-
Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver... Jun 2024Mammoplasty, a common cosmetic procedure involving breast augmentation and reduction surgeries, has gained global popularity. Recently, attention has shifted towards...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Mammoplasty, a common cosmetic procedure involving breast augmentation and reduction surgeries, has gained global popularity. Recently, attention has shifted towards understanding the prevalence and significance of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms following mammoplasty. This systematic review aims to consolidate existing literature to provide a comprehensive overview of the type and frequency of GI problems associated with various mammoplasty procedures.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted until January 22, 2024, identifying observational and interventional studies examining GI symptoms post-mammoplasty. Inclusion criteria covered human studies, while exclusion criteria ensured specificity. Two independent investigators performed screening, and data extraction included study characteristics, surgical procedures, anesthesia methods, and interventions.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies, involving 2,487 subjects, were included in the review. Breast reconstruction emerged as the most studied procedure, followed by breast reduction, augmentation, mastectomy, and breast cancer surgery. Predominant GI symptoms included nausea and vomiting, with varying rates across mammoplasty types. Anesthesia modality influenced symptomatology, with general, local, and combined anesthesia associated with GI disturbances. Antiemetics, notably ondansetron and droperidol, showed variable efficacy. Non-pharmacological approaches, such as preoperative hypnosis, were explored for symptom management.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review reveals insights into GI symptoms post-mammoplasty, emphasizing the common occurrence of symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, alongside less frequent manifestations such as constipation, dry mouth, retching, abdominal pain, and tightness. Variations in symptom prevalence were noted across diverse mammoplasty surgeries, anesthesia methods, and the use of antiemetics, underscoring the complex nature of post-mammoplasty GI disturbances.
Topics: Humans; Mammaplasty; Female; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Adult; Prevalence
PubMed: 38944853
DOI: 10.15403/jgld-5598 -
Children (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024Off-label drug use is prevalent in the pediatric population and represents a patient safety concern. We aimed to identify factors for off-label drug use in our pediatric...
UNLABELLED
Off-label drug use is prevalent in the pediatric population and represents a patient safety concern. We aimed to identify factors for off-label drug use in our pediatric emergency department (PED).
METHODS
We performed a retrospective data analysis. All patients aged 0-18 referred to PED from 1 September to 1 October 2022, were included. Further analysis was performed when respiratory tract infections were diagnosed.
DATA COLLECTED
gender, age, triage group, chronic diseases, vital signs, and PED-prescribed treatment (medications, dosages, methods of administration). Statistical analysis used SPSS 28.0, with significance at < 0.05.
RESULTS
Data from 473 patients were analyzed, median age 3.5 years. Chronic diseases were present in 17.1% of children. 387 medications were prescribed, 47.5% being off-label. Off-label treatment was common for external otitis, acute laryngitis, and acute bronchitis ( < 0.001). There was incorrect administration of tobramycin with dexamethasone for otitis ( = 16, 100%) and inappropriate use of salbutamol inhalations by age (34.8%, = 16). Some medications were given orally instead of injections (ondansetron = 5, 62.5%; dexamethasone = 82, 98.7%) or intranasally instead of intravenously (IV) (midazolam = 7, 87.5%). IV adrenalin was prescribed for inhalations ( = 46). Younger children were more likely to receive off-label treatment ( < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Our study highlights the widespread issue of off-label and unlicensed drug prescribing in pediatric emergency care. Further research is necessary, because this reliance on off-label prescribing raises concerns about patient safety and compliance, especially given the limited clinical trials and therapeutic options available.
PubMed: 38929314
DOI: 10.3390/children11060735 -
Journal of Biosciences 2024Noradrenaline (NA) and serotonin (5-HT) induce nociception and antinociception. This antagonistic effect can be explained by the dose and type of activated receptors. We...
Noradrenaline (NA) and serotonin (5-HT) induce nociception and antinociception. This antagonistic effect can be explained by the dose and type of activated receptors. We investigated the existence of synergism between the noradrenergic and serotonergic systems during peripheral antinociception. The paw pressure test was performed in mice that had increased sensitivity by intraplantar injection of prostaglandin E (PGE). Noradrenaline (80 ng) administered intraplantarly induced an antinociceptive effect, that was reversed by the administration of selective antagonists of serotoninergic receptors 5-HT isamoltan, 5-HT BRL15572, 5-HT ketanserin, 5-HT ondansetron, but not by selective receptor antagonist 5-HT SB-269970. The administration of escitalopram, a serotonin reuptake inhibitor, potentiated the antinociceptive effect at a submaximal dose of NA. These results, indicate the existence of synergism between the noradrenergic and serotonergic systems in peripheral antinociception in mice.
Topics: Animals; Mice; Norepinephrine; Serotonin; Serotonin Antagonists; Male; Receptors, Serotonin; Dinoprostone; Citalopram; Nociception; Analgesics; Ondansetron; Ketanserin; Pain; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 38920106
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical... 2024Squint surgery is a risk factor for postoperative vomiting (POV) in children. This study was designed to compare the incidence of POV in children undergoing strabismus...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Squint surgery is a risk factor for postoperative vomiting (POV) in children. This study was designed to compare the incidence of POV in children undergoing strabismus surgery under balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane versus intravenous anesthesia with propofol.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
In this prospective randomized controlled study conducted in a tertiary care ophthalmology hospital, 70 ASA I-II children aged 1-12 years undergoing strabismus surgery were randomized to two groups -Group S (sevoflurane-based anesthesia) and Group P (propofol-based anesthesia) for maintenance. The surgical details, intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, recovery characteristics, and emergence delirium were recorded. Any episode of postoperative vomiting in the 0-2 hours, 2-6 hours, and 6-24 hours period was noted. Rescue antiemetic was administered if there was more than one episode of vomiting.
RESULTS
Both the groups were similar with respect to demographic and surgical details. The average duration of surgery was 118.2 ± 41.88 min in group S and 137.32 ± 39.09 min in group P ( = .05). Four children in group S (11.4%) and one child in group P (2.9%) had POV in the first 24 hours but this was not statistically significant ( = .36). The median time to discharge from post anesthesia care unit was significantly less ( = .02) in the P group (50 min) than in the S group (60 min).
CONCLUSION
Propofol-based anesthesia does not offer advantage over sevoflurane, in reducing POV after squint surgery, when dual prophylaxis with dexamethasone and ondansetron is administered. It, however, reduces the duration of stay in the post anesthesia care unit.
PubMed: 38919441
DOI: 10.4103/joacp.joacp_363_22 -
PloS One 2024The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing cesarean section.
METHODS
Fifty-four women scheduled for elective cesarean section were, randomly allocated to ondansetron group (n = 27) or palonosetron group (n = 27). Ten minutes prior to the administration of spinal anesthesia, participants received an intravenous injection of either ondansetron or palonosetron. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion was initiated immediately following the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was titrated to maintain adequate blood pressure until the time of fetal delivery. The primary outcome was total dose of phenylephrine administered. The secondary outcomes were nausea or vomiting, the need for rescue antiemetics, hypotension, bradycardia, and shivering. Complete response rate, defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for additional antiemetics, were assessed for up to 24 hours post-surgery.
RESULTS
No significant differences were observed in the total dose of phenylephrine used between the ondansetron and palonosetron groups (387.5 μg [interquartile range, 291.3-507.8 μg versus 428.0 μg [interquartile range, 305.0-507.0 μg], P = 0.42). Complete response rates also showed no significant differences between the groups both within two hours post-spinal anesthesia (88.9% in the ondansetron group versus 100% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.24) and at 24 hours post-surgery (81.5% in the ondansetron group versus 88.8% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.7). In addition, there was no difference in other secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic administration of palonosetron did not demonstrate a superior effect over ondansetron in mitigating hemodynamic changes or reducing phenylephrine requirements in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl for cesarean section.
Topics: Humans; Female; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Palonosetron; Adult; Hypotension; Pregnancy; Ondansetron; Antiemetics; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Phenylephrine; Anesthesia, Obstetrical
PubMed: 38917195
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305913 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Jun 2024Post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) is a pertinent problem in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of the...
Olanzapine versus standard antiemetic prophylaxis for the prevention of post-discharge nausea and vomiting after propofol-based general anaesthesia: A randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) is a pertinent problem in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of the novel drug olanzapine, which has proved its efficiency in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy for PDNV prevention.
METHODS
This randomised controlled trial recruited 106 adult patients (18-65 years) undergoing highly emetogenic daycare surgeries with propofol-based general anaesthesia (GA). Group O received preoperative oral olanzapine 10 mg, and Group C, acting as a control, received 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone and 4 mg of ondansetron intraoperatively. The primary outcome was nausea (numeric rating scale >3) and/or vomiting 24 h after discharge. Secondary outcomes included nausea and vomiting in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU), severe nausea, vomiting and side effects. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, and the independent samples -test or the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables. Fisher's exact test was used to assess any non-random associations between the categorical variables.
RESULTS
The incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting were similar in both groups within PACU (four patients experienced nausea and vomiting, three had severe symptoms in Group O, = 0.057) and in the post-discharge period (three patients in Group O had nausea and vomiting compared to five patients in Group C, of which four were severe, = 0.484). The side effects (sedation, dizziness, and light-headedness) were comparable between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
A single preoperative oral olanzapine can be an effective alternative to standard antiemetic prophylaxis involving dexamethasone and ondansetron for preventing PDNV in highly emetogenic daycare surgeries with propofol-based GA.
PubMed: 38903258
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_1162_23 -
Pain Research & Management 2024Common postoperative complications following surgery, particularly acute appendicitis surgery, include postoperative pain and vomiting, which can cause discomfort and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Common postoperative complications following surgery, particularly acute appendicitis surgery, include postoperative pain and vomiting, which can cause discomfort and delay recovery time.
METHODS
A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 80 cases of acute appendicitis of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II and aged 18-60 y/o scheduled for appendectomy under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups: group A received 4 mg of ondansetron IV (2 ml) and group B received 2 ml of normal slain IV (placebo). Pain according to VAS, nausea and vomiting according to clinical symptoms, shivering and sedation according to the Bedside Shivering Assessment Scale (BSAS), and the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) at 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery were evaluated and compared between the groups.
RESULTS
There was a significant decline in the severity of pain only at 2 hours after surgery between the ondansetron and control groups (5.3 ± 1.0 vs. 6.0 ± 1.0; =0.01), not showing a difference between the groups at 6, 12, and 24 hours after appendectomy. Postoperative nausea and vomiting at 2 (5% vs. 25%; =0.03) and 6 (7.5% vs. 27.5%; =0.04) hours after appendectomy in the ondansetron group. At different times, the ondansetron and control groups did not differ in terms of pethidine consumption or sedation.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, our study found that ondansetron was effective in reducing postoperative vomiting after acute appendicitis surgery. However, it did not show a clinically significant effect on postoperative pain. This trial is registered with IRCT20230722058883N1.
Topics: Humans; Double-Blind Method; Ondansetron; Adult; Male; Female; Pain, Postoperative; Appendicitis; Young Adult; Middle Aged; Adolescent; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Appendectomy; Pain Measurement; Antiemetics; Treatment Outcome; Time Factors
PubMed: 38899063
DOI: 10.1155/2024/6429874 -
ACG Case Reports Journal Jun 2024The etiology for concurrent attacks of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea can be obscure. Mast cell activation syndrome is not usually considered in this...
The etiology for concurrent attacks of abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea can be obscure. Mast cell activation syndrome is not usually considered in this differential diagnosis. A 53-year-old paint salesman suffered severe attacks of these symptoms for the 3 decades of his career. Nortriptyline, loperamide, hyoscyamine, and ondansetron failed to address his symptoms. Mast cell activation syndrome was ultimately diagnosed. Intravenous mast cell-targeted therapy reduced severity of attacks. Multiple oral mast cell-targeted treatments were ineffective, but addition of low-dose imatinib resulted in dramatic improvement. Recognition that paint-fume exposure-triggered attacks led to behavioral modifications which further reduced symptoms.
PubMed: 38883580
DOI: 10.14309/crj.0000000000001383 -
Cureus May 2024Introduction Cancer chemotherapy regimens include multiple classes of adjuvant drugs as supportive therapy. Because of the concurrent intake of other drugs (like...
Prevalence, Attributes, and Risk Factors of QT-Interval-Prolonging Drugs and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital.
Introduction Cancer chemotherapy regimens include multiple classes of adjuvant drugs as supportive therapy. Because of the concurrent intake of other drugs (like antiemetics, antidepressants, analgesics, and antimicrobials), there is a heightened risk for possible QT interval prolongation. There is a dearth of evidence in the literature regarding the usage of QT-prolonging anticancer drugs and associated risk factors that have the propensity to prolong QT interval. The purpose was to explore the extent of the use of QT-interval-prolonging drugs and potential QT-prolonging drug-drug interactions (QT-DDIs) in cancer patients attending OPD in a tertiary-care hospital. Methods This was a hospital-based, cross-sectional, observational study. Risk stratification of QT-prolonging drugs for torsades de pointes (TdP) was done by the Arizona Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (AzCERT)/CredibleMeds-lists, and potential QT-DDIs were determined with four online DDI-checker-software. Results In 1331 cancer patients, the overall prevalence of potential QT-prolonging drug utilization was 97.3%. Ondansetron, pantoprazole, domperidone, and olanzapine were the most frequent QT-prolonging drugs in cancer patients. The top six antineoplastics with potential QT-prolonging and torsadogenic actions were capecitabine, oxaliplatin, imatinib, bortezomib, 5-fluorouracil, and bendamustine. Evidence-based pragmatic QTc interval prolongation risk assessment tools are imperative for cancer patients. Conclusion This study revealed a high prevalence of QT-prolonging drugs and QT-DDIs among cancer patients who are treated with anticancer and non-anticancer drugs. As a result, it's critical to take precautions, stay vigilant, and avoid QT-prolonging in clinical situations. Evidence-based pragmatic QTc interval prolongation risk assessment tools are needed for cancer patients.
PubMed: 38882995
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60492 -
Journal of Medical Imaging and... Jun 2024The purpose of this study was to determine patient perceptions of an advanced practice radiation therapist (APRT) prescribing medication for radiation therapy...
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to determine patient perceptions of an advanced practice radiation therapist (APRT) prescribing medication for radiation therapy treatment-related side effects. By comprehending patient perceptions, it is important to implement change in order to improve patients' quality of life.
METHODS
A literature review was conducted on advanced practice (AP) roles in Canada and world-wide; the roles searched were: APRT, nurse practitioner and pharmacist. The search focused on evidence demonstrating improvements made to patient care due to the implementation of these roles. Based on this review and input from a team of experts a qualitative semi-structured interview survey was designed, and pilot tested. The survey consisted of five open-ended questions, which were designed to determine patient satisfaction of an APRT prescribing medication over the course of their radiation therapy treatments. Patients undergoing head and neck radiation therapy treatments at a large, academic cancer centre were invited to participate. Six patients who had a head and neck APRT involved in their treatment were interviewed. A comprehensive thematic analysis was then conducted using the transcripts created from these interviews, which was followed by two independent blinded analyses to ensure validity of the results.
DISCUSSION
The thematic analysis produced four salient themes which were: side effect management, care provided by the APRT in comparison to other healthcare workers, patients' access to care, and overall patient satisfaction. Common medications for head and neck radiation therapy treatment related side effects were discussed and these were: Magic Mouthwash, Xylocaine, Nystatin, Benadryl, Advil, Tylenol, Dexamethasone, Tantum, Biotene, Mucaine, Flamazine, Hydrocortisone, Ondansetron, Senokot, and narcotics.
CONCLUSION
This study was valuable to understand patient experiences and provide evidence to change processes in order to improve quality of patient centered care. The study revealed that although patients were happy with the process of prescribing medication, they all agreed that having an advanced practice radiation therapist prescribe would improve care. Patient responses further demonstrated the need for future research in regards to side effect management as a whole by APRTs as well as how role clarification can impact patient perceptions of APRTs.
PubMed: 38878617
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmir.2024.101443