Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

Evidence for the efficacy of acupressure for preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting: an ongoing debate

Streitberger, Konrad; Kranke, Peter

European Journal of Anaesthesiology: June 2011 - Volume 28 - Issue 6 - p 396–398
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283412529
Invited commentaries

From the University Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland (KS) and Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University Hospitals of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany (PK)

Correspondence to Professor Peter Kranke, MD, PhD, MBA, Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, University Hospitals of Wuerzburg Oberdürrbacher Str. 6, 97080 Wuerzburg, Germany Tel: +49 931 201 30050; fax: +49 931 201 30053; e-mail:

This Invited Commentary accompanies the following article:

♦ Majholm B, Moller AM. Acupressure at acupoint P6 for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28:412–419.

The maxim ‘primum nihil nocere’ has been a cornerstone of medical tradition ever since Hippocrates' Oath bade us ‘to abstain from doing harm’. This tenet remains central to the practice of medicine and serves as the foundation for all our therapeutic interventions, including peri-operative management of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), once called ‘the big little problem’,1 which is as old as anaesthesia itself. In the absence of prophylaxis, it constitutes an important burden of disease for at least one fifth of all patients undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia, and patients are willing to pay considerable amounts of money from their own pockets for a remedy that works.2,3 The publication each month of clinical trials4–8 underlines the unmet need for an effective cure. Although for a majority of patients, with appropriate combined treatment options, the misery of PONV can be prevented,9,10 a single ‘magic bullet’ has not yet been found. Interest in this problem has made the current pharmacological regimens for the management of PONV among the best tested interventions in the peri-operative setting, with an extremely low potential for side effects. Most clinicians prescribe in the belief that the benefits outweigh the risk and costs, but side effects may occur and may even be life-threatening.11–16

Given these circumstances, with patient welfare foremost, anaesthesiologists may look favourably upon remedies that offer simple and relatively problem free treatment of PONV,17 without adding further to the risk of adverse drug reactions. If acupuncture techniques, which are non-pharmacological, are considered to be an important component in a multimodal approach to pain,18 why should they not be considered in the management of PONV? At the very least, acupuncture could be incorporated within existing regimens to boost the effectiveness of traditional antiemetics.

This approach has been considerably strengthened by a recent Cochrane review of P6 stimulation for the prevention of PONV that included more than 30 trials conducted between 1986 and 2008. It concluded that ‘There was no evidence of difference between P6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the risk of nausea [relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.13], vomiting (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13)’.19 Why has P6 stimulation failed to achieve equal popularity with pharmacological methods, especially in patients at increased risk for PONV?20,21 There might be a number of reasons:

  1. Many anaesthesiologists are unfamiliar with acupuncture compared to the ease of an intravenous push
  2. Clear recommendations as to when and how to stimulate at P6, and for how long, have yet to emerge
  3. Drugs are easier to administer (anaesthesiologists like the intravenous route because they have visual evidence that the drug has been given and the effect is immediate)
  4. The evidence for acupoint stimulation still fails to convince

Despite the fact that the metaanalysis within the Cochrane review also showed a significant overall reduction of nausea and vomiting compared to a sham control there is still controversy about the efficacy of P6 stimulation.22. Critics of the meta-analysis question the quality of the methodology with regard to blinding, randomisation and number of participants of many included studies. There are also concerns regarding their heterogeneity, given the different methods of stimulation (invasive or non-invasive, electrical versus manual stimulation), varying primary outcomes (nausea, vomiting, rescue medication, short-term or long-term effect), different control groups (invasive or non-invasive sham, medication), different patient groups (high and low risk for PONV, paediatric versus adult patients), different surgical procedures and techniques of anaesthesia (volatile or intravenous). And, last but not least, some high quality studies failed to show an effect like that reported in the study of Majholm and Moller22 published in this issue of the European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

Of all methods of stimulation, acupressure seems to be the easiest to apply and the least invasive. However, Majholm et al.22 do not give support to earlier encouraging acupressure studies, not only because efficacy is lacking, but also because of the surprising number of side effects. However, we must be careful not to generalise and overinterpret the trial results. In the context of the existing evidence, we have to consider that in the Cochrane review, the trials with invasive stimulation seemed to be more successful than those with non-invasive stimulation. The few experimental studies that provide a physiological basis for acupuncture, revealing effects on neurotransmitters, vagal modulation and gastric relaxation, were all performed with invasive acupuncture and not acupressure.23

The high incidence of side effects reported by Majholm et al.22 may be attributed to the special kind of device that was used in this study. Their recommendation that this kind of device should not be used for routine care should receive support. However, their findings should not be generally applied to all acupuncture techniques.

Additional evidence from three recently published studies also deserves to be taken into account. They showed a significant reduction of PONV with electrostimulation of the P6 point.24–26 Arnberger et al.17 in an earlier study showed that a simple nerve stimulator placed at P6 had a significant effect on nausea. Therefore, it would be reasonable to propose that electrostimulation might be more effective than acupressure.

Despite the negative results of the trial published in this issue, an overview of the complete body of work does support some antiemetic effect for acupoint stimulation of P6, though this is subject to qualification. Further reviews should try to evaluate which kind of stimulation is the most effective, has fewest side effects and is easy to apply within routine care. This method should then be compared and/or combined with standard prophylaxis to evaluate its position in the clinical arena. As with every intervention implementation into a busy clinical environment represents a critical hurdle,27,28 trials with a stronger focus on implementation in routine practice may also be needed prior to any further recommendation.

In presenting their well conducted study, Majholm et al.22 have reminded us that although the body of evidence favours the clinical efficacy of acupuncture in the peri-operative period, it seems too early to assume that it is equal to well proven pharmacological agents. While the jury is out, anaesthesiologists should reflect on the recent quotation: ‘What matters more in a doctor than knowledge, is knowledge of one's own limits’.29 Recognising the limit here means that the provision of devices that stimulate acupuncture points like P6 is not a valid argument to withhold routine pharmacological prevention from those suffering with, or at increased risk of, PONV. However, they may complement the PONV armamentarium, perhaps in a multimodal approach, or as an alternative to drugs in patients requiring therapy, but in whom exposure is undesirable, e.g. pregnant or breastfeeding women, and those with contraindications that prevent sufficient pharmacological prevention.

This article was checked and accepted by the Editors, but was not sent for external peer-review.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1 Kapur PA. The big ‘little problem’. Anesth Analg 1991; 73:243–245.
2 Gan T, Sloan F, Dear GL, et al. How much are patients willing to pay to avoid postoperative nausea and vomiting? Anesth Analg 2001; 92:393–400.
3 Eberhart LH, Mauch M, Morin AM, et al. Impact of a multimodal antiemetic prophylaxis on patient satisfaction in high-risk patients for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesthesia 2002; 57:1022–1027.
4 Chaparro LE, Gallo T, Gonzalez NJ, et al. Effectiveness of combined haloperidol and dexamethasone versus dexamethasone only for postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk day surgery patients: a randomized blinded trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:192–195.
5 Kooij FO, Klok T, Hollmann MW, Kal JE. Automated reminders increase adherence to guidelines for administration of prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:187–191.
6 Dagher CF, Abboud B, Richa F, et al. Effect of intravenous crystalloid infusion on postoperative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26:188–191.
7 Smith I, Walley G, Bridgman S. Omitting fentanyl reduces nausea and vomiting, without increasing pain, after sevoflurane for day surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2008; 25:790–799.
8 Nazar CE, Lacassie HJ, Lopez RA, Munoz HR. Dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis: effect on glycaemia in obese patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009; 26:318–321.
9 Kranke P, Roewer N, Smith AF, et al. Postoperative nausea and vomiting: what are we waiting for? Anesth Analg 2009; 108:1049–1050.
10 Kranke P, Eberhart LH, Gan TJ, et al. Algorithms for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: an efficacy and efficiency simulation. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2007; 24:856–867.
11 McDonnell C, Barlow R, Campisi P, et al. Fatal peri-operative acute tumour lysis syndrome precipitated by dexamethasone. Anaesthesia 2008; 63:652–655.
12 McKechnie K, Froese A. Ventricular tachycardia after ondansetron administration in a child with undiagnosed long QT syndrome. Can J Anaesth 2010; 57:453–457.
13 Moos DD, Hansen DJ. Metoclopramide and extrapyramidal symptoms: a case report. J Perianesth Nurs 2008; 23:292–299.
14 Melnick B, Sawyer R, Karambelkar D, et al. Delayed side effects of droperidol after ambulatory general anesthesia. Anesth Analg 1989; 69:748–751.
15 Melnick BM. Extrapyramidal reactions to low-dose droperidol. Anesthesiology 1988; 69:424–426.
16 Roberge RJ. Antiemetic-related dystonic reaction unmasked by removal of a scopolamine transdermal patch. J Emerg Med 2006; 30:299–302.
17 Arnberger M, Stadelmann K, Alischer P, et al. Monitoring of neuromuscular blockade at the P6 acupuncture point reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesthesiology 2007; 107:903–908.
18 Yaster M. Multimodal analgesia in children. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:851–857.
19 Lee A, Fan LT. Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD003281.
20 Macario A, Claybon L, Pergolizzi JV. Anesthesiologists' practice patterns for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the ambulatory post anesthesia care unit. BMC Anesthesiol 2006; 6:6.
21 Macario A, Chung A, Weinger MB. Variation in practice patterns of anesthesiologists in California for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting. J Clin Anesth 2001; 13:353–360.
22 Majholm B, Moller AM. Acupressure at acupoint P6 for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28:412–419.
23 Streitberger K, Ezzo J, Schneider A. Acupuncture for nausea and vomiting: an update of clinical and experimental studies. Auton Neurosci 2006; 129:107–117.
24 Wang XQ, Yu JL, Du ZY, et al. Electroacupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2010; 22:128–131.
25 Larson JD, Gutowski KA, Marcus BC, et al. The effect of electroacustimulation on postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain in outpatient plastic surgery patients: a prospective, randomized, blinded, clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125:989–994.
26 Frey UH, Scharmann P, Lohlein C, Peters J. P6 acustimulation effectively decreases postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients. Br J Anaesth 2009; 102:620–625.
27 Kooij FO, Klok T, Hollmann MW, Kal JE. Decision support increases guideline adherence for prescribing postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Anesth Analg 2008; 106:893–898, table.
28 Franck M, Radtke FM, Baumeyer A, et al. Adherence to treatment guidelines for postoperative nausea and vomiting. How well does knowledge transfer result in improved clinical care? Anaesthesist 2010; 59:524–528.
29 Weston G. The uncertainty of medicine. Lancet 2009; 374:1411–1412.
© 2011 European Society of Anaesthesiology