Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31096730›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of anesthesiology2019

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: comparison of two prophylactic antiemetic regimens.

Jennifer Holder-Murray, Stephen A Esper, Michael L Boisen, Julie Gealey, Katie Meister, David S Medich, Kathirvel Subramaniam

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of anesthesiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Reducing bias in observational studies.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2020
    Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer Holder-MurrayDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Stephen A EsperDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Michael L BoisenDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Julie GealeyDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Katie MeisterDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
David S MedichDepartment of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Kathirvel SubramaniamDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced recovery protocols (ERP) provide optimal perioperative care for surgical patients. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after colorectal surgery (CRS). We aim to compare the efficacy of aprepitant to a cost-effective alternative, perphenazine, as components of triple antiemetic prophylaxis in ERP patients.

methodsPatients who underwent ERP CRS at a single institution from July 2015 to July 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Only subjects who received aprepitant (Group 1) or perphenazine (Group 2) preoperatively for PONV prophylaxis were included. Patient characteristics, simplified Apfel PONV scores, perioperative medications, and PONV incidence were compared between the groups. PONV was defined as the need for rescue antiemetics on postoperative days (POD) 0-5.

resultsFive hundred ninety-seven patients underwent CRS of which 498 met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty-one (46.4%) received aprepitant and 267 (53.6%) received perphenazine. The incidence of early PONV (POD 0-1) was comparable between the two groups: 44.2% in Group 1 and 44.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.926). Late PONV (POD 2-5) occurred less often in Group 1 than Group 2, respectively (35.9% vs. 45.7%, P = 0.027). After matching the groups for preoperative, procedural, and anesthesia characteristics (164 pairs), no difference in early or late PONV could be demonstrated between the groups.

conclusionsThe incidence of PONV remains high despite most patients receiving three prophylactic antiemetic medications. Perphenazine can be considered a cost-effective alternative to oral aprepitant for prophylaxis of PONV in patients undergoing CRS within an ERP.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntiemeticsAprepitantDigestive System Surgical ProceduresEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPerphenazinePostoperative Nausea and VomitingPreoperative CareRetrospective StudiesAntiemeticsAprepitantPerphenazineAprepitantColectomyColorectal surgeryEnhanced recoveryPerphenazinePostoperative nausea and vomiting

Identifiers

PMID31096730
PMCPMC6676025
OpenAlexW2946109508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.