Ondansetron 8 mg and 4 mg with normal saline against post-operative headache and nausea/vomiting after spinal anesthesia: a randomized double-blind trial

Prophylactic effect of chamomile on post-dural puncture headache in women undergoing elective cesarean section: A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a common complication after spinal anesthesia, affecting patient recovery. This study evaluated the prophylactic effect of topical chamomile ointment on PDPH in women undergoing elective cesarean section.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial 148 pregnant women were randomized into two parallel groups and received 3cc of the chamomile or the placebo ointment on the forehead of the participants 20 minutes before the start of spinal anesthesia, and then 2 and 4 hours after that. The primary outcomes were the incidence rate of headache, and its severity assessed by a numeric rating scale (NRS), while secondary outcomes included analgesic consumption, frequency of nausea/vomiting, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Chamomile ointment exhibited significant preventive effects on PDPH incidence compared to placebo. The chamomile group demonstrated lower rates of PDPH at 6 hours (3.5% vs. 7.18%, p = 0.021) and 12 hours (7.6% vs. 20%, p = 0.028) after spinal anesthesia. Analgesic consumption, frequency of nausea/vomiting, and adverse events were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Topical chamomile ointment demonstrated significant preventive effects on PDPH incidence compared to placebo. Chamomile ointment could be a promising adjunctive approach to prevent PDPH, enhancing patient comfort and potentially reducing the need for analgesics. Further investigation is needed to explore its mechanisms and broader applications.

Comparison of Nausea and Vomiting Incidence After Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy With Pretreatment With Haloperidol and Ondansetron: A Randomization Clinical Trial Study

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.

Efficacy of pharmacological therapies for preventing post-dural puncture headaches in obstetric patients: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a major complication of neuraxial anesthesia. PDPH usually occurs after Caesarean section in obstetric patients. The efficacy of prophylactic pharmacological therapies remains controversial.

METHODS

Seven pharmacological therapies (aminophylline (AMP), dexamethasone, gabapentin/pregabalin (GBP/PGB), hydrocortisone, magnesium, ondansetron (OND), and propofol (PPF)), were studied in this Bayesian network meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of PDPH within 7 days. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PDPH at 24 and 48 h postoperatively, the severity of headache in PDPH patients (24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomized controlled trials with 4,921 pregnant women (2,723 parturients received prophylactic pharmacological therapies) were included. The analyses demonstrated that PPF, OND, and AMP were efficient in decreasing the cumulative incidence of PDPH during the follow-up period compared to the placebo group (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.70; OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.87; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.84, respectively). PPF and OND had the lower incidence of PONV compared to the placebo group (OR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.30; and OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.63). No significant difference in other outcomes was found among different therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available data, PPF, OND, and AMP may have better efficacy in decreasing the incidence of PDPH compared to the placebo group. No significant side effects were revealed. Better-designed studies are requested to verify these conclusions.

5-HT3 SEROTONIN RECEPTOR BLOCKERS FOR INTENSIVE THERAPY OF TRAUMATIC DISEASE IN PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE TRAUMA

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To find the most rational choice of drugs that have anti-emetic effect in patients with polytrauma in acute and early periods.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: We examined 82 patients with polytrauma, 62 men and 20 women. The age of patients ranged from 19 to 50 years. Patients were divided into the main and control group with 36 and 46 people respectively, who did not differ significantly by sex, age, anthropometric data, the nature and severity of injuries, and the time from injury to admission to hospital.

RESULTS

Results: Full antiemetic effect was achieved in 72.4% of patients, where metoclopramide was used. Сomplete antiemetic effect was achieved in 96.3% of patients, where sturgeon was used. Decrease of peristaltic activity does not increase postoperative intestinal paresis, and also prevents irritable bowel syndrome and diarrhea caused by dysbacteriosis on the background of antibiotic therapy. Anxiolytic effect without sedative effect and impairment of motor coordination, decrease of the somatic and psychopathological symptoms intensity in alcohol-toxic withdrawal syndrome contributes to the correct interpretation of the traumatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Use of drugs with antiemetic effect is an important part of the complex of traumatic disease treatment in patients with polytrauma. The use of osetron is rational in patients with polytrauma with cranio-abdominal injuries.

Effect of ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the preventive effect of preoperative administration of ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients receiving breast cancer surgery.

METHODS

Data from 225 patients who received modified radical mastectomy from January 2019 to December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into an ondansetron group and a control group according to whether they received preoperative ondansetron or not. The incidence of PONV, visual analog scale (VAS) score, the rescue analgesics use and rescue antiemetic use, as well as the patient satisfaction degree about their PONV were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The ondansetron group showed lower total incidence of PONV, lower VAS score at 6 h post-operation as well as less rescue antiemetic use than the control group (P<0.05). Patients in the ondansetron group were more satisfied with their PONV condition than those in the control group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative administration of ondansetron can prevent PONV and relieve pain 2-24 hours after breast cancer surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Comparison of Ondansetron and Granisetron Effects for Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Following Strabismus Surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint after strabismus surgery that leads to unpleasantness, increased hospitalisation time and increased costs. In severe cases, it can lead to dehydration, electrolyte disturbances, aspiration, pneumonia, and even sutures opening.

AIM

This study was conducted to compare the effects of both ondansetron and granisetron on the reduction of PONV after strabismus surgery.

METHODS

This randomised, and the double-blind clinical study was conducted on patients with ASA I and II undergoing strabismus surgery with age over 3 years old in Shafa Hospital, Kerman University of Medical Sciences during 2017 under general anaesthesia. Patients with inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to one of three groups including Ondansetron (A), Granisetron (B) and control group (C). Matching cases and controls on drugs were fully completed. Furthermore, 100 μg/kg of Ondansetron was intravenously injected, followed by injection of 40 μg/kg Granisetron for another intervention group. All patients underwent the same anaesthetic procedure and intravenous injection of drugs during anaesthesia induction. The severity of nausea and vomiting in recovery, 6 and 18 hours after the operation were verified according to the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). Our data were analysed by Chi-square, ANOVA and TUKEY tests via SPSS version 18.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of age and sex. The incidence of postoperative nausea in recovery among three groups of A, B and C was determined to be 15, 7.5 and 37.5%, respectively. No significant difference was found between the two groups A and B (P = 0.68), although there was a significant difference between these two groups and group C (P < 0.05). The incidence of nausea at 6 hours after surgery in groups A, B and C was recorded as 40, 15 and 65% respectively, indicating that the incidence of nausea in group B was significantly lower than the other two groups, while showed a significant difference with group A (P = 0.039) and group C (P < 0.05). Also, the incident of nausea between groups was not statistically significant 18 hours after surgery (P < 0.05). Additionally, no significant difference was found in different groups in terms of vomiting incidence in recovery, 6 and 18 hours after surgery (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that Granisetron is more effective in preventing PONV during 6 hours after the surgery in comparison with Ondansetron which makes it a favourable alternative for preventing PONV.

Efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (ondansetron) vs dopamine receptor antagonists (droperidol) for preventing postoperative nausea, vomiting and headache: a meta-analysis

Objective To investigate the effects of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (ondansetron [OND]) versus dopamine receptor antagonists (droperidol [DRO]) in the prevention of postoperative nausea, vomiting (PONV) and headache by pooling data from open published studies. Methods Performed systematic electronic searches of PubMed, Embase, Google scholar and CNKI, to identify open-published prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to the comparison of OND versus DRO for preventing PONV and headache to be included in the present study. The pooled PONV, headache, dizziness and drowsiness were calculated based on the original data of each included study. The pooled data was presented with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results Thirteen prospective randomized clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled PONV, post-operative nausea (PON) and positive operative vomiting (POV) were 0.67 (95%CI:0.48-0.93, p<0.05), 0.88 (95%CI:0.67-1.14, p>0.05) and 0.56 (95%CI:0.39-0.82,p<0.05) respectively for OND vs. DRO. And the overall pooled positive operative nausea and vomiting was 0.71(95%CI:0.60-0.86) by fixed effects model for OND vs. DRO. The pooled risk of postoperative headache, dizziness and drowsiness were 4.33 (95%CI:0.76-24.69, p>0.05), 0.63 (95%CI:0.21-1.87, p>0.05) and 0.48(0.28-0.81,p<0.05) respectively by fixed effect model for OND vs. DRO. Conclusion The post-operative nausea, vomiting and dizziness risks were significant decreased for patients receiving OND compared to patients receiving DRO.