Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

Anaes TopicsAnaesthetic adjuncts

Anaes · Anaesthetic adjuncts

Antiemetics for PONV — 5-HT3 antagonists, dexamethasone, droperidol, NK1 antagonists

Also known as Ondansetron · Dexamethasone · Droperidol · Aprepitant · Postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis · Apfel risk score

Postoperative nausea and vomiting remains the most common cause of patient dissatisfaction after anaesthesia and the anaesthetist controls most of its determinants, so a working command of the four antiemetic drug classes and of the risk-stratified strategy that deploys them is a high-yield applied pharmacology block. The framework rests on five exam-critical ideas: the four classes act at four distinct receptor targets (5-HT3, central inflammatory, dopamine D2, substance P NK1) with class signatures per the fourth PONV consensus guidelines (Gan 2020); dexamethasone-versus-ondansetron comparability in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Loomba 2026, n equals 52); dexamethasone 4 to 8 mg single-dose predominance with no wound-infection signal and transient glucose rise (Pantke); opioid-sparing dexmedetomidine-plus-lidocaine cutting two-day PONV from 82.4 to 24.2 per cent (Sung 2026, n equals 67); and oliceridine-versus-sufentanil PONV 12 versus 28 per cent (Liu 2026, n equals 232 analysed). Aprepitant broad pharmacology is rat-model-scoped (Akbarpournikghalb 2026) and dexamethasone timing is ophthalmic-illustration-scoped (Chen 2026, n equals 80 eyes). Doses are taught-formulary, consensus-guideline-aligned.

medium7 referencesUpdated 26 July 202612 min readSource-verified · Oct 2026

Checked against its sources on 14 Oct 2026

Practise this topic

  • 8 MCQs

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic8 MCQs with explanations

Target exams

ANZCAFRCAABAEDAICFCAIFCA_SA

Red flags

  • Ondansetron and the other 5-HT3 antagonists PROLONG THE QT INTERVAL in a dose-dependent fashion, and the risk of torsades de pointes is real in the patient with pre-existing long-QT syndrome, electrolyte disturbance (hypokalaemia, hypomagnesaemia), hepatic impairment, or concurrent administration of other QT-prolonging drugs (droperidol, haloperidol, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, methadone). Avoid or reduce the dose in the long-QT patient and correct hypokalaemia and hypomagnesaemia before giving a 5-HT3 antagonist at the top of its dose range.
  • Droperidol carries a FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION BLACK-BOX WARNING for QT prolongation and torsades de pointes, issued and leading to a dramatic fall in its use, with the warning partially relaxed in 2024 but the caution remaining. It is contraindicated in known or congenital long-QT syndrome and must be used with caution in the elderly, in cardiac disease, and with other QT-prolonging drugs — and NEVER combined with ondansetron without an explicit assessment of the QT risk, because both prolong the QT and the combination is the single most commonly encountered double-QT scenario in PONV prophylaxis.
  • Rescue treatment of breakthrough PONV MUST use a drug from a DIFFERENT class than the prophylaxis. Giving a second dose of the same agent used for prophylaxis (for example, more ondansetron after ondansetron prophylaxis) is largely ineffective, because the receptor is already occupied; reaching for a different class (droperidol after ondansetron, or an NK1 antagonist after dexamethasone) is the evidence-based and the mechanistically rational response.
  • Prophylaxis is NOT for everyone. Routine prophylaxis in every patient is neither cost-effective nor safe, because the low-risk patient (Apfel 0 or 1) has a baseline incidence under 20 per cent and is exposed to the adverse effects and cost of an agent they did not need. Risk-stratify with the Apfel score first and reserve combination prophylaxis for the moderate and high-risk patient.
  • The NK1 antagonist aprepitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4 and can increase the plasma concentration and the effect of co-administered CYP3A4 substrates, including some chemotherapeutic agents, midazolam, and the steroids. In the perioperative setting the interaction with dexamethasone is clinically relevant — aprepitant can roughly double dexamethasone exposure — and the dexamethasone dose should be considered when the two are combined.
On this page
Study tools

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic8 MCQs with explanations

Target exams

ANZCAFRCAABAEDAICFCAIFCA_SA

Red flags

  • Ondansetron and the other 5-HT3 antagonists PROLONG THE QT INTERVAL in a dose-dependent fashion, and the risk of torsades de pointes is real in the patient with pre-existing long-QT syndrome, electrolyte disturbance (hypokalaemia, hypomagnesaemia), hepatic impairment, or concurrent administration of other QT-prolonging drugs (droperidol, haloperidol, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, methadone). Avoid or reduce the dose in the long-QT patient and correct hypokalaemia and hypomagnesaemia before giving a 5-HT3 antagonist at the top of its dose range.
  • Droperidol carries a FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION BLACK-BOX WARNING for QT prolongation and torsades de pointes, issued and leading to a dramatic fall in its use, with the warning partially relaxed in 2024 but the caution remaining. It is contraindicated in known or congenital long-QT syndrome and must be used with caution in the elderly, in cardiac disease, and with other QT-prolonging drugs — and NEVER combined with ondansetron without an explicit assessment of the QT risk, because both prolong the QT and the combination is the single most commonly encountered double-QT scenario in PONV prophylaxis.
  • Rescue treatment of breakthrough PONV MUST use a drug from a DIFFERENT class than the prophylaxis. Giving a second dose of the same agent used for prophylaxis (for example, more ondansetron after ondansetron prophylaxis) is largely ineffective, because the receptor is already occupied; reaching for a different class (droperidol after ondansetron, or an NK1 antagonist after dexamethasone) is the evidence-based and the mechanistically rational response.
  • Prophylaxis is NOT for everyone. Routine prophylaxis in every patient is neither cost-effective nor safe, because the low-risk patient (Apfel 0 or 1) has a baseline incidence under 20 per cent and is exposed to the adverse effects and cost of an agent they did not need. Risk-stratify with the Apfel score first and reserve combination prophylaxis for the moderate and high-risk patient.
  • The NK1 antagonist aprepitant is a moderate inhibitor of CYP3A4 and can increase the plasma concentration and the effect of co-administered CYP3A4 substrates, including some chemotherapeutic agents, midazolam, and the steroids. In the perioperative setting the interaction with dexamethasone is clinically relevant — aprepitant can roughly double dexamethasone exposure — and the dexamethasone dose should be considered when the two are combined.
The one-line answer

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is controlled by drugs from several classes — the 5-HT3 antagonists (ondansetron), dexamethasone, droperidol and the NK1 antagonists (aprepitant) — with the guideline endorsing general multimodal prophylaxis (fourth PONV consensus guidelines, Gan). Stratify with the Apfel score (female sex, PONV or motion-sickness history, non-smoker, postoperative opioid — one point each; Apfel-derivation gradient (Apfel 1999)): no prophylaxis for low risk, one agent for moderate, and two to three agents from different classes for high risk. Rescue a breakthrough with a drug from a different class than the prophylaxis. Doses below are taught-formulary, consensus-guideline-aligned.[7][1]

Meet the patient

A middle-aged non-smoking woman, three previous episodes of postoperative vomiting, is booked for a laparoscopic hysterectomy with a planned morphine patient-controlled analgesia. She ticks every Apfel box and, untreated, sits at the top of the Apfel gradient (the top of the Apfel gradient with four factors). The question is not whether to prophylax but how many classes to combine and which receptor each one blocks. That an opioid-sparing technique itself shifts PONV risk is Sung-exact: dexmedetomidine-plus-lidocaine opioid-sparing cut two-day PONV to 24.2 per cent versus 82.4 per cent with opioid-based anaesthesia (risk ratio 0.29, n equals 67).[7][3]

Hold the two ideas that organise the whole topic: prophylaxis combines agents from different classes (the guideline endorses general multimodal PONV prophylaxis), and prophylaxis is risk-stratified, not universal (the low-risk patient is harmed, not helped, by routine drugs).[7]

Anaesthesia Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this topic. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Anaesthesia fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References7ShowHide
  1. [1]Loomba P, et al. Comparison of Dexamethasone versus Ondansetron for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Ann Afr Med, 2026.PMID 42318980
  2. [2]Pantke S, et al. [Dexamethasone for Perioperative Analgesia]. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther, 2026.PMID 42361807
  3. [3]Sung TY, et al. Effect of Opioid-Sparing Anesthesia on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Breast Surgery: A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial J Clin Med, 2026.PMID 42355627
  4. [4]Apfel CC, Läärä E, Koivuranta M, et al. A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers. Anesthesiology, 1999.PMID 10485781
  5. [5]Tracz K, Owczuk R Small doses of droperidol do not present relevant torsadogenic actions: a double-blind, ondansetron-controlled study. British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015.PMID 25293524
  6. [6]Diemunsch P, Gan TJ, Philip BK, et al. Single-dose aprepitant vs ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery. British journal of anaesthesia, 2007.PMID 17540667
  7. [7]Gan TJ, Belani KG, Bergese S, et al. Fourth Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesth Analg, 2020.PMID 32467512

Test yourself

Practise what you just read

  • 8 MCQs
Anaesthesia Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete Anaesthesia library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousAnaesthetic adjunctsAnaesthetic adjunctsNextBenzodiazepines in anaesthesiaAnaesthetic adjuncts