Ondansetron or droperidol for prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting after intrathecal morphine

Commonly used antiemetics for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dopamine antagonists, 5-HT3 antagonists, and dexamethasone are frequently used in obstetrics to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the superiority of any drug class is yet to be established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis in women receiving neuraxial morphine for Caesarean delivery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Wanfang Data for eligible randomised controlled trials. Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) within 24 h after surgery. We used a Bayesian random-effects model and calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous data. We performed sensitivity and subgroup analyses for primary outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies with 4238 women were included. In the primary analyses of all women, 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, dexamethasone, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone significantly reduced PON and POV compared with placebo, and 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone were more effective than monotherapy. In the subgroup analyses, similar results were seen in women receiving epidural morphine or intrathecal morphine alone but not in women receiving intrathecal morphine with fentanyl or sufentanil. However, most included studies had some concerns or a high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of the evidence was low or very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined 5-HT3 antagonists plus dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy in preventing PONV associated with neuraxial morphine after Caesarean delivery. Future studies are needed to determine the role of prophylactic antiemetics in women receiving intrathecal morphine and lipophilic opioids.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO CRD42023454602.

Comparative Efficacy of Different Classes of Antiemetic Medications for the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Cesarean Section: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Antiemetic medications have been associated with the prevention of nausea and vomiting in cesarean section, although less is known about the comparative efficacy of different medication classes.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank antiemetic medication classes (5-HT3 receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, anticholinergic agents, sedatives, and opioid antagonists or partial agonists) in terms of preventing intra- and postoperative nausea and vomiting among patients undergoing cesarean section. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any antiemetic medication classes' treatment for target outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted with a frequentist approach using the R netmeta package. A total of 58 trials were included (6,665 women undergoing cesarean section; mean age, 28.1 years). Results: Compared with placebo, all interventions reduced the odds of intraoperative nausea (except antihistamines), intraoperative vomiting (except antihistamines), postoperative nausea (except anticholinergic agents and opioid antagonists), and postoperative vomiting (except opioid antagonists). In terms of intraoperative nausea and both intra- and postoperative vomiting, sedatives ranked first among other medication classes.

Conclusions

The relative effect sizes for various classes of antiemetic medication in preventing nausea and vomiting in the cesarean section were modeled using the principles of network meta-analysis which may facilitate informed clinical decision-making.

Pharmacological agents for prevention of pruritus in women undergoing Caesarean delivery with neuraxial morphine: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuraxial opioids provide effective analgesia for Caesarean delivery, however, pruritus can be a troubling side-effect. Effective agents to prevent pruritus are needed. Our objective was to perform an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis to provide clinicians with a comparison of relative efficacy of available interventions to reduce the incidence of pruritus, induced by either intrathecal or epidural single-shot morphine, in women undergoing Caesarean delivery.

METHODS

Databases systematically searched (up to January 2022) included PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, EBSCO CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, and two Cochrane databases. We included randomised, controlled trials involving adult female patients undergoing Caesarean delivery. We pooled trials comparing interventions used for preventing pruritus after Caesarean delivery and performed a Bayesian model network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The final primary network included data from comparisons of 14 distinct interventions (including placebo) used to reduce the incidence of pruritus in 6185 participants. We judged five interventions to be 'definitely superior' to placebo: propofol, opioid agonist-antagonists (neuraxial), opioid antagonists, opioid agonist-antagonists (systemic), and serotonin antagonists. For the network evaluating the incidence of severe pruritus (warranting additional therapeutic treatment of pruritus), data were available for 14 interventions (including placebo) in 4489 patients. For this outcome, we judged three interventions to be 'definitely superior' to placebo: dopamine antagonists (neuraxial) and systemic and neuraxial opioid agonist-antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found several interventions to be effective in reducing the incidence of pruritus. Although sub-hypnotic doses of propofol appear to have an antipruritic effect, replication of this finding and further investigation of optimal dosing are warranted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

PROSPERO (CRD42022367058).

[The cesarean procedure: Guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]

OBJECTIVE

To identify procedures to reduce maternal morbidity during cesarean.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The quality of evidence of the literature was assessed following the GRADE® method with questions formulated in the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and outcomes defined a priori and classified according to their importance. An extensive bibliographic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE databases. The quality of the evidence was assessed (high, moderate, low, very low) and a (i) strong or (ii) weak recommendations or (iii) no recommendation were formulated. The recommendations were reviewed in two rounds with external reviewers (Delphi survey) to select the consensus recommendations.

RESULTS

Of the 27 questions, there was agreement between the working group and the external reviewers on 26. The level of evidence of the literature was insufficient to provide a recommendation on 15 questions. Preventing hypothermia is recommended to increase maternal satisfaction and comfort (weak recommendation) and to reduce neonatal hypothermia (strong recommendation). The quality of the evidence of the literature did not allow to recommend the skin disinfectant to be used nor the relevance of a preoperative vaginal disinfection nor the choice between the use or nonuse of an indwelling bladder catheterization (if micturition takes place 1 hour before the cesarean section). The Misgav-Ladach technique or its analogues should be considered rather than the Pfannenstiel technique to reduce maternal morbidity (weak recommendation) bladder flap before uterine incision should not be performed routinely (weak recommendation), but a blunt (weak recommendation) and cephalad-caudad extension of uterine incision (weak recommendation) should be considered to reduce maternal morbidity. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended to reduce maternal infectious morbidity (strong recommendation) without recommendation on its type or the timing of administration (before incision or after cord clamping). The administration of carbetocin after cord clamping does not significantly decrease the incidence of blood loss>1000 ml, anemia, or blood transfusion compared with the administration of oxytocin. Thus, it is not recommended to use carbetocin rather than oxytocin in cesarean. It is recommended that systematic manual removal of the placenta not to be performed (weak recommendation). An antiemetic should be administered after cord clamping in women having a planned cesarean under locoregional anaesthesia to reduce intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting (strong recommendation) with no recommendation regarding choice of use one or two antiemetics. The level of evidence of the literature was insufficient to provide any recommendation concerning single or double-layer closure of the uterine incision, or the uterine exteriorization. Closing the peritoneum (visceral or parietal) should not be considered (weak recommendation). The quality of the evidence of the literature was not sufficient to provide recommendation on systematic subcutaneous closure, including in obese or overweight patients, or the use of subcuticular suture in obese or overweight patients. The use of subcuticular suture in comparison with skin closure by staples was not considered as a recommendation due to the absence of a consensus in the external review rounds.

CONCLUSION

In case of cesarean, preventing hypothermia, administering antiemetic and antibiotic prophylaxis after cord clamping are the only strong recommendations. The Misgav-Ladach technique, the way of performing uterine incision (no systematic bladder flap, blunt cephalad-caudad extension), not performing routine manual removal of the placenta nor closure of the peritoneum are weak recommendations and may reduce maternal morbidity.

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and in the postoperative period.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions versus placebo or no intervention given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 April 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of studies and conference abstracts, and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Our primary outcomes are intraoperative and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Data entry was checked. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-four studies (involving 10,990 women) met our inclusion criteria. Sixty-nine studies, involving 8928 women, contributed data. Most studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Many studies were small with unclear risk of bias and sometimes few events. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was moderate to very low. 5-HT3 antagonists: We found intraoperative nausea may be reduced by 5-HT3 antagonists (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.71, 12 studies, 1419 women, low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in intraoperative vomiting but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.73, 11 studies, 1414 women, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in postoperative nausea (aRR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.54, 10 studies, 1340 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and these drugs may show a reduction in postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69, 10 studies, 1450 women, low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists: We found dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative nausea but the evidence is very uncertain (aRR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52, 15 studies, 1180 women, very low-certainty evidence). Dopamine antagonists may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60, 12 studies, 942 women, low-certainty evidence) and postoperative nausea (aRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, 7 studies, 601 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if dopamine antagonists reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92, 9 studies, 860 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids (steroids): We are uncertain if intraoperative nausea is reduced by corticosteroids (aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence) similarly for intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87, 6 studies, 609 women, very low-certainty evidence). Corticosteroids probably reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73, 6 studies, 733 women, moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.95, 7 studies, 793 women, low-certainty evidence). Antihistamines: Antihistamines may have little to no effect on intraoperative nausea (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.11, 1 study, 149 women, very low-certainty evidence) or intraoperative vomiting (no events in the one study of 149 women). Antihistamines may reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64, 4 studies, 514 women, low-certainty evidence), however, we are uncertain whether antihistamines reduce postoperative vomiting (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81, 3 studies, 333 women, very low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics: Anticholinergics may reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87, 4 studies, 453 women, low-certainty evidence) but may have little to no effect on intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.54, 4 studies; 453 women, very low-certainty evidence). No studies looked at anticholinergics in postoperative nausea, but they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 1 study, 161 women, low-certainty evidence). Sedatives: We found that sedatives probably reduce intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52, 8 studies, 593 women, moderate-certainty evidence). However, we are uncertain whether sedatives reduce postoperative nausea (aRR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, 2 studies, 145 women, very low-certainty evidence) and they may reduce postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, 2 studies, 145 women, low-certainty evidence). Opioid antagonists: There were no studies assessing intraoperative nausea or vomiting. Opioid antagonists may result in little or no difference to the number of women having postoperative nausea (aRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.45, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 1.25, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.43, 1 study, 120 women, low-certainty evidence). Acupressure: It is uncertain whether acupressure/acupuncture reduces intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74, 9 studies, 1221 women, very low-certainty evidence). Acupressure may reduce intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.80, 9 studies, 1221 women, low-certainty evidence) but it is uncertain whether it reduces postoperative nausea (aRR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence) or postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, 7 studies, 1069 women, very low-certainty evidence). Ginger: It is uncertain whether ginger makes any difference to the number of women having intraoperative nausea (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.21, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), intraoperative vomiting (aRR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.00, 2 studies, 331 women, very low-certainty evidence), postoperative nausea (aRR 0.63, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.77, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence) and postoperative vomiting (aRR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.65, 1 study, 92 women, very low-certainty evidence). Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes including adverse effects or women's views.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that 5-HT3 antagonists, dopamine antagonists, corticosteroids, sedatives and acupressure probably or possibly have efficacy in reducing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. However the certainty of evidence varied widely and was generally low. Future research is needed to assess side effects of treatment, women's views and to compare the efficacy of combinations of different medications.

Quetiapine and other antipsychotics combined with opioids in legal autopsy cases: A random finding or cause of fatal outcome?

Opioid poisoning is a frequent cause of death in drug addicts and occurs with opioid treatment. Quetiapine is often found in forensic autopsies and may increase the risk of fatal opioid poisoning by enhancing sedation, respiratory depression, hypotension and QT prolongation. We systematically searched for studies of acute toxicity of quetiapine or other antipsychotics combined with morphine or methadone. Case reports describing toxicity of quetiapine combined with morphine or methadone were also included. We retrieved one human study that observed pharmacokinetic interaction between quetiapine and methadone, and 16 other human studies. Fourteen investigated the combination of droperidol and morphine in treatment doses, and some indicated an additive sedative effect. Five animal studies with acepromazine in combination with morphine or methadone were located and indicated an additive effect on sedation and hypotension. Six forensic case reports in which death could have been caused solely by quetiapine, the opioid, or other drugs were found. Thus, acute toxicity of quetiapine combined with morphine or methadone has not been studied. Because of quetiapine's effects on alpha-adrenoceptors, muscarinic and histamine receptors, human ether-a-go-go-channels and methadone kinetics, we suggest further research to clarify if the indicated additive effects of opioids and droperidol or acepromazine are also true for quetiapine.

New insights into the pathophysiology and risk factors for PONV

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects patient outcomes and satisfaction. New research has centered on evaluation of post-discharge and opioid-related nausea and vomiting. Mechanical and drug effects stimulate the release of central nervous system neurotransmitters acting at receptors in the vomiting center, area postrema, and nucleus of the solitary tract. Brain surgery has allowed insight into specific central emetogenic areas. Stimuli from peripheral organs act through afferent vagus neurons and a parasympathetic response causing nausea and vomiting. Opioids stimulate mu receptors in the chemoreceptor trigger zone and cholinergic receptors in the vestibular system. Opioids also affect gastrointestinal (GI) tract mechanics by decreasing gastric emptying, intestinal motility, GI peristalsis, and secretions. Regional blocks and non-opioid multimodal analgesia help to decrease nausea and vomiting. Patient, surgery, and anesthesia factors contribute to risk and degree of PONV experienced. Pharmacogenetics plays a role in gene typing as antiemetic medication metabolism results in varying drug effectiveness. Risk scoring systems are available. Individualized multimodal plans can be designed as part of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol.

Higher dose of palonosetron versus lower dose of palonosetron plus droperidol to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting after eye enucleation and orbital hydroxyapatite implant surgery: a randomized, double-blind trial

Objective

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is commonly observed after eye enucleation and orbital hydroxyapatite implant surgery. This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to investigate the hypothesis that compared with monotherapy using a higher dose of palonosetron, using a lower dose of palonosetron in combination with droperidol could reduce the incidence of PONV and achieve similar prophylaxis against PONV after the aforementioned surgery.

Patients and methods

A total of 129 patients who were in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Classes I and II, aged between 18 and 70 years, and scheduled for eye enucleation and orbital hydroxyapatite implant surgery, were enrolled in this study. They were randomized into three groups: Group P2.5 (2.5 μg/kg palonosetron), Group P7.5 (7.5 μg/kg palonosetron), and Group P+D (2.5 μg/kg palonosetron and 15 μg/kg droperidol). Patients received the different antiemetic regimens intravenously 5 min before surgery. The severity of nausea and vomiting and the complete response (CR) rate during a 72-h postoperative period were assessed.

Results

All patients completed the trial. The nausea score of Group P2.5 was significantly higher than those of the other two groups at 0–4 h and 24–48 h (P<0.05). Vomiting scores among all groups were similar during all intervals (P>0.05). Compared with Group P2.5, the CR rate was significantly improved at all intervals in Group P+D, except at 4–72 h, and was also elevated at 24–72 h in Group P7.5 (P<0.05). Fewer patients in Group P2.5 did not experience any nausea or vomiting throughout the study (49%) compared with those in Group P7.5 (67%) and Group P+D (81%; P<0.01).

Conclusion

Combining low-dose palonosetron with droperidol potentiated prophylaxis for PONV and achieved a similar prophylactic effect as that with a higher dose of palonosetron.

Effects of maropitant, acepromazine, and electroacupuncture on vomiting associated with administration of morphine in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of maropitant, acepromazine, and electroacupuncture on morphine-related signs of nausea and vomiting in dogs and assess sedative effects of the treatments.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial.

ANIMALS

222 dogs.

PROCEDURES

Dogs received 1 of 6 treatments: injection of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution, maropitant citrate, or acepromazine maleate or electroacupuncture treatment at 1 acupoint, 5 acupoints, or a sham acupoint. Morphine was administered after 20 minutes of electroacupuncture treatment or 20 minutes after injectable treatment. Vomiting and retching events and signs of nausea and sedation were recorded.

RESULTS

Incidence of vomiting and retching was significantly lower in the maropitant (14/37 [37.8%]) group than in the saline solution (28/37 [75.7%]) and sham-acupoint electroacupuncture (32/37 [86.5%]) groups. The number of vomiting and retching events in the maropitant (21), acepromazine (38), 1-acupoint (35), and 5-acupoint (34) groups was significantly lower than in the saline solution (88) and sham-acupoint electroacupuncture (109) groups. Incidence of signs of nausea was significantly lower in the acepromazine group (3/37 [8.1%]) than in the sham-acupoint group (15/37 [40.5%]). Mean nausea scores for the saline solution, maropitant, and sham-acupoint electroacupuncture groups increased significantly after morphine administration, whereas those for the acepromazine, 1-acupoint electroacupuncture, and 5-acupoint electroacupuncture groups did not. Mean sedation scores after morphine administration were significantly higher in dogs that received acepromazine than in dogs that received saline solution, maropitant, and sham-acupoint electroacupuncture treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Maropitant treatment was associated with a lower incidence of vomiting and retching, compared with control treatments, and acepromazine and electroacupuncture appeared to prevent an increase in severity of nausea following morphine administration in dogs.

Intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia: Current trends

The practice of anesthesiology has always been governed by evidence-based medicine. The quick turnover rate of patients in the operating room and patient safety and satisfaction, have also further changed the way we practice anesthesia. The use of intrathecal (IT) opiates as an effective form of postoperative pain relief has been established for many years. Morphine was the first opioid used by IT route. In clinical practice, morphine is regarded as the gold standard, or benchmark, of analgesics used to relieve intense pain. Perhaps for this reason, IT morphine has been used for over 100 years for pain relief. IT morphine is one of the easiest, cost-effective and reliable techniques for postoperative analgesia and technical failures are rare. And yet there is no consensus amongst anesthesiologists regarding the dose of IT morphine. Like all other methods of pain relief, IT morphine also has some side effects and some of them are serious though not very common. This review article looks into some of the key aspects of the use of IT morphine for post-operative analgesia and various doses for different procedures are discussed. This article also describes the side effects of IT morphine and how to treat and prevent them.

Predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in patients with cancer who receive oral oxycodone for the first time: is prophylactic medication for prevention of opioid-induced nausea or vomiting necessary?

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in patients with cancer who receive oral opioid analgesics for the first time.

METHODS

The participants were 280 hospitalized patients with cancer who were given oral opioid analgesics for relief of cancer pain for the first time at our hospital between January 2008 and December 2011. According to previous studies, predictors evaluated were factors potentially affecting nausea or vomiting. For nausea, the following scoring for response was used: 0=absence of nausea; 1=presence of nausea for 3 days after the start of oral oxycodone but continued to take oxycodone; 2=presence of nausea for 3 days and discontinued oxycodone due to nausea. For vomiting, at least 1 vomiting episode during the 3 days was regarded as vomiting-positive. Multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictive factors for nausea or vomiting in cancer patients.

RESULTS

This analysis identified gender (male) (odds ratio [OR]=0.429), lung cancer (OR=2.049), and steroid use (OR=0.417) were significant factors for the occurrence of opioid-induced nausea. For vomiting, gender (male) (OR=0.4) and use of dopamine D2 blockers (OR=2.778) were significant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Female gender was found to be predictive factors for the occurrence of nausea. Lung cancer might be closely associated with opioid-induced nausea. The use of steroids might be effective as prophylaxis for nausea. Female gender was also a predictive factor for the occurrence of vomiting. Vomiting occurred even if dopamine D2 blockers (prophylactic medication) were given.

Interventions at caesarean section for reducing the risk of aspiration pneumonitis

BACKGROUND

Aspiration pneumonitis is a syndrome resulting from the inhalation of gastric contents. The incidence in obstetric anaesthesia has fallen, largely due to improved anaesthetic techniques and the increased use of regional anaesthesia at caesarean section. However, aspiration pneumonitis is still a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and it is important to use effective prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether interventions given prior to caesarean section reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonitis in women with an uncomplicated pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. Fixed-effect meta-analysis was used to combine data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect. If substantial clinical or statistical heterogeneity was detected, we used random-effects analysis to produce an overall summary.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in this review. However, only 22 studies, involving 2658 women, provided data for analysis. All the women in the included studies had a caesarean section under general anaesthesia. The studies covered a number of comparisons, but were mostly small and of unclear or poor quality.When compared with no treatment or placebo, there was a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 with antacids (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.32, two studies, 108 women), H2 antagonists (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, two studies, 170 women) and proton pump antagonists (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, one study 80 women). H2 antagonists were associated with a reduced the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with proton pump antagonists (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, one study, 120 women), but compared with antacids the findings were unclear. The combined use of 'antacids plus H2 antagonists' was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with placebo (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, one study, 89 women) or compared with antacids alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, one study, 119 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was poor, but the findings suggest that the combination of antacids plus H2 antagonists was more effective than no intervention, and superior to antacids alone in preventing low gastric pH. However, none of the studies assessed potential adverse effects or substantive clinical outcomes. These findings are relevant for all women undergoing caesarean section under general anaesthesia.

Practice guidelines for postanesthetic care: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic Care

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and can also occur in the period following the procedure. 

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 February 2012) and reference lists of identified studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.  

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria but only 41 studies, involving 5046 women, provided useable data for the review involving women having caesareans under regional anaesthesia. The majority of the studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Only two studies included emergency surgery, however, they did not stratify data according to type of surgery. The studies covered numerous comparisons, but the majority of studies involved 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, corticosteroids or acupressure. Studies were mainly small and of unclear quality.Three classes of intervention were found to be effective in at least three out of four of our primary outcomes (intraoperative nausea, intraoperative vomiting, postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting). These interventions were 5-HT(3) antagonists, dopamine antagonists and sedatives. Other classes of intervention were effective for fewer than three of our primary outcomes.With 5-HT antagonists, we found a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.88, eight studies, 720 women). There were also reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, four studies, 405 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.77, five studies, 565 women). We did not detect a significant reduction in intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00, seven studies, 668 women).Dopamine antagonists demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.57, nine studies, 636 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64, eight studies, 536 women), with similar reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91, five studies, 412 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91, six studies, 472 women). These differences were observed with both metoclopramide and droperidol.Sedatives (most commonly propofol) demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, four studies, 285 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, four studies, 285 women), also with a reduction in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, two studies 145 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, two studies, 145 women).Acupressure was found to be effective for intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.90, six studies, 649 women) but not postoperative nausea (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, three studies, 429 women). Acupressure was not effective at reducing vomiting either intraoperatively (average RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.18, six studies, 649 women) or postoperatively (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.06, three studies, 429 women).Other effective intervention classes included corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics.There were insufficient data to demonstrate any class of intervention was superior to another. There were no significant differences observed in the comparison of combined versus single interventions.Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes or the incidence of adverse effects. However, one study showed an increase in respiratory depression with sedation (midazolam) compared with dopamine antagonists.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that many different interventions have efficacy in preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. There is little evidence that combinations of treatment are better than single agents.

A multi-institutional study analyzing effect of prophylactic medication for prevention of opioid-induced gastrointestinal dysfunction

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic treatment with laxatives and antiemetics on the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse reactions such as constipation, nausea and vomiting in cancer patients who received oral opioid analgesics for the first time.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective study was carried out, in which 619 eligible hospitalized patients receiving oral opioid analgesics for cancer pain were enrolled from 35 medical institutions. The primary endpoint was the incidence of opioid-induced side effects in patients receiving prophylactic medication. Odds ratios of the incidence of adverse reactions in the absence or presence of premedication obtained from several institutions were subjected to a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Among 619 patients, the incidence of constipation was significantly lower in patients receiving laxatives, including magnesium oxide, as premedication than in those without them (34% vs. 55%, odds ratio=0.432, 95% confidence interval=0.300-0.622, P<0.001). However, the incidence of nausea or vomiting was similar regardless of prophylactic medication with dopamine D2 blockers. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that prophylactic laxatives significantly reduced the incidence of constipation (overall odds ratio=0.469, 95% confidence interval=0.231-0.955, P=0.037), whereas dopamine D2 blockers were not effective in preventing opioid-induced nausea or vomiting.

DISCUSSION

We showed evidence for the effectiveness of premedication with laxatives for prevention of opioid-induced constipation. However, premedication with dopamine D2 blockers was not sufficient to prevent nausea or vomiting.

A network meta-analysis on the efficacy of serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists used in adults during the first 24 hours for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

The serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron are potential prophylactic agents for patients with mild to moderate risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A few trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy among 2 to 3 of these 4 agents. However, the comparative efficacy of all four 5-HT(3) antagonists has not yet been quantitatively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to investigate whether the 5-HT(3) antagonists--ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron-differ in efficacy when used for the prevention of PONV.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled, double-blind studies measuring efficacy in terms of PONV prophylaxis. A Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted using published studies of 5-HT(3) antagonists for PONV prophylaxis. The odds of patients with no PONV and postoperative vomiting (POV) within each study arm 24 hours after surgery were the primary indices of drug efficacy. Data were extracted and analyzed via indirect comparisons using random effects Bayesian models in WinBUGS version 1.4.3.

RESULTS

A total of 85 studies were identified, representing 15,269 patients. The results indicate that granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53 [95% credible interval (CI), 1.15-2.00]) and dolasetron (OR = 1.67 [95% CI, 1.12-2.38]) in preventing PONV. Four antiemetic drugs had comparable efficacy in terms of preventing POV: granisetron showed similar efficacy compared with ondansetron (OR = 1.49 [95% CI, 0.90-2.43]), tropisetron (OR = 1.69 [95% CI, 0.92-3.13]), and dolasetron (OR = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.71-2.38]). Ondansetron exhibited comparable efficacy compared with tropisetron (OR = 1.14 [95% CI, 0.66-1.96]) and dolasetron (OR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.51-1.47]). Tropisetron and dolasetron were also similar in efficacy (OR = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.40-1.45]). All 5-HT(3) antagonists were statistically significantly better at preventing PONV or POV than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to PONV prophylaxis, granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron and dolasetron; ondansetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron exhibited similar efficacy. With respect to POV prophylaxis, ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron seemed to have comparable efficacy.

Interventions at caesarean section for reducing the risk of aspiration pneumonitis

BACKGROUND

Aspiration pneumonitis is a syndrome resulting from the inhalation of gastric contents. The incidence in obstetric anaesthesia has fallen, largely due to improved anaesthetic techniques and the increased use of regional anaesthesia at caesarean section. However, aspiration pneumonitis is still a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and it is important to use effective prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether interventions given prior to caesarean section reduce the risk of aspiration pneumonitis in women with an uncomplicated pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were included. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two studies, involving 2658 women, are included, all having a caesarean section under general anaesthesia. The studies covered a number of comparisons, but were mostly small and of unclear or poor quality.When compared to no treatment or placebo, there was a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 with antacids (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.32, two studies, 108 women), H(2) antagonists (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, two studies, 170 women) and proton pump antagonists (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.46, one study 80 women). H(2) antagonists were associated with a reduced the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with proton pump antagonists (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.97, one study, 120 women), but compared with antacids the findings were unclear. The combined use of 'antacids plus H(2) antagonists' was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of intragastric pH < 2.5 at intubation when compared with placebo (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, one study, 89 women) or compared with antacids alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, one study, 119 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence was poor, but the findings suggest that the combination of antacids plus H(2) antagonists was more effective than no intervention, and superior to antacids alone in preventing low gastric pH. However, none of the studies assessed potential adverse effects or substantive clinical outcomes. These findings are relevant for all women undergoing caesarean section under general anaesthesia.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2006

This paper is the 29th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning 30 years of research. It summarizes papers published during 2006 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurological disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).