4.7 Article

Effect of Adding Midazolam to Dual Prophylaxis for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10214857

关键词

antiemetics; midazolam; postoperative nausea and vomiting; prophylaxis; gynecology; laparoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The addition of midazolam to the dual prophylaxis of ondansetron and dexamethasone did not have an additive preventive effect on PONV after gynecologic laparoscopy, as the complete response rate and incidence of PONV were similar between the control group and midazolam group.
Multimodal prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has been recommended, even in low-risk patients. Midazolam is known to have antiemetic properties. We researched the effects of adding midazolam to the dual prophylaxis of ondansetron and dexamethasone on PONV after gynecologic laparoscopy. In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 144 patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery under sevoflurane anesthesia were randomized to receive either normal saline (control group, n = 72) or midazolam 0.05 mg/kg (midazolam group, n = 72) intravenously at pre-induction. All patients were administered dexamethasone 4 mg at induction and ondansetron 4 mg at the completion of the laparoscopy, intravenously. The primary outcome was the incidence of complete response, which implied the absence of PONV without rescue antiemetic requirement until 24 h post-surgery. The complete response during the 24 h following laparoscopy was similar between the two groups: 41 patients (59%) in the control group and 48 patients (72%) in the midazolam group (p = 0.11). The incidence of nausea, severe nausea, retching/vomiting, and administration of rescue antiemetic was comparable between the two groups. The addition of 0.05 mg/kg midazolam at pre-induction to the dual prophylaxis had no additive preventive effect on PONV after gynecologic laparoscopy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据