Postoperative nausea and vomiting – a narrative review of pathophysiology, pharmacotherapy and clinical management strategies

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.

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse event after general surgery. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness and safety of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) for the prevention of nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

METHOD

The Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were accessed from inception to 23 January 2024. The incidence of PONV was the primary outcome measure. The required information size (RIS) of each outcome was estimated by Trial sequential analysis (TSA). The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias and GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs including 3698 participants were included. In comparison to the control group, TEAS reduced the incidence of PONV (13 trials, n = 3310; RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; I2 = 64%; p < 0.01; RIS = 1100), with the level of evidence graded as low. TEAS reduced the incidence of PON (9 trials, n = 2762; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; I2 = 57%, p < 0.01; RIS = 1595), and was also associated with a lower incidence of POV (9 trials, n = 2797; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.45-0.63; I2 = 0%, p < 0.01; RIS = 773).

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis and TSA provide reliable evidence that TEAS is an effective and safe method to prevent PONV. It may reduce the workload of nursing professionals, alleviate emotional stress, and decrease exposure risk. Adverse events related to TEAS were mild.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Nurses can incorporate TEAS into the rehabilitation nursing of patients experiencing PONV.

[Update PO(N)V-What is new in the prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting?]

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is defined as the joint or individual occurrence of nausea, retching and vomiting within 24-48h after an operation. The peripheral and central nervous systems are involved in the development of PONV. The pathogenesis of PONV is multifactorial. Patient-related, anaesthesia-related and surgery-related risk factors can be present. Some of the risk factors for PONV were combined to form PONV risk scores (e.g., the simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting from Apfel et al.), with the help of which the risk of PONV can be estimated with a sensitivity and specificity of 65-70%. For certain collectives specialised PONV risk scores should be prioritised. The antiemetic strategy is divided into three areas: modification of the anaesthetic procedure, pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. These can be applied individually or combined in the sense of a multimodal PONV prophylaxis.

The Application and Pharmaceutical Development of Etomidate: Challenges and Strategies

Etomidate is a synthetic imidazole anesthetic that exerts hypnotic effects by potentiating the action of the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) or directly activating the anionic GABA (GABAA) receptor. It stands out among many anesthetics because of its multiple advantages, such as good hemodynamic stability and minimal inhibition of spontaneous respiration. However, its low water solubility and side effects, such as adrenal cortex inhibition and myoclonus, have limited the clinical application of this drug. To address these issues, extensive research has been conducted on the drug delivery of etomidate in recent decades, which has led to the emergence of different etomidate preparations. Despite so many etomidate preparations, so far some of the toxic side effects have not yet been effectively addressed. Herein we discuss the pharmaceutical design of etomidate that may resolve the above problem. We also propose targeted strategies for future research on etomidate preparations and discuss the feasibility of different administration routes and dosage forms to expand the application of this drug. Through this review, we hope to draw more attention to the potential of etomidate and its application challenges and provide valuable insights into the development of new etomidate preparations.

Acustimulation combined with pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis among patients undergoing laparoscopy abdominal surgery: a research protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the efficacy of integrating percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation at the pericardium 6 (PC6) acupuncture point through a wearable acustimulation device with standard pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

This prospective study will enrol 302 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgery. Participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: acustimulation combined with pharmacological prophylaxis or sham stimulation combined with pharmacological prophylaxis. Randomisation will involve a computer-generated sequence, with allocation concealment implemented through sealed envelopes. The acustimulation group will receive electrical stimulation at the PC6 point starting 30 min before surgery and continuing until discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit. Sham group will wear a wristband that does not provide stimulation. The primary outcome is the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcomes include the severity of PONV, incidence rates of nausea and vomiting at different postoperative intervals and indices of gastrointestinal functional recovery. Exploratory outcomes will assess haemodynamic parameters, baroreflex sensitivity, hospital stay duration, costs and both short-term and long-term postoperative recovery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All participants will provide written informed consent. The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking Union Medical Hospital (approval number: I-23PJ1712). Results will be published open access.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT06241547.

Efficacy and safety of electrical acupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting are typical postsurgical complications. Drug therapy is only partially effective. The goal of our meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of electrical acupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting and to score the quality of evidence supporting this concept.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 19, 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies (2064 patients) were included. Compared with control treatment, electrical acupoint stimulation reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.57, P < 0.001), postoperative nausea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64, P < 0.001) and postoperative vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70, P < 0.001). Electrical acupoint stimulation also reduced the number of patients requiring antiemetic rescue (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.85, P = 0.004). No differences in adverse events were observed. Subgroup analysis showed that both electroacupuncture (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, P < 0.001) and transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58, P < 0.001) had significant effects. Electrical acupoint stimulation was effective whether administered preoperatively (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.60, P < 0.001), postoperatively (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.76, P < 0.001), or perioperatively (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.67, P < 0.001). The quality of evidence was moderate to low.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrical acupoint stimulation probably reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, and reduce the number of patients requiring antiemetic rescue, with few adverse events.

Inhalation of Isopropyl Alcohol for the Management of Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review

Background: The use of inhaled isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been proposed as a therapeutic intervention for the relief of nausea in various settings. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the existing evidence for the use of inhaled IPA in the management of nausea and vomiting. Methods: We performed a literature search on Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases before November 2021. The following concepts were searched using subject headings and keywords as needed "aromatherapy," "alcohol," "ethylic alcohol," "ethanol," "isopropyl alcohol," "emesis," "chemotherapy-induced," "pregnancy," "hyperemesis gravidarum," "motion sickness," "emetics," "antiemetics," "inhalation," and "inhale." Searches were not limited to a specific language. The bibliographies of identified articles were also manually searched. Two authors independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias. Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials out of 158 studies identified met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1253 participants. Twelve studies were conducted in the postoperative anesthesia care unit and two studies were performed in the emergency department setting. Four studies were double blinded, one was single blind, and eight were open label. Three studies assessed the use of inhaled IPA for prevention, whereas 10 studies evaluated its use in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Seven studies reported IPA to be more effective, four studies reported no difference, and two studies reported IPA to be ineffective. Participant satisfaction was high overall, regardless of intervention received. No adverse effects were reported. The overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: There is a lack of strong evidence to support the use of inhaled IPA in the management of nausea and vomiting. Additional trials are warranted to confirm this finding and to further explore the use of inhaled IPA in various populations and settings.

Factors Associated with Rebound Pain After Patient-controlled Epidural Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

Although patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is an effective form of regional analgesia for abdominal surgery, some patients experience significant rebound pain after the discontinuation of PCEA. However, risk factors for rebound pain associated with PCEA in major abdominal surgery remain unknown. This study evaluated the incidence of rebound pain related to PCEA and explored potential associated risk factors.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 236 patients using PCEA following hepatobiliary and pancreas surgery between 2018 and 2020 in a tertiary hospital in South Korea. Rebound pain was defined as an increase from well-controlled pain (numeric rating scale <4) during epidural analgesia to severe pain (numeric rating scale ≥7) within 24 hours of discontinuation of PCEA. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with rebound pain.

RESULTS

A total of 236 patients were included in this study. Patients were categorized into the non-rebound pain group (170 patients; 72%) and the rebound pain group (66 patients; 28%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that preoperative prognostic nutritional index (PNI) below 45 (odds ratio [OR]=2.080, 95% confidential interval [CI]=1.061-4.079, P=0.033) and intraoperative transfusion (OR=4.190, 95% CI=1.436-12.226, P=0.009) were independently associated with rebound pain after PCEA discontinuation.

DISCUSSION

Rebound pain after PCEA occurred in approximately 30% of patients who underwent major abdominal surgery, resulting in insufficient postoperative pain management. Preoperative low PNI and intraoperative transfusion may be associated with rebound pain after PCEA discontinuation.

Preoperative Evaluation and Management of Patients With Select Chronic Gastrointestinal, Liver, and Renal Diseases

Patients with chronic gastrointestinal, hepatic, and renal disease are frequently encountered in clinical practice. This is due in part to the rising prevalence of risk factors associated with these conditions. These patients are increasingly being considered for surgical intervention and are at higher risk for multiple perioperative complications. Many are able to safely undergo surgery but require unique considerations to ensure optimal perioperative care. In this review, we highlight relevant perioperative physiology and outline our approach to the evaluation and management of patients with select chronic gastrointestinal, hepatic, and renal diseases. A comprehensive preoperative evaluation with a multidisciplinary approach is often beneficial, and specialist involvement should be considered. Intraoperative and postoperative plans should be individualized based on the unique medical and surgical characteristics of each patient.

Effects of Ramosetron on Nausea and Vomiting Following Spinal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal surgery is associated with severe pain within the first few days after surgery. Opioids are commonly used to control postoperative pain, but these can lead to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, use of more effective and better-tolerated agents would be beneficial for these patients. Serotonin receptor antagonists, such as ramosetron, have been used to reduce PONV in patients receiving anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and tolerance of ramosetron to prevent PONV after spinal surgery.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index databases were systematically searched for relevant RCT articles published between January 1979 and November 2020. Full text articles restricted to English language that described RCTs comparing the use of ramosetron with other serotonin antagonists to treat PONV following spinal surgery in adult patients were considered for meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction of all articles. Differences were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

The search identified 88 potentially relevant articles, of which only 3 met our selection criteria. Study drugs were administered at the end of spinal surgery in all 3 included articles. The meta-analysis revealed that ramosetron (0.3 mg) reduced the pain score (mean difference = -0.66; 95% CI -1.02 to -0.30), lowered the risk of PONV (risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97), and postoperative vomiting (risk ratio = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.60), and limited the use of rescue antiemetics (risk ratio = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.96) after spinal surgery. However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea, the use of rescue pain medications, the number of rescue analgesics required, and the risk of discontinuation of patient-controlled analgesia between ramosetron and palonosetron (0.075 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg). There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of adverse events among the 3 medications.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of 3 RCTs showed that ramosetron reduced the risk of PONV and POV, limited the use of rescue antiemetics, reduced the postoperative pain score, and did not increase the risk of discontinuing patient-controlled analgesia compared with palonosetron or ondansetron after spinal surgery in 3 RCTs. Therefore, this meta-analysis indicates that ramosetron is an effective and well tolerated antiemetic that can be used to prevent PONV following spinal surgery in adult patients. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42020223596 (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2022; 83:XXX-XXX)© 2022 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus versus Continuous Epidural Infusion in Major Upper Abdominal Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Although recent evidence shows that the programmed intermittent epidural bolus can provide improved analgesia compared to continuous epidural infusion during labor, its usefulness in major upper abdominal surgery remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion on the consumption of postoperative rescue opioids, pain intensity, and consumption of local anesthetic by retrospective analysis of data of patients who underwent major upper abdominal surgery under ultrasound-assisted thoracic epidural analgesia between July 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was total opioid consumption up to 72 h after surgery. The data of postoperative pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and adverse events from 193 patients were analyzed (continuous epidural infusion: n = 124, programmed intermittent epidural bolus: n = 69). There was no significant difference in the rescue opioid consumption in the 72 h postoperative period between the groups (33.3 mg [20.0–43.3] vs. 28.3 mg [18.3–43.3], p = 0.375). There were also no significant differences in the pain scores, epidural local anesthetic consumption, and incidence of adverse events. Our findings suggest that the quality of postoperative analgesia and safety following major upper abdominal surgery were comparable between the groups. However, the use of programmed intermittent epidural bolus requires further evaluation.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia: An abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT₃-, D₂-, NK₁-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia.

RESULTS

585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK₁ receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing.

CONCLUSIONS

There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

A retrospective single-site data-linkage study comparing manual to electronic data abstraction for routine post-operative nausea and vomiting audit

BACKGROUND

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common cause of patient dissatisfaction following anaesthesia. Audit of adherence to PONV prevention guidelines is resource intensive when performed by manual chart extraction. Electronic audit can require costly anaesthetic and medical records.

OBJECTIVE

In our single-site study we sought to compare manual and electronic PONV audits by utilizing existing non-anaesthetic electronic medical records to avoid expensive additional software.

METHODS

The audits were performed from 13 January 2020 to 1 February 2020 for surgical inpatients. Two PONV periods were captured-the post-anaesthetic recovery unit and on the ward (to 24 h). Electronic PONV was defined as the administration of an anti-emetic medication. A 6-month electronic PONV rate was also calculated.

RESULTS

Manual audit captured 142 patients and electronic audit captured 294 patients, over the same time period. The manual PONV rate was 10% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5-16%) in the post-anaesthetic recovery unit and 20% (95% CI 14-28%) the next day. The electronic rate was 5% (95% CI 3-8%) in the post-anaesthetic recovery unit and 15% (11-19%) in a 24-h period. The 6-month electronic audit found 3510 patients, with a post-anaesthetic recovery unit and 24-h PONV rates of 5% (4-6%) and 14% (13-16%), respectively. Electronic audit did not identify 5.8% of PONV patients in the manual audit.

CONCLUSION

Electronic audit enrolled more patients and identified a lower PONV rate than manual audit, likely from less enrolment bias. Electronic audit was easily repeated over a 6-month period. While electronic PONV audit is possible without additional software, an electronic anaesthetic chart would greatly improve audit quality.

Mechanism and risk factors of nausea and vomiting after TACE: a retrospective analysis

Purpose

The mechanism of postoperative nausea and vomiting after TACE is not clear. This study retrospectively analyzed the patient data to explore the mechanism and risk factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting after TACE.

Materials and methods

The data of 221 patients who underwent TACE in the interventional department from January 2019 to December 2020 were collected. Including: gender, age, liver function before TACE, etiology of liver cirrhosis, BCLC stage of hepatocellular carcinoma, preoperative use of analgesic drugs, preoperative limosis, previous history of vomiting, history of kinetosis, smoking history, history of drinking, chemotherapeutic drugs used during TACE, Dosage of lipiodol, and occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Results

There were 116 cases of nausea after TACE, using binary logistic regression analysis, Sig: ALT0.003; ALP0.000; history of vomiting 0.043; kinetosis 0.006; history of alcohol consumption 0.011; preoperative limosis 0.006; dosage of lipiodol (5–10 mL) 0.029, dosage of lipiodol (> 10 mL) 0.001.There were 89 cases of vomiting after TACE, all accompanied by nausea, Sig: ALP0.000; BCLC stage (B) 0.007; kinetosis 0.034; chemotherapeutic drugs 0.015; dosage of lipiodol (5–10 ml) 0.015, dosage of lipiodol (> 10 ml) 0.000; patients used analgesics before TACE 0.034.

Conclusions

Causes of post-TACE nausea and vomiting included operative trauma, aseptic inflammation caused by ischemia and hypoxia, chemotherapeutic drugs, ischemia of liver and bile duct, stress and pain during TACE, and patient factors. ALP, BCLC stage, kinetosis, chemotherapeutic drugs, dosage of lipiodol, and preoperative usage of analgesics were risk factors affecting nausea and vomiting after TACE.

Acupuncture therapy strategy options in postoperative management after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A protocol for systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a common surgery accompanied by some unpleasant adverse effects. Clinical trials indicated that acupuncture therapy may help reduce complications in LC. However, no systematic reviews have been conducted on the topic. Therefore, we will evaluate the current evidence and provide a rank for the efficacy of acupuncture therapy in LC by performing Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A total of 9 databases will be searched from inception to 10 December 2020. Randomized control trails met the criterion will be included. Quality evaluation of included studies will be performed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. STATA 14.0, Addis 1.16.8, R 3.6.3, and OpenBUGS 3.2.3 will be used to conduct pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. The evidence will be assessed by the Grades of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

This review will be based on clinical evidence to choose the best choice of acupuncture treatment for LC. And the results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

Through this systematic review, we will summarize the best available evidence of acupuncture therapy in LC and help to improve the clinical decision-making ability in LC domain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol has been registered on INPLASY2020120056.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: an abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia. Although dozens of different anti-emetics are available for clinical practice, there is currently no comparative ranking of efficacy and safety of these drugs to inform clinical practice. We performed a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare, and rank in terms of efficacy and safety, single anti-emetic drugs and their combinations, including 5-hydroxytryptamine₃ , dopamine-2 and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists; corticosteroids; antihistamines; and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia. We systematically searched for placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials up to November 2017 (updated in April 2020). We assessed how trustworthy the evidence was using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches for vomiting within 24 h postoperatively, serious adverse events, any adverse event and drug class-specific side-effects. We included 585 trials (97,516 participants, 83% women) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27% of the studies. In 282 trials, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20% compared with placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Out of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, with risk ratio (95%CI) 0.26 (0.18-0.38); ramosetron, 0.44 (0.32-0.59); granisetron, 0.45 (0.38-0.54); dexamethasone, 0.51 (0.44-0.57); and ondansetron, 0.55 (0.51-0.60). It was moderate for fosaprepitant, 0.06 (0.02-0.21) and droperidol, 0.61 (0.54-0.69). Granisetron and amisulpride are likely to have little or no increase in any adverse event compared with placebo, while dimenhydrinate and scopolamine may increase the number of patients with any adverse event compared with placebo. So far, there is no convincing evidence that other single drugs effect the incidence of serious, or any, adverse events when compared with placebo. Among drug class specific side-effects, evidence for single drugs is mostly not convincing. There is convincing evidence regarding the prophylactic effect of at least seven single drugs for postoperative vomiting such that future studies investigating these drugs will probably not change the estimated beneficial effect. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.

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.

A comparison of noninvasive and invasive acupuncture in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A protocol for systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a main complication of surgery, and by now, drugs cannot prevent it completely. Some meta-analyses have proved acupuncture therapy can prevent PONV. However, it is still controversial whether noninvasive acupuncture therapies are comparable with invasive ones. This study uses Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of different forms of acupuncture in preventing PONV.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Ebsco, Ovid/Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc will be searched from inception to May 2020. All randomized control trails meet the criterion will be included. Quality evaluation of included studies will be implemented with Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. STATA 14.0 will be used to perform pairwise meta-analysis. Addis 1.16.8, R 3.6.3, OpenBUGS 3.2.3, and STATA 14.0 will be used to conduct network meta-analysis. The evidence will be assessed by the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach using GRADE Profiler 3.6.

RESULTS

The results of this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and generate a comprehensive review of current evidence.

CONCLUSION

Our results will help to improve the clinical decision-making ability and policy-making in PONV domain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol has been registered on INPLASY 202060108.

Acupuncture therapy on postoperative nausea and vomiting in abdominal operation: A Bayesian network meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after surgery. However, drugs cannot prevent it completely, and acupuncture therapy shows the potential in preventing PONV, yet the best choice hasn't been demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE

This network meta analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different acupuncture therapies used for preventing PONV in abdominal operation.

METHODS

Authors searched articles from PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Ebsco and Ovid/Embase, and established database from setup time to June 2019. Quality evaluation of included studies was performed with Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2.0). Pairwise and network meta analysis were conducted by RevMan and Addis respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty studies with 2862 patients were included in this research. Pairwise meta analysis shows that compared with placebo, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation had lower risk of postoperative nausea (PON) (odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, 95%confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.60), postoperative vomiting (POV) (OR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.36-0.78), PONVs (OR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.31-0.68), and postoperative rescue (POR) (OR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.41-0.90), Capsicum had lower risk of PON (OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.09-0.28), PONVs (OR = 0.23, 95%CI: 0.12-0.45), Acupressure had lower risk of POV (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.25-0.70), POR (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.27-0.64). In network meta analysis, compared with usual care, the probability rank suggested that Acupoint Injection showed lowest risk of PON (OR = 0.02, 95%CI: 0.00-0.11), POV (OR = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01-0.49), Usual care for PONVs (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.13-0.75), and Capsicum for POR (OR = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.07-2.33). Further study should be carried out to verify this result.

CONCLUSION

Both pairwise and network meta analysis showed acupuncture therapy was superior to placebo and usual care. Different acupuncture therapy regimens may have advantages in different aspects. And compared with POV, PON seems easier to control. Research results may provide guidance for the prevention of PONV.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019147556.

Chronic Atypical Antipsychotic Use Is Associated With Reduced Need for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Rescue in the Postanesthesia Care Unit: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Atypical antipsychotics are efficacious for chemoprophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, but perioperative investigations have been scant. We sought to examine the association between chronic atypical antipsychotic therapy and the likelihood of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

In this single-center, propensity-matched, retrospective, observational study, elective noncardiac surgical cases from January 2014 to December 2017 were examined with regard to the primary outcome of rescue antiemetic administration in the postanesthesia care unit as a measure of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Chronic administration of olanzapine, aripiprazole, and risperidone was the exposure of interest. Other independent variables included outpatient antiemetics, modified Apfel score, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, case length, and exposures to emetogenic and chemoprophylactic agents. Logistic regression was performed using case-level data. Conditional logistic regression was performed after 1:2 propensity matching, sampling without replacement. Monte Carlo simulation was performed to compute the mean patient-level treatment effect on the treated.

RESULTS

Of 13,660 cases, 154 cases with patients receiving atypical antipsychotics were matched against 308 cases without, representing 115 and 273 unique patients, respectively. In a well-balanced cohort, the mean patient-level odds of being administered rescue antiemetic was lower for patients chronically taking the 3 atypical antipsychotics under consideration as compared to those not on atypical antipsychotics, with an odds ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11-0.75; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic atypical antipsychotic therapy is associated with reduced risk of postanesthesia care unit antiemetic administration. These findings support the need for prospective studies to establish the safety and efficacy of postoperative nausea and vomiting chemoprophylaxis with these agents.

A Comprehensive Patient and Public Involvement Program Evaluating Perception of Cannabis-Derived Medicinal Products in the Treatment of Acute Postoperative Pain, Nausea, and Vomiting Using a Qualitative Thematic Framework

Introduction: Cannabis-derived medicinal products (CDMPs) have antiemetic properties and in combination with opioids have synergistic analgesic effects in part signaling through the delta and kappa opioid receptors. The objective of this patient and public involvement program was to determine perception of perioperative CDMPs in our local population to inform design of a clinical trial. Methods: A qualitative evaluation was conducted utilizing a focus group, semistructured interviews and a community event. Analysis was conducted through the framework methodology. Verbatim transcriptions were coded categorically into analytical frameworks for thematic analysis. Emergent themes and associated degree of consensus/dissent were determined. The participant cohort was composed of a group of patients and relatives representative of the target population (M:F=1:1, age range 33-85). Results: Most common coding categories in thematic analysis framework included side-effect profile, trial schedule of events, and safety. Consensus was that potential benefits of CDMPs were attractive compared with the known risk profile of opioid use. Decrease in opioid dependence was agreed to be an appropriate clinical end-point for a randomized controlled clinical trial and there was concurrence of positive opinion of a therapeutic schedule of 5 days. Negative CDMP perceptions included addiction, dysphoria, and adverse effects in psychiatric subpopulations. Sublingual or oral administration was the most acceptable route of administration, with some expressing that inhalation delegitimizes therapeutic properties. Conclusions: The perception of postoperative CDMP therapy was overwhelmingly positive in this West London population. The data from this thematic analysis will inform protocol development of clinical trials to determine analgesic and antiemetic efficacy of CDMPs.

Pharmacist-driven multidisciplinary initiative continuously improves postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing abdominal surgery

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The incorrect or insufficient prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common in practice. A clinical pharmacist-led guidance team (CPGT) was established and included in general surgery teams.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the CPGT on the improvement of PONV and prophylaxis administration.

METHODS

A prospective before-after study was conducted on 156 female patients undergoing abdominal surgery at a Chinese tertiary teaching hospital from December 2016 to December 2017. A total of 82 patients were enrolled in the preintervention period, and 74 patients were included in the post-intervention period. The CPGT established the evidence-based criteria for prophylactic anti-emetic administration and conducted interventions, including a review of medical records, provision of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. Primary outcomes included the incidence of PONV within 24 hours of surgery, administered number of prophylactic anti-emetics, and accuracy of the timing for prophylactic anti-emetics. Outcomes were analysed by logistic regression or multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

After intervention, patients reported significantly less PONV (33.78% vs 56.10%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.29; numbers needed to treat [NNT]: 3.47), vomiting (29.73% vs 45.12%; OR: 0.42; NNT: 5.16) and nausea (31.08% vs 56.10%; OR: 0.24; NNT: 3.19) within 24 hours of surgery. The accuracy of the timing for prophylactic anti-emetics significantly increased (OR: 3.66; P: .003). Anaesthesiologists administered increased numbers of prophylactic anti-emetics (OR: 5.82; P < .001). The improvement of PONV did not decrease during the four-month period after intervention (P: .639).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The CPGT is a valuable service model to continuously improve PONV and optimize prophylaxis administration.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal and gynecological cancer surgery: a randomized, triple-blinded clinical trial

Background

Continuous epidural infusion (CEI) is the standard application setting for epidural infusion. A new mode, the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique, showed reduced local anesthetic (LA) consumption and improved analgesia in obstetric analgesia. Goal of this trial was to evaluate the effects of PIEB versus CEI [combined with patient-controlled bolus (PCEA)] on LA consumption and pain scorings in major abdominal cancer surgery.

Methods

Following ethical approval, patients scheduled for major abdominal cancer surgery under general anesthesia in combination with epidural analgesia were randomized to receive either a PIEB mode of 6 mL/h or a CEI mode set at 6 mL/h of ropivacaine 0.2%, both combined with a PCEA mode set at a 4 mL bolus. LA consumptions and pain scorings were documented until the second postoperative evening.

Results

Eighty-four datasets were analyzed (CEI: n = 40, PIEB: n = 44). Regarding the primary endpoint, cumulative LA PCEA bolus volumes until day 2 differed significantly between the groups [PIEB 10 mL (2–28 mL) versus CEI, 28 mL (12–64 mL), median (25th–75th percentiles), p = 0.002]. Overall, LA consumption volumes were significantly lower in the PIEB group versus in the CEI group [PIEB: 329 mL (291–341 mL) vs. CEI: 350 mL (327–381 mL), p = 0.003]. Pain scores were comparable at each time point.

Conclusions

This trial demonstrates reduced needs for PCEA bolus in the PIEB group. There were no clinically relevant benefits regarding morphine consumption, pain scorings, or other secondary outcome parameters.

Trial registration

This study has been registered retrospectively in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT03378804), date of registration: December, 20th 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0613-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

A Prospective Study of Nausea and Vomiting After Breast Cancer Surgery

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) continue to be common and disturbing complications experienced after surgery, particularly in women and especially in women undergoing breast cancer surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and risk factors associated with PONV and PDNV from preoperative to 48 hours postoperatively in 97 women scheduled for breast cancer surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, comparative design.

METHODS

After informed consent was obtained, women scheduled for breast cancer surgery were evaluated for incidence of vomiting, as well as the presence and severity of nausea from the preoperative holding area for 48 hours following surgery. Vomiting was assessed as both a nominally scaled, binary variable (Yes/No) and as a continuous variable to measure separate emetic events. Nausea was measured on an 11point verbal numeric scale with 0 being the absence of nausea and 10 representing the highest level of nausea ever experienced.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine (29.8%) women experienced nausea, and nine (9%) women experienced nausea and vomiting while in the post-anesthesia care unit despite close attention to the need for prophylactic antiemetic medications. Women who experienced PONV had higher levels of pain and received more opioids than those women who did not experience PONV. Women who received intravenous acetaminophen did not experience less PONV in this study. PDNV occurred more frequently than PONV, with 34 women (35%) reporting occurrence after discharge. About 13 women who did not experience PONV while in the PACU subsequently experienced PDNV after leaving the hospital, evidence for the importance of patient discharge teaching regarding these symptoms. Although clinical guidelines are necessary, our observation is that nurses in the PACU setting continuously challenge themselves to individualize the combination of medications and activities for each patient to reduce PONV after surgery.

An update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge and recovery and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV has persisted in part because of the tremendous growth in ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major operations. Pharmacological management of PONV should be tailored to the patients' risk level using the PONV and PDNV scoring systems to minimize the potential for these adverse side effects in the postoperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs should be administered to patients with moderate-to-high risk of developing PONV in order to facilitate the recovery process. Optimal management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques and preventing PONV using prophylactic antiemetics are key elements for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. Strategies that include reductions of the baseline risk (e.g., adequate hydration, use of opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) as well as a multimodal antiemetic regimen will improve the likelihood of preventing both PONV and PDNV.

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting following gynecological laparoscopy: A comparison of standard anesthetic technique and propofol infusion

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of propofol-based anesthesia in gynecological laparoscopies in reducing incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared to a standard anesthesia using thiopentone/isoflurane.

DESIGN

Randomized single-blind (for anesthesia techniques used) and double-blind (for postoperative assessment) controlled trial.

SETTING

Operation theater, postanesthesia recovery room, teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) I and II female patients (aged 20-60 years) scheduled for gynecological laparoscopy were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in Group A received standard anesthesia with thiopentone for induction and maintenance with isoflurane-fentanyl, and those in Group B received propofol for induction and maintenance along with fentanyl. All patients received nitrous oxide, vecuronium, and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate. No patient received elective preemptive antiemetic, but patients did receive it after more than one episode of vomiting.

MEASUREMENTS

Assessment for incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting as well as other recovery parameters were carried out over a period of 24 hours.

MAIN RESULTS

Six patients (20%) in Group A and seven patients (23.3%) in Group B experienced nausea. Two patients (6.66%) in Group B had vomiting versus 12 (40%) in Group A (p<0.05). Overall, the incidence of emesis was 60% and 30% in Groups A and B, respectively (p<0.05). All patients in Group B had significantly faster recovery compared with those in Group A. No patient had any overt cardiorespiratory complications.

CONCLUSION

Propofol-based anesthesia was associated with significantly less postoperative vomiting and faster recovery compared to standard anesthesia in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy.

What is nausea? A historical analysis of changing views

The connotation of "nausea" has changed across several millennia. The medical term 'nausea' is derived from the classical Greek terms ναυτια and ναυσια, which designated the signs and symptoms of seasickness. In classical texts, nausea referred to a wide range of perceptions and actions, including lethargy and disengagement, headache (migraine), and anorexia, with an awareness that vomiting was imminent only when the condition was severe. However, some recent articles have limited the definition to the sensations that immediately precede emesis. Defining nausea is complicated by the fact that it has many triggers, and can build-up slowly or rapidly, such that the prodromal signs and symptoms can vary. In particular, disengagement responses referred to as the "sopite syndrome" are typically present only when emetic stimuli are moderately provocative, and do not quickly culminate in vomiting or withdrawing from the triggering event. This review considers how the definition of "nausea" has evolved over time, and summarizes the physiological changes that occur prior to vomiting that may be indicative of nausea. Also described are differences in the perception of nausea, as well as the accompanying physiological responses, that occur with varying stimuli. This information is synthesized to provide an operational definition of nausea.

[Glucocorticoids as an adjunct in peripheral regional anesthesia. Move to the "Holy Grail of perineural analgesia"?!]

BACKGROUND

The role of dexamethasone as an adjunct in peripheral nerve blockades is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This article reviews the actual knowledge and scientific evidence for dexamethasone as an adjunct in peripheral regional anesthesia. Moreover, it discusses the benefits of the systemic versus the perineural mode of application.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone prolongs sensible as well as motor blockades in peripheral nerve blocks when applied intravenously or perineurally. Regarding potentially local neurotoxicity, published patient data are not sufficient for final conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

After reviewing the actual literature, the authors prefer a systemic application mode (intravenously) over a perineural route of administration of dexamethasone as an adjunct for peripheral nerve blocks. This is due to the better understanding of potential side effects of the drug when applied intravenously. Dexamethasone might be a useful drug adjunct to prolong peripheral single shot nerve blocks.

The Effect of a Combination Treatment Using Palonosetron, Promethazine, and Dexamethasone on the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and QTc Interval Duration in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy under General Anesthesia: A Pilot Study

Introduction

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a displeasing experience that distresses surgical patients during the first 24 h after a surgical procedure. The incidence of postoperative nausea occurs in about 50%, the incidence of postoperative vomiting is about 30%, and in high-risk patients, the PONV rate could be as high as 80%. Therefore, the study design of this single arm, non-randomized, pilot study assessed the efficacy and safety profile of a triple therapy combination with palonosetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomies under general anesthesia.

Methods

The research protocol was approved by the institutional review board and 40 subjects were provided written informed consent. At induction of anesthesia, a triple therapy of palonosetron 0.075 mg IV, dexamethasone 10 mg IV, and promethazine 25 mg IV was given as PONV prophylaxis. After surgery, subjects were transferred to the surgical intensive care unit or post anesthesia care unit as clinically indicated. Ondansetron 4 mg IV was administered as primary rescue medication to subjects with PONV symptoms. PONV was assessed and collected every 24 h for 5 days via direct interview and/or medical charts review.

Results

The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The incidence of nausea and emesis 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12) and 7.5% (n = 3), respectively. The mean time to first emetic episode, first rescue, and first significant nausea was 31.3 (±33.6), 15.1 (±25.8), and 21.1 (±25.4) hours, respectively. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting after 24–120 h period after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The percentage of subjects without emesis episodes over 24–120 h postoperatively was 70% (n = 28). No subjects presented a prolonged QTc interval ≥500 ms before and/or after surgery.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrated that this triple therapy regimen may be an adequate alternative regimen for the treatment of PONV in patients undergoing neurological surgery under general anesthesia. More studies with a control group should be performed to demonstrate the efficacy of this regimen and that palonosetron is a low risk for QTc prolongation.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier

NCT02635828 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02635828).

Aprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an important clinical problem. Aprepitant is a relatively new agent for this condition which may be superior to other treatment. A systematic review was performed after searching a number of medical databases for controlled trials comparing aprepitant with conventional antiemetics published up to 25 April 2015 using the following keywords: 'Aprepitant for PONV', 'Aprepitant versus 5-HT3 antagonists' and 'NK-1 versus 5-HT3 for PONV'. The primary outcome for the pooled analysis was efficacy of aprepitant in preventing vomiting on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2. 172 potentially relevant papers were identified of which 23 had suitable data. For the primary outcome, 14 papers had relevant data. On POD1, 227/2341 patients (9.7%) patients randomised to aprepitant had a vomiting episode compared with 496/2267 (21.9%) controls. On POD2, the rate of vomiting among patients receiving aprepitant was 6.8% compared with 12.8% for controls. The OR for vomiting compared with controls was 0.48 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.67) on POD1 and 0.54 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.72) on POD2. Aprepitant also demonstrated a better profile with a lower need for rescue antiemetic and a higher complete response. Efficacy for vomiting prevention was demonstrated for 40 mg, 80 mg and 125 mg without major adverse effects. For vomiting comparison there was significant unexplainable heterogeneity (67.9% and 71.5% for POD1 and POD2, respectively). We conclude that (1) aprepitant reduces the incidence of vomiting on both POD1 and POD2, but there is an unexplained heterogeneity which lowers the strength of the evidence; (2) complete freedom from PONV on POD1 is highest for aprepitant with minimum need for rescue; and (3) oral aprepitant (80 mg) provides an effective and safe sustained antivomiting effect.