Comparison of palonosetron, granisetron, and ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a prospective randomized trial

5-HT3 receptor antagonists for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gynecological surgery is generally associated with a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), for which a combination of antiemetic therapies is advised, but adherence to these protocols is often low. Given the current reality, a preferred 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for preventing PONV as a result of gynecological operations might be desirable. However, the efficiency of different 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in gynecological operations was not clear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of different 5-HT3 antagonists in preventing PONV after gynecological surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from their inception up to September 20, 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Patients who received only 5-HT3 antagonists to prevent nausea and vomiting following gynecologic surgical procedures were included. Only RCT articles and English language literature were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently assessed the study quality and performed data extraction. R software and STATA 17 were used for this network meta-analysis to compare treatments using a frequentist approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Palonosetron demonstrated superior efficacy compared with ondansetron, with a significant difference in "acute nausea," "overall nausea," "acute vomiting," "late vomiting," "late PONV," "overall PONV," "late rescue medicine" and ">24 h rescue medicine." There was a significant difference between palonosetron and ramosetron in "acute nausea," between ramosetron and ondansetron in ">24 h nausea," and between granisetron and ondansetron in "late vomiting." Additionally, granisetron and palonosetron are generally ranked higher in the P-score system.

CONCLUSIONS

In gynecological surgery, palonosetron demonstrated superior efficacy to ondansetron. Granisetron seemed to be the most effective alternative to palonosetron in our study.

A suspected case of serotonin syndrome induced by palonosetron and ramosetron administration

Serotonin syndrome occurs when serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) levels increase and is accompanied by symptoms of mental status changes, neuromuscular abnormalities, and autonomic hyperactivity. Serotonin receptor 3 antagonists, such as palonosetron or ramosetron, are commonly used for their antiemetic effects during general anesthesia. However, overdosage of these drugs carries a risk of serotonergic toxicity as they increase serum serotonin levels due to inhibition of serotonin reuptake. Serotonin syndrome caused by 5-HT3 antagonists is thought to be caused by the synergistic effects of high doses of serotonergic drugs or the combination of two or more serotonergic drugs with different mechanisms of action. The incidence of serotonin syndrome is unknown because it is a rare condition that cannot be selected for in randomized clinical trials. Therefore, physicians must focus on the clinical manifestations of the syndrome and manage patients before the condition becomes life-threatening.

Comparative Efficacy of Granisetron and Droperidol After Orthognathic Surgery for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In the fall of 2021, granisetron was approved for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management in Japan. However, the comparative efficacy of droperidol and granisetron in the field of orthognathic surgery has not been determined.

PURPOSE

We compare the efficacy of droperidol and granisetron for PONV prophylaxis following orthognathic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at a single institution from September 2020 to December 2022. Patients who had undergone Le Fort I osteotomy with sagittal split ramus osteotomy or isolated sagittal split ramus osteotomy were included. Patients were divided into three groups; the isolated droperidol (D), isolated granisetron (G), and droperidol with granisetron (DG) groups. General anesthesia was performed using total intravenous anesthesia for all patients; however, droperidol and granisetron were administered at the anesthesiologist's discretion.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

PONV prophylactic therapy included isolated droperidol, isolated granisetron, and droperidol with granisetron administration.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

Postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) were determined through medical examination within 48 hours following surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications due to droperidol and/or granisetron administration.

COVARIATES

Age, sex, body mass index, Apfel's score, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative blood loss, and type of surgery.

ANALYSES

Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction for univariate comparison, and modified Poisson regression for comparison of PON and POV prophylactic efficacy for multivariate analyses. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Our study included 218 participants. There were no significant differences in covariates between groups D (n = 111), G (n = 52), and DG (n = 55). No significant difference in PON incidence was observed between groups. However, POV incidence was significantly lower in group DG than group D (relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.86; P = .03). No significant difference in complication incidence was observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Granisetron was as effective as droperidol for PONV management, while droperidol combined with granisetron was more effective than isolated droperidol for POV management. As compared to the use of each drug separately, their combination was considered safe, with no increase in complication rates.

Palonosetron as prophylaxis for post-discharge nausea and vomiting: a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in ambulatory surgery

BACKGROUND

Approximately 25% of ambulatory surgery patients experience post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). We aimed to investigate whether palonosetron, a long-acting anti-emetic, decreases the incidence of PDNV in high-risk patients.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 170 male and female patients undergoing ambulatory surgery under general anaesthesia, with a high predicted risk for PDNV, were randomised to receive either palonosetron 75 μg i.v. (n=84) or normal saline (n=86) before discharge. During the first 3 postoperative days (PODs), we measured outcomes using a patient questionnaire. The primary outcome was the incidence of a complete response (no nausea, vomiting, or use of rescue medication) until POD 2. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PDNV each day until POD 3.

RESULTS

The incidence of a complete response until POD 2 was 48% (n=32) in the palonosetron group and 36% (n=25) in the placebo group (odds ratio 1.69 [95% confidence interval: 0.85-3.37]; P=0.131). No significant difference in the incidence of PDNV was observed between the two groups on the day of surgery (47% vs 56%; P=0.31). Significant differences in the incidence of PDNV were found on POD 1 (18% vs 34%; P=0.033) and POD 2 (9% vs 27%; P=0.007). No differences were observed on POD 3 (15% vs 13%; P=0.700).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, palonosetron did not reduce the overall incidence of PDNV up to POD 2. The lower incidence of PDNV on POD 1 and POD 2 in the palonosetron group requires further investigation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2015-003956-32.

A Comparative Study of Palonosetron with Ondansetron for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) Following Laparoscopic Gynaecological Surgeries

Background

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery.

Methodology

In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, nonsmoking females 18-70 years and weighing 40-90 kg, scheduled for elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries, were enrolled into the ondansetron (Group A, n=65) or palonosetron (Group B, n=65) group. Palonosetron (1 mcg/kg 4) or ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg 4) were administered just before induction. Postoperatively, incidence of nausea, vomiting, PONV (scored on a scale of 0-3), need for rescue antiemetic, complete response, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated for up to 48 h following surgery.

Results

The overall PONV scores and postoperative nausea score during 0-2 h and 24-48 h were comparable, but PONV scores (P=0.023) and postoperative nausea scores (P=0.010) during 2-24 h were significantly lesser in Group B compared to Group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative vomiting score or retching during 0-48 h. The amount of first-line rescue antiemetic used during 2-24 h was significantly higher in Group A (56%) than in Group B (31%) (P=0.012; P<0.05). Complete response to the drug during 2-24 h was significantly higher (P=0.023) in Group B (63%) compared to Group A (40%), whereas response was comparable during 0-2 h and 24-48 h. Both groups had comparable incidences of adverse effects and patient satisfaction scores.

Conclusion

Palonosetron has superior antinausea effect, less need of rescue antiemetics, and lesser incidence of total PONV in comparison to ondansetron during 2-24 h and comparable effect to ondansetron during the 0-2 h and 24-48 h postoperative periods in high-risk patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery.

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

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

Comparison of Palonosetron with Combination of Palonosetron and Dexamethasone in the Prevention of Post Operative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Middle Ear Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Trial

We compared the use of palonosetron with combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in patients undergoing middle ear surgery under general anaesthesia. Prospective, randomized study was conducted including 90 adult patients who received either palonosetron (0.075 mg) (Group P) or combination of palonosetron (0.075 mg) and dexamethasone (8 mg) (Group PD). The primary outcome was incidence of nausea, vomiting and complete response. Secondary parameters were time to receive first rescue antiemetic, total dose required, patient's satisfaction, postoperative pain scores and total dose of rescue analgesic. The incidence of nausea was 15.5% and 8.8% (p = 0.522) and vomiting was 6.7% and 2.2% (p = 0.610) in group P and PD, respectively Complete response (CR) was observed in 84.4% patients in group P and 91% patients in group PD (p = 0.522). Combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone is not superior to use of palonosetron alone for PONV prevention.

Levosulpiride and Ramosetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Double-blind Study

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be common complication of anesthesia and surgery in spite of availability of so many antiemetic drugs and regimens for prevention. This study compared Ramosetron and Levosulpiride in terms of efficacy for PONV prevention after laparoscopic surgery.

Aim

To compare the efficacy of intravenous (i.v.) Levosulpiride 25 mg with i.v. Ramosetron 0.3 mg in preventing PONV.

Setting

S. D. M. College of Medical Sciences and Hospital, Sattur, Dharwad from November 2018 to June 2020.

Design

It is a prospective randomized double-blind study.

Statistical Analysis

All the data were collected, tabulated, and expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 22.0 Evaluation version). Unpaired sample t-test and Chi-square test have been used for the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically insignificant.

Materials and Methods

This prospective randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 200 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery falling under the inclusion criteria are numbered and every nth patient selected by systemic random sampling procedure and allocated into two groups of 100 each, group Levosulpiride (Group L) and group Ramosetron (group R) study drugs givenwithin 30 min induction of anesthesia. Group L will receive LEVOSULPIRIDE 25 mg i.v. Group R will receive RAMOSETRON 0.3 mg i.v.

Results

The incidence of vomiting in the Levosulpiride group and in the Ramosetron groupduring 0-4 h (20% vs. 30%, P = 0.1110), 4-8 h (4% vs. 5%, P = 0.7450), 8-12 h (5% vs. 4% P = 0.7210) and 12-24 h (0% vs. 0%). The incidence of nausea and overall PONV and the use of rescue antiemetic was not significantly different during all time intervals. The severity of nausea was not different between the two groups. Difference in the efficacy of Levosulpiride and Ramosetron was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05) in the prevention of PONV.

Conclusion

Levosulpiride 25 mg or Ramosetron 0.3 mg given intravenously to prevent PONV inpatients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia are equally effective in controlling PONV.

A Randomised Study To Compare Palonosetron With Ondansetron for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) Following Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgeries

Background

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Methodology

In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, non-smoking females aged 18-70 years, weighing 40-90 kg, and posted for elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries were enrolled into ondansetron (Group A, n = 65) and palonosetron (Group B, n = 65) groups. Palonosetron (1 mcg/kg IV) or ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg IV) were administered just before induction. Postoperatively, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, PONV (scored on a scale of 0-3), need for rescue antiemetic, complete response, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated up to 48 h following surgery. Normally distributed continuous variables were compared using Student’s t-test. In addition, the Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare nominal categorical data as deemed appropriate. P-value <0.05 was observed as statistically significant.

Results

The overall PONV scores and postoperative nausea scores during 0-2 and 24-48 hours were comparable, but PONV scores (p = 0.023) and postoperative nausea scores (p = 0.010) during 2-24 hours were significantly lesser in Group B compared to Group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative vomiting score or retching during 0-48 hours. The amount of first-line rescue antiemetic used during 2-24 hours was significantly higher in Group A (56%) than in Group B (31%) (p = 0.012; p <0.05). A complete response to the drug during 2-24 hours was significantly higher (p = 0.023) in Group B (63%) compared to Group A (40%), whereas response was comparable during 0-2 and 24-48 hours. Both groups had a comparable incidence of adverse effects and patient satisfaction scores.

Conclusion

Palonosetron has a superior anti-nausea effect, less need for rescue antiemetics, and lesser incidence of total PONV compared to ondansetron during 2-24h and comparable effect to ondansetron during 0-2h and 24-48h postoperative period in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

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).

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Dose-Ranging Study of Ramosetron for the Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study

Patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery and receiving postoperative analgesia with opioids have a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We compared the antiemetic efficacy of three doses of ramosetron in this high-risk population. In this prospective, double-blind trial, 174 patients randomly received ramosetron 0.3 mg (R0.3 group; n = 58), 0.45 mg (R0.45 group; n = 58), or 0.6 mg (R0.6 group; n = 58) at the end of surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first postoperative 48 h. Nausea severity, pain scores, adverse events, and patient satisfaction (1-4; 4, excellent) were assessed. The incidence of PONV was not different between groups (35%, 38%, and 35% in R0.3, R0.45, and R0.6 groups; p = 0.905). Nausea severity, pain scores, and incidence of adverse events (dizziness, headache, or sedation) were similar between groups. Compared to the R0.3 group, the R0.45 and R0.6 groups had lower incidence of premature discontinuation of fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia primarily because of intractable PONV (9% and 5% vs. 24%; p = 0.038), and higher satisfaction scores (3.4 ± 0.8 and 3.3 ± 0.7 vs. 2.4 ± 0.9; p = 0.005). Compared to ramosetron 0.3 mg, ramosetron 0.45 and 0.6 mg did not reduce PONV, but reduced premature discontinuation of patient-controlled analgesia and increased patient satisfaction, without increasing adverse events.

Comparison of Ondansetron versus Clonidine efficacy for prevention of postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting after orthognathic surgeries: A triple blind randomized controlled trial

Background

The aim of this randomized controlled triple blind trial was to compare the efficacy of clonidine with dexamethasone versus ondansetron with dexamethasone for postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting prevention in orthognathic surgery patients.

Material and Methods

In this clinical trial study, 30 consecutive patients with skeletal class III deformities were candidates for orthognathic surgery in Qaem hospital, Mashhad University of medical sciences, Mashhad, Iran from March to November 2017. These subjects were randomly assigned to two equal number groups, ondansetron or clonidine. Patients received either oral ondansetron 8mg or oral clonidine 150μg as premedication, 1 hour before the surgery (both dissolved in 20 cc of water). Also both groups received intravenous dexamethasone 8mg (1 hour preoperatively and every 4 hours intraoperatively).

Results

In this study, a total of 30 patients (14 males and 16 females) with a mean age of 23.9 ± 3.9 were investigated. The incidence of postoperative nausea in women was more than men (p=0.003), also the correlation between the incidence of PON and the surgery duration ≥ 3 hours was statistically significant (p = 0.050). The frequency of postoperative nausea (PON) in the ondansetron group was less than clonidine (53.3% vs 73.3% respectively). There was no postoperative vomiting (POV) in the ondansetron group, but 6.7% of cases in clonidine group suffered POV. Post-operative nausea in ondansetron group occurred significantly later than clonidine (525.0±233.2 vs 100.0±34.0 min; p<0.001). On the other hand, the incidence time of post-operative severe pain or in other word the analgesia time in clonidine group was significantly more than ondansetron one (875/0±68/5 vs 614.3±159.1 min; p<0.001).

Conclusions

Ondansetron with dexamethasone premedication was more effective in controlling PONV after orthognathic surgery compared to clonidine with dexamethasone group.

Key words:Postoperative nausea and vomiting, ondansetron, clonidine.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Combination of gabapentin and ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized comparative study

Background

As a drug originally introduced for its anticonvulsant effects, gabapentin has been recently shown to be effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in various clinical settings. This study compared the antiemetic efficacy of oral gabapentin, intravenous ramosetron and gabapentin plus ramosetron in patients receiving fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Methods

One hundred and thirty two patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia were allocated randomly into three groups: group G received 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia, group R received 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery, and group GR received a combination of 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia and 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery. Postoperative nausea, retching, vomiting, rescue antiemetic drug use, pain, rescue analgesic requirements and adverse effects were assessed at 0–2, 2–24 and 24–48 h after surgery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was defined as the presence of nausea, retching or vomiting.

Results

The incidence of complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetics up to 48 h postoperatively) was significantly higher in group GR (26/40, 65%) than group G (16/40, 40%; P = 0.025) and group R (18/44, 41%; P = 0.027), whereas there was no significant difference between group G and group R (P = 0.932). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of emetic episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, severe emesis, use of rescue analgesics or any adverse effects. Postoperative pain scores were also similar among groups.

Conclusions

The combination with gabapentin and ramosetron is superior to either drug alone for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02617121, registered November 25, 2015.

Comparison of Ramosetron with Palonosetron for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Opioid-Based Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia after Gynecological Laparoscopy

We aimed to compare the effects of ramosetron and palonosetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients that received opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after gynecological laparoscopy. We reviewed the electronic medical records of 755 adults. Patients were classified into two groups, ramosetron (group R, n = 589) versus palonosetron (group P, n = 166). Based on their confounding factors, 152 subjects in each group were selected after the implementation of propensity score matching. The overall incidence of PONV at postoperative day (POD) 0 was lower in group R compared to group P (26.9% versus 36.8%; P = 0.043). The severity of nausea was lower in group R than in group P on postoperative day (POD) 0 (P = 0.012). Also, the complete responder proportion of patients was significantly higher in group R compared to that in group P on POD 0 (P = 0.043). In conclusion, ramosetron showed a greater efficacy in the prevention of postoperative nausea at POD 0 compared to palonosetron in patients after gynecological laparoscopy.

Palonosetron and Ramosetron Compared for Effectiveness in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings on the superiority of palonosetron over ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, the present systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016038120) and performed to compare the efficacy of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron. The primary endpoints were defined as the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV. A total of 695 patients were included in the final analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed through administration times which were divided into two phases: the early phase of surgery and the end of surgery. Combined analysis did not show differences between palonosetron and ramosetron in the overall incidence of PON, POV or PONV. Palonosetron was more effective than ramosetron, when the administration time for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was during the early phase of the operation. Otherwise, ramosetron was more effective than palonosetron, when the administration time was at the end of surgery. However, the quality of evidence for each outcome was low or very low and number of included studies was small, limiting our confidence in findings.