View clinical trials related to Nausea.
Filter by:In previous work the investigator identified a group of children between the ages of 10-18 years whose diagnostic workup for chronic nausea unexplained by conventional diagnostic tests has unexpectedly revealed underlying cardiovascular instability manifesting as orthostatic intolerance, primary defined as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) (88%). While this is an atypical initial presentation for orthostatic intolerance in general, the investigator believes that the cardiovascular problem is serious and represents a cause of the nausea in a majority of these individuals, as treatment of the POTS with fludrocortisone reduced the symptoms of nausea. While fludrocortisone treatment abrogates the fall in baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) during tilt in part, it did not completely correct the tachycardia symptoms or the BRS suppression during HUT. Furthermore it caused an elevation in MAP in supine position, which may lead to future cardiovascular problems such as early onset hypertension and cardiac hypertrophy. This argues for a different treatment approach. The investigator presents preliminary data in this application revealing that OI subjects tend to have lower 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) compared to non OI subjects.
This prospective, blinded, randomized clinical trial investigates the effect on postoperative pain and nausea, when performing a ventilator-piloted PRM at the end of a laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The purpose of this prospective, blinded, randomized clinical trial is to investigate whether a ventilator-piloted PRM at the end of laparoscopic bariatric surgery could reduce overall postoperative pain and nausea.
The prevalence of nausea and vomiting after the administration of non-ionic contrast media has rarely been assessed. Thus, the aim of our study is to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of nausea and vomiting after the exposure to the non-ionic contrast media for computed tomography examinations in adults.
The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a difference in patient outcomes with general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia when given in addition to popliteal and adductor canal nerve blocks for foot and ankle surgery. Popliteal and adductor canal nerve blocks are injections of local anesthetic agents near nerves in the back and front of the knee going to the foot and ankle that provide numbness during and after surgery. These peripheral nerve blocks offer good pain control and reduce the need for opioids (opioids are pain medications such as morphine, Dilaudid, and oxycodone). General anesthesia involves the flow of oxygen and anesthesia gas through a tube which, along with additional intravenous medications, causes unconsciousness and unawareness of sensations during surgery. Spinal anesthesia involves an injection of local anesthetic in the lower back, which causes numbness below the waist. In addition to spinal anesthesia, a sedative is typically given intravenously to cause relaxation and sleepiness throughout surgery. General, spinal, and nerve block anesthesia are all routinely used for surgery at the Hospital for Special Surgery. General or spinal anesthesia is typically used in addition to peripheral nerve blocks during foot and ankle surgery to 1) allow the surgeons to use a thigh tourniquet to reduce bleeding, 2) provide anesthesia earlier, and 3) prevent unwanted movement. However, it is unclear whether general or spinal anesthesia provides better patient outcomes when given with peripheral nerve blocks. Some reports show that on its own, spinal anesthesia has advantages over general anesthesia in terms of side effects such as nausea and pain. However, these advantages may also be gained from combining peripheral nerve blocks with general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia can be associated with headache and backache, although headache and backache can also happen after operations performed with general anesthesia. A previous study at the Hospital for Special Surgery showed low rates of nausea among patients who received nerve blocks with spinal anesthesia, and no nausea among patients who received a nerve block with general anesthesia. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to determine if, as a treatment, either general or spinal anesthesia has advantages over the other treatment in terms of readiness for discharge, side effects, pain and patient satisfaction in an ambulatory foot and ankle population.
The purpose of this phase 2 study is to assess the efficacy and patient satisfaction of oral rolapitant plus ondansetron vs. oral ondansetron monotherapy in malignant glioma (MG) patients receiving standard of care radiation (RT) and temozolomide (TMZ) therapy. This is a randomized phase 2 trial of rolapitant plus ondansetron vs. ondansetron monotherapy for the prevention of chemo-radiation induced nausea and vomiting in primary MG subjects receiving RT and concomitant multi-dose TMZ.
The study aims to investigate the prevalence and treatment of nausea and/or vomiting in patients with advanced cancer not receiving chemotherapy or irradiation.
The aim of this randomized trial is to assess the efficacy of SPI-directed analgesia for vitreoretinal surgeries (VRS), presence of PONV and oculocardiac reflex (OCR) and compare Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) with Surgical Pleth Index (SPI) for monitoring pain perception postoperatively. Patients received general anaesthesia alone or combined with either preemptive analgesia using topical solution of 0,5% proxymetacaine or peribulbar block (0,5% bupivacaine with 2% lidokaine) or preemptive intravenous infusion of 1,0 g of metamizol or preemptive intravenous infusion of acetaminophen in a doseof 10-15mg/kg of body weight.
To evaluate the effectiveness of a prophylactic dose of ondansetron in decreasing the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in cardiac surgery patients after cessation of post-operative sedation. In patients who have undergone open heart surgery, a single prophylactic dose of ondansetron 4 mg IV given at the time of discontinuing propofol sedation will result in a 50% reduction of the rate of post-operative nausea and vomiting in the first 24 post-operative hours compared to placebo.
The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of reducing intra-cesarean section nausea and vomiting with regional anesthesia in subjects who will receive scopolamine patch with acupressure point P6 stimulation versus subjects that receive just scopolamine patch versus subjects that receive just acupressure point P6 stimulation.