Evidence-based management of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review

5-HT3 receptor antagonists for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gynecological surgery is generally associated with a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), for which a combination of antiemetic therapies is advised, but adherence to these protocols is often low. Given the current reality, a preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for preventing PONV as a result of gynecological operations might be desirable. However, the efficiency of different 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in gynecological operations was not clear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of different 5-HT3 antagonists in preventing PONV after gynecological surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from their inception up to September 20, 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Patients who received only 5-HT3 antagonists to prevent nausea and vomiting following gynecologic surgical procedures were included. Only RCT articles and English language literature were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently assessed the study quality and performed data extraction. R software and STATA 17 were used for this network meta-analysis to compare treatments using a frequentist approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Palonosetron demonstrated superior efficacy compared with ondansetron, with a significant difference in "acute nausea," "overall nausea," "acute vomiting," "late vomiting," "late PONV," "overall PONV," "late rescue medicine" and ">24 h rescue medicine." There was a significant difference between palonosetron and ramosetron in "acute nausea," between ramosetron and ondansetron in ">24 h nausea," and between granisetron and ondansetron in "late vomiting." Additionally, granisetron and palonosetron are generally ranked higher in the P-score system.

CONCLUSIONS

In gynecological surgery, palonosetron demonstrated superior efficacy to ondansetron. Granisetron seemed to be the most effective alternative to palonosetron in our study.

Comparison of Propofol and Sevoflurane as Anesthesia Maintenance Agents in Relation to Postoperative Pain, Nausea and Vomiting During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography: A Prospective, Single-Center, Randomized, Single-Blind Pilot Study

Introduction Halogen gas anesthesia is considered to be more conducive to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) than total intravenous anesthesia. This difference has been demonstrated in surgery, but there have been no studies on postoperative pain (POP), nausea and vomiting based on anesthesia in the specific environment of endoscopy, to the best of our knowledge. Our aim was therefore to carry out a preliminary study to investigate a trend in POP, nausea and vomiting during endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP), depending on the type of the maintenance anesthetic agent used. Methods This single-center, prospective, randomized, single-blind pilot study included 42 adult patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, ASA ≤ 3) benefiting from ERCP. They were randomized into two groups depending on the type of maintenance anesthetic used: the "sevoflurane" group and the "propofol" group (target-controlled infusion, Schnider model). Moreover, in both groups, all patients received balanced anesthesia based on alfentanil and rocuronium. The principal aim of our study was to investigate pain, nausea and vomiting during the first 48 hours postoperatively based on the anesthesia maintenance agent chosen. During the first 48 hours, PONV episodes were counted, pain was measured using the visual analogue scale and all analgesics and antiemetics administered were recorded. Results The two groups studied showed no statistically significant difference. The incidence of PONV was 36.4% in the sevoflurane group and 30% in the propofol group. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in the occurrence of PONV or in the number of emetic episodes at 48 h postoperatively. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the analgesics used to assess postoperative pain. Finally, there were no differences in the types of analgesics used postoperatively. Conclusion There appeared to be no difference in terms of postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting after ERCP in adults, based on the choice of maintenance anesthetic agent (sevoflurane versus propofol). However, the results of this pilot study should be confirmed in a larger sample.

The effect of ultrasound-guided drug injection at Neiguan point on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

This study explores the feasibility and effectiveness of ultrasound-guided acupoint injection at Neiguan acupoint to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A total of 60 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the General Surgery Department of Zhejiang Hospital from February 2021 to August 2021 were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly divided into the injection group (n = 30) and the control group (n = 30). The patients in the injection group received ultrasound-guided injections of tropisetron at bilateral Neiguan acupoints, while those in the control group received intravenous injections of tropisetron. The incidence of PONV within 24 hours after surgery, the need for "rescue" treatment, the incidence of puncture complications, and patients' satisfaction with PONV management were evaluated.

RESULT

Neiguan point can be accurately located by ultrasound guidance. Compared with the control group, the incidence of PONV was significantly decreased in the Injection group within 0 to 6 hours after surgery, and the vomiting rate was decreased within 6 to 12 hours after surgery (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided drug injection at Neiguan to prevent PONV has the characteristics of visualization and accuracy, which is easy to promote and use, and the effect is satisfactory.

Penehyclidine for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery Under Combined Intravenous and Inhalation Anesthesia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Purpose

We designed this study to investigate the effect of intravenous use of penehyclidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Patients and Methods

Ninety-two Women Patients (Aged ≥ 18) Scheduled for Elective Gynecologic Laparoscopy Were Enrolled in the Current Study. Patients Were Equally Randomized Assigned Into Penehyclidine group (PHC group: received a bolus of penehyclidine 10 μg/kg during the induction of anesthesia, then followed by a continuous infusion of 10 μg/kg penehyclidine at a fixed rate of 2.0 mL/h in postoperative intravenous analgesia pump over 48h, 0.5 mg upper limit respectively) or Control group (received 0.9% saline in replace of penehyclidine at the same time points). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the postanesthesia care unit and ward area. Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores and general comfort questionnaire (GCQ) scores were assessed on postoperative day (POD) 1, 2.

Results

Patients between two groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Compared with the Control group, the incidence and severity of PONV, postoperative nausea (PON), and postoperative vomiting (POV) were significantly lower in the PHC group at 2h (PONV: P = 0.002, P = 0.004, respectively; PON: P = 0.018, P = 0.038, respectively; POV: P = 0.011, P = 0.072, respectively), 24h (PONV: P = 0.003, P = 0.001, respectively; PON: P = 0.010, P = 0.032, respectively; POV: P = 0.006, P = 0.044, respectively), and 48h (PONV: P = 0.003, P = 0.002, respectively; PON: P = 0.007, P = 0.019, respectively; POV: P = 0.002, P = 0.013, respectively) after surgery. The QoR-15 and GCQ scores of the PHC group were significantly higher than those of the Control group at POD 1, 2 (P < 0.001; P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that perioperative intravenous application of penehyclidine can effectively prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynecological laparoscopic surgery patients and improve postoperative recovery.

Preoperative pregabalin to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background.  Postoperative laparoscopic  cholecystectomy period is often associated  with nausea and vomiting, which is stopped  by an antiemetics injected  intravenously. Meanwhile,  it is known  that  the  oral pregabalin  before surgery  to potentiate the  effect of opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications during anesthesia  also has an antiemetic effect.

The objective was to evaluate  the effect of oral pregabalin to reduce the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy  cases.

Methods and Materials. Randomized double blind study. One hundred patients of the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class1 were tested and divided  into two groups. The first group did not receive any antiemetics preoperatively. The second group received 75 mg of oral pregabalin 30 minutes  before anesthesia.  We followed up patients postoperatively in the recovery room and general surgical ward for 24 hours, recorded  the incidence of nausea and vomiting, prescription of any antiemetics and developing their side effects. We assessed the risk of developing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting by the use of the Koivuranta score.

Results. Statistical analysis using SPSS showed a significant  reduction of postoperative nausea and vomiting  in the second group (pregabalin) compared with the first group.

Conclusion. Preoperative 75 mg of oral pregabalin  has antiemetic effect on postoperative time. No significant  postoperative side effects were noted.

Intravenous Granisetron Combined with Dexamethasone in Cesarean Section Patients Undergoing Spinal Anesthesia

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia, including spinal anesthesia, is the technique-of-choice over general anesthesia for cesarean section (C-section). Nausea, vomiting, and shivering are common after spinal anesthesia. Granisetron and dexamethasone are used as a premedication to prevent these reactions. AIM: This study determined the effect of different doses of granisetron combined with dexamethasone for the prevention of nausea, vomiting, and shivering. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind randomized clinical trial included patients undergoing C-section under spinal anesthesia at several hospitals in Makassar, Indonesia. Forty-five cases were divided into three equal-sized groups: G5, administered intravenous (IV) granisetron at 5 mcg/kg body weight (BW); G10, administered IV granisetron at 10 mcg/kgBW; and G25, administered IV granisetron at 25 mcg/kgBW. All patients also received IV dexamethasone at 0.1 mg/kgBW. RESULTS: In the G10 group, three cases experienced mild nausea, while, in the G5 and G25 groups, there were no incidences of nausea; this was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.043). Vomiting was not reported in any group. The G25 group had the lowest number of patients experiencing shivering (one case with a score of 3), but there were no significant differences in shivering incidence between groups (p = 0.164). CONCLUSION: Granisetron is effective in reducing nausea and shivering at certain dosage.

Supplemental intraoperative crystalloids for pediatric postoperative nausea and vomiting-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and/or vomiting is a relatively frequent occurrence after general anesthesia in pediatric patients. Supplemental perioperative crystalloid fluid administration has been shown to have a positive effect on the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting in adults undergoing surgery. The question arises whether supplemental intraoperative intravenous fluids in pediatric patients offers beneficial results with regards to pediatric postoperative nausea and/or vomiting.

METHODS

Pubmed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched up to March 2022 to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials involving patients ≤18 years undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia, with one group receiving conventional intraoperative fluids therapy and the other group receiving supplemental intraoperative fluid therapy, with intravenous crystalloids. The outcomes included incidence of postoperative vomiting, postoperative nausea and vomiting, the need for rescue anti-emetics, postoperative thirst, and adverse events attributed to supplemental intravenous fluid therapy. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for the outcomes using a random or fixed effects model.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials (864 patients) were included in the final analysis. Supplemental intraoperative crystalloids reduce postoperative vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39-0.80; p = .001), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.74; p = .0003), postoperative thirst (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13,0.34; p < .01), and the need for rescue anti-emetics postoperatively (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49-0.74; p = .00001).

CONCLUSION

Supplemental intraoperative intravenous crystalloids significantly reduce several PONV outcomes in healthy children undergoing relatively simple and superficial surgeries under volatile agent-based general anesthesia.

A Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare the Effect of Ramosetron and Ondansetron in Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Gynaecological Procedures

Background and objective

The antiemetic drug is one of the most common armamentariums in an anaesthesiologist's pharmacopoeia to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV is one of the usual side effects after general anaesthesia, especially in female patients (21%) and after laparoscopic surgery (60%). This study aimed to compare the efficacy of ondansetron with ramosetron.

Methodology

After institutional ethical clearance and informed written consent, one hundred female patients scheduled for laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries were selected for this prospective, double-blinded, randomised interventional study. These patients were further subdivided into two equal groups (50 in groups R and O). Group R received ramosteron 0.3mg, and group O received ondansetron 8mg 30 minutes before the end of surgery. Patients were assessed between 0-2, 2-6, 6-12 and 12-24 hrs in the postoperative period. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effect of a single dose of ramosetron (0.3mg) with a single dose of ondansetron (8mg) for the prevention of PONV after general anaesthesia in laparoscopic surgeries. The secondary goal was to record the time of occurrence of the first episode of PONV, the need for rescue antiemetics, patient satisfaction scores, and to look for any side effects.

Results

This study shows no significant difference in the reduction of PONV incidence between group O and group R in the first 24 hours of the postoperative period. The overall incidence of PONV was significantly higher in the early postoperative (0-6 hrs) than in the late postoperative period (6-24 hrs), i.e., 51% and 13%, respectively. The requirement of rescue antiemetic was higher in group O than in group R but not statistically significant. In our study, both groups had similar patient satisfaction scores. Headache was the most common side effect and was noted in 9% of the patient population.

Conclusion

We conclude that ramosetron is as effective as ondansetron in preventing the incidence and severity of PONV up to 24 hours postoperatively.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Breast and Gynecological Surgery: A Narrative Review of Risk Factors and Prophylaxis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have been widely studied as a multifactorial entity, being of female gender the strongest risk factor. Reported PONV incidence in female surgical populations is extremely variable among randomized clinical trials. In this narrative review, we intend to summarize the incidence, independent predictors, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for PONV reported in recently published clinical trials carried out in female patients undergoing breast and gynecologic surgery, as well as the implications of the anesthetic agents on the incidence of PONV. A literature search of manuscripts describing PONV management in female surgical populations (breast surgery and gynecologic surgery) was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence were highly variable in patients receiving placebo or no prophylaxis among RCTs whereas consistent results were observed in patients receiving 1 or 2 prophylactic interventions for PONV. Despite efforts made, a considerable number of female patients still experienced significant PONV. It is critical for the anesthesia provider to be aware that the coexistence of independent risk factors such as the level of sex hormones (pre- and postmenopausal), preoperative anxiety or depression, pharmacogenomic pleomorphisms, and ethnicity further enhances the probability of experiencing PONV in female patients. Future RCTs should closely assess the overall risk of PONV in female patients considering patient- and surgery-related factors, and the level of compliance with current guidelines for prevention and management of PONV.

A comparative clinical study of methylprednisolone with ondansetron versus ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing middle-ear surgeries

Background:

One of the most troublesome complications after middle-ear surgeries has been postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A notable decrease in PONV has been observed with the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists and glucocorticoids.

Aim:

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of intravenous methylprednisolone and ondansetron with ramosetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing middle-ear surgeries.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study that comprised sixty patients in the age group of 18–60 years belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification I or II and undergoing middle-ear surgery.

Materials and Methods:

With the help of computer-generated randomization table, sixty patients in the age group of 18–60 years belonging to ASA physical status classification I or II and undergoing middle-ear surgery were randomly allotted to receive a combination of methylprednisolone 40 mg (given at the beginning of surgery) and ondansetron 4 mg (given near the end of surgery) (Group MO, n = 30) or ramosetron 0.3 mg (near the end of surgery) (Group R, n = 30). In both the groups, the incidence of PONV was studied.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was utilized to analogize the categorical variables. Independent t-test was utilized to analogize the continuous variables.

Results:

In the first 2 h after the surgery, the difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of PONV was insignificant. Between 2 h and 24 h, the incidence of nausea was lowered significantly in the group MO compared to the group R (P = 0.01). Between 24 h and 48 h, the incidence of nausea was more in group R compared to the combination therapy group, which was statistically significant.

Conclusion:

The combination therapy is better than ramosetron alone for the prevention of PONV after middle-ear surgery. Therefore, we advocate a combination of methylprednisolone and ondansetron for prophylaxis for PONV in middle-ear surgeries.

Role of general anesthetic agents in postoperative nausea and vomiting: A review of literature

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is considered to be the most unpleasant experience associated with surgery and is believed to be one of the most common reasons for poor patient satisfaction in the postoperative period. It also results in prolonged hospitalization and increased use of resources such as intravenous fluids and drug supplements along with prolonged medical attention, all of which have psychological and financial implications. In addition to this, PONV can result in aspiration, laryngospasm, dehydration, electrolyte disturbances, gastric bleeding, increased intracranial pressure, increased intraocular pressure, and wound dehiscence particularly when the surgical intervention is performed through an intraoral approach. It is a well-known fact that there are many etiological factors as well as predisposing factors for PONV. Hence, this review is intended to evaluate as an individual factor what the role was played by the anesthetic agents used for GA in the incidence of PONV.

A randomized controlled trial of the effect of ramosetron on postoperative restoration of bowel motility after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of ramosetron after gynecological laparoscopic surgery on the recovery of bowel function.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial conducted at Kyung Hee University hospital, South Korea, from August 2016 to September 2017. Patients were randomized to receive either 10 mg dexamethasone before induction of anesthesia (control group C), followed by intravenous administration of patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) or 2 ml normal saline before induction of anesthesia and 0.6 mg ramosetron (study group R) administered with IV-PCA.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients were enrolled. Times to first flatus (group C 23.98 ± 6.31 vs. group R 27.14 ± 9.56 h; P = 0.148) and first defecation (group C 36.16 ± 16.04 vs. group R 43.41 ± 20.01 h; P = 0.138) showed no statistically significant differences. No significant differences were observed in the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and demand for additional analgesics. Multiple linear regression for analysis of factors affecting time to first flatus revealed no significant results.

CONCLUSION

Ramosetron did not delay bowel movement recovery after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery and was as effective as dexamethasone in regulating PONV. Ramosetron can be used with IV-PCA without concerns about delay in recovery of bowel function. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02849483.

Health Care Professionals' Assessment of Patient Discomfort After Abdominal Surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to classify elements of patients' discomfort in the resuscitation room after open or laparoscopic abdominal surgery as per health care professionals' perceptions.

DESIGN

A prospective cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Spain.

METHODS

Resuscitation room nurses administered the Postoperative Discomfort Inventory to physicians and nurses with >1 year experience working closely with patients who had undergone abdominal surgery, asking them to score nine items related to patients' discomfort in the first 8 hours after surgery on an 11-point scale (0 = absent to 10 = very severe). Interobserver agreement among proxy reporters was measured with the Spearman's ρ; correlations >0.35 was considered adequate agreement.

FINDINGS

Of 125 eligible professionals, 116 (93%) participated (63 [54%] nurses and 53 [46%] physicians; mean age, 38 ± 12 years; 86 [74%] women). Professionals' perception of discomfort differed significantly between patients undergoing open surgery and those undergoing laparoscopic surgery; after open surgery, the most common types were pain (7.1 ± 1.8), movement restriction (7 ± 1.75), and dry mouth (6.6 ± 2.6), whereas after laparoscopic surgery, the most common types were dry mouth (5.85 ± 2.8), abdominal bloating (5.3 ± 2.5), and pain (5 ± 2.2). The Spearman's ρ correlations were inadequate for all items except for dry mouth in open surgery (r = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain, movement restriction, abdominal bloating, and dry mouth were the main causes of discomfort. Our findings highlight the need to be vigilant for all manifestations of discomfort after abdominal surgery to enable timely treatment.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia decreases the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting without affecting flap survival in free flap breast reconstruction

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) may cause undesirable effects after microsurgical breast reconstruction. Although total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing PONV, it has not been assessed in autologous free flap breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to investigate the antiemetic prophylaxis effect and safety of TIVA in microvascular breast reconstruction.

Methods

Eighty-three patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction with propofol (31 patients) or sevoflurane (52 patients) were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence of PONV was assessed at 2, 6, and 24 hours after surgery. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was compared at T₁ (after flap elevation but before transfer), T₂ (15 minutes after revascularization), and T₃ (at the end of surgery).

Results

The incidence of nausea was significantly reduced in the TIVA group over 0 to 2 hours period (P=0.017), and over 2 to 6 hours period (P=0.033). The incidence of vomiting was significantly reduced in the TIVA group over 0 to 2 hours period (P=0.006), and over 2 to 6 hours period (P=0.005). MAP was higher in the TIVA group at T₁ (P=0.018), T₂ (P=0.005), and T₃ (P=0.007). The incidence of flap failure was similar between the two groups (P=0.373).

Conclusions

Compared with sevoflurane maintaining anesthesia, propofol-based TIVA improves PONV with less fluctuation of MAP, and did not affect flap survival.

[Effect of palonosetron, ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in video cholecystectomy with total venous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil - randomized clinical trial]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) after video cholecystectomy is high. Progress in pharmacological PONV prophylaxis includes a new generation of 5-HT₃ antagonists. This study aims to assess the effect of the 5-HT₃ antagonist in postanesthetic antiemetic management of patients submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy with total intravenous anesthesia.

METHODS

Sixty individuals who underwent video cholecystectomy were randomized into three groups of 20 individuals according to the treatment administered: 0.125 mg of palonosetron (Group 1); 4 mg of ondansetron associated with 4 mg of dexamethasone (Group 2); 4 mg of dexamethasone (Group 3). General intravenous anesthesia was performed with propofol, remifentanil and rocuronium. The group to which the participant belonged was concealed from the investigator who assessed drug effect. PONV was assessed using the Rhodes Scale at 12 and 24 hours after surgery. Rescue medication was 0.655 to 1.5 mg of droperidol.

RESULTS

Group 1 presented a lower incidence of PONV and required less rescue medication in the first postoperative hour. There was no significant difference among the three groups regarding PONV incidence in the first 12 postoperative hours. Groups 1 and 2 were superior to Group 3 regarding the control of PONV from 12 to 24 hours, and after rescue medication from 12 to 24 hours. Group 1 showed significantly superior nausea control in the first 12 postoperative hours.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed evidence that palonosetron is superior to the drugs compared regarding a protracted antiemetic effect and less requirement of rescue drugs, mainly related to its ability to completely inhibit the uncomfortable symptom of nausea.

Effect of palonosetron, ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in video cholecystectomy with total venous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil – randomized clinical trial

Introduction and objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

A comparison of noninvasive and invasive acupuncture in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A protocol for systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a main complication of surgery, and by now, drugs cannot prevent it completely. Some meta-analyses have proved acupuncture therapy can prevent PONV. However, it is still controversial whether noninvasive acupuncture therapies are comparable with invasive ones. This study uses Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of different forms of acupuncture in preventing PONV.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Ebsco, Ovid/Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc will be searched from inception to May 2020. All randomized control trails meet the criterion will be included. Quality evaluation of included studies will be implemented with Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. STATA 14.0 will be used to perform pairwise meta-analysis. Addis 1.16.8, R 3.6.3, OpenBUGS 3.2.3, and STATA 14.0 will be used to conduct network meta-analysis. The evidence will be assessed by the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach using GRADE Profiler 3.6.

RESULTS

The results of this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and generate a comprehensive review of current evidence.

CONCLUSION

Our results will help to improve the clinical decision-making ability and policy-making in PONV domain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol has been registered on INPLASY 202060108.

An update on the management of PONV in a pediatric patient

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major cause of patient dissatisfaction following anesthesia. The difficulty in diagnosing nausea in much of the pediatric population has led to an emphasis on anti-emetic prophylaxis for all. Assessment scores and prognostic tools enable the anesthesiologist to identify patients who are at a greater risk and appropriately apply more aggressive prophylactic, multi-drug strategies. New antiemetics emerging from other medical disciplines, particularly oncology, may have potential use in prophylaxis and treatment of nausea and vomiting in the pediatric surgical population. New agents, many of which have a long duration of action, will augment the anesthesiologist's ability to adequately prevent PONV, and to treat persistent nausea and vomiting that extend beyond the immediate post-operative period.

Acupuncture therapy on postoperative nausea and vomiting in abdominal operation: A Bayesian network meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after surgery. However, drugs cannot prevent it completely, and acupuncture therapy shows the potential in preventing PONV, yet the best choice hasn't been demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE

This network meta analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different acupuncture therapies used for preventing PONV in abdominal operation.

METHODS

Authors searched articles from PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Ebsco and Ovid/Embase, and established database from setup time to June 2019. Quality evaluation of included studies was performed with Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2.0). Pairwise and network meta analysis were conducted by RevMan and Addis respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty studies with 2862 patients were included in this research. Pairwise meta analysis shows that compared with placebo, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation had lower risk of postoperative nausea (PON) (odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, 95%confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.60), postoperative vomiting (POV) (OR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.36-0.78), PONVs (OR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.31-0.68), and postoperative rescue (POR) (OR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.41-0.90), Capsicum had lower risk of PON (OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.09-0.28), PONVs (OR = 0.23, 95%CI: 0.12-0.45), Acupressure had lower risk of POV (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.25-0.70), POR (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.27-0.64). In network meta analysis, compared with usual care, the probability rank suggested that Acupoint Injection showed lowest risk of PON (OR = 0.02, 95%CI: 0.00-0.11), POV (OR = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01-0.49), Usual care for PONVs (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.13-0.75), and Capsicum for POR (OR = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.07-2.33). Further study should be carried out to verify this result.

CONCLUSION

Both pairwise and network meta analysis showed acupuncture therapy was superior to placebo and usual care. Different acupuncture therapy regimens may have advantages in different aspects. And compared with POV, PON seems easier to control. Research results may provide guidance for the prevention of PONV.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019147556.

Effect of dexmedetomidine on prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in pediatric strabismus surgery: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common side-effects following strabismus surgery. The present study aimed to compare the effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine (DEX) on PONV incidence in pediatric patients undergoing strabismus surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized double-blinded study, 126 pediatric patients undergoing strabismus surgery were randomized into one of three groups: Placebo group, normal saline; DEX1 group, 0.3 μg/kg dexmedetomidine, and DEX2 group, 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine. Oculocardiac reflex (OCR) events were recorded during surgery. PONV or postoperative vomiting (POV) was recorded for 24 h in the ward. Pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) scale and emergence agitation (EA) scale were recorded in the recovery room.

RESULTS

Intraoperative OCR was significantly reduced in DEX2 group (42%) as compared to that of Placebo group (68%) (p = 0.0146). During the first 24 h post-op, the overall incidence of PONV was significantly lower in DEX2 group (10%) than that of Placebo group (32%) (p = 0.0142). There was no significant difference in POV among the three groups. PAED or EA scores among the three groups were similar during recovery time.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine (0.5 μg/kg) reduced OCR and PONV without lengthening extubation time or recovery time in pediatric patients undergoing strabismus surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was prospectively registered before patient enrollment at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Clinical Trial Number: ChiCTR1800020176, Date: 12/19/2018).

Intradermal thumbtack needle buried Neiguan (P6) point for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is among the most common adverse reactions following anaesthesia and surgery. Recent clinical studies have reported that the average incidence is about 30%, while in patients specifically undergoing neurosurgery, the incidence can be as great as 73%. Studies also suggest that its occurrence increases the risk of intracranial haematoma and haemorrhage. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of intradermal thumbtack needle buried Neiguan (pericardium 6 (P6)) point therapy in the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anaesthesia.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a single-centre, three-arm, randomised controlled trial. 180 participants are randomly assigned to either an acupuncture, intradermal thumbtack needle or control group in a 1:1:1 ratio. The P6 of the acupuncture group is punctured at both sides perpendicularly to a depth of 20 mm. Needles are retained for 30 min and stimulated every 10 min to maintain the de qi. The therapy includes two treatments; the acupuncture is administered immediately after and 24 hours after surgery. For the intradermal thumbtack needle group, the intradermal thumbtack needle is quickly inserted into the skin and embedded at P6 acupoints bilaterally. Patients and their families are asked to press the needlepoint with the onset of nausea, vomiting, bloating, pain and other reported discomforts. The needle is replaced after 24 hours. The therapy is administered immediately after and 24 hours after surgery. For the control group, no intervention is carried out. The incidence of PONV within 48 hours after craniotomy across the three groups is observed. Other observations include: (1) assessment of nausea score (severity of nausea) and pain score (visual analogue scale) 0-2, 2-6, 6-24 and 24-48 hours after craniotomy under general anaesthesia; (2) assessment of total rescue antiemetic dosage 0-48 hours after craniotomy under general anaesthesia; (3) length of hospital stay and (4) patient satisfaction score with PONV management. We will perform all statistical analysis following the intention-to-treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted by the Bioethics Subcommittee of the West China Hospital, Sichuan University: the approval number is 2018 (number 231). Results will be expected to be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1800017173.

Dose Ginger Have Preventative Effects on PONV-Related Eye Surgery? A Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is considered a common complication of anesthesia, which, particularly in eye surgery, may exert pressure on stitches and open or leak the surgical wound, leading to bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to study the effect of ginger on PONV and changes in vital signs after eye surgery.

METHODS

In this triple-blind randomized controlled trial, 120 candidate patients for eye surgery were divided into group A (n = 40) and group B (n = 40). Patients in group A received the capsules of ginger 1 g while patients in group B received a placebo one hour before the procedure with 30 mL water. The incidence of nausea and the frequency of vomiting were evaluated at 0, 15, 30 minutes, and 2 hours after the operation. Also, the vital signs of the participants were recorded at certain times.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the frequency of nausea between group A and group B (P < 0.05). The severity of nausea was lower in group A than in group B immediately and 2 hours after recovery (P < 0.05). The incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in group A than in group B (P < 0.05). The vital signs were not significantly different between group A and group B (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ginger was effective in the prevention of PONV after eye surgery but had no impact on vital signs. Hence, ginger is proposed to use as a low-cost, prophylactic measure for PONV reduction.

High Patient Satisfaction With Local Anesthesia and Light Sedation in a Novel Fast-Track Setup for Sacrospinous Fixation

OBJECTIVES

Simple prolapse operations can be performed using local anesthesia. However, this has not been the case for advanced pelvic organ prolapse operations. The aim of this study was to investigate the patient-reported feasibility and acceptability of local anesthesia and light sedation for sacrospinous fixation (SSF).

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study on 105 women who underwent SSF in a public outpatient setting from April 2016 to October 2017. They received infiltration anesthesia with mepivacaine or lidocaine together with a pudendal nerve block with Marcaine. Local anesthesia was supplemented by intravenous light sedation and pain reliever. A Local Anesthetic Intraoperative Experience Questionnaire was used to evaluate patient experience.

RESULTS

One patient was converted to general anesthesia. Eighty-eight women answered the questionnaires. Ninety-nine percent defined themselves as satisfied or very satisfied with the anesthesia. Little or no pain during the operation was reported by 92% and 92% would choose the same type of anesthesia again. No adverse effect of the anesthetic procedure was observed. The median (range) admission time was 12 (4.5-48) hours, and 81% of the patients could be discharged on the day of surgery. At follow-up after 8 weeks and 6 months, no patients reported adverse events to the anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The SSF can be performed using local anesthesia and light sedation with high degree of patient satisfaction. These preliminary data indicate that the concept of ambulatory surgery might be implemented more widely if the use of local anesthesia is also applied to more advanced surgical procedures.

A randomized controlled trial of postoperative intravenous acetaminophen plus thoracic epidural analgesia vs. thoracic epidural analgesia alone after gastrectomy for gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Acetaminophen is used in multimodal therapy for postoperative pain management. However, the additional effects of acetaminophen in combination with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) are not well understood. This prospective, multicenter randomized study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of routine intravenous (i.v.) acetaminophen in combination with TEA for the management of postoperative pain in gastric cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients who underwent distal gastrectomy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive i.v. acetaminophen every 6 h and TEA during the first 3 postoperative days (acetaminophen group) or TEA alone (control group). The primary endpoint was the sum of TEA rescue doses during the first 2 postoperative days.

RESULTS

Final analysis included 58 patients in the acetaminophen group and 56 patients in the control group. The median number of TEA rescue doses was significantly lower in the acetaminophen group compared with the control group (3.0 vs. 8.0, p = 0.013). The median area under the curve (AUC) of the pain scores at coughing was significantly less in the acetaminophen group compared with the control group (285 vs. 342, p = 0.046) without an increase in postoperative complications. TEA rescue doses and pain score AUCs were significantly reduced by acetaminophen in patients who underwent open gastrectomy (p = 0.037 and 0.045), whereas there was no significant difference between patients who underwent laparoscopic gastrectomy in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In gastric cancer surgery patients, routine i.v. acetaminophen in combination with TEA provides superior postoperative pain management compared with TEA alone.

Effect of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing microvascular decompression under propofol-maintained anesthesia: A retrospective observational study

Microvascular decompression (MVD) is associated with a particularly high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) among craniotomy patients. However, there is no information regarding the effect of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex on PONV in patients undergoing MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia.Medical records of 274 adults who had undergone MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia were reviewed. Patients were classified into 4 groups, based on the reversal agent used (sugammadex/pyridostigmine) and whether or not prophylactic palonosetron was used. The PONV incidence and risk factors were analyzed according to the use of these agents.The overall incidence of PONV was 30.7% during the first 24 hours postoperatively. The incidence of PONV was lower in the group using combination of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex (19.3%) compared with the group not using both agents (37.2%). The combined use of the prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex was identified as a factor affecting the occurrence of PONV in both univariable (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21-0.77, P = .006) and multivariable (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.75, P = .005) logistic regression analyses. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, female sex was also significant independent risk factor in PONV (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.35-5.08, P = .004).In this retrospective observational study, the combined use of prophylactic palonosetron before anesthetic induction and sugammadex as a reversal of neuromuscular blockade are associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia.

Comparison of intraperitoneal versus intravenous dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological laparoscopy: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following laparascopic surgery. This study compared the effect of intraperitoneal versus intravenous dexamethasone for reducing PONV after gynecological laparoscopic surgeries.

Methods

Eighty adult female patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II, scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomized to receive 8 mg dexamethasone intravenously (IV) (n = 40) or intraperitoneally (IP) (n = 40). The primary outcome was the PONV incidence during the first 24 h after laparoscopy. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, total rescue analgesic consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively, the need for rescue antiemetic drugs, and the incidence of complications that may accompany these medications.

Results

Eleven women (27.5%) in the IV group, versus only 3 (7.5%) women in the IP group, experienced nausea during the first 24 h postlaparoscopy (P = 0.037). However, 5 patients (12.5%) in the IV group, versus only 2 patients (5.0%) in the IP group, experienced vomiting (P = 0.424). No statistically significant differences were seen in the severity of nausea or the need for rescue antiemetics. The IV group had a higher rate of side-effects than the IP group (27.5% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.037). Headache and dizziness were common side effects in the IV dexamethasone group. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of mean VAS score for pain and total meperidine consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively.

Conclusions

Intraperitoneal dexamethasone at a dose of 8 mg at the end of gynecological laparoscopy reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea.

The pathophysiology, incidence, impact, and treatment of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Opioid medications are integral in managing acute moderate-to-severe pain. Opioid analgesics bind to μ (mu), κ (kappa), or δ (delta) opioid receptors in the brain, spinal cord, and digestive tract. However, opioids cause adverse effects that may interfere with their therapeutic use. Some adverse effects wane over time, but patients using opioids for acute pain struggle with opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) the entire time they take the opioid. This article discusses the underlying mechanisms, clinical implications, and treatment strategies of OINV.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search and review of Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar for articles relating to OINV. In addition, package inserts provided pharmacologic data and dose recommendations as needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Research suggests approximately 40% of patients may experience nausea and 15%-25% of patients may experience vomiting after opioid administration. Nausea often precedes vomiting, although they can occur separately. Many patients receiving opioids rate the nausea and vomiting as worse than their pain. Nausea and vomiting can lead to complications including electrolyte imbalances, malnutrition, and volume depletion, and can also negatively affect quality of life and postoperative recovery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are several medications that can be used to treat OINV including serotonin receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. Healthcare providers should be proactive about discussing OINV with patients, as this may improve patient outcomes and pain relief.

Comparison of Palonosetron with Granisetron for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery

Background:

In patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a serious concern. With an incidence of 46%–72%, PONV hampers the postoperative recovery in spite of the availability of many antiemetic drugs. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Aims:

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of palonosetron and granisetron in preventing PONV and to compare the duration of action and side effects in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia.

Settings and Design:

Eighty patients who were comparable in all aspects were considered for this study. After their consent, they participated in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, comparative study.

Materials and Methods:

In this observational study, 80 patients of either gender who were undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in the study. Based on computer randomization, these patients were divided equally into two groups of 40 patients each in double-blinded manner. The treatments were given intravenously 5 min before induction of anesthesia. The episodes of PONV, severity of nausea/vomiting, and side effects were observed during the first 48 h after surgery.

Statistical Tests:

At the end of study, results were compiled and SPSS^® statistical package version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Two independent samples t-test was used for quantitative data, and Chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used for qualitative data. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results:

The incidence of PONV during 0–2 h in the postoperative period was 15% with palonosetron and 27.5% with granisetron; the incidence during 2–24 h postoperatively was 20% with palonosetron and 30% with granisetron. Both palonosetron and granisetron had comparable effectiveness as antiemetic during the early postoperative periods (0–24 h). During 24–48 h, the incidence was 17.5% and 37.5%, respectively (P = 0.04). Safety profile was similar in both the groups (P = 0.6).

Conclusion:

There were no significant differences in the overall incidence of PONV and complete responders for palonosetron and granisetron group in the early recovery period. However, due to its prolonged duration of action, palonosetron was more effective than granisetron for long-term prevention of PONV after laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

Comparison of Palonosetron, Dexamethasone, and Palonosetron Plus Dexamethasone as Prophylactic Antiemetic and Antipruritic Drug in Patients Receiving Intrathecal Morphine for Lower Segment Cesarean Section

Background:

Intrathecal morphine is commonly used for postcesarean analgesia. Its use is frequently associated with opioid-induced nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. Palonosetron (0.075 mg) combined with dexamethasone (8 mg) is postulated to have an additive effect over each drug alone. The study, therefore, compared the effect of intravenous (i.v.) palonosetron, dexamethasone, and palonosetron with dexamethasone combination in preventing intrathecal morphine-induced postoperative vomiting and pruritus in lower segment cesarean section (LSCS) patients.

Settings and Design:

Randomized, prospective, double-blinded, observational clinical study.

Methods:

Ninety pregnant women, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I undergoing LSCS were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to three groups – Group P received 0.075 mg palonosetron i.v., Group D received dexamethasone 8 mg i.v., and Group PD received palonosetron 0.075 mg along with dexamethasone 4 mg i.v., just after spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine 2.2 ml (12 mg) and 150 μg morphine. The incidence of pruritus, nausea, vomiting, and need for rescue drug were recorded for 24 h.

Statistical Analysis:

Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test for categorical variables and Chi-square test for noncategorical variables.

Results:

The incidence of nausea, vomiting was significantly more in Group D (40%) than Group P (27%) and Group PD (20%) in 24 h. The incidence of pruritus was significantly more in Group D (6%) than Group P and PD (3%). The need of rescue antiemetic was more in Group D (30%) than Group P (6%) and Group PD (3%). No difference in three groups requiring rescue antipruritic drug.

Conclusion:

Prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced vomiting and pruritus was more effective with palonosetron alone or with dexamethasone combination than dexamethasone alone. Combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone proved no better than palonosetron alone.

A comparison of palonosetron and dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting in orthopedic patients receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the major concerns after anesthesia and surgery, and it may be more frequent in orthopedic patients receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone on the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty and receiving PCEA.

Methods

Patients scheduled for total hip or knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia/PCEA were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous palonosetron (0.075 mg, n = 50) or dexamethasone (5 mg, n = 50). Treatments were administered intravenously to the patients 30 min before the beginning of surgery. The total incidence of PONV and incidence in each time period, severity of nausea, need for rescue anti-emetics, pain score, and adverse effects during the first 48 h postoperatively were evaluated.

Results

The total incidence of PONV was lower in the palonosetron group compared with the dexamethasone group (18.4% vs. 36.7%, P = 0.042), but there were no statistically significant differences in incidence between the groups at all time points. No significant intergroup differences were observed in the severity of nausea, use of rescue anti-emetics, pain score, and adverse effects.

Conclusions

Although there were no significant differences in the incidence of PONV between the treatment groups at all time points, intravenous palonosetron reduced the total incidence of PONV in orthopedic patients receiving PCEA compared with dexamethasone.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: physiopathology, risk factors, prophylaxis and treatment

Recognising the importance of the prevention and early treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is essential to avoid postoperative complications, improve patient satisfaction and enable the development of major outpatient surgery and fast-track surgery. The topic of PONV might seem to have become stagnant, but we are moving forward. New concepts and problems like post-discharge nausea and vomiting, new risk factors and new drugs are appearing. However, there continue to be mistaken notions about PONV, such as the association between PONV and post-anaesthesia care unit stays, or assuming that it is a risk factore characteristic of the patient, anaesthesia or surgery when it is not. Perhaps, now is the moment to tackle PONV in a different manner, implementing guidelines and going for more aggressive prophylaxis in some groups of patients. We present an extensive review of this topic.

Comparison of Ramosetron with Palonosetron for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Opioid-Based Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia after Gynecological Laparoscopy

We aimed to compare the effects of ramosetron and palonosetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients that received opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after gynecological laparoscopy. We reviewed the electronic medical records of 755 adults. Patients were classified into two groups, ramosetron (group R, n = 589) versus palonosetron (group P, n = 166). Based on their confounding factors, 152 subjects in each group were selected after the implementation of propensity score matching. The overall incidence of PONV at postoperative day (POD) 0 was lower in group R compared to group P (26.9% versus 36.8%; P = 0.043). The severity of nausea was lower in group R than in group P on postoperative day (POD) 0 (P = 0.012). Also, the complete responder proportion of patients was significantly higher in group R compared to that in group P on POD 0 (P = 0.043). In conclusion, ramosetron showed a greater efficacy in the prevention of postoperative nausea at POD 0 compared to palonosetron in patients after gynecological laparoscopy.

Palonosetron and Ramosetron Compared for Effectiveness in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings on the superiority of palonosetron over ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, the present systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016038120) and performed to compare the efficacy of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron. The primary endpoints were defined as the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV. A total of 695 patients were included in the final analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed through administration times which were divided into two phases: the early phase of surgery and the end of surgery. Combined analysis did not show differences between palonosetron and ramosetron in the overall incidence of PON, POV or PONV. Palonosetron was more effective than ramosetron, when the administration time for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was during the early phase of the operation. Otherwise, ramosetron was more effective than palonosetron, when the administration time was at the end of surgery. However, the quality of evidence for each outcome was low or very low and number of included studies was small, limiting our confidence in findings.

Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Objective:

To review the literature on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in adults.

Data Sources:

Literature retrieval was accessed through MEDLINE (1966–December 2006) using the terms postoperative nausea and vomiting, prevention and treatment. Article references were hand-searched for additional relevant articles and abstracts.

Study Selection And Data Extraction:

All studies published in English were evaluated. Those dealing with prevention and treatment of PONV in adults were included in the review.

Data Synthesis:

Evidence suggests that providing prophylactic antiemetic medications in high-risk surgical patients is warranted. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are widely used, with no one agent being clearly superior. However, studies have shown other types of agents to ho more cost-effective.

Conclusions:

The first step in the prevention of PONV is assessment and reduction of risk factors. Although nonpharmacologic therapies may play a role in the treatment of PONV, the mainstay of therapy for PONV is pharmacologic modalities. Patients at moderate to high risk for PONV need prophylactic antiemetic therapy. High-risk patients may require combination therapy with 2 or 3 agents from different antiemetic classes. Rescue antiemetic therapy is needed by patients who actually develop PONV. The agents of choice in such cases should be from antiemetic classes different from those used for prophylaxis of PONV.

Changes in the Welfare of an Injured Working Farm Dog Assessed Using the Five Domains Model

Simple Summary

The Five Domains Model is now increasingly used to assess the welfare status of a wide range of species in markedly different circumstances. Particular strengths are that the Model facilitates structured, systematic and comprehensive evaluations of animals’ negative and positive mental experiences, the overall balance of which underlies their welfare status or quality of life. Importantly, the Model also clarifies the specific internal and external factors that give rise to those experiences. The welfare evaluation published here is the first to use the most up-to-date version of the Model, and stands as a detailed example that may assist others undertaking such welfare evaluations in other species and contexts. Moreover, it is the first such evaluation of a companion animal. It employs a fictitious scenario involving a working farm dog before, during and after it sustains a serious hind leg injury requiring amputation and its subsequent rehoming as a pet. A wide range of negative and positive experiences are graded, interactions between them are revealed, and the balance between negative and positive states at different stages of the scenario is described. Such Model evaluations can highlight current practices that merit re-evaluation. More generally, when major welfare issues are identified, use of the Model could enhance expert witness participation in related prosecutions by highlighting scientifically supported connections between indicative physical/functional states and behaviours and their associated negative experiences in ill-treated animals. Five Domains Model evaluations can also facilitate quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions.

Abstract

The present structured, systematic and comprehensive welfare evaluation of an injured working farm dog using the Five Domains Model is of interest in its own right. It is also an example for others wanting to apply the Model to welfare evaluations in different species and contexts. Six stages of a fictitious scenario involving the dog are considered: (1) its on-farm circumstances before one hind leg is injured; (2) its entanglement in barbed wire, cutting it free and transporting it to a veterinary clinic; (3) the initial veterinary examination and overnight stay; (4) amputation of the limb and immediate post-operative recovery; (5) its first four weeks after rehoming to a lifestyle block; and (6) its subsequent life as an amputee and pet. Not all features of the scenario represent average-to-good practice; indeed, some have been selected to indicate poor practice. It is shown how the Model can draw attention to areas of animal welfare concern and, importantly, to how welfare enhancement may be impeded or facilitated. Also illustrated is how the welfare implications of a sequence of events can be traced and evaluated, and, in relation to specific situations, how the degrees of welfare compromise and enhancement may be graded. In addition, the choice of a companion animal, contrasting its welfare status as a working dog and pet, and considering its treatment in a veterinary clinical setting, help to highlight various welfare impacts of some practices. By focussing attention on welfare problems, the Model can guide the implementation of remedies, including ways of promoting positive welfare states. Finally, wider applications of the Five Domains Model are noted: by enabling both negative and positive welfare-relevant experiences to be graded, the Model can be applied to quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions and, with particular regard to negative experiences, the Model can also help to strengthen expert witness testimony during prosecutions for serious ill treatment of animals.

Population pharmacokinetics and prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron in surgical patients

AIMS

This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of ramosetron and compared prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy with that of ondansetron in a large population.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients consented to the pharmacokinetic analysis and were assigned randomly to receive 0.3, 0.45 or 0.6 mg ramosetron after induction of anaesthesia. Blood samples were acquired at preset intervals. Non-compartmental and population pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. In total, 1102 patients consented to the evaluation of prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy and were allocated randomly to receive 0.3 mg ramosetron or 4 mg ondansetron at the end of surgery. An additional 16 mg ondansetron were mixed in the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia pump of the ondansetron group. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were evaluated 6, 24 and 48 h post-operatively using the Rhodes index of nausea, vomiting and retching (RINVR). Administration of rescue anti-emetics and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

The pharmacokinetic parameter estimates were V1 (l) = 5.12, V2 (l) = 108, CL (l⋅min(-1) ) = 0.08 + (59⋅age(-1) ) × 0.09, Q (l⋅min(-1) ) = 1.42. The incidences of PONV in the ramosetron and ondansetron groups were 77 (13.9%) and 113 (20.6%) and 44 (7.9%) and 66 (12.0%) at 24 and 48 h post-operatively, respectively (P = 0.004, 0.030). RINVR was significantly lower in the ramosetron than the ondansetron group 24 and 48 h post-operatively (P = 0.003, 0.025). Use of rescue anti-emetics and incidence of adverse events were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

A two compartment mammillary model was used to describe ramosetron pharmacokinetics. Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron was significantly better 24 and 48 h post-operatively than that of ondansetron, particularly when the Apfel score was ≥ 3.

Intravenous Ibuprofen for Treatment of Post-Operative Pain: A Multicenter, Double Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are often used as components of multimodal therapy for postoperative pain management, but their use is currently limited by its side effects. The specific objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen for the management of postoperative pain in a European population.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A total of 206 patients from both abdominal and orthopedic surgery, were randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to receive 800 mg IV-ibuprofen or placebo every 6 hours; all patients had morphine access through a patient controlled analgesia pump. The primary outcome measure was median morphine consumption within the first 24 hours following surgery. The mean±SEM of morphine requirements was reduced from 29,8±5,25 mg to 14,22±3,23 mg (p = 0,015) and resulted in a decrease in pain at rest (p = 0,02) measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) from mean±SEM 3.34±0,35 to 0.86±0.24, and also in pain during movement (p = 0,02) from 4.32±0,36 to 1.90±0,30 in the ibuprofen treatment arm; while in the placebo group VAS score at rest ranged from 4.68±0,40 to 2.12±0,42 and during movement from 5.66±0,42 to 3.38±0,44. Similar treatment-emergent adverse events occurred across both study groups and there was no difference in the overall incidence of these events.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative administration of IV-Ibuprofen 800 mg every 6 hours in abdominal surgery patient's decreases morphine requirements and pain score. Furthermore IV-Ibuprofen was safe and well tolerate. Consequently we consider appropriate that protocols for management of postoperative pain include IV-Ibuprofen 800 mg every 6 hours as an option to offer patients an analgesic benefit while reducing the potentially risks associated with morphine consumption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU Clinical Trials Register 2011-005007-33.

Prophylactic antiemetic effects of Midazolam, Ondansetron, and their combination after middle ear surgery

Objective:

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of midazolam-ondansetron combination in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after middle ear surgery and its comparison with using midazolam or ondansetron alone.

Methods:

One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in four groups to receive midazolam 0.75 mg/kg in group M, ondansetron 4 mg in group O, midazolam 0.75 mg/kg and ondansetron 4 mg in group MO, and saline 0.90% in group S intravenously just before anesthesia. Assessment of nausea, vomiting, rescue antiemetic, and side effects of study drugs such as headache and dizziness was carried out postoperatively for 24 h.

Findings:

The incidence of PONV was significantly smaller in group MO than group M and group O, while there was no significant difference between group M and group O during the first 24 h postoperatively. Requirement to the additional antiemetic was significantly more in group S (71.4%) compared to other groups, while in group MO (11.4%) was lower than group M (31.4%) and group O (34.3%).

Conclusion:

Our study showed that prophylactic administration of midazolam 0.75 mg/kg combined with ondansetron 4 mg was more effective than using midazolam or ondansetron alone in prevention of PONV after middle ear surgery.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Oral Versus Intravenous Administration of a Nonnarcotic Analgesia Protocol Following Pediatric Craniosynostosis Corrections on Nausea and Vomiting Rates

BACKGROUND

The authors' center uses a nonnarcotic postoperative regimen following craniosynostosis corrections. Despite opioid avoidance, the authors noted that some children still experienced nausea and vomiting following the oral administration of either acetaminophen or ibuprofen. This study sought to evaluate whether intravenous administration of these medications might reduce nausea and vomiting rates.

METHODS

A total of 50 children undergoing craniosynostosis corrections were prospectively randomized to a control group given only oral ibuprofen (10 mg/kg) and acetaminophen (15 mg/kg), or a treatment group given only intravenous ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg) and acetaminophen (15 mg/kg). All patients were assessed for postoperative nausea and vomiting by a blinded research nurse.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients randomized to the oral control group, and 22 to the intravenous treatment group. No statistically significant differences were identified between groups, including: age, weight, sex, before history of severe postoperative nausea and vomiting, or procedure. With similar anesthesia times there was significantly more vomiting episodes in the oral group (71% versus 41%). Using a multivariate logistic regression, controlling for age, weight and procedure, the odds ratio for vomiting in the oral control versus intravenous experimental groups was 3.61 (95% CI 1.11-1.76; P = 0.033), and for postoperative nausea was 14.0 (95% CI 1.40-71.69, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found a significant reduction in nausea and vomiting among children randomized to receive intravenous medications. In addition, the intravenous delivery of medications has the theoretical advantage of insuring an effective full dose delivery. Based on these findings, our standard process is to preferentially manage all children following craniosynostosis corrections with intravenous nonnarcotics.

Analysis of acupuncture prescription for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting based on the modern literature

AIM: To summarize clinical studies on acupuncture for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting over the last ten years, and to analyze acupuncture prescription for postoperative nausea and vomiting with regards to acupuncture method, acupoint selection, compatibility of acupoints, and acupuncture technique.

METHODS: PubMed, Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP Database were searched by computer from September 2005 to September 2015 to identify studies evaluating acupuncture or acupuncture combined with other treatments for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Finally, 52 articles were identified to analyze acupuncture prescription.

RESULTS: Main methods of acupuncture were filiform needle acupuncture, percutaneous electrical stimulation, electric acupuncture, acupoint pressure, and acupoint injection. For the selection of acupoints, a specific point was selected in most cases and bilateral acupoints were often punctured. For the compatibility of acupoints, the site and meridians are the main principles of acupuncture points. For the acupuncture technique, filling purging methods, time and intensity of acupuncture needle were described differently, and the best stimulation method is still uncertain.

CONCLUSION: The optimal acupuncture treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting remains to be studied. In the future, randomized, multicenter larger sample clinical studies should be carried out to examine acupuncture intervention timing, duration and intensity for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

The efficacy of P6 acupressure with sea-band in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a multifactorial problem after general anesthesia. Despite antiemetic prophylaxis and improved anesthetic techniques, PONV still occurs frequently after craniotomies. P6 stimulation is described as an alternative method for preventing PONV. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether P6 acupressure with Sea-Band could reduce postoperative nausea after elective craniotomy. Secondary aims were to investigate whether the frequency of vomiting and the need for antiemetics could be reduced.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, patients were randomized into either a P6 acupressure group (n=43) or a sham group (n=52). Bands were applied unilaterally at the end of surgery, and all patients were administered prophylactic ondansetron. Postoperative nausea was evaluated with a Numerical Rating Scale, 0 to10, and the frequency of vomiting was recorded for 48 hours.

RESULTS

We found no significant effect from P6 acupressure with Sea-Band on postoperative nausea or vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy. Nor was there any difference in the need for rescue antiemetics. Altogether, 67% experienced PONV, and this was especially an issue at >24 hours in patients recovering from infratentorial surgery compared with supratentorial surgery (55% vs. 26%; P=0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral P6 acupressure with Sea-Band applied at the end of surgery together with prophylactic ondansetron did not significantly reduce PONV or the need for rescue antiemetics in patients undergoing craniotomy. Our study confirmed that PONV is a common issue after craniotomy, especially after infratentorial surgery.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Palonosetron with Dexamethasone vs. Ondansetron with Dexamethasone in Laparoscopic Hysterectomies

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the most common complication seen following laparoscopic surgery. Our study sought to evaluate the efficacy of the newer drug palonosetron with that of ondansetron, in combination with dexamethasone, for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomies. .

METHODS

A total of 90 patients, aged between 30-50 years old, posted for elective laparoscopic hysterectomies under general anesthesia belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status I and II were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into one of two groups (n=45). Before induction, patients in the first group (group I) received 0.075mg palonosetron with 8mg dexamethasone and patients in the second group (group II) received 4mg ondansetron with 8mg dexamethasone. Postoperatively, any incidences of early or delayed vomiting, requirement of rescue antiemetic, and side effects were recorded. Patient's hemodynamics were also monitored. Statistical analysis was done using Student's t-test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. .

RESULTS

Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative heart rate, mean arterial pressure, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation were statistically not significant (p>0.050) in either group. In group II, eight patients had nausea in the first two hours and three patients had nausea in the two to six-hour postoperative period. In group I, three patients experienced nausea in the first six hours period. Eight patients in group II had vomited in the first two-hour period compared to one patient in group I (p=0.013). The requirement of rescue antiemetic was greater in group II than group I (20% vs. 4%). No side effects of antiemetic use were observed in either group. .

CONCLUSION

The combination of palonosetron with dexamethasone is more effective in treating early, delayed, and long term PONV compared to ondansetron with dexamethasone in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic hysterectomies under general anesthesia.

Comparison of palonosetron, granisetron, and ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are reported to have potent antiemetic effects for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron, granisetron, and ramosetron for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized observational study, 105 healthy female patients who were undergoing laparocopic hystectomy under general anaesthesia were enrolled (clinical trial number: NCT01752374, www.clinicaltrials.gov ). Patients were divided into three groups: the palonostron (0.075 mg i.v.; n = 35), the granisetron group (3 mg i.v.; n = 35), and the ramosetron group (0.3 mg i.v.; n = 35). The treatments were given before the end of surgery. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea/vomiting, and the use of rescue antiemetic requirements during the first 48 h after surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PONV was 33.3 % for this series. The number of complete responders at 48 h after the surgery was 21 (60.0 %) for palonosetron, 24 (68.6 %) for granisetron, and 26 (71.4 %) for ramosetron, representing no statistical difference (P = 0.086).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in the overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and complete responders for palonosetron, granisetron and ramosetron group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

NCT01752374 , www.clinicaltrials.gov .