Efficacy of palonosetron and ramosetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting related to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids after gynecological laparoscopic surgery (double-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial)

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.

Impact of basal infusion on postoperative nausea and vomiting in fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) is widely prescribed postoperatively. Basal infusion of fentanyl through IV PCA is associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, the role of basal infusion in fentanyl-based IV PCA is not well-established.

METHODS

This parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary university medical center in the Republic of Korea from September 2022 to April 2023. Patient inclusion criteria were: age 20 to 65 years, intraperitoneal laparoscopic gynecologic surgery, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) request from the surgical department, and written informed consent for PCA. Patients were allocated to basal infusion (BAS group) and bolus-only (BOL group) groups in a 1:1 ratio.A sum of 100 mL of analgesic mixture containing fentanyl 18.5 µg/kg, nefopam 120 mg, and ramosetron 0.3 mg was mixed in PCA pumps of both groups. For BAS group, basal infusion rate, bolus volume, and lock-out interval were 2 mL/hour, 1 mL, and 15 minutes, respectively. BOL group received no basal infusion; bolus volume and lock-out interval were 1 mL and 6 minutes, respectively.The primary outcome was postoperative nausea, measured using a self-response questionnaire 24 hours after operation and expressed as a 100-mm visual analog scale score. We also determined frequency of postoperative vomiting, quality of postoperative recovery (using Korean version of 15-item Quality of Recovery [QoR-15K] scale), and overall patient satisfaction with anesthetic service.

RESULTS

A sum of 82 of the 88 patients enrolled were included. The visual analog scale score for postoperative nausea was 31.4 ± 31.3 mm; the condition was more severe in the BAS group than in the BOL group (95% confidence interval of difference: 2.1-28.9 mm, P = .024). The QoR-15K score, patient satisfaction, and rescue opioid doses used were similar across groups.

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl-based IV PCA without basal infusion resulted in less postoperative nausea and vomiting than IV PCA with basal infusion and maintained adequate analgesia. Basal infusion can be omitted to reduce postoperative nausea using IV PCA by applying an appropriate lock-out interval. Further research comparing variable PCA settings is warranted.

A web-based dynamic predictive model for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patient receiving gynecological laparoscopic surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop a web-based dynamic prediction model for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

The patients (N = 647) undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery were included in this observational study. The candidate risk-factors related to PONV were included through literature search. Lasso regression was utilized to screen candidate risk-factors, and the variables with statistical significance were selected in multivariable logistic model building. The web-based dynamic Nomogram was used for model exhibition. Accuracy and validity of the experimental model (EM) were evaluated by generating receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration curves. Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to evaluate the goodness of fit of the model. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical practicability of the risk prediction model.

RESULTS

Ultimately, a total of five predictors including patient-controlled analgesia (odds ratio [OR], 4.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.98-12.44), motion sickness (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 2.71-8.65), variation of blood pressure (OR, 4.30; 95% CI, 2.41-7.91), pregnancy vomiting history (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.44-3.43), and pain response (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.48-1.83) were selected in model building. Assessment of the model indicates the discriminating power of EM was adequate (ROC-areas under the curve, 93.0%; 95% CI, 90.7%-95.3%). EM showed better accuracy and goodness of fit based on the results of the calibration curve. The DCA curve of EM showed favorable clinical benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

This dynamic prediction model can determine the PONV risk in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

The preventive effect of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist on blood pressure reduction and postoperative nausea and vomiting during general anesthesia induction: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Administering a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor (5-HT3) at anesthesia induction may aid in achieving hemodynamic stability during general anesthesia induced using opioids. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effect of ramosetron, a 5-HT3 antagonist, administered on hypotension at the induction of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil. Additionally, we aimed to compare the impact of ramosetron administration at anesthesia induction versus that at the end of the surgery on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DESIGN

Patients were randomly allocated to the Induction group (administration of ramosetron [0.3 mg/5 ml] at anesthesia induction and normal saline [5 ml] at the end of the surgery) or End group (administration of normal saline [5 ml] at anesthesia induction and ramosetron [0.3 mg/5 ml] at the end of the surgery). Hemodynamic status, PONV, and postoperative pain were assessed.

SETTING

Operating room, post-anesthetic care unit, and general ward.

PATIENTS

In total, 176 non-smoking patients without any past medical history undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgeries under TIVA were included in the study.

MEASUREMENTS

Blood pressure (BP), heart rate, PONV, visual analog scale (VAS).

MAIN RESULTS

The Induction group exhibited significantly higher BP at anesthesia induction and required significantly lower doses of phenylephrine and ephedrine during anesthesia than the End group had. However, PONV and postoperative pain were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Administering ramosetron at anesthesia induction resulted in significantly better hemodynamic stability with significantly lesser requirement of phenylephrine and ephedrine than administering at the end of the surgery did. Therefore, we recommend ramosetron administration at anesthesia induction rather than at the end of the surgery to prevent PONV and the decrease in the mean BP during TIVA with propofol and remifentanil.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Palonosetron and Ramosetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with that of ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A total of 17 randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV were included. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV, which were measured in early, late, and overall phases. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of the administration time of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and divided into two phases: early phase and the end of surgery. A total of 17 studies with 1823 patients were included in the final analysis. The incidence of retching (relative risk [RR] = 0.525; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.390 to 0.707) and late POV (RR = 0.604; 95% CI = 0.404 to 0.903) was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group. No significant differences were demonstrated in the incidence of PON, PONV, complete response, use of antiemetics, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis showed that palonosetron was superior to ramosetron in terms of early PON, late PON, overall POV, and use of rescue antiemetics when they were administered early; in terms of retching, regardless of the timing of administration. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in terms of early PON when they were administered late. The prophylactic administration of palonosetron was more effective than that of ramosetron in preventing the development of retching and late POV. In this meta-analysis, no significant differences in PONV prevention between the two drugs were demonstrated. Further studies are required to validate the outcomes of our study.

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.

Relationship between the Use of Fentanyl-Based Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia and Clinically Significant Events in Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgery: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: This study examined the relationship between the use of fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (ivPCA) and the incidence of a clinically significant event (CSE), while considering both the analgesic effects and side effects in laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Methods: This study included 816 patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery under general anesthesia at Kyoto University Hospital between 2012 and 2018. The primary exposure was the use of fentanyl-based ivPCA. We defined an outcome measure—CSE—that integrates severe wound pain and vomiting assumed to negatively affect patient recovery. We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the independent relationship between ivPCA use and CSE. Results: Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that fentanyl-based ivPCA was independently associated with increased CSE (adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.80 (1.24−2.61), p = 0.002). Use of ivPCA was associated with a reduced incidence of postoperative severe wound pain (adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.50 (0.27−0.90), p = 0.022), but was also associated with an increased incidence of vomiting (adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 2.65 (1.79−3.92), p < 0.001). Conclusion: The use of fentanyl-based ivPCA in laparoscopic gynecological surgery is associated with increased CSE.

Comparison of palonosetron with combined palonosetron and midazolam for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an undesirable complication in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Combination therapy via different mechanisms of action for antiemetic prophylaxis has been warranted for effective treatment of PONV. This study was designed to compare the prophylactic antiemetic effect between midazolam combined with palonosetron (group MP) and palonosetron alone (group P) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgeries.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was investigated in non-smoking female. Eighty-eight patients were randomly divided into 2 groups with 44 patients each. Group MP received 0.05 mg/kg of midazolam intravenously before induction of anesthesia whereas group P received the same volume of normal saline. Immediately after anesthetic induction, 0.075 mg of palonosetron was administered to both the groups. The incidence and severity of PONV were assessed during 2 time intervals (0-2 hours, 2-24 hours), postoperatively.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during 24 hours after surgery was lower in group MP as compared to group P. There was also a significant difference in the use of rescue antiemetics. The severity of nausea was significantly lower in group MP as compared to group P, in the initial 2 hours after surgery. The incidence of side effects was similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

In the prevention of PONV, midazolam combined with palonosetron, administered during induction of anesthesia was more effective as compared to palonosetron alone.

Sufentanil EC50 for endotracheal intubation with aerosol inhalation of carbonated lidocaine by ultrasonic atomizer

BACKGROUND

Nebulized lidocaine reduced stress response for endotracheal intubation. However, the impact of novel lidocaine aerosol inhalation for intubation by ultrasonic atomizer was unclear. Hence, we designed aerosol inhalation of lidocaine by ultrasonic atomizer, to seek whether the dosage of sufentanil for intubation could be less or not.

METHODS

Intravenous injection of sufentanil started at 0.5 μg/kg, and sufentanil dosage was increased/decreased (step-size 0.05 μg/kg for sufentanil) using Dixon's up and down method. The observation was terminated after 8 reflexes.

RESULTS

The EC50 and EC95 of sufentanil with lidocaine by ultrasonic atomizer for intubation were found to be 0.232 μg/kg (95% CI: 0.187-0.270 μg/kg) and 0.447 μg/kg (95% CI: 0.364-0.703 μg/kg). 55.88% out of 34 patients showed hemodynamic index change < 20% of baseline during intubation.

CONCLUSION

Aerosol inhalation of lidocaine by ultrasonic atomizer reduced the dosage of sufentanil for endotracheal intubation. Lidocaine inhalation by ultrasonic atomizer for airway anesthesia with minimal dosage of sufentanil could be recommended, particularly in patients who need more stable hemodynamic changes or spontaneous respiration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Registry of Central Trial, ChiCTR-IOR-17014198 . Registered 28 December 2017.

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).

Comparison of Sufentanil- and Fentanyl-based Intravenous Patient-controlled Analgesia on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: A Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized-controlled Trial

Background: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains high. The effects of sufentanil for PONV is not firmly confirmed. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of sufentanil- and fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) on the incidence of PONV after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Methods: Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to receive either the sufentanil (n =43) or fentanyl (n =43). IV-PCA was prepared using either sufentanil 3 µg/kg or fentanyl 20 µg/kg, ramosetron 0.3 mg, and ketorolac 120 mg. The primary outcome of was the incidence of PONV during 24 h after post anesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge. The secondary outcomes were the modified Rhodes index and patient satisfaction scores at 24 h after PACU discharge, need for rescue antiemetics, pain score, need for additional analgesics, and cumulative consumption of IV-PCA Results: The incidence of PONV was comparable between the sufentanil and fentanyl groups (64.3% vs. 65%, p = 0.946; respectively). The number of patients who required antiemetics (p = 0.946) and the modified Rhodes index at 24 h after post-anesthesia care unit discharge (p = 0.668) were also comparable in both groups. No significant differences were found in the secondary outcomes, including the analgesic profiles and adverse events between the groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, sufentanil- and fentanyl-based IV-PCA showed similar incidence of PONV with comparable analgesic effects after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Based on these results, we suggest that sufentanil and fentanyl may provide comparable effects for IV-PCA after laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Ramosetron Does Not Reduce the Analgesic Efficacy of Tramadol after Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery

Background

The effect of ramosetron on the analgesic action of tramadol is not well known when ramosetron is added to intravenous-tramadol patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and infused continuously. The aim of this randomized noninferiority study was to evaluate the effects of ramosetron on the analgesic action of tramadol when it is administered simultaneously in women undergoing laparoscopic gynecology who are receiving tramadol via IV PCA.

Method

This study used a prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority clinical trial design and compared the analgesic effect of tramadol plus ramosetron with that of tramadol only. A total of 110 postoperative patients, who were using IV PCA tramadol, were randomly assigned either to a group receiving ramosetron (group R, n=49) or to a group that received the same volume of normal saline continuously (group N, n=51). Observation time points for cumulative tramadol consumption were the first hour, and every 4 h up to 12 h and then 24 h after surgery. Pain intensity at rest and during movement, coughing, and nausea scores, the analgesic and antiemetic doses used, side effects, and patient satisfaction were evaluated 1 and 24 h after surgery.

Results

Groups R and N received, respectively, 88 ± 55 vs. 79 ± 42 mg tramadol (P=0.511) after 1 h, 211 ± 122 vs. 198 ± 109 mg cumulative tramadol (P=0.610) after 4 h, 244 ± 150 vs. 231 ± 134 mg cumulative tramadol (P= 0.793) after 8 h, 250 ± 156 vs. 247 ± 153 mg cumulative tramadol (P=0.972) after 12 h, and 294 ± 190 vs. 284 ± 178 mg cumulative tramadol (P=0.791) after 24 h, postsurgery. Tramadol plus ramosetron was shown to be not significantly inferior to tramadol alone in alleviating the postoperative pain.

Conclusions

The analgesic effect of tramadol combined with ramosetron was found to be noninferior to tramadol alone for postoperative PCA after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Evidence review conducted for the AHRQ Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery: focus on anesthesiology for gynecologic surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for gynecologic (GYN) surgery are increasingly being reported and may be associated with superior outcomes, reduced length of hospital stay, and cost savings. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in partnership with the American College of Surgeons and the Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, has developed the Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery, which is a nationwide initiative to disseminate best practices in perioperative care to more than 750 hospitals across five major surgical service lines in a 5-year period. The program is designed to identify evidence-based process measures shown to prevent healthcare-associated conditions and hasten recovery after surgery, integrate those into a comprehensive service line-based pathway, and assist hospitals in program implementation. In conjunction with this effort, we have conducted an evidence review of the various anesthesia components which may influence outcomes and facilitate recovery after GYN surgery. A literature search was performed for each intervention, and the highest levels of available evidence were considered. Anesthesiology-related interventions for preoperative (carbohydrate loading/fasting, multimodal preanesthetic medications), intraoperative (standardized intraoperative pathway, regional anesthesia, protective ventilation strategies, fluid minimization) and postoperative (multimodal analgesia) phases of care are included. We have summarized the best available evidence to recommend the anesthetic components of care for ERAS for GYN surgery.

Efficacy of Palonosetron-Dexamethasone Combination Versus Palonosetron Alone for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting Related to Opioid-Based Analgesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Trial

Background: The efficacy of dexamethasone plus palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis is not firmly established. This randomized, double-blind, controlled study evaluated whether the combination was superior to palonosetron alone in preventing PONV in patients receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after upper extremity surgery. Methods: A total of 202 patients undergoing upper extremity surgery were randomly assigned to group P (palonosetron alone) or group PD (palonosetron plus dexamethasone). Group P patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg and normal saline 1.6 mL; group PD patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg. In both groups, palonosetron was added to the IV-PCA opioid infusion, which was continued for 48 h postoperatively. Incidence and severity of nausea, incidence of vomiting, rescue antiemetic requirements, pain intensity, and rescue analgesic requirements were evaluated for 72 h postoperatively. Quality of recovery was assessed using the quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire. Results: The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group PD than in group P at 0-48 h postoperatively (61.5% vs 77.1%; p = 0.019). Severity of nausea at 0-6 h postoperatively was significantly less in group PD compared with group P (none/mild/moderate/severe: 49/22/15/10 vs. 36/16/25/19, p = 0.008). The incidence of vomiting and rescue antiemetic requirements were similar between groups. Pain intensity was significantly less in group PD than in group P at 0-48 h and 48-72 h postoperatively. Global QoR-15 was similar 24 h postoperatively between groups. Conclusions: Dexamethasone-palonosetron combination therapy reduced PONV incidence and postoperative pain in patients receiving opioid-based analgesia after upper extremity surgery.

Efficacy of Palonosetron vs. Ramosetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

This study was designed as a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included the comparison of palonosetron and ramosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, KoreaMed, and Google Scholar databases (PROSPERO protocol number CRD42015026009). Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first 48 hrs after surgery. The total 48-hr period was further analyzed in time epochs of 0-6 hrs (early), 6-24 hrs (late), and 24-48 hrs (delayed). Subgroup analyses according to number of risk factors, sex, and type of surgery were also performed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 1373 patients were analyzed. There was no difference in PON or POV between the two drugs for the total 48-hr period after surgery. However, palonosetron was more effective in preventing POV during the delayed period overall [relative risk (RR), 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.89; p=0.013], as well as after subgroup analyses for females and laparoscopies (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86; p=0.009 and RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.94; p=0.033). Subgroup analysis for spine surgery showed that ramosetron was more effective in reducing POV during the total 48-hr (RR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.46 to 7.63; p=0.004) and early periods (RR, 8.47; 95% CI, 1.57 to 45.72; p=0.013).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis discovered no definite difference in PONV prevention between the two drugs. The significant findings that were seen in different time epochs and subgroup analyses should be confirmed in future RCTs.

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.

A Comparison of Oxycodone and Alfentanil in Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia with a Time-Scheduled Decremental Infusion after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background. Oxycodone, a semisynthetic opioid, has been widely used for acute and chronic pain. Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic and adverse effects of oxycodone and alfentanil on postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. A total of 82 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly assigned to receive either oxycodone or alfentanil using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). PCA was administered as a time-scheduled decremental continuous infusion based on lean body mass for 48 hours postoperatively. Patients were assessed for pain with a visual analogue scale (VAS), the cumulative PCA dose, adverse effects, sedation level at 1, 4, 8, 16, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively, and satisfaction during the postoperative 48 hours. Results. There were no significant differences (p < 0.05) between the two groups in VAS score, cumulative PCA dose, adverse effects, sedation level at 1, 4, 8, 16, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively, and satisfaction during the postoperative 48 hours. Conclusions. Our data showed that the analgesic and adverse effects of oxycodone and alfentanil were similar. Therefore, oxycodone may be a good alternative to alfentanil for pain management using intravenous PCA after laparoscopic cholecystectomy when used at a conversion ratio of 10 : 1. This trial is registered with KCT0001962.