BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common occurrence after cardiac surgery. However, in contrast to other surgical populations, routine PONV prophylaxis is not a standard of care in cardiac surgery. We hypothesized that routine administration of a single prophylactic dose of ondansetron (4 mg) at the time of stopping postoperative propofol sedation before extubation in the cardiac surgery intensive care unit would decrease the incidence of PONV. METHODS: With institutional human ethics board approval and written informed consent, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients ≥19 years of age with no history of PONV undergoing elective or urgent cardiac surgery procedures requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV in the first 24 hours postextubation, compared by the χ2 test. Secondary outcomes included the incidence and times to first dose of rescue antiemetic treatment administration, the incidence of headaches, and the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: PONV within the first 24 hours postextubation occurred in 33 of 77 patients (43%) in the ondansetron group versus 50 of 82 patients (61%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.70 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51–0.95]; absolute risk difference, −18% [95% CI, −33 to −2]; number needed to treat, 5.5 [95% CI, 3.0–58.4]; χ2 test, P = .022). Kaplan-Meier “survival” analysis of the times to first rescue antiemetic treatment administration over 24 hours indicated that patients in the ondansetron group fared better than those in the placebo group (log-rank [Mantel-Cox] test; P = .028). Overall, 32 of 77 patients (42%) in the ondansetron group received rescue antiemetic treatment over the first 24 hours postextubation versus 47 of 82 patients (57%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.52–1.00]; absolute risk difference, −16% [95% CI, −31 to 1]); P = .047. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of postoperative headache (ondansetron group, 5 of 77 patients [6%] versus placebo group, 4 of 82 patients [5%]; Fisher exact test; P = .740) or ventricular arrhythmias (ondansetron group, 2 of 77 patients [3%] versus placebo group, 4 of 82 patients [5%]; P = .68). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the routine administration of ondansetron prophylaxis at the time of discontinuation of postoperative propofol sedation before extubation in patients following cardiac surgery. Further research is warranted to optimize PONV prophylaxis in cardiac surgery patients.

Delirium is the most common mental disturbance in critically-ill patients and results in significant morbidity and mortality. Haloperidol is a preferred agent for the treatment of delirium in this population because of its rapid onset of action and lack of hemodynamic effects. Despite its widespread use in the critical care setting, most of the relevant data are obtained from case series or extrapolated from non-critically-ill populations. This review provides an overview of haloperidol pharmacokinetics and a comprehensive summary of the evidence for various haloperidol dosing regimens in the treatment of delirium in critically-ill patients. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts with "haloperidol", "delirium", "agitation", "critically-ill", and "intensive care" as keywords. Studies involving haloperidol for delirium prophylaxis, non-critical care settings, and terminally-ill subjects were excluded. Eleven studies were identified: four with intermittent IV haloperidol, four with continuous IV infusion haloperidol, two with oral/enteral haloperidol, and one with IM haloperidol. All of the case reports, case series, and descriptive studies have shown a benefit with haloperidol, but publication bias is likely present. Only three studies were controlled studies, but all had small sample sizes and methodological flaws. Randomized, double-blind, active-comparator trials of haloperidol with allocation concealment are needed. Subsequent research should focus on using validated delirium screening and assessment scales for more objective identification and measurement of delirium outcomes.

Objective: To evaluate the evidence for common therapeutic controversies in the medical management of valvular heart disease (VHD). Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed (inception to December 2020) was performed using the terms angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and aortic stenosis (AS); and adrenergic β-antagonists and aortic valve regurgitation (AR) or mitral stenosis (MS). Study Selection and Data Extraction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses conducted in humans and published in English that reported ≥1 clinical outcome were included. Data Synthesis: Nine articles were included: 3 RCTs and 1 meta-analysis for ACE inhibitors/ARBs in AS, 1 RCT for β-blockers in AR, and 4 RCTs for β-blockers in MS. Evidence suggests that ACE inhibitors/ARBs do not increase the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with AS but may delay valve replacement. β-Blockers do not appear to worsen outcomes in patients with chronic AR and may improve left-ventricular function in patients with a reduced ejection fraction. β-Blockers do not improve and may actually worsen exercise tolerance in patients with MS in sinus rhythm. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: ACE inhibitors/ARBs and β-blockers can likely be safely used in patients with AS or AR, respectively, who have a compelling indication. There is insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of β-blockers in patients with MS without atrial fibrillation. Conclusions: Common beliefs about the medical treatment of VHD are not supported by high-quality data. There remains a need for larger-scale RCTs in the medical management of VHD.