MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients for laparoscopic surgery with at least one of the determined risks (nonsmoker, female, previous PONV/motion sickness, or postoperative opioid use) were randomized into either an active or sham group. At the end of surgery, Reletex electrical acustimulation was placed at the P6 acupoint. The active group had grade 3 strength and the sham group had inactivated electrodes covered by silicone. It was worn for 24 h following surgery. PONV scores were recorded.
RESULTS: The active group had significantly shorter durations of surgery and lower PONV incidence over 24 h (35.1% versus 64.9%, P = 0.024) and this was attributed to the lower incidence of nausea (31.4% versus 68.6%, P = 0.006). The overall incidence of vomiting was not significantly different between the groups, but it was higher in the sham group of patients with PONV risk score 3 (23.9%, P = 0.049).
CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk for PONV, P6 acupoint electrical stimulation lowers the PONV incidence by reducing the nausea component. However, this reduction in nausea is not related to increasing PONV risk scores.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cost evaluation refers to 2011, the year in which the observation was conducted. Direct costs incurred by hospitals including the drug acquisition, materials and time spent for clinical activities from prescribing to dispensing of home medications were evaluated (MYR 1=$0.32 USD). As reported to be significantly different between two regimens (96.1% vs 81.0%; p=0.017), the complete response rate of acute emesis which was defined as a patient successfully treated without any emesis episode within 24 hours after LEC was used as the main indicator for effectiveness.
RESULTS: Antiemetic drug acquisition cost per patient was 40.7 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen than for the standard regimen (MYR 64.3 vs 1.58). When both the costs for materials and clinical activities were included, the total cost per patient was 8.68 times higher for the granisetron-based regimen (MYR 73.5 vs 8.47). Considering the complete response rates, the mean cost per successfully treated patient in granisetron group was 7.31 times higher (MYR 76.5 vs 10.5). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) with granisetron-based regimen, relative to the standard regimen, was MYR 430.7. It was found to be most sensitive to the change of antiemetic effects of granisetron-based regimen.
CONCLUSIONS: While providing a better efficacy in acute emesis control, the low incidence of acute emesis and high ICER makes use of granisetron as primary prophylaxis in LEC controversial.
METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, and EBSCO Host and Science Direct databases were searched for articles related to the use of EOs and/or aromatherapy for nausea and vomiting. Only articles using English as a language of publication were included. Eligible articles included all forms of evidence (nonexperimental, experimental, case report). Interventions were limited to the use of EOs by inhalation of their vapors to treat symptoms of nausea and vomiting in various conditions regardless of age group. Studies where the intervention did not utilize EOs or were concerned with only alcohol inhalation and trials that combined the use of aromatherapy with other treatments (massage, relaxations, or acupressure) were excluded.
RESULTS: Five (5) articles met the inclusion criteria encompassing trials with 328 respondents. Their results suggest that the inhaled vapor of peppermint or ginger essential oils not only reduced the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting but also decreased antiemetic requirements and consequently improved patient satisfaction. However, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn due to methodological flaws in the existing research articles and an acute lack of additional research in this area.
CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence is encouraging but yet not compelling. Hence, further well-designed large trials are needed before confirmation of EOs effectiveness in treating nausea and vomiting can be strongly substantiated.