Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynaecological laparotomies: a comparison of tropisetron and ondansetron

Effect of Prophylactic Tropisetron on Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with trial sequential analysis (TSA) aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy of the prophylactic administration of tropisetron in the prevention of the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024372692). RCTs comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of tropisetron with that of a placebo, other anti-emetic agents, or a combination of anti-emetic injections were retrieved from the databases of Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. The frequency of rescue anti-emetic use (RA) and the incidence of PON, POV, and PONV (relative risk [RR]: 0.718; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.652-0.790; I2 = 0.0, RR: 0.587; 95% CI 0.455-0.757; I2 = 63.32, RR: 0.655; 95% CI 0.532-0.806; I2 = 49.09, and RR: 0.622; 95% CI 0.552-0.700; I2 = 0.00, respectively) in the tropisetron group were lower than those in the control group; however, the incidence of complete response (CR) was higher in the tropisetron group (RR: 1.517;95% CI 1.222-1.885; I2 = 44.14). TSA showed the cumulative Z-curve exceeded both the conventional test and trial sequential monitoring boundaries for RA, PON, POV, and PONV between the tropisetron group and the control group. Thus, the prophylactic administration of tropisetron exhibited superior efficacy in the prevention of PON, POV, and PONV. Furthermore, a lower incidence of RA and a higher incidence of CR were observed with its use.

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).

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

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.

Factors affecting unused remaining volume of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia in patients following laparoscopic gynecologic surgery

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to evaluate the factors affecting the unused remaining volume of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) in patients who had undergone laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected patient records from pre-existing PCA log sheets from 98 patients. Surgical factors and IV PCA-related data including remaining volume, administration duration, early discontinuation (yes or no), and adverse reactions were recorded. Chi-square test, one-way analysis of variance, and multiple linear regression were applied for data analysis.

RESULTS

The average age of the 98 patients was 40.0 ± 8.24 years. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and early discontinuation were not statistically significant among the different surgical groups (p = .540 and p = .338, respectively). Twenty-eight patients wanted discontinuation of IV PCA and the remaining volume was 33.6 ± 7.8 mL (range 20-55 mL). The significant determinants of remaining volume were whether IV PCA was discontinued due to PONV and duration of surgery (p < .001). The surgical duration was inversely correlated with the remaining volume.

CONCLUSION

Early discontinuation of IV PCA due to PONV is a major contributing factor to wastage of medicine. Prevention and treatment of PONV is needed to encourage patients to maintain PCA use for pain control.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Meta-analysis of the use of rescue antiemetics following PONV prophylactic failure with 5-HT3 antagonist/dexamethasone versus single-agent therapies

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of rescue antiemetic medication following 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) plus dexamethasone therapy versus monotherapy with a 5-HT3RA for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DATA SOURCES

Reports of randomized, controlled trials were identified via a MEDLINE search (1966-September 2005) using the key terms ondansetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, granisetron, 5-HT3, PONV, vomiting, emesis, and nausea.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized, controlled trials of adult populations that had treatment arms comparing 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone combination therapy with 5-HT3RA or dexamethasone monotherapies versus placebo or 5-HT3RA versus dexamethasone or placebo were selected for analysis. Another criterion was that a proportion of patients required rescue medication 48 hours or less following surgery.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval were calculated to determine incidence rates for use of rescue medications within early (0-6 h), late (6-24 h), and overall (0-24 or 48 h) postoperative periods. Overall effect sizes were calculated by pooling ORs within fixed and random effects models.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone was associated with lower use of rescue antiemetics than 5-HT3RA (OR(pooled) = 0.48; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.77) or dexamethasone (OR(pooled) = 0.26; 95% CI 0.12-0.57) monotherapy during the overall postoperative period. Insufficient data were available to assess rescue use during early or late postoperative periods. It appears that patients at high risk of PONV who are treated prophylactically with combination 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone therapy are overall less likely to require rescue medication than if treated with 5-HT3RAs or dexamethasone alone. Additional large prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal regimen and timing of administration of prophylactic antiemetic therapy for different surgical populations.

Selective serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for postoperative nausea and vomiting: are they all the same?

Selective serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists have proven safe and effective for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron and tropisetron selectively and competitively bind to 5-HT(3) receptors, blocking serotonin binding at vagal afferents in the gut and in the regions of the CNS involved in emesis, including the chemoreceptor trigger zone and the nucleus tractus solitarii. Despite their shared mechanism of action, 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists have different chemical structures and exhibit differences in receptor binding affinity, dose response and duration of effect. Furthermore, although dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron and tropisetron are all extensively metabolised by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system, different components of this system predominate in the metabolism of each of these agents. Hence, although these agents are considered equally effective in the overall population, their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences may explain the variability in individual responses to these drugs. This review discusses the pharmacological profiles of dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron and tropisetron, and the clinical implications of differences in their profiles.

The efficacy of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists combined with droperidol for PONV prophylaxis is similar to their combination with dexamethasone. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The aim of this quantitative systematic review is to compare the efficacy and side effects of combining one of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT) with droperidol or dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials that compared the antiemetic efficacy of combining one of the 5-HT with droperidol or dexamethasone vs 5-HT alone. Relevant endpoints were prevention of early (0 to 6 hr), and overall (0 to 24 hr) PONV, and side effects. The articles that could meet the inclusion criteria were scored for inclusion and methodological validity using the three-item, five-point, Oxford-scale. Relative risk and numbers needed-to-treat with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each combination vs 5-HT alone. The two combinations were then indirectly compared. A random effects model was used.

RESULTS

We considered 41 trials for analysis but subsequently excluded eight. Thirty-three trials with data from 3,447 patients were analyzed. Except for early nausea with the 5-HT plus droperidol, both combinations were significantly more effective than 5-HT in preventing early and overall PONV. There was no difference in antiemetic efficacy between the two combinations. The incidence of commonly reported side effects was also similar in the two combination groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that there is no statistically significant difference in antiemetic efficacy or side effects profile when one of the 5-HT is combined with either droperidol or dexamethasone and that both combination regimens are significantly more effective than 5-HT alone.

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

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based guidelines for the prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

SOURCE

Literature from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, logistic regression analyses and expert opinion in the management of PONV.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The etiology of PONV is multifactorial. Patient, anesthesia, and surgery related risk factors have been identified. Universal PONV prophylaxis is not cost-effective. Identification of patients at high-risk of PONV allows targeting prophylaxis to those who will benefit most from it. No prophylaxis is needed for patients at low risk for PONV. For patients at moderate risk for PONV, prophylaxis using a single antiemetic or a combination of two agents should be considered. Double and triple antiemetic combinations should be considered for patients at high risk for PONV. Furthermore, a multimodal approach should be adopted incorporating steps to keep the baseline risk of PONV low. The optimum cost-effective approach to the management of PONV will differ between an ambulatory centre and an inpatient hospital setting. For the treatment of established PONV in patients who failed prophylaxis, patients should not receive a repeat dose of the prophylactic antiemetic. Rather, a drug acting at a different receptor should be used. Beyond six hours after surgery, patients can be treated with any of the agents used for prophylaxis, except dexamethasone and transdermal scopolamine.

CONCLUSION

PONV are common after anesthesia and surgery. We provided evidence-based guidelines for the management of this problem based on the available literature.

Comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of tropisetron and droperidol with patient-given tramadol

We compared the antiemetic efficacy of tropisetron versus droperidol in women given tramadol after total hysterectomy. Forty patients were randomly allocated to group 1 (n = 20, tropisetron 0.05 mg/kg intravenously) or group 2 (n = 20, droperidol 15 micrograms/kg intravenously). Tramadol infusion (intravenously), for post-operative analgesia, was started at fascia closure. Incidences of post-operative nausea and vomiting, pain intensity, tramadol use, and the need for a rescue antiemetic (metoclopramide 10 mg) were recorded 0 h, 2 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h post-operatively. Vomiting and nausea incidences were reported fewer in group 1 than in group 2, but statistical significance was only reached for vomiting incidence 6 h post-operation. Tropisetron seems to have better antiemetic properties than droperidol in patients receiving tramadol because of the length of its duration of action. Further studies, investigating alternative ways of managing post-operative nausea and vomiting, and the use of tramadol for post-operative analgesia, are needed.

Pharmacotherapy of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are two of the most common and unpleasant side effects following anaesthesia and surgery. Despite the development of new anti-emetics and a vast amount of published research, PONV continues to be a problem, especially in high-risk patients. Recent interest has focused on the use of a combination of agents, acting on different receptors and the adoption of a multimodal approach to tackle this problem. The search for the most cost-effective strategy has also been a major goal. This article will discuss the risk factors and physiology of PONV, currently available therapies, the use of a multimodal approach and the cost-effectiveness of PONV management. Finally, recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of PONV will be discussed.

[Postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult patients]

OBJECTIVE

Identifying risk factors and predictive models for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) and developing antiemetic guidelines for its prevention and treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Medline (1997-2002) searches, using "postoperative nausea and vomiting" [MESH], complemented by handsearch.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Published randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and multivariable analysis of large cohort studies were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Avoiding PONV seems to be one of the highest priority for most patients. Its most important risk factors are volatile anaesthetics and opioids. If these are given to susceptible patients such as female, those with previous history of PONV or motion sickness and non-smoker, this is likely to result in PONV. For patients receiving volatile anaesthesia, simplified risk scores are available to estimate the individual risk of PONV. Patients at high risk for PONV may benefit from a multimodal approach which involves a) lowering the baseline risk (e.g. by total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol) with b) prophylactically given antiemetics such as droperidol, dexamethasone and serotonin antagonists, alone or in combination. In these selected patients, antiemetics are cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy to prevent and treat PONV should depend on the individuals risk. However, its clinical usefulness and economic implications needs to be validated.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic 5-hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonists: tropisetron, ondansetron and dolasetron

There are currently three 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists available in Australia. In this randomized, double-blind, parallel group study the prophylactic antiemetic effect of a single dose of tropisetron 2 mg, ondansetron 4 mg or dolasetron 12.5 mg was compared after major gynaecological surgery. One hundred and eighteen patients (group T n = 42; group O n = 36; group D n = 40) were evaluated for nausea, vomiting, recovery characteristics and satisfaction for 24 hours postoperatively. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Rescue antiemetic, prochlorperazine 12.5 mg i.m., was given if vomiting occurred more than 10 minutes after arrival in the recovery room. If prochlorperazine was ineffective one hour after administration, droperidol 1 mg i.v. was given. There were no significant differences between groups for the incidence of vomiting during consecutive epochs until 24 hours postoperatively or overall (57%, 75% and 72.5% for groups T, O and D respectively, P = 0.18). The incidence and number of rescue antiementic treatments for nausea or vomiting were similar. The incidence of nausea and the overall and interval nausea scores were similar except for lower "worst nausea" score in group T between 12 and 18 hours (P = 0.02). Recovery times, satisfaction and cost per patient did not differ between groups. We conclude that the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting remained high in this setting despite 5-HT3 receptor antagonist prophylaxis and that the choice between these agents should be based on the lowest available acquisition cost.

Effect of epidural bupivacaine vs combined epidural bupivacaine and morphine on gastrointestinal function and pain after major gynaecological surgery

In a double-blind study, we investigated the effects of postoperative epidural local anaesthetic, with or without addition of epidural morphine, on postoperative pain and gastrointestinal function in patients scheduled for radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy. Forty patients were randomized into two study groups: 48-h postoperative epidural 0.2% bupivacaine 8 ml h(-1) (bupi group) or 48-h postoperative epidural 0.2% bupivacaine/morphine 50 microg at 4 ml h(-1) (bupi/morph group). Patients were observed for at least 96 h after surgery. No differences in pain at rest, during cough or mobilization were observed. Patients in the bupi group requested a significant greater amount of supplementary analgesics, but times to first flatus and defaecation were reduced compared with patients in the bupi/morph group. Itching was a significant problem in patients in the bupi/morph group. No differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting, mobilization or time to discharge from hospital were observed between groups. The addition of morphine to postoperative epidural bupivacaine has only limited effect on pain relief and increases time to normalization of gastrointestinal function.

Ondansetron is no more effective than supplemental intraoperative oxygen for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Supplemental oxygen maintained during and for 2 h after colon resection halves the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Whether supplemental oxygen restricted to the intraoperative period is sufficient remains unknown. Similarly, the relative efficacy of supplemental oxygen and ondansetron is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that intraoperative supplemental oxygen reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Patients (n = 240) undergoing gynecological laparoscopy were given a standardized isoflurane anesthetic. After induction, they were randomly assigned to the following three groups: routine oxygen administration with 30% oxygen, balance nitrogen (30% Oxygen group), supplemental oxygen administration with 80% oxygen, balance nitrogen (80% Oxygen group), and Ondansetron 8 mg (immediately after induction), combined with 30% oxygen, balance nitrogen (Ondansetron group). The overall incidence of nausea and/or vomiting during the initial 24 postoperative h was 44% in the patients assigned to 30% oxygen and 30% in the Ondansetron group, but only 22% in those given 80% oxygen. The incidence was thus halved by supplemental oxygen and was significantly less than with 30% oxygen. There were, however, no significant differences between the 30% oxygen and ondansetron groups, or between the ondansetron and 80% oxygen groups. We conclude that supplemental oxygen effectively prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological laparoscopic surgery; furthermore, ondansetron is no more effective than supplemental oxygen.

IMPLICATIONS

Supplemental oxygen reduces the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) as well or better than 8 mg of ondansetron. Because oxygen is inexpensive and essentially risk-free, supplemental oxygen is a preferable method of reducing PONV.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: prevention and therapy

As we enter the new millennium, the armamentarium available to treat and prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting continues to expand. There remains a finite incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, particularly among high-risk populations. This review examines recent studies of drugs, both new and old, and their impact on postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis and treatment.