Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting

Margarita Coloma, Paul F. White, Babatunde O. Ogunnaike, Scott D. Markowitz, Philip M. Brown, Alex Q. Lee, Sally B. Berrisford, Cynthia A. Wakefield, Tijani Issioui, Stephanie B. Jones, Daniel B. Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

56 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand® compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. Methods: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand®; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand® and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand®. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. Results: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs. 40%, P < 0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. Conclusions: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand® can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand® device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1387-1392
Number of pages6
JournalAnesthesiology
Volume97
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2002

Fingerprint

Ondansetron
Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Acupuncture Points
Antiemetics
Emetics
Metoclopramide
Patient Satisfaction
Therapeutics
Droperidol
Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
Research Ethics Committees
Informed Consent
Ambulatory Surgical Procedures
Laparoscopy
Nausea
Outpatients
Anesthesia
Placebos
Equipment and Supplies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting. / Coloma, Margarita; White, Paul F.; Ogunnaike, Babatunde O.; Markowitz, Scott D.; Brown, Philip M.; Lee, Alex Q.; Berrisford, Sally B.; Wakefield, Cynthia A.; Issioui, Tijani; Jones, Stephanie B.; Jones, Daniel B.

In: Anesthesiology, Vol. 97, No. 6, 01.12.2002, p. 1387-1392.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Coloma, M, White, PF, Ogunnaike, BO, Markowitz, SD, Brown, PM, Lee, AQ, Berrisford, SB, Wakefield, CA, Issioui, T, Jones, SB & Jones, DB 2002, 'Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting', Anesthesiology, vol. 97, no. 6, pp. 1387-1392. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200212000-00009
Coloma, Margarita ; White, Paul F. ; Ogunnaike, Babatunde O. ; Markowitz, Scott D. ; Brown, Philip M. ; Lee, Alex Q. ; Berrisford, Sally B. ; Wakefield, Cynthia A. ; Issioui, Tijani ; Jones, Stephanie B. ; Jones, Daniel B. / Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting. In: Anesthesiology. 2002 ; Vol. 97, No. 6. pp. 1387-1392.
@article{8d2e35c9b58f43a189d639c5af9da082,
title = "Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting",
abstract = "Background: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand{\circledR} compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. Methods: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand{\circledR}; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand{\circledR} and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand{\circledR}. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. Results: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73{\%} vs. 40{\%}, P < 0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. Conclusions: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand{\circledR} can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand{\circledR} device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.",
author = "Margarita Coloma and White, {Paul F.} and Ogunnaike, {Babatunde O.} and Markowitz, {Scott D.} and Brown, {Philip M.} and Lee, {Alex Q.} and Berrisford, {Sally B.} and Wakefield, {Cynthia A.} and Tijani Issioui and Jones, {Stephanie B.} and Jones, {Daniel B.}",
year = "2002",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00000542-200212000-00009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "97",
pages = "1387--1392",
journal = "Anesthesiology",
issn = "0003-3022",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of acustimulation and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting

AU - Coloma, Margarita

AU - White, Paul F.

AU - Ogunnaike, Babatunde O.

AU - Markowitz, Scott D.

AU - Brown, Philip M.

AU - Lee, Alex Q.

AU - Berrisford, Sally B.

AU - Wakefield, Cynthia A.

AU - Issioui, Tijani

AU - Jones, Stephanie B.

AU - Jones, Daniel B.

PY - 2002/12/1

Y1 - 2002/12/1

N2 - Background: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand® compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. Methods: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand®; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand® and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand®. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. Results: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs. 40%, P < 0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. Conclusions: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand® can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand® device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.

AB - Background: This study was designed to evaluate transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (acustimulation) using the ReliefBand® compared with ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after outpatient laparoscopic surgery. Methods: After the authors obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent, 268 outpatients were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study. All patients received antiemetic prophylaxis with metoclopramide, 10 mg intravenously, or droperidol, 0.625 mg intravenously, after induction of anesthesia. A total of 90 patients developed PONV in the recovery units and were randomized to one of three treatment groups: (1) the ondansetron group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand®; (2) the acustimulation group received 2 ml intravenous saline and a ReliefBand® and (3) the combination group received 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a ReliefBand®. A rescue antiemetic (10 mg intravenous metoclopramide) was administered only if the PONV symptoms persisted for 15 min or longer after initiating the treatment. A blinded observer recorded the recovery times, emetic symptoms, rescue antiemetics, maximum nausea scores, complete response to study treatment, and time to achieve discharge criteria. Postdischarge side effects, as well as patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores, were assessed at 24 and 72 h after surgery. Results: The combination group had a significantly higher complete response rate than the acustimulation group (73% vs. 40%, P < 0.01). In addition, fewer patients (8 vs. 18) in the combination (vs. acustimulation) group experienced subsequent emetic events (P < 0.03). However, there were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to patient satisfaction and quality of recovery scores. Conclusions: Acustimulation with the ReliefBand® can be used as an alternative to ondansetron for the treatment of established PONV. However, the use of ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) in combination with the ReliefBand® device improved the complete response rate to the acustimulation therapy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18744384646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18744384646&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00000542-200212000-00009

DO - 10.1097/00000542-200212000-00009

M3 - Article

C2 - 12459663

AN - SCOPUS:18744384646

VL - 97

SP - 1387

EP - 1392

JO - Anesthesiology

JF - Anesthesiology

SN - 0003-3022

IS - 6

ER -