***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Background : Droperidol and ondansetron have previously been found to prolong the QT interval in the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting . However , this adverse effect has never been confirmed and compared with both drugs under controlled conditions . The objective was to study the effects of droperidol and ondansetron alone or in combination on QT interval duration in healthy subjects . Methods : Sixteen healthy volunteers , eight males and eight females , were enrolled in this prospect i ve , double-blind , r and omized , placebo-controlled study . Subjects received 1 mg droperidol , 4 mg ondansetron , 1 mg droperidol plus 4 mg ondansetron , or a placebo , intravenously in a crossover design . Fridericia-corrected QT interval ( QTcF ) and plasma concentrations were measured repeatedly during 10 h at each study period . The primary endpoint was the maximal placebo time-matched and baseline-subtracted QTcF prolongation ( & Dgr;&Dgr;QTcF ) . Results : Compared with placebo , both droperidol and ondansetron significantly prolonged the QTcF interval . & Dgr;&Dgr;QTcF prolongation was 25 ± 8 ms after droperidol , significantly greater than the 17 ± 10-ms prolongation with ondansetron ( P = 0.014 ) . The combination of droperidol and ondansetron significantly increased the mean maximal & Dgr;&Dgr;QTcF by 28 ± 10 ms . The combination induced greater QTcF prolongation compared with ondansetron alone ( P = 0.001 ) , but not with droperidol alone ( P = 0.33 ) . There was no significant pharmacokinetic interaction between droperidol and ondansetron . Conclusions : Under controlled conditions , both droperidol and ondansetron either alone or in combination induced significant marked QTc interval prolongation . However , the combination of both drugs did not significantly increase QTc prolongation compared with that induced by droperidol alone BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES It is calculated that the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting ( PONV ) is approximately 30 % . The prophylaxis of PONV has been the subject of several studies , both to decrease this problem and to compare the cost-benefit ration of the treatment used . The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of 5 antiemetic drugs with a control group in emergency appendectomy . METHODS A controlled , double-blind , prospect i ve study with 150 patients , ASA I and II , BMI < 30 , undergoing appendectomy , was undertaken . Patients were divided in six groups : Group 1 ( n = 25 ) : 5 mL of normal saline ; Group 2 ( n = 25 ) : 0.625 mg of droperidol ; Group 3 ( n = 25 ) : 20 mg of metoclopramide ; Group 4 ( n = 25 ) : 5 mg of tropisetron ; Group 5 ( n = 25 ) : 1 mg of granisetron ; Group 6 ( n = 25 ) : 4 mg of dexamethasone . Monitoring included ECG non-invasive blood pressure , O2 saturation , P(ET)CO2 , anesthetic gas analyzer and peripheral nerve stimulator . The presence of PONV complications and the degree of satisfaction in the first 48 hours were evaluated . RESULTS The incidence of PONV in the droperidol group was 4 % while in the granisetron , tropisetron and metoclopramide groups it was 12 % ( p < 0.05 ) . The dexamethasone group had a 24 % incidence and the control group 28 % . CONCLUSIONS Low doses of droperidol were more effective in the prophylaxis of PONV in emergency appendectomy than the other drugs The anti-emetic effects of low-dose droperidol ( 1.25 mg ) , ultra-low-dose droperidol ( 0.25 mg ) and a placebo were compared in patients admitted for day-case dental anaesthesia . Ultra-low-dose droperidol produced a significant decrease in the subjective feeling of nausea without delaying recovery or discharge from the hospital ( p less than 0.05 ) . Low-dose droperidol did not significantly reduce nausea ( p greater than 0.05 ) and prolonged the recovery time ( p less than 0.05 ) Purpose The effect of ranitidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting ( PONV ) was assessed when compared with droperidol and with placebo . Methods Three groups of sixty patients were studied in a double-blind r and omized manner . The first group received ranitidine tablets 300 mg on the night before and on the following morning , one hour before induction of anaesthesia . Thirty minutes before surgery ended they were given isotonic saline 0.3 ml iv . The second group had placebo in place of ranitidine while before the operation ended , droperidol 0.75 mg ( 0.3 ml ) was injected . The third group received placebos rather than the study drugs . The immediate two-hour postoperative recovery room period and that on the ward were evaluated until the next morning . PONV information was gathered from complaints by the patients and from direct question ing by the nursing staff . Droperidol 0.75 mg iv served as the “ rescue drug ” . Results Less PONV occurred in patients who received antiemetics vthan those given placebo : recovery room , P = 0.0109 ; ward , P = 0.007 . Droperidol better suppressed PONV in the recovery room ( P = 0.005 ) with no statistical significance seen between ranitidine and placebo . On the ward , both antiemetics were more effective than placebo ( ranitidine , P = 0.01 ; droperidol , P = 0.003 ) . “ Rescue drug ” requirements throughout the study periods were not statistically significant . Conclusion Although both anti-emetics were associated with a smaller incidence of PONV than was placebo , droperidol was superior to ranitidine in preventing sickness during the immediate postoperative period . The need for the “ rescue drug ” was similar in all groups . RésuméObjectifComparer l’effet de la ranitidine sur les nausées et vomissements postopératoires à celui du dropéridol et d’un placebo . MéthodesCette étude r and omisée et en double aveugle portait sur trois groupes de 60 patients . Le premier groupe a reçu de la ranitidine en tablette 300 mg la veille et le matin de l’intervention , une heure avant l’induction de l’anesthésie . Trente minutes avant la fin de l’intervention , ses membres ont reçu 0,3 ml iv de sol . physiologique isotonique . Le deuxième groupe a reçu un placebo au lieu de la ranitidine et avant la fin de l’intervention , du dropéridol 0,75 mg ( 0,3 ml ) iv . Le troisième groupe n ’ a reçu que du placebo . L’évaluation a été effectuée à la salle de réveil pendant les deux heures qui ont suivi l’intervention et , dans le service , jusqu ’ au lendemain matin . Les renseignement sur les nausées et vomissements provenaient des plaintes spontanées et des questions du personnel infirmier . Le médicament de sauvetage était dropéridol 0,75 mg iv . RésultatsLes nausées et vomissements ont été moins fréquents chez les patients qui avaient reçu des antiémétiques plutôt qu’un placebo : à la salle de réveil , P = 0,0109 ; dans le service , P = 0,007 . Le dropéridol protège mieux des nausées et des vomissements en salle de réveil ( P = 0,005 ) et il n’y pas eu de différence entre la ranitidine et le placebo . Dans le service , les deux antiémétiques ont été plus efficaces que le placebo ( ranitidine , P = 0,01 ; dropéridol , P = 0.003 ) . Les besoins en médicament de sauvetage n ’ ont pas différé . Conclusion Bien que les deux antiémétiques aient été associés à une incidence plus faible de nausées et vomissements , le dropéridol a été supérieur à la ranitidine pendant la période postopératoire immédiate . Les besoins en médicaments de sauvetage ont été les mêmes dans tous les groupes Background : In an era of growing economic constraints on healthcare delivery , anesthesiologists are increasingly expected to underst and cost analysis and evaluate clinical practice s. Postoperative nausea and vomiting ( PONV ) are distressing for patients and may increase costs in an ambulatory surgical unit . The authors compared the cost-effectiveness of four prophylactic intravenous regimens for PONV:—4 mg ondansetron , 0.625 mg droperidol , 1.25 mg droperidol , and placebo . Methods : Adult surgical out patients at high risk for PONV were studied . Study drugs were administered intravenously within 20 min of induction of nitrous oxide – isoflurane or enflurane anesthesia . A decision-tree analysis was used to group patients into 12 mutually exclusive subgroups based on treatment and outcome . Costs were calculated for the prevention and treatment of PONV . Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for each group . Results : Two thous and sixty-one patients were enrolled . Efficacy data for study drugs have been previously reported , and the data base from that study was used for pharmacoeconomic analysis . The mean – median total cost per patient who received prophylactic treatment with 4 mg ondansetron , 0.625 mg droperidol , 1.25 mg droperidol , and placebo were $ 112 or $ 16.44 , $ 109 or $ 0.63 , $ 104 or $ 0.51 , and $ 164 or $ 51.20 , respectively ( P = 0.001 , active treatment groups vs. placebo ) . The use of a prophylactic antiemetic agent significantly increased patient satisfaction ( P < 0.05 ) . Personnel costs in managing PONV and unexpected hospital admission constitute major cost components in our analysis . Exclusion of nursing labor costs from the calculation did not alter the overall conclusions regarding the relative costs of antiemetic therapy . Conclusion : The use of prophylactic antiemetic therapy in high-risk ambulatory surgical patients was more effective in preventing PONV and achieved greater patient satisfaction at a lower cost compared with placebo . The use of 1.25 mg droperidol intravenously was associated with greater effectiveness , lower costs , and similar patient satisfaction compared with 0.625 mg droperidol intravenously and 4 mg ondansetron intravenously BACKGROUND Untreated , one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting . Although many trials have been conducted , the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown . METHODS We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a r and omized , controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions . Of these patients , 4123 were r and omly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions : 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron ; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone ; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol ; propofol or a volatile anesthetic ; nitrogen or nitrous oxide ; and remifentanil or fentanyl . The remaining patients were r and omly assigned with respect to the first four interventions . The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery , which was evaluated blindly . RESULTS Ondansetron , dexamethasone , and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent . Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent , and nitrogen by 12 percent ; the risk reduction with both of these agents ( i.e. , total intravenous anesthesia ) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics . All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients ' baseline risk . Consequently , the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention . Absolute risk reduction , though , was a critical function of patients ' baseline risk . CONCLUSIONS Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently , the safest or least expensive should be used first . Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients , moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention , and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients Two identical , r and omized , double-blind , placebo-controlled studies enrolled 2061 adult surgical out patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting ( PONV ) to compare IV ondansetron 4 mg with droperidol 0.625 mg and droperidol 1.25 mg for the prevention of PONV . The antiemetic drugs or placebo were administered IV 20 min before the induction of anesthesia with a barbiturate compound , followed by maintenance with N2 O/isoflurane/enflurane .  Nausea , 
    Output:
    
Droperidol  decreased the risk of headache but increased the risk of restlessness .
For these outcomes there was no evidence of dose-responsiveness .
There were no differences in the incidences of sedation or dizziness .
Prophylactic doses of droperidol of 1 mg or below are antiemetic .