1
|
Karami A, Ramadani E, Banifatemi M, Asmarian N, Fattahi Saravi Z. Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting Incidence After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With Pretreatment With Haloperidol and Ondansetron: A Randomization Clinical Trial Study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2024; 34:118-123. [PMID: 38450649 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000001269] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 03/08/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Nausea and vomiting after surgery are the most common complications. Therefore, we performed this study to compare the effect of ondansetron and haloperidol on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized clinical trial, 60 patients candidates for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were allocated to haloperidol (0.05 mg/kg, n = 30) and ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg, n = 30) groups. An Ocular Analog Scale was used to assess postoperative nausea and vomiting. Every 15 minutes in the recovery room, heart rate and blood pressure were measured up to 6 hours after surgery. In addition, patient satisfaction was assessed postoperatively. RESULTS Haloperidol and ondansetron have the same effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward. It was found that the trend of Visual Analog Scale variable changes in the recovery room was similar in the haloperidol and ondansetron group ( P = 0.58); it was also true for the ward ( P = 0.79). Comparing the length of stay in a recovery room in the 2 groups was not statistically significant ( P = 0.19). In addition, the 2 groups did not differ in satisfaction postoperatively ( P = 0.82). CONCLUSION Haloperidol and ondansetron had an equal effect on reducing nausea and vomiting in the recovery room and ward after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patient satisfaction and length of stay in the recovery room did not differ between groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ali Karami
- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Au E, Zhao K, Belley-Côté E, Song Y, Al-Hazzani W, Sadeghirad B, Wang E, Young J, Kashani H, Kavosh M, Inami T, Beaver C, Kloppenburg S, Mazer D, Jacobsohn E, Um K, Spence J. The effect of perioperative benzodiazepine administration on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br J Anaesth 2024; 132:469-482. [PMID: 38177006 DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.11.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2023] [Revised: 10/30/2023] [Accepted: 11/07/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite recent systematic reviews suggesting their benefit for postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both (PONV) prevention, benzodiazepines have not been incorporated into guidelines for PONV prophylaxis because of concerns about possible adverse effects. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to inform future practice guidelines. METHODS We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all languages comparing benzodiazepines with non-benzodiazepine comparators in adults undergoing inpatient surgery. Our outcomes were postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both. We assessed risk of bias for RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We pooled data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS We screened 31 413 abstracts and 950 full texts. We included 119 RCTs; 104 were included in quantitative synthesis. Based on moderate certainty evidence, we found that perioperative benzodiazepine administration reduced the incidence of PONV (52 studies, n=5086, relative risk [RR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.89; number needed to treat [NNT] 16; moderate certainty), postoperative nausea (55 studies, n=5916, RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.83; NNT 21; moderate certainty), and postoperative vomiting (52 studies, n=5909, RR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91; NNT 55; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS Moderate quality evidence shows that perioperative benzodiazepine administration decreases the incidence of PONV. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will inform future clinical practice guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL The protocol for this systematic review was pre-registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361088) and published in BMJ Open (PMID 31831540).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Au
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Karen Zhao
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Emilie Belley-Côté
- Department of Medicine (Cardiology and Critical Care), Perioperative Research Division, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Yuri Song
- Faculty of Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Waleed Al-Hazzani
- Departments of Critical Care, Medicine (Gastroenterology), Health Research Methods, Evaluation, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Behnam Sadeghirad
- Departments of Anesthesia and Health Research Methods, Evaluation, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Eugene Wang
- Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Jack Young
- Health Sciences Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Hessam Kashani
- Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Morvarid Kavosh
- Department of Medicine, Coney Island Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Toru Inami
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan
| | | | | | - David Mazer
- Department of Anesthesia and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Eric Jacobsohn
- Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine and Medicine (Critical Care), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Kevin Um
- Department of Medicine (Cardiology), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Jessica Spence
- Departments of Anesthesia and Critical Care and Health Research Methods, Evaluation, and Impact, Perioperative Research Division, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Irani JL, Hedrick TL, Miller TE, Lee L, Steinhagen E, Shogan BD, Goldberg JE, Feingold DL, Lightner AL, Paquette IM. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Enhanced Recovery After Colon and Rectal Surgery From the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Dis Colon Rectum 2023; 66:15-40. [PMID: 36515513 PMCID: PMC9746347 DOI: 10.1097/dcr.0000000000002650] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer L. Irani
- Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Traci L. Hedrick
- Department of Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Timothy E. Miller
- Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Lawrence Lee
- Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Emily Steinhagen
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Benjamin D. Shogan
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Joel E. Goldberg
- Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Daniel L. Feingold
- Department of Surgery, Section of Colorectal Surgery, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
| | - Amy L. Lightner
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland Clinic
| | - Ian M. Paquette
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Irani JL, Hedrick TL, Miller TE, Lee L, Steinhagen E, Shogan BD, Goldberg JE, Feingold DL, Lightner AL, Paquette IM. Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:5-30. [PMID: 36515747 PMCID: PMC9839829 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09758-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer L Irani
- Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Traci L Hedrick
- Department of Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Timothy E Miller
- Duke University Medical Center Library, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Lawrence Lee
- Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Emily Steinhagen
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Benjamin D Shogan
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Joel E Goldberg
- Department of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Daniel L Feingold
- Section of Colorectal Surgery, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Amy L Lightner
- Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA
| | - Ian M Paquette
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Surgery (Colon and Rectal), 222 Piedmont #7000, Cincinnati, OH, 45219, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Amin SR, Sakr TE, Amin SE. Impact of timing of midazolam administration on incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery: A randomized, double-blinded, controlled study. Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia 2022. [DOI: 10.1080/11101849.2022.2132600] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Samar Rafik Amin
- Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt
| | | | - Shaimaa Ezzat Amin
- Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Prakash K, Meshram T, Jain P. Midazolam versus dexamethasone-ondansetron in preventing post-operative nausea-vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2021; 65:870-876. [PMID: 33683710 DOI: 10.1111/aas.13813] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2020] [Revised: 01/13/2021] [Accepted: 02/08/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Midazolam reduces post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when compared to a placebo or when used as an adjuvant to other antiemetics. The present study was designed to compare midazolam with a combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron in preventing PONV. METHODS One hundred and twenty patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries having 2 or more risk factors for PONV (simplified Apfel score) were randomised into 2 groups of 60 each. Patients in group D received 8-mg dexamethasone and 4-mg ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis while those in group M received 2-mg midazolam towards the end of surgery. The proportion of patients (frequency) who had PONV, post-operative nausea (PON) and post-operative vomiting (POV) was noted over 24 hours over the following intervals: 0-2 hours, 2-24 hours and 0-24 hours. RESULTS The frequency of PONV at 24 hours in group D and group M was 30% and 33.3% respectively and was not significantly different (P = .70). There was no difference in the time to achieve post-anaesthesia discharge score of ≥9 between the two groups {5 minutes (5, 5) in group D; 5 minutes (1.25, 5) in group M, P = .48}. Ten patients in group D and 11 in group M required a rescue antiemetic over 24 hours (P = .81). The frequency of PON, POV and PONV as well as the median PONV score was similar at all time periods. CONCLUSION Midazolam does not result in significantly different frequency of PONV than a combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelika Prakash
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi India
| | - Tanvi Meshram
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi India
| | - Priyanka Jain
- Department of Epidemiology Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences New Delhi India
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Weibel S, Rücker G, Eberhart LH, Pace NL, Hartl HM, Jordan OL, Mayer D, Riemer M, Schaefer MS, Raj D, Backhaus I, Helf A, Schlesinger T, Kienbaum P, Kranke P. Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 10:CD012859. [PMID: 33075160 PMCID: PMC8094506 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012859.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Weibel
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Gerta Rücker
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Leopold Hj Eberhart
- Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - Nathan L Pace
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Hannah M Hartl
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Olivia L Jordan
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Debora Mayer
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Manuel Riemer
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian S Schaefer
- Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Diana Raj
- Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
| | - Insa Backhaus
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonia Helf
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Tobias Schlesinger
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Peter Kienbaum
- Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Peter Kranke
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Elvir-Lazo OL, White PF, Yumul R, Cruz Eng H. Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review. F1000Res 2020; 9. [PMID: 32913634 PMCID: PMC7429924 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.21832.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/04/2020] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Paul F White
- Department of Anesthesiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.,The White Mountain Institute, The Sea Ranch, Sonoma, CA, 95497, USA.,Instituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Roya Yumul
- Department of Anesthesiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.,David Geffen School of Medicine-UCLA, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA
| | - Hillenn Cruz Eng
- Department of Anesthesiology, PennState Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Gan TJ, Belani KG, Bergese S, Chung F, Diemunsch P, Habib AS, Jin Z, Kovac AL, Meyer TA, Urman RD, Apfel CC, Ayad S, Beagley L, Candiotti K, Englesakis M, Hedrick TL, Kranke P, Lee S, Lipman D, Minkowitz HS, Morton J, Philip BK. Fourth Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesth Analg 2020; 131:411-48. [DOI: 10.1213/ane.0000000000004833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 216] [Impact Index Per Article: 54.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
|
10
|
Dağ M, Tarıkçı Kılıç E, Taşdoğan A. Is Low-Dose Haloperidol Effective against Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting? A Randomized Controlled Trial. Dubai Med J 2019. [DOI: 10.1159/000503382] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
|
11
|
Jee YS, Yoon HJ, Park YS, Kim DW. Comparison of the efficacy of a combination of high dose metoclopramide and dexamethasone, with that of haloperidol, midazolam and dexamethasone, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Anesth Pain Med (Seoul) 2018. [DOI: 10.17085/apm.2018.13.3.278] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Young Seok Jee
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konyang University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Hea-Jo Yoon
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yeon-soo Park
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong woo Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Cheil General Hospital and Women's Healthcare Center, Dankook University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Yimer H, Ayalew N, Abdisa Z, Aregawi A. Effect of sub-hypnotic dose of propofol on prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting as part of multimodal antiemetic in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery: A prospective cohort study, Gondar University Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia, 2016. International Journal of Surgery Open 2018. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijso.2017.11.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
13
|
Honarmand A, Safavi M, Chegeni M, Hirmanpour A, Nazem M, Sarizdi SH. Prophylactic antiemetic effects of Midazolam, Ondansetron, and their combination after middle ear surgery. J Res Pharm Pract 2016; 5:16-21. [PMID: 26985431 PMCID: PMC4776542 DOI: 10.4103/2279-042x.176556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of midazolam-ondansetron combination in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after middle ear surgery and its comparison with using midazolam or ondansetron alone. Methods: One hundred and forty patients were enrolled in four groups to receive midazolam 0.75 mg/kg in group M, ondansetron 4 mg in group O, midazolam 0.75 mg/kg and ondansetron 4 mg in group MO, and saline 0.90% in group S intravenously just before anesthesia. Assessment of nausea, vomiting, rescue antiemetic, and side effects of study drugs such as headache and dizziness was carried out postoperatively for 24 h. Findings: The incidence of PONV was significantly smaller in group MO than group M and group O, while there was no significant difference between group M and group O during the first 24 h postoperatively. Requirement to the additional antiemetic was significantly more in group S (71.4%) compared to other groups, while in group MO (11.4%) was lower than group M (31.4%) and group O (34.3%). Conclusion: Our study showed that prophylactic administration of midazolam 0.75 mg/kg combined with ondansetron 4 mg was more effective than using midazolam or ondansetron alone in prevention of PONV after middle ear surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Azim Honarmand
- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Mohammadreza Safavi
- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Mansoureh Chegeni
- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Anahita Hirmanpour
- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Masoud Nazem
- Department of Peadiatric Surgery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Seyyad Hamid Sarizdi
- Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Grant MC, Kim J, Page AJ, Hobson D, Wick E, Wu CL. The Effect of Intravenous Midazolam on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesth Analg 2016; 122:656-663. [DOI: 10.1213/ane.0000000000000941] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
|
15
|
Ahn EJ, Kang H, Choi GJ, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC. The Effectiveness of Midazolam for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesth Analg 2016; 122:664-676. [DOI: 10.1213/ane.0000000000001062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
|
16
|
Naghibi K, Kashefi P, Azarnoush H, Zabihi P. Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a subhypnotic dose of Propofol in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Adv Biomed Res 2015; 4:35. [PMID: 25789261 PMCID: PMC4358041 DOI: 10.4103/2277-9175.151239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2013] [Accepted: 01/15/2014] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after general anesthesia in patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery. We aimed to compare the effect of a sub hypnotic dose of Propofol in the prevention of PONV after lower abdominal surgery with that of the conventional antiemetic drug Metoclopramide. Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 104 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II status, aged 18–65 years, and undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery were randomized to one of four groups (n = 26 each). The patients in the four groups were administered intravenously Propofol 20 mg (G1), Propofol 30 mg (G2), Metoclopramide 10 mg (G3), and placebo (G4), 15 min before skin closure. All episodes of PONV during the first 24 h after anesthesia were recorded by an investigator who was blinded to treatment assignment. Results: There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with regard to their gender, age, ASA class, duration of surgery, duration of recovery time and hospital stay, and also body mass index (BMI) (P > 0.05). The prevalence of PONV 0-6 h after anesthesia was 23.08% with Propofol 20 mg (P = 0.005), 15.38% with Propofol 30 mg (P = 0.016), 15.38% with Metoclopramide 10 mg (P = 0.016), compared to 30.77% with placebo (P = 0.005). Conclusions: Administration of a subhypnotic dose of Propofol (30 mg) was found to be as effective as 10 mg Metoclopramide in reducing the incidence and severity of PONV in adult patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgeries under Isoflurane-based anesthesia in the early postoperative period.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khosrou Naghibi
- Department of Anesthesiology, Alzahra University Hospital, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Parviz Kashefi
- Department of Anesthesiology, Alzahra University Hospital, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Hamed Azarnoush
- General Practitioner, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Parisa Zabihi
- General Practitioner, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| |
Collapse
|