Penehyclidine enhances the efficacy of tropisetron in prevention of PONV following gynecological laparoscopic surgery

Penehyclidine for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients receiving general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of general anesthesia. This affects 30-80% of patients, and leads to discomfort and extended hospital stays. The effectiveness of penehyclidine for preventing PONV remains a subject of debate in the literature. Therefore, the present systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the efficacy of penehyclidine in preventing PONV in patients who received general anesthesia.

METHODS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024523798). The present study will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines. The search will be conducted across multiple databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CQVIP. This will comprise articles published from the inception of the databases to April 1, 2024. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that meet the inclusion criteria would be searched. The main outcome measure is the incidence of PONV. The secondary outcome measures include the incidence of postoperative nausea, incidence of postoperative vomiting, severity of nausea, severity of vomiting, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay and adverse effects. Two researchers will independently evaluate the quality of the selected literature, and extract the data. The quality assessment of each RCT will be independently conducted by two researchers using the GRADE approach, as recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Risk of Bias Assessment. The meta-analysis will be conducted using RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

A series of studies on the use of penehyclidine to prevent PONV in patients who received general anesthesia will be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

The results of the systematic review will offer valuable insights to clinicians and researchers on the use of penehyclidine as a prophylactic intervention against PONV in patients who receive general anesthesia.

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.

Penehyclidine hydrochloride for treating postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and distressing complication of laparoscopic bariatric surgery (LBS). Penehyclidine hydrochloride has been reported to be effective in preventing PONV. Considering the potential preventive effects of penehyclidine against PONV, we hypothesized that intravenous infusion of penehyclidine may alleviate PONV within the first 48 h in patients scheduled for LBS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LBS were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive saline (Control group, n = 113) or a single intravenous dose of penehyclidine 0.5 mg (PHC group, n = 221). The primary outcome was incidence of PONV within the first 48 h postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included severity of PONV, need for rescue antiemetic therapy, volume of water intake, and time to first flatus.

RESULTS

PONV occurred in 159 (48%) patients within the first 48 h postoperatively, including 51% in the Control group and 46% in the PHC group. There was no significant difference in the incidence or severity of PONV between the two groups (P > 0.05). Within the first 24 h and 24-48 h, no significant difference was found in incidence or severity of PONV, postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, need for rescue antiemetic therapy, or volume of water intake (P > 0.05). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that penehyclidine was significantly associated with a prolonged time to first flatus (median onset time: 22 h vs. 21 h, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Penehyclidine did not decrease incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing LBS. However, a single intravenous dose of penehyclidine (0.5 mg) was associated with a slightly prolonged time to first flatus.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100052418, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=134893 , date of registration: 25/10/2021).

Evaluation of penehyclidine for prevention of post operative nausea and vomitting in patients undergoing total thyroidectomy under total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol-remifentanil

Backgroud

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common complications after total thyroidectomy under general anesthesia. Total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) has been documented to prevent PONV in patients undergoing total thyroidectomy. Penehyclidine, an anticholinergic agent with an elimination half-life of over 10 h, is widely used as premedication to reduce glandular secretion. This study aimed to explore the preventative effects of penehyclidine with propofol-remifentanil-TIVA to single-TIVA on PONV in patients undergoing total thyroidectomy.

Methods

A total of 100 patients scheduled for total thyroidectomy were randomly assigned to either the penehyclidine group (n = 50) or TIVA group (n = 50). Propofol and remifentanil were was used for TIVA in all patients. No patients who received premedication. Patients were administrated with either 5 ml of normal saline or 0.5 mg of penehyclidine soon after anesthesia induction. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, the severity of nausea, the requirement of rescue antiemetics, and adverse effects were investigated during the first 24 h in two time periods (0–2 h and 2–24 h).

Results

The overall PONV incidence during the 24 h after surgery was significantly lower in the penehyclidine group compared with the TIVA group (12% vs 36%, P < 0.005). Besides, the incidence of nausea and the incidence of vomiting were significantly lower in the penehyclidine group compared with the TIVA group at 2–24 h after surgery. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups at 0–2 h after surgery.

Conclusions

Administration of penehyclidine under TIVA with propofol-remifentanil is more effective for prevention of PONV than TIVA alone, especially 2–24 h after total thyroidectomy.

Trial registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=132463&htm=4 (Ref: ChiCTR2100050278, the full date of first registration: 25/08/2021).

Penehyclidine for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose bolus plus continuous infusion of penehyclidine in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following bimaxillary surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred fifty-four patients were randomly allocated into three groups. In the Control group, placebo (normal saline) was injected before anesthesia and infused over 48 h after surgery; in the Bolus group, 0.5 mg penehyclidine was injected before anesthesia, whereas placebo was infused after surgery; in the Infusion group, 0.25 mg penehyclidine were injected before anesthesia, another 0.25 mg penehyclidine was infused after surgery. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PONV within 72 h.

RESULTS

A total of 353 patients were included in intention-to-treat analysis. The PONV incidence was 61.0% (72/118) in the Control group, 40.2% (47/117) in the Bolus group, and 28.0% (33/118) in the Infusion group. The incidence was significantly lower in the Bolus group than in the Control group (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; adjusted P = 0.003) and in the Infusion group than in the Control group (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.33-0.63; adjusted P < 0.001); the difference between the Infusion and Bolus groups was not statistically significant (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.48-1.00; adjusted P = 0.144). Emergence agitation occurred more frequently in the Bolus group than in the Control group (36.8% [43/117] vs. 21.2% [25/118], adjusted P = 0.027), but did not differ significantly between the Infusion and Control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A low-dose bolus plus continuous infusion of penehyclidine was effective in preventing PONV without increasing emergence agitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04454866.

Penehyclidine mitigates postoperative nausea and vomiting and intraoperative oculocardiac reflex in patients undergoing strabismus surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most frequent complications following strabismus surgery. Penehyclidine, an anticholinergic agent, is widely used as premedication. This study investigated the effect of preoperative penehyclidine on PONV in patients undergoing strabismus surgery.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind study, patients scheduled for strabismus surgery under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to either penehyclidine (n = 114) or normal saline (n = 104) group. Penehyclidine was administrated immediately after anesthesia induction, and normal saline was substituted as control. PONV was investigated from 0 to 48 h after surgery. Intraoperative oculocardiac reflex (OCR) was also recorded.

Results

Compared with normal saline, penehyclidine significantly reduced PONV incidence (30.7% vs. 54.8%, P < 0.01) and mitigated PONV severity as indicated by severity scoring (P < 0.01). Compared with normal saline, penehyclidine also significantly reduced OCR incidence (57.9% vs. 77.9%, P < 0.01) and mitigated OCR severity, as indicated by the requirement for atropine rescue (77.3% vs. 90.1%, P < 0.05) and the maximum decrease of heart rate during OCR (23.1 ± 9.4 bpm vs. 27.3 ± 12.4 bpm, P < 0.05). The recovery course did not differ between groups.

Conclusions

Penehyclidine administrated after anesthesia induction significantly reduced the incidence of PONV and alleviated intraoperative OCR in patients undergoing strabismus surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04054479). Retrospectively registered August 13, 2019.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Patient reported experiences following laparoscopic prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy or salpingectomy in an ambulatory care hospital

Women at risk of developing ovarian cancer because of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant are candidates for prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). While BSO surgeries are routinely performed, to our knowledge there are no studies that have examined patient-reported experiences following laparoscopic BSO performed in an ambulatory care setting. The objective of this study was to examine whether women undergoing prophylactic laparoscopic BSO felt they were adequately informed about post-operative outcomes. A telephone interview was conducted among 46 women undergoing laparoscopic BSO to collect detailed information regarding surgical outcomes, complications, symptoms, and time to return to daily activities. The average age at surgery was 45.0 years (range 34-66) and 67% of women underwent BSO prior to age 50. The mean reported hospital stay was 7.2 h (range 4-12 h) and at time of discharge, 78% of the women felt well enough to go home. None of the women required a readmission to hospital. Forty-three percent (n = 20) of the women did not feel well informed about what to expect post-operatively. Most of the patient-reported outcomes (including pain, vaginal bleeding, and nausea/vomiting) were expected and patient-reported menopausal symptoms were more common among women who were premenopausal at surgery. In terms of returning to regular activities, premenopausal women (n = 36) resumed sexual activity on average at 43 days (range 2-365), which is later than postmenopausal women (n = 15) at 19 days (range 7-30). On average, women returned to full-time work in 16 days (range 1-56 days). Despite patients receiving pre-surgery counselling, our findings suggest that there is a need to provide supplemental, reinforcing patient materials in preparing patients for what to expect after surgery.

Penehyclidine Hydrochloride Premedication Is Not Associated with Increased Incidence of Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction or Delirium:A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective Post-operative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and post-operative delirium (POD) are two common post-operative cerebral complications. The current meta-analysis was to systematically review the effects of penehyclidine hydrochloride (PHC) on POCD and POD in surgical patients.Methods Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials comparing PHC with atropine/scopolamine/placebo on POCD and POD in surgical patients. Primary outcomes of interest included the incidences of POCD and POD; the secondary outcomes of interest included peri-operative mini-mental state examination (MMSE) scores. Two authors independently extracted peri-operative data, including patients' baseline characteristics, surgical variables, and outcome data. For dichotomous data (POCD and POD occurrence), treatment effects were calculated as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidential interval (CI). Each outcome was tested for heterogeneity, and randomized-effects or fixed-effects model was used in the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity. For continuous variables (MMSE scores), treatment effects were calculated as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05.Results Our search yielded 33 studies including 4017 patients. Meta-analysis showed that, the incidence of POCD in PHC group was comparable to that in saline group (OR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.58-1.64; P=0.92), scopolamine group (OR=0.78; 95% CI: 0.48-1.27; P=0.32) and atropine group (OR=1.20; 95% CI: 0.86-1.67; P=0.29). The incidence of POD in PHC group was comparable to that in saline group (OR=1.53; 95% CI: 0.81-2.90; P=0.19) and scopolamine group (OR=0.53; 95% CI: 0.06-4.56; P=0.56), but higher than that in atropine group (OR=4.49; 95% CI: 1.34-15.01; P=0.01).Conclusions PHC premedication was not associated with increased incidences of POCD or POD as compared to either scopolamine or placebo.

Penehyclidine effects the angiogenic potential of pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells

The present study sought to determine the pharmacological effects of penehyclidine, an anticholinergic agent, on the angiogenic capacity of pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (PMVECs). In vitro Matrigel network formation assay, cell proliferation assay, cell-matrix adhesion assay, and wound-healing assay were performed in PMVECs with or without exposure to penehyclidine or, in some cases, glycopyrrolate or acetylcholine, over a concentration range. In addition, the phosphorylation state of Akt and ERK, as well as the endogenous level of mTOR and RICTOR were examined in PMVECs by Western blot following the cells exposure to penehyclidine or, for some proteins, glycopyrrolate or acetylcholine. Finally, Western blot for Akt phosphorylation and in vitro Matrigel network formation assay were performed in PMVECs following their exposure to penehyclidine with or without phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor LY294002 or mTOR inhibitor torin-1. We found that, in PMVECs, penehyclidine affected the network formation and cell migration, but not proliferation or cell-matrix adhesion, in a concentration-specific manner, i.e., penehyclidine increased the network formation and cell migration at lower concentrations but increased these processes at higher concentrations. Coincidentally, we observed that penehyclidine concentration-specifically affected the phosphorylation state of Akt in PMVECs, i.e., increased Akt phosphorylation at lower concentrations and decreased it at higher concentrations. In contrast, glycopyrrolate was found straightly to decrease network formation and Akt phosphorylation in a concentration-dependent manner. Further, we demonstrated that PI3K or mTOR blockade abolished both the enhanced network formation and the increased Akt phosphorylation by penehyclidine. Hence, penehyclidine may differentially alter the angiogenic capacity of PMVECs through affecting the Akt signaling pathway downstream of PI3K and mTOR. Findings from this study suggest a unique pharmacological feature of penehyclidine, which may imply its clinical and therapeutic value in modulating angiogenesis.

Protective effects of scopolamine and penehyclidine hydrochloride on acute cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury after cardiopulmonary resuscitation and effects on cytokines

The objective of this study was to investigate the protective effects of scopolamine and penehyclidine hydrochloride on acute cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury after cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and the effect on cytokine levels. Eighty patients with cardiac arrest admitted to our hospital from June 2011 to December 2015 were recruited and randomly divided into two groups (n=40 each). Following cardiopulmonary resuscitation, scopolamine was administered in the control group, whereas penehyclidine hydrochloride was administered in the observation group. After intervention, the following medical indicators were compared between the groups: Intracranial pressure, cerebral oxygen partial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, assessment of the balance of cerebral oxygen supply and demand, levels of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) and blood lactic acid, levels of oxidative stress markers, and levels of inflammatory-related factors. Additionally, the areas of brain tissue edema and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores before and after intervention were compared. Rescue success rates of the groups were recorded. After intervention, the following indicators were lower in the observation group than in the control group: Intracranial pressure (p<0.05), levels of NSE (p<0.05), levels of blood lactic acid (p<0.05), levels of malondialdehyde (p<0.05), and levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-1, and hs-CRP (p<0.05). However, the following indicators were higher in the observation group than in the control group: Cerebral oxygen partial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure (p<0.05), levels of CaO₂, CjvO₂, and CERO₂ (p>0.05), and levels of superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase (p<0.05). Additionally, the areas of brain tissue edema after intervention were smaller in the observation group than those before intervention and those after intervention in the control group (p<0.05). Similarly, the NIHSS scores after intervention in the observation group were lower than those before intervention and those after intervention in the control group (p<0.05). Rescue success rate was significantly higher in observation group than in control group (p<0.05). In conclusion, administration of penehyclidine following cardiopulmonary resuscitation can effectively improve cerebral perfusion pressure, lower intracranial pressure, reduce brain tissue edema and inflammation, and improve neurological function.

Effect of penehyclidine hydrochloride on heart rate variability in hysteroscopy

In order to evaluate the effect of different doses of penehyclidine hydrochloride (penehyclidine) on heart rate (HR) and HR variability (HRV) in hysteroscopy, 180 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I-II) were randomized equally to three groups: 0.5 mg penehyclidine and intravenous anesthesia (group I), 1.0 mg penehyclidine and intravenous anesthesia (group II) and saddle anesthesia combined with intravenous anesthesia (control group). HR and HRV, including total power (TP), low-frequency power (LF), high-frequency power (HF) and the LF to HF ratio (LF/HF), were recorded prior and subsequent to the induction of anesthesia (T₀ and T₁, respectively), following the start of surgery (T₂) and following completion of surgery (T₃). HR was lower at T₂ than at T₀ in the control patients, but no differences were observed in groups I and II. The HR at T₂ was increased in group II compared with that in group I. TP in group II was significantly higher compared with that in group I at T₂. At T₁ and at T₂, the LF and HF values were lower in group I than those in the controls. Patients in group II also had higher LF and HF at T₂ than patients in group I. The HF was higher at T₂ than that at T₀ in the controls; however, the HF and LF did not change significantly within groups I and II. No significant differences were observed in the LF/HF ratio among the three groups. At a dose of 0.5 mg, penehyclidine stabilized HRV and did not alter the autonomic nervous modulation of HR. A penehyclidine dose of 1.0 mg may be superior to a dose of 0.5 mg in maintaining HR, but is less effective at balancing sympathetic and parasympathetic activity.