Ondansetron Versus Metoclopramide in Prophylaxis of Nausea and Vomiting for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Double-blind Randomized Study

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.

Comparing the effect of ondansetron–dexamethasone and metoclopramide–dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological laparoscopy: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

Background:

Nausea and vomiting is a common complication after gynecological surgeries, especially laparoscopy, which can lead to discomfort and restlessness in the patients. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of ondansetron–dexamethasone and metoclopramide–dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting following gynecological laparoscopy.

Materials and Methods:

In this double-blind clinical trial, 68 females scheduled for gynecological laparoscopy and age range of 18–40 years were randomly divided into two groups. Group OD received ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg and group MD received metoclopramide 10 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg, 15 min before the end of surgery. The incidence of nausea and vomiting and need for rescue medication was assessed during the recovery period, as well as at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. The data were analyzed using STATA software version 12 and a significance level of <0.05 was considered in this research.

Results:

The incidence of nausea in ondansetron and metoclopramide groups was 23.3% and 33.3%, respectively, and the frequency of vomiting was 10% and 16.6%, respectively, which showed no significant difference (P > 0.05). The highest incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients belonged to the metoclopramide group inside 4–6 h after surgery.

Conclusion:

Our study showed that no significant difference was observed in the incidence of nausea and vomiting between ondansetron–dexamethasone and metoclopramide–dexamethasone groups following laparoscopic gynecological surgery; however, the number of patients with nausea and vomiting was lower in the ondansetron–dexamethasone group.

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 the Effects of Metoclopramide and Ondansetron on Emergency Service Observation Times in Acute Gastroenteritis-Related Nausea and Vomiting Cases

Objectives:

The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of metoclopramide and ondansetron treatments on the emergency department observation time in acute gastroenteritis-related nausea and vomiting (NV).

Methods:

The study was conducted retrospectively on 297 patients diagnosed with acute gastroenteritis in a training and research hospital’s emergency service observation unit within 6 months. Patients with gastroenteritis who were diagnosed with NV were divided into two groups according to the treatment they received in the observation unit. Patients who received 4 mg ondansetron slow infusion therapy were classified as Group 1, and patients who received 10 mg metoclopramide slow infusion therapy were classified as Group 2.

Results:

The average age of the patients was 39.57±18.75 years. Of the 297 participants, 56.6% (168) were female. Among them, 51.5% (153) received ondansetron (Group 1), and 48.5% (144) received metoclopramide (Group 2). 6.9% weakness–numbness and 4.9% akathisia were detected due to metoclopramide use. There were no adverse effects related to ondansetron use. The duration of observation ranged from 19 to 75 min in Group 1 and from 42 to 122 min in Group 2. Nineteen (13.2%) patients in Group 2 and 5 (3.3%) patients in Group 1 revisited the emergency department within 24 h due to ongoing complaints.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, side effects of weakness and akathisia due to metoclopramide use were observed. However, no side effects were observed due to ondansetron use. Additionally, the use of ondansetron showed a shorter observation time and less recurrent admission to the emergency department. Therefore, ondansetron is a more effective drug in the treatment of NV associated with acute gastroenteritis.

Effect of Classic Foot Massage on Vital Signs, Pain, and Nausea/Vomiting Symptoms After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

This semiexperimental study on the effects of foot massage recruited 88 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy at the general surgery clinics of our hospital in Turkey (June 2017 to May 2018). Patients were assigned to either the intervention group (n=44, 10 min of classic foot massage) or the control group (n=44, no intervention). Pretest assessment, intervention, and posttest assessment were conducted within 1 to 6 hours postoperatively. Outcome measures included vital signs, pain, and nausea/vomiting symptoms. The intervention was associated with a significant decrease in pain scores and incidence of nausea. Despite being associated with an increase in body temperature, the intervention was also associated with a decrease in systolic blood pressure without increasing diastolic blood pressure or respiratory rate, suggesting a positive effect on blood circulation. Classic foot massage may serve as an affordable and useful way to help improve pain, nausea, and blood circulation after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Predictive Factors for a Long Hospital Stay in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background. Although the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) over open cholecystectomy are immediately obvious and appreciated, several patients need a postoperative hospital stay of more than 24 hours. Thus, the predictive factors for this longer stay need to be investigated. The aim of this study was to identify the causes of a long hospital stay after LC. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study with 500 successful elective LC patients being included in the analysis. Short hospital stay was defined as being discharged within 24 hours after the operation, whereas long hospital stay was defined as the need for a stay of more than 24 hours after the operation. Results. Using multivariable analysis, ten independent predictive factors were identified for a long hospital stay. These included patients with cirrhosis, patients with a history of previous acute cholecystitis, cholangitis, or pancreatitis, patients on anticoagulation with warfarin, patients with standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, patients who had been given metoclopramide as an intraoperative antiemetic drug, patients who had been using abdominal drain, patients who had numeric rating scale for pain > 3, patients with an oral analgesia requirement > 2 doses, complications, and private ward admission. Conclusions. LC difficulties were important predictive factors for a long hospital stay, as well as medication and operative factors.

Comparative safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients, but these agents may be harmful. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

METHODS

Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564.

RESULTS

Overall, 120 studies and 27,787 patients were included after screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly more patients receiving granisetron plus dexamethasone experienced an arrhythmia relative to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.96, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.11-7.94), ondansetron (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.17-8.95), dolasetron (OR 4.37, 95 % CI 1.51-12.62), tropisetron (OR 3.27, 95 % CI 1.02-10.43), and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OR 5.75, 95 % CI 1.71-19.34) in a NMA including 31 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 6,623 patients of all ages. No statistically significant differences in delirium frequency were observed across all treatment comparisons in a NMA including 18 RCTs and 3,652 patients.

CONCLUSION

Granisetron plus dexamethasone increases the risk of arrhythmia.

Systemic metoclopramide to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis without Fujii's studies

Previous evidence suggested that 10 mg systemic metoclopramide is not effective to prevent postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) in patients receiving general anaesthesia. However, the evidence included data with questioned validity by the author Yoshitaka Fujii. The objective of the current study was to examine the effect of a systemic dose of 10 mg metoclopramide to prevent PONV. This quantitative systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A wide search was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that evaluated systemic 10 mg metoclopramide as a prophylactic agent to reduce PONV. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Thirty trials evaluating the effect of 10 mg systemic metoclopramide in 3328 subjects on PONV outcomes were included. Metoclopramide reduced the incidence of 24 h PONV compared with control, odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 0.58 (0.43-0.78), number needed to treat (NNT)=7.8. When evaluated as separate outcomes, metoclopramide also decreased the incidence of nausea over 24 h, OR (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.38-0.68), NNT=7.1, and vomiting over 24 h, OR (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.40-0.66), NNT=8.3. A post hoc analysis examining three studies with questioned validity performed by the author Yoshitaka Fujii that would meet criteria for inclusion in the current study did not demonstrate a significant benefit of metoclopramide compared with control on the incidence of 24 h PONV. Our findings suggest that metoclopramide 10 mg i.v. is effective to prevent PONV in patients having surgical procedures under general anaesthesia. Metoclopramide seems to be a reasonable agent to prevent PONV.

Comparison of azasetron and ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

We compared the prophylactic effects of intravenously administered azasetron (10 mg) and ondansetron (8 mg) on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied 98 ASA physical status I or II 20-65 years old, female patients, in this prospective, randomized, double blind study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups and received ondansetron 8 mg (group O) or azasetron 10 mg (group A) 5 min before the end of surgery. The incidence of PONV, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, need for rescue antiemetic and analgesics, and adverse effects were checked at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PONV was 65% in group O and 49% in group A. The incidence of PONV was significantly higher in group O than in group A at 12-24 h postoperatively (nausea; 24% vs. 45%, p = 0.035, vomiting; 2% vs. 18%, p = 0.008), but there were no significant differences at 0-1, 1-6, 6-12 or 24-48 h.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, azasetron (10 mg) produced same incidence of PONV as ondansetron (8 mg) in patients undergoing general anesthesia for gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Azasetron was more effective, in the intermediate post-operative period, between 12 and 24 h.