Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point PC6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Antiemetic drugs are only partially effective in preventing PONV. An alternative approach is to stimulate the PC6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, updated in 2009 and now in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of PC6 acupoint stimulation with or without antiemetic drug versus sham or antiemetic drug for the prevention of PONV in people undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2014), MEDLINE (January 2008 to December 2014), EMBASE (January 2008 to December 2014), ISI Web of Science (January 2008 to December 2014), World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the PC6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy, or combined PC6 acupoint and drug therapy compared to drug therapy, for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in people undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the incidences of nausea and vomiting after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias domains for each trial. We used a random-effects model and reported risk ratio (RR) with associated 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We used trial sequential analyses to help provide information on when we had reached firm evidence in cumulative meta-analyses of the primary outcomes, based on a 30% risk ratio reduction in PONV.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 trials involving 7667 participants. We rated two trials at low risk of bias in all domains (selection, attrition, reporting, blinding and other). We rated 25 trials at high risk in one or more risk-of-bias domains. Compared with sham treatment, PC6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced the incidence of nausea (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77; 40 trials, 4742 participants), vomiting (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.71; 45 trials, 5147 participants) and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; 39 trials, 4622 participants). As heterogeneity among trials was substantial and there were study limitations, we rated the quality of evidence as low. Using trial sequential analysis, the required information size and boundary for benefit were reached for both primary outcomes.PC6 acupoint stimulation was compared with six different types of antiemetic drugs (metoclopramide, cyclizine, prochlorperazine, droperidol. ondansetron and dexamethasone). There was no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the incidence of nausea (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 14 trials, 1332 participants), vomiting (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 19 trials, 1708 participants), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.16; 9 trials, 895 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, due to the study limitations. Using trial sequential analyses, the futility boundary was crossed before the required information size was surpassed for both primary outcomes.Compared to antiemetic drugs, the combination of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic therapy reduced the incidence of vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.91; 9 trials, 687 participants) but not nausea (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; 8 trials, 642 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as very low, due to substantial heterogeneity among trials, study limitations and imprecision. Using trial sequential analysis, none of the boundaries for benefit, harm or futility were crossed for PONV. The need for rescue antiemetic was lower in the combination PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic group than the antiemetic group (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; 5 trials, 419 participants).The side effects associated with PC6 acupoint stimulation were minor, transient and self-limiting (e.g. skin irritation, blistering, redness and pain) in 14 trials. Publication bias was not apparent in the contour-enhanced funnel plots.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of PC6 acupoint stimulation over sham. Compared to the last update in 2009, no further sham comparison trials are needed. We found that there is moderate-quality evidence showing no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs to prevent PONV. Further PC6 acupoint stimulation versus antiemetic trials are futile in showing a significant difference, which is a new finding in this update. There is inconclusive evidence supporting the use of a combined strategy of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drug over drug prophylaxis, and further high-quality trials are needed.

Preoperative carbohydrate treatment for enhancing recovery after elective surgery

BACKGROUND

Preoperative carbohydrate treatments have been widely adopted as part of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) or fast-track surgery protocols. Although fast-track surgery protocols have been widely investigated and have been shown to be associated with improved postoperative outcomes, some individual constituents of these protocols, including preoperative carbohydrate treatment, have not been subject to such robust analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preoperative carbohydrate treatment, compared with placebo or preoperative fasting, on postoperative recovery and insulin resistance in adult patients undergoing elective surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2014), EMBASE (January 1947 to March 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1980 to March 2014) and Web of Science (January 1900 to March 2014) databases. We did not apply language restrictions in the literature search. We searched reference lists of relevant articles and contacted known authors in the field to identify unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials of preoperative carbohydrate treatment compared with placebo or traditional preoperative fasting in adult study participants undergoing elective surgery. Treatment groups needed to receive at least 45 g of carbohydrates within four hours before surgery or anaesthesia start time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted independently by at least two review authors, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data were abstracted and documented pro forma and were entered into RevMan 5.2 for analysis. Quality assessment was performed independently by two review authors according to the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. When available data were insufficient for quality assessment or data analysis, trial authors were contacted to request needed information. We collected trial data on complication rates and aspiration pneumonitis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials involving 1976 participants Trials were conducted in Europe, China, Brazil, Canada and New Zealand and involved patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery (18), orthopaedic surgery (4), cardiac surgery (4) and thyroidectomy (1). Twelve studies were limited to participants with an American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade of I-II or I-III.A total of 17 trials contained at least one domain judged to be at high risk of bias, and only two studies were judged to be at low risk of bias across all domains. Of greatest concern was the risk of bias associated with inadequate blinding, as most of the outcomes assessed by this review were subjective. Only six trials were judged to be at low risk of bias because of blinding.In 19 trials including 1351 participants, preoperative carbohydrate treatment was associated with shortened length of hospital stay compared with placebo or fasting (by 0.30 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.04; very low-quality evidence). No significant effect on length of stay was noted when preoperative carbohydrate treatment was compared with placebo (14 trials including 867 participants; mean difference -0.13 days; 95% CI -0.38 to 0.12). Based on two trials including 86 participants, preoperative carbohydrate treatment was also associated with shortened time to passage of flatus when compared with placebo or fasting (by 0.39 days; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.07), as well as increased postoperative peripheral insulin sensitivity (three trials including 41 participants; mean increase in glucose infusion rate measured by hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamp of 0.76 mg/kg/min; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.29; high-quality evidence).As reported by 14 trials involving 913 participants, preoperative carbohydrate treatment was not associated with an increase or a decrease in the risk of postoperative complications compared with placebo or fasting (risk ratio of complications 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; low-quality evidence). Aspiration pneumonitis was not reported in any patients, regardless of treatment group allocation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative carbohydrate treatment was associated with a small reduction in length of hospital stay when compared with placebo or fasting in adult patients undergoing elective surgery. It was found that preoperative carbohydrate treatment did not increase or decrease postoperative complication rates when compared with placebo or fasting. Lack of adequate blinding in many studies may have contributed to observed treatment effects for these subjective outcomes, which are subject to possible biases.

Steroids for improving recovery following tonsillectomy in children

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2003.Tonsillectomy continues to be one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide. Despite advances in anesthetic and surgical techniques, post-tonsillectomy morbidity remains a significant clinical problem.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical efficacy of a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone in reducing post-tonsillectomy morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN; and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 29 October 2010, following a previous search in September 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of a single dose of intravenous, intraoperative corticosteroid for pediatric patients (age < 18 years) who underwent tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The first author extracted data regarding the primary outcome measures and measurement tools from the published studies. The first author also recorded data regarding study design, patient ages, procedures performed, dose of corticosteroid and method of delivery, as well as methodological quality. When data were missing from the original publications, we contacted the authors for more information. We performed data analysis with a random-effects model, using the RevMan 5.1 software developed by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 studies (1756 participants). We selected only randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded studies to minimize inclusion of poor quality studies. However, the risk of bias in the included studies was not formally assessed. Children receiving a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone (dose range = 0.15 to 1.0 mg/kg) were half as likely to vomit in the first 24 hours compared to children receiving placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.58; P < 0.00001). Routine use in five children would be expected to result in one less patient experiencing post-tonsillectomy emesis (risk difference (RD) -0.24; 95% CI -0.32 to -0.15; P < 0.00001). Children receiving dexamethasone were also more likely to advance to a soft/solid diet on post-tonsillectomy day one (RR 1.45; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.83; P = 0.001) than those receiving placebo. Finally, postoperative pain was improved in children receiving dexamethasone as measured by a visual analog scale (VAS, 0 to 10) (MD -1.07; 95% CI -1.73 to -0.41; P = 0.001), which correlates clinically to a reduction in pain (on a VAS of 0 to 10) from 4.72 to 3.65. No adverse events were noted in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that a single intravenous dose of dexamethasone is an effective, safe and inexpensive treatment for reducing morbidity from pediatric tonsillectomy.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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