Use of Aprepitant and Factors Associated With Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Facial Plastic Surgery

Have We Just Scratched the Surface? A Narrative Review of Uremic Pruritus in 2020

Purpose of review:

Uremic pruritus is a highly prevalent and debilitating symptom in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). The purpose of this review is to examine current evidence on the mechanisms and treatments of pruritus in CKD and highlight promising areas for future research.

Sources of information:

Published literature, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case reports, and review articles, was searched for evidence pertaining to the pathophysiology and treatment of uremic pruritus.

Methods:

A comprehensive narrative review was conducted to explore the molecular mechanisms underlying uremic pruritus, as well as the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for uremic pruritus. The potential role of patient sex in the pathophysiology and management of uremic pruritus is also discussed.

Key findings:

The pathophysiology of uremic pruritus involves a complex interplay of uremic toxins, systemic inflammation, mast cell activation, and imbalance of opioid receptors. Classic treatment strategies for uremic pruritus include optimization of dialysis parameters, amelioration of CKD-related mineral and bone disease, topical emollients and analgesics, antihistamines, the anticonvulsant medications gabapentin and pregabalin, and ultraviolet light B (UV-B) phototherapy. Strong data to support many of these classical treatments for uremic pruritus are limited. Newly evolving treatment approaches for uremic pruritus include opioid receptor modulators, neurokinin-1 inhibitors, and cannabinoids. Further studies regarding their efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety in the CKD and ESKD population are needed before these agents are accepted into widespread use. Additional nonpharmacological strategies aimed at treating uremic pruritus include psychotherapy, acupuncture, omega-3 fatty acids, and exercise. Finally, sex differences may exist regarding uremic pruritus, but studies directly addressing sex-specific mechanisms of uremic pruritus remain absent.

Limitations:

High-quality evidence in the management of uremic pruritus remains lacking. Most recommendations are based on expert opinion or studies involving small numbers of patients. In addition, our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms behind uremic pruritus is incomplete and continues to evolve over time.

Implications:

Uremic pruritus is a common symptom which reduces quality of life in CKD and ESKD. The identification of novel targeted treatment approaches may ease the burden of uremic pruritus in the future.

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.

[Risk factors for nausea and vomiting after adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery]

OBJECTIVE

To explore risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) that requires intervention with medications during adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) surgery.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of 986 patients with AIS (including 156 male and 830 female patients) undergoing scoliosis surgery through a posterior approach between December, 2012 and January, 2016 in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. The data were collected from the patients including ASA grade, body mass index (BMI), Cobb angle, preoperative respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, operation time, type of anesthesia, quantity of intraoperative liquid infusion, blood loss, urine volume, the lowest MAP and CVP, intraoperative fentanyl consumption, and intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine, dexamethasone, ondansetran and droperidol. The incidence of PONV in 48 h following the surgery, hemoglobin variation after operation (ΔHb), postoperative analgesia, times of use and types of antiemetic drugs, and postoperative hospital stay were recorded for all the patients. The potential risk factors of PONV within 48 h were analyzed using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 986 patients analyzed, 151 (15.3%) experienced PONV within 48 h following surgeries for AIS. Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that an high intraoperative fentanyl dose (> 0.65 mg; OR=9.303, 95% CI: 2.373-8.622, P < 0.001), an obvious ΔHb (> 28.5 g/L; OR=1.107, 95% CI: 1.060-1.157, P < 0.001), and postoperative analgesia with fentanyl (OR=11.671, 95% CI: 2.381-11.284, P < 0.001) were risk factors for PONV. Intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine (OR=0.027, 95% CI: 0.006-0.123, P=0.002) and dexamethasone combined with ondansetron (OR=0.241, 95%CI: 0.066-0.886, P=0.032) were protective factors against PONV.

CONCLUSIONS

A high-dose intraoperative fentanyl consumption, a marked ΔHb, and postoperative analgesia with fentanyl are risk factors for PONV while intraoperative administration of dexmedetomidine and dexamethasone combined with ondansetron are protective factors against PONV following surgeries for AIS.

Aprepitant in combination with palonosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate aprepitant in combination with palonosetron as compared to palonosetron alone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in female patients receiving fentanyl- based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA).

Methods

In this randomized single-blinded study, 100 female patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomized to two groups: Group AP (80 mg aprepitant plus 0.075 mg palonosetron, n = 50) and Group P (0.075 mg palonosetron, n = 50). The patients in group AP received 80 mg aprepitant per oral 1–3 h before surgery, while all patients received 0.075 mg palonosetron after induction of standardized anesthesia. All patients had postoperative access to fentanyl-based IV-PCA. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, use of rescue medication, and severity of nausea were evaluated at 6 and 24 h after surgery.

Results

The incidence of nausea (54%) and vomiting (2%) in group AP did not differ significantly from that in group P (48% and 14%, respectively) during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). Patient requirements for rescue medication in group AP (29%) were similar to those in group P (32%) at 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). There was no difference between the groups in severity of nausea during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Aprepitant combined with palonosetron did not reduce the incidence of PONV as compared to palonosetron alone within 24 h of surgery in women receiving fentanyl-based IV-PCA.

Aprepitant as a fourth antiemetic prophylactic strategy in high-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most important causes of patient discomfort after laparoscopic surgeries despite the use of a multimodal pharmacological approach. This study assessed whether the addition of aprepitant to a multimodal regimen would further decrease the incidence of PONV in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Apfel-score three or four patients, scheduled for laparoscopic procedures to treat abdominal or pelvic cancer, were randomized to receive oral starch (control group) or 80 mg of oral aprepitant (treatment group) before induction of anaesthesia in a double-blind study. All patients received 4-8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone (at induction) and 4-8 mg of ondansetron (at the end) and a standardized total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) technique combined with neuraxial blockade. PONV was defined as any episode of nausea, vomiting or retching in the first 24 h after anaesthesia.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients completed the study. Vomiting occurred in 13/32 (40.6%) patients in the control group and in 1/34 (2.9%) patients in the treatment group (P = 0.0002, 95%CI: 18-54%) in the first 24 h after anaesthesia. Severe nausea occurred in two (6.3%) patients, and severe vomiting occurred in four (12.5%) patients in the control group. One patient presented with severe vomiting in the treatment group in the first 24 post-operative hours.

CONCLUSION

Eighty milligrams of aprepitant added to a three-drug multimodal prophylaxis strategy can bring benefits to a high-risk population by reducing PONV episodes and rescue antiemetic requirements. This study was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 02357693) database.

Fosaprepitant versus droperidol for prevention of PONV in craniotomy: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after craniotomy. Vomiting may be a potentially hazardous complication in neurosurgical patients. We compared the efficacy of fosaprepitant and droperidol for the prevention of PONV, vomiting in particular, after craniotomy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy were enrolled in the study and randomly divided in a double-blind manner into two groups to receive either 150 mg of fosaprepitant (group F) or 1.25 mg of droperidol (group D). Dexamethasone (9.9 mg) was given to all patients, except those with diabetes mellitus. The incidence of PONV, frequency of vomiting, nausea score, and use of rescue antiemetic during the first 72 h after surgery were assessed at five time intervals (0-2, 2-6, 6-24, 24-48, and 48-72 h).

RESULTS

Of the 200 randomized patients eligible for entry into the study, 186 were ultimately included for analysis. There were no significant differences in demographics or intraoperative variables between the two treatment groups. Over the entire 72-h post-craniotomy observation period the overall and cumulative incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in group F patients than in group D patients, while there were no between-group differences in the overall and cumulative incidence of PONV or in complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic). The incidence and frequency of vomiting during each of the five observational periods were significantly lower in group F patients than group D patients, although there were no differences in the nausea score and antiemetic use between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, fosaprepitant was more effective than droperidol in the prevention of vomiting after craniotomy over the entire 72-h study period. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea and antiemetic use.