噁心嘔吐是常見的術後併發症，可影響患者的康復，導致水電解質酸鹼平衡紊亂，誤吸，吸入性肺炎等。其病因尚未完全清楚，可能與性別、年齡、手術、麻醉藥如阿片類等因素相關，而有效的預防方法還在探索中，近日在Anesthesiol Res Pract.雜誌發表了一篇題為Effectiveness of Propofol versus Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Ear, Nose, and Throat Surgery in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital and Yekatit 12th Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.的文章，比較了異丙酚和地塞米松對術後噁心嘔吐的預防效果。
異丙酚與地塞米松預防耳鼻喉科手術後噁心嘔吐的效果比較
背景
術後噁心嘔吐（PONV）仍然是耳鼻喉科手術後常見的、令人不快和極度痛苦的經歷。在耳鼻喉科手術中，預防性使用地塞米松和異丙酚可顯著降低PONV的發生率。然而，這兩種藥物的相對有效性尚未得到評估。本研究的目的是比較異丙酚和地塞米松預防耳鼻喉科手術後PONV的效果。
方法
本研究共入選80名ASA I~II級、年齡18-65歲、計劃於2017年12月20日至2018年3月20日進行耳鼻喉科手術的患者。將患者隨機分為A組和B組，術後立即靜脈注射地塞米松10 mg/kg，B組靜脈注射異丙酚0.5 mg/kg，隨訪時間相同。在給藥後6、12和24小時觀察PONV的發生率。分別採用獨立t檢驗和Mann-Whitney檢驗比較兩組間的對稱數據和非對稱數據。分類資料採用卡方檢驗，p值
結果
術後24小時內，異丙酚組和地塞米松組的PONV發生率分別為35%和25%。
地塞米松組和異丙酚組在12-24小時的PONV發生率（0%對22.5%，p ≤ 0.001）和使用止吐藥的比例（0%對5%，p =0.02）。
24小時內地塞米松組和異丙酚組分別有5%和15%（摘要裡是12.5%，但圖片及原文裡是15%）的患者出現中度PONV，而無一例出現嚴重的PONV。
(感覺這張圖有點小問題，集中在0-24那一欄)
其他併發症情況
結論
地塞米松預防PONV的效果優於異丙酚，搶救性止吐藥用量較低。
(總體感覺，結果不夠詳細，比如總的噁心嘔吐發生率是否有統計學差異，沒有寫明，只有發生率，圖表和文字描述也存在一定不符的地方，僅供參考吧，這個雜誌是SCI雜誌嗎？)
Effectiveness of Propofol versus Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Ear, Nose, and Throat Surgery in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital and Yekatit 12th Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Background
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remain as common and unpleasant and highly distressful experience following ear, nose, and throat surgery. During ENT surgery, the incidence of PONV could be significantly reduced in patients who receive dexamethasone and propofol as prophylaxis. However, the comparative effectiveness of the two drugs has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol and dexamethasone for prevention of PONV in ear, nose, and throat surgery.
Methods
This study was conducted in 80 patients, with ASA I and II, aged 18–65 years, and scheduled for ENT surgery between December 20, 2017, and March 20, 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to Group A and Group B. Immediately after the procedure, Group A patients received single dose of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone (10 mg/kg) and Group B patients were given propofol (0.5 mg/kg, IV), and equal follow-up was employed. The incidence of PONV was noted at 6th, 12th, and 24th hour of drug administration. Independent t-test and Mann–Whitney test were used for comparison of symmetric numerical and asymmetric data between groups, respectively. Categorical data were analyzed with the chi-square test, and p value of
Results
The incidences of PONV throughout the 24-hour postoperative period were 35% in the propofol group and 25% in the dexamethasone group. Statistical significance was found in incidence of PONV (0% versus 22.5%) and use of antiemetic (0% versus 5%) between dexamethasone and propofol groups, respectively, at 12–24 hours. Over 24 hours, 5% in dexamethasone group and 12.5% in propofol group developed moderate PONV, while none of the participants felt severe PONV.
Conclusions
Dexamethasone was more effective than propofol to prevent PONV with lower requirements of rescue antiemetics.