Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book looks at the how and why of vomit, taking readers through the reasons people spew and what to do when it feels like they need to hurl\"--Amazon.com.

Introduces vomiting, discussing the causes and actions involved in this bodily function.

Opioid-free anaesthesia may enhance postoperative recovery by reducing opioid-related side effects such as nausea, hyperalgesia or tolerance. The objective was to investigate the impact of multimodal opioid-free general anaesthesia on postoperative nausea, vomiting, pain and morphine consumption compared to the traditional opioid-based approach. This study was conducted as a prospective parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Perioperative Care. 152 adult women undergoing elective inpatient gynaecological laparoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned for opioid-free anaesthesia (Group OF) with dexmedetomidine, esketamine and sevoflurane or to have opioid-based anaesthesia (Group C) with sufentanil and sevoflurane. Primary outcome was the occurrence of nausea within 24 h after surgery. Patients were assessed for the incidence and severity of PONV, postoperative pain and morphine consumption and recovery characteristics. Patients in both groups had comparable clinical and surgical data. 69.7% of patients in the control group and 68.4% of patients in the opioid-free group met the primary endpoint (OR 1.06, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) (0.53; 2.12) p = 0.86). The incidence of clinically important PONV defined by the PONV impact scale was 8.1% (Group C) vs 10.5% (OF); p = 0.57). Antiemetic requirements, pain scores and morphine consumption were equivalent in both groups. Postoperative sedation was significantly increased in group OF (p < 0.001), and the median length of stay at the post-anaesthesia care unit was 69.0 min (46.5–113.0) vs 50.0 (35.3–77.0) minutes in the control group (p < 0.001). Opioid-free multimodal general anaesthesia is feasible but did not decrease the incidence of PONV, or reduce pain scores and morphine consumption compared to an opioid-containing anaesthetic regimen. •This trial assessed opioid-free anaesthesia in comparison to opioid-based anaesthesia for gynaecological laparoscopy.•Both study groups did not differ with respect to postoperative nausea and vomiting, pain or morphine consumption.•Multimodal general anaesthesia was associated with an increased time to discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit.

Erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a novel regional anesthesia technique and gaining importance for postoperative pain management. Since it was first described, the clinicians wonder if this new simple technique can replace paravertebral block (PVB). We aimed to compare the postoperative analgesic effect of ESP block and PVB with a control group in breast surgeries. Randomized controlled trial. Operating room. Seventy-five ASA I–II patients aged 25–65, who were scheduled to go under elective unilateral breast surgery for breast cancer were included to the study. Patients were randomized into three groups as ESP, PVB, and Control group. Ultrasound (US) guided ESP block and PVB with 20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine was done preoperatively to the patients according to their groups. All patients were provided with iv patient-controlled analgesia device for postoperative analgesia. Morphine consumptions and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for pain were recorded at 1st, 6th, 12th and 24th hours postoperatively. There was a statistically significant difference between ESP and Control groups (p < 0,001) and between PVB and Control groups (p < 0,001), while there was no difference between ESP and PVB groups (p > 0,05) for 24-hour morphine consumptions. There was a significant difference between PVB and Control groups for NRS at postoperative 1st and 6th hour (p = 0.018 and p = 0.027 respectively). This study has shown that US guided ESP block and PVB provided adequate analgesia in patients undergoing breast surgery and have an opioid sparing effect by reducing morphine consumption. Clinical Trials Registry: NCT03480958. •ESP block provides effective analgesia in breast surgery.•ESP block has lower risk of complications compared to TPV block.•Both ESP block and TPV block have a similar analgesic effect in breast surgery.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1–2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2–3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinician's discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24–120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2–2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3–4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0–120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. TESARO, Inc.

Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1–2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 μg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2–4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinician's discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24–120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3–2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0–2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3–2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3–5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. TESARO, Inc.

Olanzapine is an effective antiemetic agent but it results in substantial daytime somnolence when administered at the standard dose. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of low-dose versus standard-dose olanzapine after highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with solid tumours. This was a single-centre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done in a tertiary care referral centre in India (Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai). Patients aged 13–75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who were receiving doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide or high-dose cisplatin for a solid tumour were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 2 or 4) and stratified by sex, age (≥55 or <55 years), and chemotherapy regimen, to receive low-dose (2·5 mg) oral olanzapine or standard-dose (10·0 mg) oral olanzapine daily for 4 days, in combination with a triple antiemetic regimen. Study staff were masked to treatment allocation but patients were aware of their group assignment. The primary endpoint was complete control, defined as no emetic episodes, no rescue medications, and no or mild nausea in the overall phase (0–120 hours), assessed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (ie, all eligible patients who received protocol-specified treatment, excluding those who had eligibility violations and who withdrew consent after randomisation). Daytime somnolence was the safety endpoint of interest. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference in the complete control proportions between the treatment groups excluded the non-inferiority margin of 10%. This study is registered with the Clinical Trial Registry India, CTRI/2021/01/030233, is closed to accrual, and this is the final data analysis. Between Feb 9, 2021, and May 30, 2023, 356 patients were pre-screened for eligibility, of whom 275 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (134 to the 2·5 mg olanzapine group and 141 to the 10·0 mg olanzapine group). 267 patients (132 in the 2·5 mg group and 135 in the 10·0 mg group) were included in the mITT population, of whom 252 (94%) were female, 15 (6%) were male, and 242 (91%) had breast cancer. 59 (45%) of 132 patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group had complete control in the overall phase versus 59 (44%) of 135 in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group (difference –1·0% [one-sided 95% CI –100·0 to 9·0]; p=0·87). In the overall phase, there were significantly fewer patients in the 2·5 mg olanzapine group than in the 10·0 mg olanzapine group with daytime somnolence of any grade (86 [65%] of 132 vs 121 [90%] of 135; p<0·0001) and of severe grade on day 1 (six]5%] vs 54 [40%]; p<0·0001). Our findings suggest that olanzapine 2·5 mg is non-inferior to 10·0 mg in antiemetic efficacy and results in reduced occurrence of daytime somnolence among patients receiving highly emetic chemotherapy and should be considered as a new standard of care. Progressive Ladies Welfare Association.

Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is a syndrome of cyclic vomiting associated with cannabis use. Our objective is to summarize the available evidence on CHS diagnosis, pathophysiology, and treatment. We performed a systematic review using MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 through September 24, 2015. Articles eligible for inclusion were evaluated using the Grading and Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Data were abstracted from the articles and case reports and were combined in a cumulative synthesis. The frequency of identified diagnostic characteristics was calculated from the cumulative synthesis and evidence for pathophysiologic hypothesis as well as treatment options were evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The systematic search returned 2178 articles. After duplicates were removed, 1253 abstracts were reviewed and 183 were included. Fourteen diagnostic characteristics were identified, and the frequency of major characteristics was as follows: history of regular cannabis for any duration of time (100%), cyclic nausea and vomiting (100%), resolution of symptoms after stopping cannabis (96.8%), compulsive hot baths with symptom relief (92.3%), male predominance (72.9%), abdominal pain (85.1%), and at least weekly cannabis use (97.4%). The pathophysiology of CHS remains unclear with a dearth of research dedicated to investigating its underlying mechanism. Supportive care with intravenous fluids, dopamine antagonists, topical capsaicin cream, and avoidance of narcotic medications has shown some benefit in the acute setting. Cannabis cessation appears to be the best treatment. CHS is a cyclic vomiting syndrome, preceded by daily to weekly cannabis use, usually accompanied by symptom improvement with hot bathing, and resolution with cessation of cannabis. The pathophysiology underlying CHS is unclear. Cannabis cessation appears to be the best treatment

Introduction In current study we assessed the effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on the quality of early recovery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Methods Sixty patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomly assigned to TEAS (TEAS group) or control group (Con group). TEAS consisted of 30 min of stimulation (12–15 mA, 2/100 Hz) at the acupoints of Baihui (GV20), Yingtang (EX-HN-3), Zusanli (ST36) and Neiguan (PC6) before anesthesia. The patients in the Con group had the electrodes applied, but received no stimulation. Quality of recovery was assessed using a 40-item questionnaire as a measure of quality of recovery (QoR-40; maximum score 200) scoring system performed on preoperative day 1 (T0), postoperative day 1 (T1) and postoperative day 2 (T2); 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at rest, mini-mental state examination (MMSE) scores, the incidence of nausea and vomiting, postoperative pain medications, and antiemetics were also recorded. Results: QoR-40 and MMSE scores of T0 showed no difference between two groups (QoR-40: 197.50 ± 2.57 vs. 195.83 ± 5.17), (MMSE: 26.83 ± 2.74 vs. 27.53 ± 2.88). Compared with the Con group, QoR-40 and MMSE scores of T1 and T2 were higher in the TEAS group ( P  < 0.05) (QoR-40: T1, 166.07 ± 8.44 vs. 175.33 ± 9.66; T2, 187.73 ± 5.47 vs. 191.40 ± 5.74), (MMSE: T1, 24.60 ± 2.35 vs. 26.10 ± 2.78; T2, 26.53 ± 2.94 vs. 27.83 ± 2.73). VAS scores of T1 and T2 were lower ( P  < 0.05) in the TEAS group (T1, 4.73 ± 1.53 vs. 3.70 ± 1.41; T2, 2.30 ± 0.95 vs. 1.83 ± 0.88); the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), remedial antiemetics and remedial analgesia was lower in the TEAS group ( P  < 0.05) (PONV: 56.7% vs. 23.3%; incidence of remedial antiemetics: 53.3% vs. 23.3%; incidence of remedial analgesia: 80% vs. 43.3%). Conclusion The use of TEAS significantly promoted the quality of early recovery, improved MMSE scores and reduced the incidence of pain, nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02619578. Registered on 2 December 2015. Trial registry name: https://clinicaltrials.gov