Seeking a Viable Alternative: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Non-Inferiority Study of Oral Versus IV Dexamethasone in Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy.
Melissa Brooks Peterson, Jacob Boyd, Austin Zhu, Samantha Bothwell, Jeremy David Prager
{"title":"Seeking a Viable Alternative: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Non-Inferiority Study of Oral Versus IV Dexamethasone in Children Undergoing Tonsillectomy.","authors":"Melissa Brooks Peterson, Jacob Boyd, Austin Zhu, Samantha Bothwell, Jeremy David Prager","doi":"10.1111/pan.70046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Tonsillectomy is associated with a high rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), ranging between 40% and 73%, and dexamethasone has been found to have a prophylactic effect on PONV in children undergoing tonsillectomy. In 2020, there was a sudden, severe shortage of intravenous dexamethasone given its role in treating patients with COVID-19. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the viability of an alternative: non-inferiority of oral versus intravenous dexamethasone for preventing PONV. Secondary objectives included pain and surgical complication outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred twenty-six patients aged 3 to 7 years old undergoing tonsillectomy were prospectively randomized to receive 0.5 mg/kg oral or intravenous dexamethasone (maximum dose 8 mg). PONV data were recorded from the post-anesthesia care unit and post-op day 3 to 5 nursing phone calls. Pain was assessed using the numeric pain scale 0 to 10 or the Faces, Legs, Arms, Crying, Consolability (FLACC) Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-two (57.1%) males and 54 (42.9%) females with a mean age of 5.36 years were included in the analysis. Sixty-three (50.0%) patients received oral dexamethasone, and 63 patients received intravenous dexamethasone. Three patients were noted to have nausea in the post-anesthesia care unit, all of whom received oral dexamethasone (2.4%), an absolute risk difference of 4.8% (95% CI 1.6% to 9.5%). Four patients had vomiting in the post-anesthesia care unit, all of whom received oral dexamethasone (3.2%), an absolute risk difference of 6.3% (95% CI 1.6% to 11.1%). Fifteen patients reported nausea and vomiting after discharge; 6/15 (40%) received oral dexamethasone and 9/15 (60%) received intravenous dexamethasone (absolute risk difference -5.4% (95% CI -15.6% to 4.9%)).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Substituting oral dexamethasone in place of intravenous dexamethasone resulted in a non-inferior rate of PONV for pediatric patients undergoing tonsillectomy. Oral dexamethasone is a reasonable substitute for intravenous dexamethasone, particularly during an immediate, unexpected medication shortage.</p>","PeriodicalId":19745,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Anesthesia","volume":" ","pages":"953-961"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.70046","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Tonsillectomy is associated with a high rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), ranging between 40% and 73%, and dexamethasone has been found to have a prophylactic effect on PONV in children undergoing tonsillectomy. In 2020, there was a sudden, severe shortage of intravenous dexamethasone given its role in treating patients with COVID-19. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the viability of an alternative: non-inferiority of oral versus intravenous dexamethasone for preventing PONV. Secondary objectives included pain and surgical complication outcomes.
Methods: One hundred twenty-six patients aged 3 to 7 years old undergoing tonsillectomy were prospectively randomized to receive 0.5 mg/kg oral or intravenous dexamethasone (maximum dose 8 mg). PONV data were recorded from the post-anesthesia care unit and post-op day 3 to 5 nursing phone calls. Pain was assessed using the numeric pain scale 0 to 10 or the Faces, Legs, Arms, Crying, Consolability (FLACC) Scale.
Results: Seventy-two (57.1%) males and 54 (42.9%) females with a mean age of 5.36 years were included in the analysis. Sixty-three (50.0%) patients received oral dexamethasone, and 63 patients received intravenous dexamethasone. Three patients were noted to have nausea in the post-anesthesia care unit, all of whom received oral dexamethasone (2.4%), an absolute risk difference of 4.8% (95% CI 1.6% to 9.5%). Four patients had vomiting in the post-anesthesia care unit, all of whom received oral dexamethasone (3.2%), an absolute risk difference of 6.3% (95% CI 1.6% to 11.1%). Fifteen patients reported nausea and vomiting after discharge; 6/15 (40%) received oral dexamethasone and 9/15 (60%) received intravenous dexamethasone (absolute risk difference -5.4% (95% CI -15.6% to 4.9%)).
Discussion: Substituting oral dexamethasone in place of intravenous dexamethasone resulted in a non-inferior rate of PONV for pediatric patients undergoing tonsillectomy. Oral dexamethasone is a reasonable substitute for intravenous dexamethasone, particularly during an immediate, unexpected medication shortage.
期刊介绍:
Devoted to the dissemination of research of interest and importance to practising anesthetists everywhere, the scientific and clinical content of Pediatric Anesthesia covers a wide selection of medical disciplines in all areas relevant to paediatric anaesthesia, pain management and peri-operative medicine. The International Editorial Board is supported by the Editorial Advisory Board and a team of Senior Advisors, to ensure that the journal is publishing the best work from the front line of research in the field. The journal publishes high-quality, relevant scientific and clinical research papers, reviews, commentaries, pro-con debates, historical vignettes, correspondence, case presentations and book reviews.