Association of nefopam use with postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynecological patients receiving prophylactic ramosetron: A retrospective study

Sun-Kyung Park, Seokha Yoo, Won Ho Kim, Young-Jin Lim, Jae-Hyon Bahk and Jin-Tae Kim

PLOS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, issue 6, 1-11

Abstract: Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA). Nefopam has been considered as a good candidate for inclusion in multimodal analgesia because of its opioid sparing effect, but it can be emetic. This study aims to examine whether the use of nefopam combined with fentanyl in IV PCA was associated with the higher incidence of PONV in patients receiving prophylactic ramosetron after gynecological surgery. Methods: Data from 296 patients who underwent gynecological surgery were retrospectively reviewed. The patients received IV PCA containing either fentanyl 1500 μg and ketorolac 90 mg (Group K) or fentanyl 1500 μg and nefopam 80 mg (Group N). All patients in both groups received 0.3 mg of ramosetron at the end of surgery. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PONV during the 3-day postoperative period. Results: No difference was observed in the incidence of PONV during the 3-day postoperative period between the two groups. However, the incidence of nausea on postoperative day 2 was significantly higher in Group N (10.3%) than in Group K (2.8%) (P = 0.016). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the use of nefopam was not associated with a higher incidence of PONV (adjusted odds ratio, 1.616; 95% confidence interval, 0.952–2.743, P = 0.076). There were no differences in postoperative pain scores between the two groups. Conclusion: The combined use of nefopam with fentanyl in IV PCA was not associated with the higher incidence of PONV compared with the use of ketorolac and fentanyl combination in patients who received ramosetron as PONV prophylactic agent. However, prospective trials are required for a confirmative conclusion.

Date: 2018
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199930 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 99930&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0199930

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199930

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone (plosone@plos.org).