetics in oncology.
METHODS: A systematic review of the medical literature was completed to inform this update. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Library, and meeting materials from ASCO and the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer were all searched. Primary outcomes of interest were complete response and rates of any vomiting or nausea.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven trials met prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review. Two systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration were identified; one surveyed the pediatric literature. The other compared the relative efficacy of the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) receptor antagonists.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Combined anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens were reclassified as highly emetic. Patients who receive this combination or any highly emetic agents should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) receptor antagonist. A large trial validated the equivalency of fosaprepitant, a single-day intravenous formulation, with aprepitant; either therapy is appropriate. Preferential use of palonosetron is recommended for moderate emetic risk regimens, combined with dexamethasone. For low-risk agents, patients can be offered dexamethasone before the first dose of chemotherapy. Patients undergoing high emetic risk radiation therapy should receive a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist before each fraction and for 24 hours after treatment and may receive a 5-day course of dexamethasone during fractions 1 to 5. The Update Committee noted the importance of continued symptom monitoring throughout therapy. Clinicians underestimate the incidence of nausea, which is not as well controlled as emesis.
American Society of Clinical Oncology; Kris MG, Hesketh PJ, Somerfield MR, Feyer P, Clark-Snow R, Koeller JM, Morrow GR, Chinnery LW, Chesney MJ, Gralla RJ, Grunberg SM.
American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology: update 2006.
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jun 20;24(18):2932-47. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.9591. Epub 2006 May 22.
Abstract/Text
PURPOSE: To update the 1999 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for antiemetics in oncology.
UPDATE METHODOLOGY: The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of data published from 1998 thru February 2006. The literature review focused on published randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses of published phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The three-drug combination of a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT(3)) serotonin receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended before chemotherapy of high emetic risk. For persons receiving chemotherapy of high emetic risk, there is no group of patients for whom agents of lower therapeutic index are appropriate first-choice antiemetics. These agents should be reserved for patients intolerant of or refractory to 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonists, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone. The three-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist, dexamethasone, and aprepitant is recommended for patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. For patients receiving other chemotherapy of moderate emetic risk, the Update Committee continues to recommend the two-drug combination of a 5-HT3 receptor serotonin antagonist and dexamethasone. In all patients receiving cisplatin and all other agents of high emetic risk, the two-drug combination of dexamethasone and aprepitant is recommended for the prevention of delayed emesis. The Update Committee no longer recommends the combination of a 5-HT3 serotonin receptor antagonist and dexamethasone for the prevention of delayed emesis after chemotherapeutic agents of high emetic risk. CONCLUSION The Update Committee recommends that clinicians administer antiemetics while considering patients' emetic risk categories and other characteristics.
Quinn AC, Brown JH, Wallace PG, Asbury AJ.
Studies in postoperative sequelae. Nausea and vomiting--still a problem.
Anaesthesia. 1994 Jan;49(1):62-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1994.tb03316.x.
Abstract/Text
We collected data on postoperative nausea and vomiting from 3850 patients aged 11-91 years. Thirty-seven percent of the 3244 patients who received a general anaesthetic reported nausea and 23.2% vomited. Twenty percent of the 606 patients who received a local anaesthetic reported nausea and 11.4% vomited. Of the general anaesthetic patients reporting nausea, 72.2% were women, and the mean age was lower than for those who did not (p < 0.001). Similarly for vomiting, 74.0% were women and again the mean age was lower (p < 0.001). Of the local anaesthetic patients reporting nausea, 62.0% were women and the mean age was lower than for those who did not (p < 0.001). Similarly for vomiting, 68.1% were women and again the mean age was lower (p < 0.001). Anxiety before general, but not local, anaesthesia was associated with postoperative nausea (p < 0.001) but not vomiting. Patients from the gynaecological, orthopaedic, ENT and general surgical wards had higher incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Linear visual analogue pain scores were higher in patients with postoperative nausea and vomiting in both general and local anaesthesia groups (p < 0.001).
Apfel CC, Läärä E, Koivuranta M, Greim CA, Roewer N.
A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers.
Anesthesiology. 1999 Sep;91(3):693-700. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199909000-00022.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Recently, two centers have independently developed a risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study investigated (1) whether risk scores are valid across centers and (2) whether risk scores based on logistic regression coefficients can be simplified without loss of discriminating power.
METHODS: Adult patients from two centers (Oulu, Finland: n = 520, and Wuerzburg, Germany: n = 2202) received inhalational anesthesia (without antiemetic prophylaxis) for various types of surgery. PONV was defined as nausea or vomiting within 24 h of surgery. Risk scores to estimate the probability of PONV were obtained by fitting logistic regression models. Simplified risk scores were constructed based on the number of risk factors that were found significant in the logistic regression analyses. Original and simplified scores were cross-validated. A combined data set was created to estimate a potential center effect and to construct a final risk score. The discriminating power of each score was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves.
RESULTS: Risk scores derived from one center were able to predict PONV from the other center (area under the curve = 0.65-0.75). Simplification did not essentially weaken the discriminating power (area under the curve = 0.63-0.73). No center effect could be detected in a combined data set (odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 0.71-1.59). The final score consisted of four predictors: female gender, history of motion sickness (MS) or PONV, nonsmoking, and the use of postoperative opioids. If none, one, two, three, or four of these risk factors were present, the incidences of PONV were 10%, 21%, 39%, 61% and 79%.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk scores derived from one center proved valid in the other and could be simplified without significant loss of discriminating power. Therefore, it appears that this risk score has broad applicability in predicting PONV in adult patients undergoing inhalational anesthesia for various types of surgery. For patients with at least two out of these four identified predictors a prophylactic antiemetic strategy should be considered.
Gan TJ, Meyer T, Apfel CC, Chung F, Davis PJ, Eubanks S, Kovac A, Philip BK, Sessler DI, Temo J, Tramèr MR, Watcha M; Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University Medical Center.
Consensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Anesth Analg. 2003 Jul;97(1):62-71, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000068580.00245.95.
Abstract/Text
We present evidence-based guidelines developed by an international panel of experts for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Stanghellini V, Tosetti C, Paternico A, Barbara G, Morselli-Labate AM, Monetti N, Marengo M, Corinaldesi R.
Risk indicators of delayed gastric emptying of solids in patients with functional dyspepsia.
Gastroenterology. 1996 Apr;110(4):1036-42. doi: 10.1053/gast.1996.v110.pm8612991.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although gastric dysmotility and dyspeptic symptoms are often associated, their relationship remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between gastric emptying abnormalities and clinical features in functional dyspepsia.
METHODS: In 343 patients with functional dyspepsia, the gastric emptying of solids was measured by a radioisotopic technique and four dyspeptic symptoms (epigastric pain and burning, postprandial fullness, nausea, and vomiting) were measured as absent, mild, relevant, and severe, according to their influence on patients' usual activities.
RESULTS: Delayed gastric emptying was detected in 33.5% of dyspeptics. Delayed gastric emptying was particularly frequent in patients characterized by female sex, low body weight, presence of relevant and severe postprandial fullness, nausea, vomiting, and absence of relevant and severe epigastric pain. Logistic regression showed that delayed gastric emptying was invariably associated with female sex and postprandial fullness (odds ratio, 2.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-3.75) and vomiting (odds ratio, 4.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-12.54) when coded as severe and only postprandial fullness (odds ratio, 3.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-8.01) when coded as relevant and severe.
CONCLUSIONS: Female sex, relevant and severe postprandial fullness, and severe vomiting are independently associated with delayed gastric emptying of solids in patients with functional dyspepsia seen in a referral center.
Muraoka M, Mine K, Matsumoto K, Nakai Y, Nakagawa T.
Psychogenic vomiting: the relation between patterns of vomiting and psychiatric diagnoses.
Gut. 1990 May;31(5):526-8. doi: 10.1136/gut.31.5.526.
Abstract/Text
Fifty nine patients admitted with a diagnosis of psychogenic vomiting were classified into five patterns of vomiting: continuous, habitual postprandial, irregular vomiting, nausea, and self induced. The psychiatric disorders related to the onset of vomiting were either a major depression or a conversion disorder. Continuous vomiting was usually due to a conversion disorder, while in many cases of habitual postprandial and irregular vomiting, major depression was observed. The patients' psychiatric disorders and vomiting patterns often changed during the clinical course. Assessing the psychiatric problems and vomiting patterns is important in the diagnosis and treatment of psychogenic vomiting.
Carney CP, Andersen AE.
Eating disorders. Guide to medical evaluation and complications.
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1996 Dec;19(4):657-79. doi: 10.1016/s0193-953x(05)70374-9.
Abstract/Text
Eating disorders lead to numerous physical complaints with signs and symptoms affecting nearly every organ system of the body. We review the presentation of a patient with eating disorder to the primary care giver or general psychiatrist, focusing on the physical manifestations of the underlying illness. Specific complications related to laboratory findings, the gastrointestinal tract, and the endocrine system are reviewed. Algorithms for medical evaluation of these patients are also presented.
Abu-Arafeh I, Russell G.
Cyclical vomiting syndrome in children: a population-based study.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1995 Nov;21(4):454-8. doi: 10.1097/00005176-199511000-00014.
Abstract/Text
We studied the prevalence and the characteristic features of cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS) in the defined childhood population of the City of Aberdeen, in Scotland. Initial screening was done by questionnaire in 10% of all children between 5 and 15 years of age (2,165 children) attending schools in Aberdeen, followed by clinical interviews of symptomatic children. We invited for clinical interview 69 children (3.9%) with a history of unexplained vomiting; 46 (67%) attended. Of them, 34 fulfilled the criteria for the diagnosis of CVS (prevalence rate, 1.9%). Children with CVS had a mean age of 9.6 years and a mean age at onset of symptoms of 5.3 years (range, 1-13). The overall sex ratio was 1:1, although in younger children boys were more commonly affected than girls. Seven children (21%) also suffered from migraine, 10 (29%) from travel sickness, and 10 (29%) from atopic diseases. The attacks of vomiting occurred on average eight times per year, with a mean duration of 20 h. Travel was a frequent precipitating factor. Attacks were commonly associated with pallor, anorexia, and malaise and were often relieved by rest and sleep. The clinical features of CVS overlapped to a large extent with those of migraine, suggesting a common pathogenesis. Features common to both conditions included trigger factors, associated GI, sensory, and vasomotor symptoms, and factors that relieved attacks. There was also an association between CVS and headache, abdominal pain, atopic diseases, and travel sickness.
Pfau BT, Li BU, Murray RD, Heitlinger LA, McClung HJ, Hayes JR.
Differentiating cyclic from chronic vomiting patterns in children: quantitative criteria and diagnostic implications.
Pediatrics. 1996 Mar;97(3):364-8.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To establish criteria to differentiate two patterns of vomiting and to identify the predominant diagnoses for each group.
METHODS: All children 2 to 18 years of age referred to a pediatric gastroenterology service who presented with recurrent vomiting (three episodes of vomiting within a 3-month period) as a primary complaint from 1985 to 1991 were retrospectively reviewed (n = 106). The vomiting pattern (emeses per hour and episodes per month), diagnostic studies, and therapeutic responses were compared by Mann-Whitney U and chi-squared tests.
RESULTS: Based on the criteria of peak intensity (four or more emeses per hour) and frequency (nine or fewer episodes per month), two subgroups were differentiated: chilcren with a cyclic pattern (n = 34), who vomited at a higher peak intensity (12.6 +/- 1.6 vs 1.5 +/- 0.1 emeses per hour) but at a lower frequency (1.9 +/- 4.8 vs 36.6 +/-0.3 episodes per month) than those with a chronic pattern (n = 72). Among children with a cyclic patern, nongastrointestinal (65%) causes, especially peptic and infectiouus disorders, predominated over nongastrointestinal ones (10%).
CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of quantitative historical criteria, children with recurrent vomiting can be classified into two subgroups that seem to be clinically and etiologically distinct. Abdominal migraine was the dominant diagnosis in those with cyclic vomiting, whereas peptic and infectious gastrointestinal disorders predominated in those with chronic vomiting. This differentiation between cyclic and chronic patterns of vomiting may be a useful diagnostic clue to the clinician.
Venkatesan T, Levinthal DJ, Tarbell SE, Jaradeh SS, Hasler WL, Issenman RM, Adams KA, Sarosiek I, Stave CD, Sharaf RN, Sultan S, Li BUK.
Guidelines on management of cyclic vomiting syndrome in adults by the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and the Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome Association.
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019 Jun;31 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):e13604. doi: 10.1111/nmo.13604.
Abstract/Text
The increasing recognition of cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) in adults prompted the development of these evidence-based guidelines on the management of CVS in adults, which was sponsored by the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society (ANMS) and the Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome Association (CVSA). GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework was used and a professional librarian performed the literature search. The expert committee included the President of the CVSA who brought a patient perspective into the deliberations. The committee makes recommendations for the prophylaxis of CVS, treatment of acute attacks, diagnosis, and overall management of CVS. The committee strongly recommends that adults with moderate-to-severe CVS receive a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), such as amitriptyline, as a first-line prophylactic medication and receive topiramate or aprepitant as alternate prophylactic medications. Zonisamide or levetiracetam and mitochondrial supplements (Coenzyme Q10, L-carnitine, and riboflavin) are conditionally recommended as alternate prophylactic medications, either alone or concurrently with other prophylactic medications. For acute attacks, the committee conditionally recommends using serotonin antagonists, such as ondansetron, and/or triptans, such as sumatriptan or aprepitant to abort symptoms. Emergency department treatment is best achieved with the use of an individualized treatment protocol and shared with the care team (example provided). The committee recommended screening and treatment for comorbid conditions such as anxiety, depression, migraine headache, autonomic dysfunction, sleep disorders, and substance use with referral to appropriate allied health services as indicated. Techniques like meditation, relaxation, and biofeedback may be offered as complementary therapy to improve overall well-being and patient care outcomes.
© 2019 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Venkatesan T, Levinthal DJ, Li BUK, Tarbell SE, Adams KA, Issenman RM, Sarosiek I, Jaradeh SS, Sharaf RN, Sultan S, Stave CD, Monte AA, Hasler WL.
Role of chronic cannabis use: Cyclic vomiting syndrome vs cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome.
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019 Jun;31 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):e13606. doi: 10.1111/nmo.13606.
Abstract/Text
Cannabis is commonly used in cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) due to its antiemetic and anxiolytic properties. Paradoxically, chronic cannabis use in the context of cyclic vomiting has led to the recognition of a putative new disorder called cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). Since its first description in 2004, numerous case series and case reports have emerged describing this phenomenon. Although not pathognomonic, a patient behavior called "compulsive hot water bathing" has been associated with CHS. There is considerable controversy about how CHS is defined. Most of the data remain heterogenous with limited follow-up, making it difficult to ascertain whether chronic cannabis use is causal, merely a clinical association with CVS, or unmasks or triggers symptoms in patients inherently predisposed to develop CVS. This article will discuss the role of cannabis in the regulation of nausea and vomiting, specifically focusing on both CVS and CHS, in order to address controversies in this context. To this objective, we have collated and analyzed published case series and case reports on CHS in order to determine the number of reported cases that meet current Rome IV criteria for CHS. We have also identified limitations in the existing diagnostic framework and propose revised criteria to diagnose CHS. Future research in this area should improve our understanding of the role of cannabis use in cyclic vomiting and help us better understand and manage this disorder.
© 2019 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Suri S, Gupta S, Sudhakar PJ, Venkataramu NK, Sood B, Wig JD.
Comparative evaluation of plain films, ultrasound and CT in the diagnosis of intestinal obstruction.
Acta Radiol. 1999 Jul;40(4):422-8. doi: 10.3109/02841859909177758.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: There are limited studies in the literature comparing plain radiography, US and CT in the evaluation of intestinal obstruction. We carried out this prospective study to compare the relative efficacies of these three imaging techniques in patients with intestinal obstruction.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-two patients presenting with clinical suspicion of intestinal obstruction were subjected to plain radiography, US and CT and the findings were compared with reference to the presence or absence of obstruction, the level of obstruction and the cause of obstruction. The final diagnosis was obtained by surgery (n=25), or by contrast studies and/or clinical follow-up in those who were treated conservatively (n=7).
RESULTS: Out of 32 patients, 30 had mechanical intestinal obstruction (22 had small bowel obstruction and 8 had large bowel obstruction). Of the remaining 2 patients, 1 had adynamic ileus and the other had a mesenteric cyst. CT had high sensitivity (93%), specificity (100%) and accuracy (94%) in diagnosing the presence of obstruction. The comparable sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were, respectively. 83%, 100% and 84% for US and 77%, 50% and 75% for plain radiography. The level of obstruction was correctly predicted in 93% on CT, in 70% on US and in 60% on plain films. CT was superior (87%) to both US (23%) and plain radiography (7%) in determining the aetiology of obstruction.
CONCLUSION: CT is a highly accurate method in the evaluation of intestinal obstruction especially for determining the level and cause of obstruction and should be the technique of choice when clinical or plain radiographic findings are equivocal.
Peck JJ, Milleson T, Phelan J.
The role of computed tomography with contrast and small bowel follow-through in management of small bowel obstruction.
Am J Surg. 1999 May;177(5):375-8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00066-5.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: In a significant percentage of patients, radiologic evaluation other than plain abdominal films are required to confirm or exclude the presence of small bowel obstruction.
METHODS: Over a 1-year period, 55 patients had both computed tomography and small bowel follow-through studies. Patients were classified as having (1) paralytic ileus, (2) low-grade obstruction, (3) high-grade obstruction, or (4) complete mechanical obstruction. The gold standard for diagnosis was celiotomy in 42 patients and clinical follow-up in 13 patients.
RESULTS: Thirty-six out of 42 patients had proven intestinal obstruction at the time of celiotomy. Computed tomography identified 32 out of the 36 high-grade and complete mechanical obstructions. Computed tomography was superior to small bowel follow-through in identifying masses, malignancies, and features of strangulation. Small bowel follow-through correctly identified "insignificant obstructions" when contrast reached the cecum within 4 hours in 18 of 19 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with equivocal findings of small bowel obstruction, computed tomography should be used initially and then small bowel follow-through if computed tomography is not diagnostic. Computed tomography was superior in this study for detecting the cause of the intestinal obstruction and presence of strangulation.
Makanjuola D.
Computed tomography compared with small bowel enema in clinically equivocal intestinal obstruction.
Clin Radiol. 1998 Mar;53(3):203-8. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(98)80101-3.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To compare the findings in computed tomography (CT) and small bowel enema (SBE) in clinically equivocal small bowel obstruction in order to identify the reasons for the limitation of CT evaluation.
SUBJECT AND METHOD: Over a period of 5 years, 49 patients who had both CT and SBE within a period of 1 week were analysed. The findings at SBE were categorized into partial low-grade, partial high-grade and complete obstruction and compared with the CT findings. A critical analysis of the CT false-negative cases was made. The predictive values for the determination of the presence of obstruction in CT were also obtained.
RESULTS: Forty-three out of the 49 patients had proven intestinal obstruction. CT correctly identified 34 cases including 19 of 20 with partial high-grade obstruction, two with complete obstruction and 13 out of 21 cases of partial low-grade obstruction. Among those cases with low-grade obstruction cases with complex or long segment narrowing or with masses were correctly identified while six patients with short stenotic segment due to various causes were not. CT also had two false-positive findings of obstruction in patients with mesenteric infarction. SBE had neither false positive nor false negative. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values for CT were 83%, 67%, 94% and 36%, respectively. Abrupt transition from dilated to collapsed loops in CT were caused by various intraluminal lesions apart from adhesions. CT was superior to SBE in showing extraluminal masses, revealing abscesses, tuberculous lesions and malignancy anterior adhesions as well as features of strangulation.
CONCLUSION: Apart from degree of obstruction and the presence of masses, the length of the stenotic part also affected CT detection. Abrupt change from dilated to collapsed segment could be due to various transmural and intraluminal lesions although adhesions was the commonest lesion. While SBE is more accurate in identifying the presence and location of obstruction, CT is superior for detection of the cause of small bowel obstruction and also for the presence of strangulation. In places where CT is more widely used for intestinal obstruction, SBE evaluation could be prudently considered in CT negative cases of clinically equivocal intestinal obstruction.
Jewer JK, Wong MJ, Bird SJ, Habib AS, Parker R, George RB.
Supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloids for postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Mar 29;3(3):CD012212. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012212.pub2. Epub 2019 Mar 29.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following general anaesthesia. It may be associated with patient dissatisfaction, increased costs of treatment, and unintended admission to hospital.Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration in the perioperative period may be a simple intervention to prevent PONV.
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration prevents PONV in patients undergoing surgical procedures under general anaesthesia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to August 2018), Embase (1947 to August 2018), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1971 to August 2018). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing or unpublished completed studies (August 2018), handsearched three major journals (British Journal of Anaesthesia, European Journal of Anaesthesiology, and Anesthesiology; August 2018), and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of participants older than six months undergoing surgical procedures under general anaesthesia and given supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloids, defined as a volume larger than that received by a comparator group, to prevent PONV.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures described by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 studies (4224 participants). Participants underwent ambulatory or short length of stay surgical procedures, and were predominantly American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class I or II. There is one study awaiting classification and three ongoing studies. All studies took place in surgical centres, and were conducted in geographically diverse settings. Risk of bias was generally unclear across all domains.Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the cumulative risk of postoperative nausea (PON) (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.75; 18 studies; 1766 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When the postoperative period was divided into early (first six hours postoperatively) and late (at the time point closest to or including 24 hours postoperatively) time points, the intervention reduced the risk of early PON (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.78; 20 studies; 2310 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and late PON (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; 17 studies; 1682 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the risk of postoperative vomiting (POV) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.63; 20 studies; 1970 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention specifically reduced both early POV (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.76; 19 studies; 1998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and late POV (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 15 studies; 1403 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the need for pharmacologic treatment of PONV (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76; 23 studies; 2416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).The effect of supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration on the risk of unplanned postoperative admission to hospital is unclear (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.43; 3 studies; 235 participants; low-certainty evidence).No studies reported serious adverse events that may occur following supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration (i.e. admission to high-dependency unit, postoperative cardiac or respiratory complication, or death).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration reduces PON and POV, in ASA class I to II patients receiving general anaesthesia for ambulatory or short length of stay surgical procedures. The intervention probably also reduces the risk of pharmacologic treatment for PONV. The effect of the intervention on the risk of unintended postoperative admission to hospital is unclear. The risk of serious adverse events resulting from supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration is unknown as no studies reported this outcome. The one study awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
Yokoyama C, Mihara T, Kashiwagi S, Koga M, Goto T.
Effects of intravenous dextrose on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231958. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231958. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: It is reported that postoperative nausea and vomiting, common general anesthesia complications, may be prevented by perioperative intravenous dextrose administration, but with controversial clinical effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative intravenous dextrose for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception until 22 June 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Trials investigating intravenous dextrose effects vs. placebos on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent general anesthesia.
RESULTS: Eleven trials (1,250 patients) were included. All participants were ASA1-2. The nine trials included laparoscopic surgeries, and 92.2% of the participants were women. The timing of dextrose infusion was before, during, and after surgery in three, five, and three trials, respectively. Our results revealed intravenous dextrose administration significantly reduced postoperative nausea, but not vomiting, during early and late postoperative periods (risk ratio [95% confidence interval], early nausea: 0.76 [0.59-0.99], late nausea: 0.65 [0.48-0.89]; early vomiting: 1.00 [0.81-1.25], late vomiting: 0.96 [0.43-2.16]). Evidence quality was downgraded to low because the trial sequential analysis indicated more trials are needed for firm conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebos, perioperative intravenous dextrose administration may decrease postoperative nausea but not vomiting.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: UMIN000030901).
Weibel S, Rücker G, Eberhart LH, Pace NL, Hartl HM, Jordan OL, Mayer D, Riemer M, Schaefer MS, Raj D, Backhaus I, Helf A, Schlesinger T, Kienbaum P, Kranke P.
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 19;10(10):CD012859. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2. Epub 2020 Oct 19.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.
OBJECTIVES: • To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).
Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Singh P, Yoon SS, Kuo B.
Nausea: a review of pathophysiology and therapeutics.
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan;9(1):98-112. doi: 10.1177/1756283X15618131.
Abstract/Text
The sensation of nausea is a common occurrence with diverse causes and a significant disease burden. Nausea is considered to function as a protective mechanism, warning the organism to avoid potential toxic ingestion. Less adaptive circumstances are also associated with nausea, including post-operative nausea, chemotherapy-induced nausea, and motion sickness. A common definition of nausea identifies the symptom as a precursor to the act of vomiting. The interaction, though present, does not appear to be a simple relationship. Nausea is unfortunately the 'neglected symptom', with current accepted therapy generally directed at improving gastrointestinal motility or acting to relieve emesis. Improved understanding of the pathophysiological basis of nausea has important implications for exploiting novel mechanisms or developing novel therapies for nausea relief.
Al-Ansari K, Alomary S, Abdulateef H, Alshawagfa M, Kamal K.
Metoclopramide versus ondansetron for the treatment of vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2011 Aug;53(2):156-60. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182132d8d.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of ondansetron versus less expensive metoclopramide in the treatment of children with persistent vomiting with acute gastroenteritis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blind trial including consecutive consented patients ages 1 to 14 years was conducted in an urban infirmary setting from June 2008 through December 2008. Children were randomized to receive a single dose of intravenous ondansetron or metoclopramide. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of patients with cessation of vomiting shortly after completion of the study medication infusion in each group. Observed adverse effects and diarrhea frequency during admission and in follow-up were recorded to assess safety.
RESULTS: One hundred sixty-seven previously healthy children (median age 3 years) diagnosed as having acute gastroenteritis with persistent vomiting completed treatment and observation. Cessation of vomiting was achieved in 68/84 patients (81%) of the ondansetron and 60/83 (72%) of the metoclopramide groups, P = 0.14. Mean time to complete cessation of vomiting was 39 minutes (SD 111) for ondansetron, and 61 minutes (SD 110) for metoclopramide, P = 0.2. The mean length of infirmary stay was 550 minutes (SD 427) for ondansetron and 575 minutes (SD 449) for metoclopramide, P = 0.71. Revisit rate, readmissions rate, and frequency of diarrhea after discharge were similar in the 2 treatment groups. No adverse reaction or other safety concerns were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: In the sample size tested, intravenous metoclopramide therapy did not differ from ondansetron in the treatment of persistent vomiting for children with gastroenteritis admitted for intravenous fluid hydration.
Barrett TW, DiPersio DM, Jenkins CA, Jack M, McCoin NS, Storrow AB, Singleton LM, Lee P, Zhou C, Slovis CM.
A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of ondansetron, metoclopramide, and promethazine in adults.
Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Mar;29(3):247-55. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2009.09.028. Epub 2010 Mar 26.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to assess whether ondansetron has superior nausea reduction compared with metoclopramide, promethazine, or saline placebo in emergency department (ED) adults.
METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded superiority trial was intended to enroll a convenience sample of 600 patients. Nausea was evaluated on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and 30 minutes after treatment. Patients with a minimum preenrollment VAS of 40 mm were randomized to intravenous ondansetron 4 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 12.5 mg, or saline placebo. A 12-mm VAS improvement in nausea severity was deemed clinically important. We measured potential drug adverse effects at baseline and 30 minutes. Patients received approximately 500 mL of saline hydration during the initial 30 minutes.
RESULTS: Of 180 subjects who consented, 163 completed the study. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 23-47), and 68% were female. The median 30-minute VAS reductions (95% confidence intervals) and saline volume given for ondansetron, metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -22 (-32 to -15), -30 (-38 to -25.5), -29 (-40 to -21), and -16 (-25 to -3), and 500, 500, 500, and 450, respectively. The median 30-minute VAS differences (95% confidence intervals) between ondansetron and metoclopramide, promethazine, and saline were -8 (-18.5 to 3), -7 (-21 to -5.5), and 6 (-7 to 20), respectively. We compared the antiemetic efficacy across all treatments with the Kruskal-Wallis test (P = .16).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows no evidence that ondansetron is superior to metoclopramide and promethazine in reducing nausea in ED adults. Early study termination may have limited detection of ondansetron's superior nausea reduction over saline.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Silberstein SD.
Practice parameter: evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology.
Neurology. 2000 Sep 26;55(6):754-62. doi: 10.1212/wnl.55.6.754.
Abstract/Text
Marchetti F, Maestro A, Rovere F, Zanon D, Arrighini A, Bertolani P, Biban P, Da Dalt L, Di Pietro P, Renna S, Guala A, Mannelli F, Pazzaglia A, Messi G, Perri F, Reale A, Urbino AF, Valletta E, Vitale A, Zangardi T, Tondelli MT, Clavenna A, Bonati M, Ronfani L.
Oral ondansetron versus domperidone for symptomatic treatment of vomiting during acute gastroenteritis in children: multicentre randomized controlled trial.
BMC Pediatr. 2011 Feb 10;11:15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-11-15. Epub 2011 Feb 10.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Vomiting in children with acute gastroenteritis (AG) is not only a direct cause of fluid loss but it is also a major factor of failure of oral rehydration therapy (ORT). Physicians who provide care to paediatric patients in the emergency department (ED) usually prescribe intravenous fluid therapy (IVT) for mild or moderate dehydration when vomiting is the major symptom. Thus, effective symptomatic treatment of vomiting would lead to an important reduction in the use of IVT and, consequently, of the duration of hospital stay and of frequency of hospital admission. Available evidence on symptomatic treatment of vomiting shows the efficacy of the most recently registered molecule (ondansetron) but a proper evaluation of antiemetics drugs largely used in clinical practice, such as domperidone, is lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of ondansetron and domperidone for the symptomatic treatment of vomiting in children with AG who have failed ORT.
METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted in paediatric EDs. Children aged from 1 to 6 years who vomiting, with a presumptive clinical diagnosis of AG, and without severe dehydration will be included. After the failure of a initial ORS administration in ED, eligible children will be randomized to receive: 1) ondansetron syrup (0,15 mg/Kg of body weight); 2) domperidone syrup (0,5 mg/Kg of body weight); 3) placebo. The main study outcome will be the percentage of patients needing nasogastric or IVT after symptomatic oral treatment failure, defined as vomiting or fluid refusal after a second attempt of ORT. Data relative to study outcomes will be collected at 30 minute intervals for a minimum of 6 hours. A telephone follow up call will be made 48 hours after discharge. A total number of 540 children (i.e. 180 patients in each arm) will be enrolled.
DISCUSSION: The trial results would provide evidence on the efficacy of domperidone, which is largely used in clinical practice despite the lack of proper evaluation and a controversial safety profile, as compared to ondansetron, which is not yet authorized in Italy despite evidence supporting its efficacy in treating vomiting. The trial results would contribute to a reduction in the use of IVT and, consequently, in hospital admissions in children with AG. The design of this RCT, which closely reflect current clinical practice in EDs, will allow immediate transferability of results.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01257672.
Reeves JJ, Shannon MW, Fleisher GR.
Ondansetron decreases vomiting associated with acute gastroenteritis: a randomized, controlled trial.
Pediatrics. 2002 Apr;109(4):e62. doi: 10.1542/peds.109.4.e62.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: Relatively little research has examined the role of antiemetic agents in the treatment of acute gastroenteritis. The use of the selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (eg, ondansetron) offers a potentially valuable treatment option. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron for the treatment of vomiting associated with acute gastroenteritis in children.
METHODS: A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in the emergency department of a tertiary-care children's hospital. Eligible patients were 1 month to 22 years old and required intravenous fluids for gastroenteritis. Of 172 patients approached, 107 were enrolled (54 to intravenous ondansetron, 53 to placebo). The mean age was 5.3 years, and 53% of the patients were male. The frequency of vomiting, admission rate, and occurrence of complications were measured.
RESULTS: After drug administration, 38 (70%) of the 54 patients in the ondansetron group had complete cessation of vomiting compared with 27 (51%) of the 53 patients in the placebo group. Sixteen (30%) of the 53 patients in the placebo group required admission compared with 14 (26%) of the 54 in the ondansetron group. An analysis of previously untreated patients with a measured serum carbon dioxide > or =15 mEq/L showed that 11 (23%) of the 47 who received placebo were admitted compared with 3 (7%) of the 43 who received ondansetron. No significant complications were detected.
CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous ondansetron decreases vomiting in children with gastroenteritis. In addition, ondansetron reduces the need for admission in those who are treated at an initial visit to the emergency department and have a measured serum carbon dioxide > or =15 mEq/L. The safety and low cost of this therapy suggests that ondansetron can be valuable in treating gastroenteritis in children.
Vutyavanich T, Wongtra-ngan S, Ruangsri R.
Pyridoxine for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Sep;173(3 Pt 1):881-4. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(95)90359-3.
Abstract/Text
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the effectiveness of pyridoxine for nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
STUDY DESIGN: During an 11-month period 342 women who first attended Chiang Mai University Hospital antenatal clinic at < or = 17 weeks' gestation were randomized to received either oral pyridoxine hydrochloride, 30 mg per day, or placebo in a double-blind fashion. Patients graded the severity of their nausea by a visual analog scale and recorded the number of vomiting episodes over the previous 24 hours before treatment and again during 5 consecutive days on treatment.
RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the mean of posttherapy minus baseline nausea scores in the pyridoxine compared with that in the placebo group (t test, p = 0.0008). There was also a greater reduction in the mean number of vomiting episodes, but the differences did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.0552).
CONCLUSION: Pyridoxine is effective in relieving the severity of nausea in early pregnancy.
Khorasani F, Aryan H, Sobhi A, Aryan R, Abavi-Sani A, Ghazanfarpour M, Saeidi M, Rajab Dizavandi F.
A systematic review of the efficacy of alternative medicine in the treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Jan;40(1):10-19. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1587392. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
Abstract/Text
To assess the efficacy alternative medicine in the treatment of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP), three major databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus were systematically searched since inception until January 14 2019 to investigate the effects of herbal medicines on NVD. The quality assessment of studies was performed according to Jadad scale. All studies showed that ginger had a positive effect on nausea in pregnant women. Unlike others studies, one study reported that ginger was not beneficial to the treatment of vomiting. Herbal medicines such as matricaria chamomilla, elettaria cardamomum, pomegranate and spearmint syrup, lemon provide safe and effective medical alternatives for treating pregnant women with mild to moderate NVD. The results suggested that ginger were more effective than vitamin B, but at the dose of 35-500 mg ginger, vitamin B6 and ginger had identical effect. However, over a longer treatment period (60 days), vitamin B6 was proved to be more effective than ginger. The same effect was observed in the comparison of quince and vitamin B6 as well as ginger and doxylamine plus pyridoxine. Mentha did not generated a positive effect on nausea and vomiting. However, this finding should be considered in the light of the above limitations.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on the subject? Previous systematic reviews have shown the superiority of ginger over the placebo. Lemon, chamomile and Mentha have been found to be more effective than the placebo.What do the results of this study add? This systematic review confirmed the results of previous systematic reviews in a larger sample size. Ginger was more effective than vitamin B, but at the dose of 35-500 mg ginger, vitamin B6 and ginger had identical effect. However, over a longer treatment period (60 days), vitamin B6 was proved to be more effective than ginger.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and further research? Matricaria chamomilla, elettaria cardamomum, pomegranate and spearmint syrup, lemon and ginger can be recommended to pregnant women for alleviation of NVP.
Matthews A, Dowswell T, Haas DM, Doyle M, O'Mathúna DP.
Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Sep 8;(9):CD007575. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007575.pub2. Epub 2010 Sep 8.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Nausea, retching and vomiting are very commonly experienced by women in early pregnancy. There are considerable physical and psychological effects on women who experience these symptoms. This is an update of a review of interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy previously published in 2003.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of all interventions for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy, up to 20 weeks' gestation.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 May 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of any intervention for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy. We excluded trials of interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum which are covered by another review. We also excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials using a crossover design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors, in pairs, reviewed the eligibility of trials and independently evaluated the risk of bias and extracted the data for included trials.
MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven trials, with 4041 women, met the inclusion criteria. These trials covered many interventions, including acupressure, acustimulation, acupuncture, ginger, vitamin B6 and several antiemetic drugs. We identified no studies of dietary or other lifestyle interventions. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of P6 acupressure, auricular (ear) acupressure and acustimulation of the P6 point was limited. Acupuncture (P6 or traditional) showed no significant benefit to women in pregnancy. The use of ginger products may be helpful to women, but the evidence of effectiveness was limited and not consistent. There was only limited evidence from trials to support the use of pharmacological agents including vitamin B6, and anti-emetic drugs to relieve mild or moderate nausea and vomiting. There was little information on maternal and fetal adverse outcomes and on psychological, social or economic outcomes. We were unable to pool findings from studies for most outcomes due to heterogeneity in study participants, interventions, comparison groups, and outcomes measured or reported. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the high prevalence of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, health professionals need to provide clear guidance to women, based on systematically reviewed evidence. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support that advice. The difficulties in interpreting the results of the studies included in this review highlight the need for specific, consistent and clearly justified outcomes and approaches to measurement in research studies.
Alhmoud T, Hanson JA, Parasher G.
Eosinophilic Gastroenteritis: An Underdiagnosed Condition.
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Sep;61(9):2585-92. doi: 10.1007/s10620-016-4203-5. Epub 2016 May 27.
Abstract/Text
BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EOGE) is a rare idiopathic disease characterized by eosinophil-predominant inflammation of the stomach and/or intestines. Our aims are to determine the epidemiology, clinical features and outcomes of EOGE cases in a tertiary-care hospital.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with gastrointestinal eosinophilic infiltration from 2004 through 2014. All relevant specimens were reviewed by an expert pathologist. Significant eosinophilic infiltrate was defined as >25 eosinophils/HPF in the stomach or small intestine and >50 eosinophils/HPF in the colon.
RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-one charts were reviewed and 13 EOGE cases were identified, including nine adults and four pediatric cases. The majority (78 %) of adult cases were females. Clinical presentation was variable; most patients (62 %) had abdominal pain, followed by diarrhea (31 %) and nausea/vomiting (31 %). Atopy and food allergies were present in 54 and 38 % of patients, respectively. Weight loss and failure to thrive were present only in pediatric cases (50 vs 0 %; P = .01). Most EOGE cases (69 %) had peripheral eosinophilia, which was more prominent in patients with ascites compared to patients without ascites (37.3 ± 25.4 vs 9.3 ± 5.4 %; P = .01). Among patients who had long-term follow-up; 30 % had spontaneous remission, 60 % responded to steroids and/or restriction diet, and 10 % had refractory disease.
CONCLUSION: EOGE is an underdiagnosed condition. In contrast to eosinophilic esophagitis; the disease might be female-predominant in adults. High index of clinical suspicion is required for diagnosis. Further studies about the long-term outcomes and the efficacy of restriction diet in adult patients are required.
Ridolo E, Melli V, De' Angelis G, Martignago I.
Eosinophilic disorders of the gastro-intestinal tract: an update.
Clin Mol Allergy. 2016;14:17. doi: 10.1186/s12948-016-0055-y. Epub 2016 Dec 1.
Abstract/Text
Eosinophilic diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE), are rare chronic pathologies of the digestive system, with an immuno-mediated pathogenesis. Recent data suggest that, together with the "classic" IgE-response to allergens, also a delayed hypersensitivity mechanism could be involved in the development of eosinophilic disorders. EoE and EGE were studied only in the latest decades and as a consequence accurate data are not yet available, concerning not only pathogenesis, but also epidemiology, treatment and outcomes. The diagnosis of EoE is centered on endoscopic findings but the certainty is obtained by histological examination from biopsy samples, that has a sensitivity of 100% when based on five samples. The currently available treatments include topical corticosteroids, specific diets and endoscopic treatment. Concerning EGE, three subtypes (mucosal, muscular, and serosal) were identified. The diagnosis is based, as for EoE, on endoscopic and histological assessment, and the treatment includes pharmacological and dietetic approaches. Further studies are warranted in order to better define the etiology and pathogenesis of eosinophilic diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, and thus to develop more appropriate and specific therapies.
