Apfel Christian C, Korttila Kari, Abdalla Mona, Kerger Heinz, Turan Alparslan, Vedder Ina, Zernak Carmen, Danner Klaus, Jokela Ritva, Pocock Stuart J, Trenkler Stefan, Kredel Markus, Biedler Andreas, Sessler Daniel I, Roewer Norbert
Julius-Maximilians Universitat, Wurzburg, Germany.
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jun 10;350(24):2441-51. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa032196.
Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown.
We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly.
Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents (i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. Absolute risk reduction, though, was a critical function of patients' baseline risk.
Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.
未经治疗的情况下,接受手术的患者中有三分之一会出现术后恶心和呕吐。尽管已经进行了许多试验,但单独或联合使用预防性止吐干预措施的相对益处仍不明确。
我们在一项析因设计的随机对照试验中纳入了5199名术后恶心和呕吐高危患者,该试验旨在评估多达三种止吐干预措施之间的相互作用。在这些患者中,4123名被随机分配到六种预防性干预措施的64种可能组合中的一种:4毫克昂丹司琼或不使用昂丹司琼;4毫克地塞米松或不使用地塞米松;1.25毫克氟哌利多或不使用氟哌利多;丙泊酚或挥发性麻醉剂;氮气或氧化亚氮;瑞芬太尼或芬太尼。其余患者就前四种干预措施进行随机分配。主要结局是术后24小时内的恶心和呕吐,由盲法进行评估。
昂丹司琼、地塞米松和氟哌利多各自将术后恶心和呕吐的风险降低了约26%。丙泊酚将风险降低了19%,氮气降低了12%;因此,这两种药物(即全静脉麻醉)的风险降低与每种止吐药观察到的相似。所有干预措施彼此独立起作用,且独立于患者的基线风险。因此,联合干预措施相关的相对风险可通过将每种干预措施相关的相对风险相乘来估计。然而,绝对风险降低是患者基线风险的关键函数。
由于止吐干预措施同样有效且独立起作用,应首先使用最安全或最便宜的措施。低风险患者很少需要预防,中度风险患者可能从单一干预措施中获益,而多种干预措施应保留给高风险患者。