Optimization of anesthesia antiemetic measures versus combination therapy using dexamethasone or ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Perioperative Dexamethasone in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The perioperative use of dexamethasone in diabetic patients remains controversial due to concerns related to infection and adverse events. This study aimed to determine whether clinical evidence supports withholding dexamethasone in diabetic patients due to concern for infection risk. We hypothesized that there is no difference in infectious outcomes between dexamethasone-treated patients and controls.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on November 22, 2022 to identify randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating short-course (<72 hours), perioperative dexamethasone that explicitly included diabetic patients and measured at least 1 clinical outcome. Pertinent studies were independently searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. Authors for all identified studies were contacted with the aim of performing quantitative subgroup analyses of diabetic patients. The primary end point was surgical site infection and the secondary end point was a composite of adverse events. Qualitative remarks were reported based on the total available data and a quality assessment tool. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance with random effects. Heterogeneity was assessed via standard χ2 and I2 tests.

RESULTS

Sixteen unique studies were included, 5 of which were analyzed quantitatively. Of the 2592 diabetic patients, 2344 (1184 randomized to dexamethasone and 1160 to placebo) were analyzed in at least 1 quantitative outcome. Quantitative analysis showed that the use of perioperative dexamethasone had no effect on the risk of surgical site infections (log odds ratio [LOR], -0.10, 95%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.64 to 0.44) while significantly reducing the risk of composite adverse events (LOR, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.05). Qualitative analysis reinforced these findings, demonstrating noninferior to superior results across all clinical outcomes. There was high heterogeneity between the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests perioperative dexamethasone may be given to diabetic patients without increasing the risk of infectious complications. Prospective investigations aimed at optimizing dose, frequency, and timing are needed, as well as studies aimed explicitly at exploring the use of dexamethasone in patients with poorly controlled diabetes.

Effect of ondansetron compared to lidocaine and placebo for reducing propofol injection pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain.

CONCLUSION

Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.

Recent advancements in total intravenous anaesthesia and anaesthetic pharmacology

Target-controlled infusion pumps and depth of anaesthesia monitors have made total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) easy, safe, and precise. The merits of TIVA were highlighted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, confirming its potential further in the post-COVID clinical practice as well. Ciprofol and remimazolam are newer drugs that are being tried with a hope to upgrade the practice of TIVA. While research on safe and effective drugs continues, TIVA is being practised with a combination of drugs and adjuncts to overcome the disadvantages of each and to provide complete and balanced anaesthesia with additional benefits in recovery and pain relief postoperatively. Modulation of TIVA for the special population groups is still under process. Advancement in digital technology with mobile apps has increased the scope of TIVA in day-to-day use. The formulation and update of guidelines can establish a safe and efficient practice of TIVA.

Combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron in prophylaxis nausea and vomiting in gynecological operation

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting occur in about 20-30% of women; however, some reports have estimated the rate at 70% in at-risk individuals. Gynecological and obstetrical operations are among the most frequent types of surgeries to be associated with nausea and vomiting postoperatively. Ondansetron and dexamethasone have been compared in a variety of studies for postoperative prophylaxis.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted in order to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone and ondansetron, alone or in combination, for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a sample of Iraqi women undergoing gynecological surgeries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted in Al-Diwaniyah Province, a region belonging to the Mid-Euphrates sector of Iraq, at the Child and Maternity Teaching Hospital. The study started in June 2021 and the work with the research was accomplished in September 2022. The study included a total of 100 women undergoing different gynecological surgeries such as ovarian cystectomy, oophorectomy, ectopic pregnancy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and myomectomy. All participants involved in the study were categorized randomly into four groups, namely, dexamethasone, ondansetron, combined, and placebo groups.

RESULTS

The rates of nausea in the different groups were analyzed. The rates of nausea in dexamethasone, ondansetron, and combined groups revealed a significant decrease compared with that of placebo group (P < 0.05), and the rate was significantly lower in combined group when compared with dexamethasone and ondansetron groups (P < 0.05). The rate of nausea in combined group was significantly lower than that of dexamethasone and ondansetron groups. The rate of vomiting in combined group was significantly lower than that of placebo group and less than that of the dexamethasone group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on our study and previous reports, both dexamethasone and ondansetron are efficient and safe in preventing nausea and vomiting in gynecological operations; however, combination of both provides the best results.

What is the impact of dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing general anaesthesia for elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analysis of heterogeneous surgical cohorts demonstrated reduction in postoperative pain with perioperative intravenous dexamethasone, but none have addressed adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of intravenous perioperative dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia.

METHODS

This review was prospectively registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020176202). Electronic databases Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Exerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), (CINAHL) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and trial registries were searched to January 28 2021 for randomised controlled trials, comparing dexamethasone to placebo or alternative antiemetic, that reported pain. The primary outcome was pain score, and secondary outcomes were time to first analgesia, opioid requirements and time to post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies (5768 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Pain scores ≤ 4 hour (h) were reduced in patients who received dexamethasone at rest (mean difference (MD), - 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.72 to - 0.35, I2 = 81%) and on movement (MD - 0.42, 95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.22, I2 = 35). In the dexamethasone group, 4-24 h pain scores were less at rest (MD - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.47 to - 0.14, I2 = 96) and on movement (MD - 0.26, 95% CI - 0.39 to - 0.13, I2 = 29) and pain scores ≥ 24 h were reduced at rest (MD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.24, I2 = 88) and on movement (MD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.65 to - 0.11, I2 = 71). Time to first analgesia (minutes) was increased (MD 22.92, 95% CI 11.09 to 34.75, I2 = 98), opioid requirements (mg oral morphine) decreased (MD - 6.66, 95% CI - 9.38 to - 3.93, I2 = 88) and no difference in time to PACU discharge (MD - 3.82, 95% CI - 10.87 to 3.23, I2 = 59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving dexamethasone had reduced pain scores, postoperative opioid requirements and longer time to first analgesia. Dexamethasone is an effective analgesic adjunct for patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

The Effect of Ondansetron on the Analgesic Efficacy of Tramadol in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Purpose

Investigating the effect of ondansetron on the efficacy of tramadol in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients over the age of 18 who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in this study. All patients were given 1 mg/kg tramadol intravenously (iv) during the intraoperative period. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 4 mg ondansetron (Group O) or 2 mL saline (Group S). Postoperative tramadol consumption, pain score (NRS), intensity of nausea (NRS), presence of vomiting, consumption of rescue analgesics and antiemetics, and patient satisfaction were recorded.

Results

A total of 60 patients were enrolled in the study; five patients were excluded due to deviation from the protocol. Data from 55 patients (Group O: 28 patients, Group S: 27 patients) were evaluated in the study. No differences between the two groups were detected for postoperative consumption of tramadol, pain score (NRS), intensity of nausea (NRS), presence of vomiting, consumption of rescue analgesics and antiemetics, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

The results showed that coadministration of tramadol and ondansetron did not change tramadol consumption during the postoperative 24 hours after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Clinical trial registration number is as follows: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04745273-01/31/2021.

Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Background

Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004.

Methods

The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the ‘Cochrane Risk of bias’ assessment tool 1.0.

Results

In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36% (27/75) were pro- and 64% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32%), a new primary outcome (26%), and different outcome assessment times (26%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as ‘overall low risk of bias’ compared to non-registered trials (64% vs 28%).

Conclusions

In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w.

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

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Anesthesia for TORS for Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: Factors Associated with Prolonged Phase I Postanesthesia Recovery

OBJECTIVES

Clinical variables affecting anesthetic recovery following transoral robotic surgery (TORS) to resect oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma have not been described. We aimed to explore risk factors associated with prolonged postanesthesia recovery following TORS.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center, January 2010 to November 2016.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients included adults undergoing primary TORS ± neck dissection for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Patients were categorized by phase I recovery time into the "goal" recovery group (75th percentile [lower 3 quartiles], n = 272) and the "prolonged" recovery group (n = 91). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between clinical characteristics and prolonged phase I recovery.

RESULTS

A total of 363 patients were included. Median (interquartile range) duration of postanesthesia recovery was 1.5 hours (1.0-2.0). Prolonged recovery was associated with isoflurane (odds ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 1.56-5.14], P < .001), midazolam (2.77 [1.50-5.12], P = .001), and larger opioid doses (1.26 [1.01-1.58] per 10-mg intravenous morphine equivalents, P = .040) and inversely associated with multimodal antiemetic therapy (0.34 [0.15-0.78], P = .011). Prolonged cases had higher rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting (n = 43 [47.2%] vs 86 [31.6%], P = .008), respiratory depression (28 [30.8%] vs 12 [4.4%], P < .001), sedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale < -2; 26 [28.6%] vs 35 [12.9%], P = .001), severe pain (numeric rating score ≥7; 31 [34.4%] vs 45 [17.2%], P = .001), and longer hospital stays (4 vs 3 days, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Several anesthetic factors are associated with anesthesia recovery duration, which may be shortened by efforts to reduce postoperative sedation, severe pain, and nausea/vomiting. Shortened anesthesia recovery time may reduce hospital stay.

What is new in the battle against postoperative nausea and vomiting?

The issue of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) still poses a significant burden on our patients. Although rarely associated with a life-threatening condition, it is consistently considered as one of the most undesirable side effects of surgery and anesthesia. There are well-established risk factors for the development of PONV that include patient-related factors, anesthetic technique, use of volatile anesthetics, use of nitrous oxide, duration of anesthesia, opioid administration, and type of surgery. Because pharmacologic interventions for PONV are not without risks, practitioners must assess patient's risk status from low to high and consider the benefits of treatment. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge related to PONV and provides a practical approach toward risk assessment, prevention, and numerous treatment strategies.

Efficacy of ondansetron for spinal anesthesia during cesarean section: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of ondansetron during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. Methods We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ondansetron during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section in The Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science from their inception to September 2016. Results Altogether, 21 RCTs were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that the ondansetron group had a lower incidence of nausea/vomiting and bradycardia than the placebo group during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia [relative risk (RR) = 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.36, 0.51) and RR = 0.45, 95% CI (0.26, 0.80), respectively]. There were no significant differences in the incidences of pruritus, hypotension, or shivering during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.83, 1.02); RR = 0.72 (0.50, 1.06), 95% CI (0.50, 1.06); and RR = 0.89, 95% CI (0.71, 1.11), respectively]. Conclusion Ondansetron effectively reduces the incidences of nausea/vomiting and bradycardia under spinal anesthesia during cesarean section.

An update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

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

5HT3 Antagonists versus Dexamethasone in the Prevention of PONV in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

Background. 5HT3 antagonist, an antiemetic alternative to dexamethasone, is an effective drug for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Methods. PubMed and The Cochrane Library (from inception to June 2016) were searched for relevant RCTs (randomized controlled trials). Results. Seven trials, totaling 682 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis demonstrated that 5HT3 antagonist was as effective as dexamethasone in preventing PONV (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, [0.86, 1.45]; P = 0.40) within 24 hours of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and no significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I² = 0%; P = 0.98). During the early postoperative period (0-6 h), 5HT3 antagonists were superior to dexamethasone in reducing POV (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, [0.11, 0.93]; P = 0.04), while, in other postoperative stages (6-12 h, 12-24 h, and 0-24 h), it was not more effective in the prevention of POV than dexamethasone. And no significant difference was found in the prevention of PON between 5HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone at different postoperative periods (0-6 h, 6-12 h, 12-24 h, and 0-24 h). Conclusions. As a result, it is advisable to encourage 5HT3 antagonists as an alternative to dexamethasone for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Comparison of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a significant complication after laparoscopic surgeries. Ondansetron and dexamethasone are most commonly used drugs for PONV prophylaxis. Comparisons of these two drugs have not been systematically reviewed till date. Methods. PubMed, PubMed Central, and CENTRAL databases were searched with the following words: "dexamethasone," "ondansetron," "laparoscopy," and "PONV" to identify randomized trials that compared ondansetron and dexamethasone for PONV prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgeries. Results. Data of 592 patients from 7 RCTs have been included in this meta-analysis. Incidence of postoperative nausea at 4-6 h is significantly lower when dexamethasone was used instead of ondansetron (p = 0.04; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.98, M-H fixed). Incidence of nausea is similar at 24 hours (p = 0.08, OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48, 1.05; M-H fixed); vomiting is also similar at 4-6 h (p = 0.43, OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.70-2.27; M-H fixed) and also at 24 h (p = 0.46, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73, 1.16; M-H fixed). Conclusion. Dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea after 4-6 h of laparoscopic surgeries. However, both the drugs are of equal efficacy in preventing postoperative vomiting up to 24 h after surgery. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to clinical heterogeneity in the included studies.

Dexamethasone versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Dexamethasone is an antiemetic alternative to ondansetron. We aimed to compare the effects of dexamethasone and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2014) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes included PONV in the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), PONV in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), and the postoperative anti-emetics used at both stages. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95 % CIs using random- and fixed-effects models.

Results

Seven trials involving 608 patients were included in this meta-analysis, which found that dexamethasone had a comparable effectiveness in preventing PONV (RR, 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.13; P = 0.39) with that of ondansetron within 24 h of laparoscopic surgery, with no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0 %; P = 0.71). In the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), ondansetron was better at decreasing PONV than dexamethasone (RR, 1.71; 95 % CI, 1.05-2.77; P = 0.03), while in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV than ondansetron (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI, 0.27-0.93; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the postoperative anti-emetics used (RR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45).

Conclusions

Dexamethasone was as effective and as safe as ondansetron in preventing PONV. Dexamethasone should be encouraged as an alternative to ondansetron for preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Efficacy of dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting during the postoperative period of laparoscopic cholecystectomy

OBJECTIVE

To verify the efficacy of dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in patients submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

This was a systematic review of the literature through the MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS databases. Only controlled and randomized clinical trials comparing dexamethasone to placebo in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting in patients submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included.

RESULTS

The results of this review were based on data from 12 controlled and randomized clinical trials, totaling 947 patients. The group of patients who received preoperative dexamethasone showed lower incidence of nausea (number needed to treat [NNT]=7), vomiting (NNT=7), and need for smaller doses of rescue antiemetics (NNT=6).

CONCLUSION

The preoperative infusion of 8 mg of dexamethasone decreases the risk of complications in the postoperative period for patients submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Practice guidelines for postanesthetic care: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic Care

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

An update on sperm retrieval techniques for azoospermic males

The use of non-ejaculated sperm coupled with intracytoplasmic sperm injection has become a globally established procedure for couples with azoospermic male partners who wish to have biological offspring. Surgical methods have been developed to retrieve spermatozoa from the epididymides and the testes of such patients. This article reviews the methods currently available for sperm acquisition in azoospermia, with a particular focus on the perioperative, anesthetic and technical aspects of these procedures. A critical analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of these sperm retrieval methods is provided, including the authors' methods of choice and anesthesia preferences.

Ondansetron does not attenuate the analgesic efficacy of nefopam

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate if there is any interaction between ondansetron and nefopam when they are continuously co-administrated during patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA).

METHODS

The study was a prospective, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial comparing nefopam-plus-ondansetron to nefopam alone. A total of 230 postoperative patients using nefopam for PCIA, were randomly assigned either to a group receiving continuous infusion of ondansetron (Group O) or to the other group receiving the same volume of normal saline continuously (Group N). Postoperative pain intensity scores, the sum of pain intensity difference over 24 hours postoperatively (SPID24hr), the incidence of adverse events, and the total consumption of nefopam were evaluated respectively.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain was treated successfully in both groups. The mean SPID24hr scores were 95.6 mm in Group N and 109.3mm in Group O [95% confidence interval (CI) -14.28, 24.32]. The lower margin of the 95% CI was above the pre-determined non-inferiority margin (-30mm) for SPID24hr, which indicated that nefopam-plus-ondansetron was not worse than the nefopam alone in term of analgesic efficacy. In addition, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in term of cumulative consumption of nefopam. Compared with Group N, postoperative vomiting was significantly reduced in Group O during the postoperative 24 hours (P < 0.05). Less rescue antiemetics were given to patients in Group O than those receiving nefopam alone (P < 0.05). There were no differences in postoperative nausea between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Nefopam-plus-ondansetron is not inferior to nefopam alone in relieving the pain in PCIA after minimally invasive surgery. In addition, adverse events are reduced without compromising analgesic efficacy.

Dexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone has an established role in decreasing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV); however, the optimal dexamethasone dose for reducing PONV when it is used as a single or combination prophylactic strategy has not been clearly defined. In this study, we evaluated the use of 4 mg to 5 mg and 8 mg to 10 mg IV doses of dexamethasone to prevent PONV when used as a single drug or as part of a combination preventive therapy.

METHODS

A wide search was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that evaluated systemic dexamethasone as a prophylactic drug to reduce postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. The effects of dexamethasone dose were evaluated by pooling studies into 2 groups: 4 mg to 5 mg and 8 mg to 10 mg. The first group represents the suggested dexamethasone dose to prevent PONV by the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) guidelines, and the second group represents twice the dose range recommended by the guidelines. The SAMBA guidelines were developed in response to studies, which have been performed to examine different dosages of dexamethasone.

RESULTS

Sixty randomized clinical trials with 6696 subjects were included. The 4-mg to 5-mg dose dexamethasone group experienced reduced 24-hour PONV compared with control, odds ratio (OR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.41), and number needed to treat (NNT, 3.7; 95% CI, 3.0-4.7). When used together with a second antiemetic, the 4-mg to 5-mg dexamethasone group also experienced reduced 24-hour PONV compared with control (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.72; NNT, 6.6; 95% CI, 4.3-12.8). The 8-mg to 10-mg dose dexamethasone group experienced decreased 24-hour PONV compared with control (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.32; NNT, 3.8; 95% CI, 3.0-4.3). Asymmetric funnel plots were observed in the 8-mg to 10-mg dose analysis, suggesting the possibility of publication bias. When used together with a second antiemetic, the 8-mg to 10-mg dose group also experienced reduced incidence of 24-hour PONV (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.53; NNT, 6.2; 95% CI, 4.5-10). In studies that provided a direct comparison between groups, there was no clinical advantage of the 8-mg to 10-mg dexamethasone dose compared with the 4-mg to 5-mg dose on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that a 4-mg to 5-mg dose of dexamethasone seems to have similar clinical effects in the reduction of PONV as the 8-mg to 10-mg dose when dexamethasone was used as a single drug or as a combination therapy. These findings support the current recommendation of the SAMBA guidelines for PONV, which favors the 4-mg to 5-mg dose regimen of systemic dexamethasone.

Impact of perioperative dexamethasone on postoperative analgesia and side-effects: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone are unclear. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of a single i.v. dose of dexamethasone on postoperative pain and explore adverse events associated with this treatment.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register were searched for randomized, controlled studies that compared dexamethasone vs placebo or an antiemetic in adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia and reported pain outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies involving 5796 patients receiving dexamethasone 1.25-20 mg were included. Patients receiving dexamethasone had lower pain scores at 2 h {mean difference (MD) -0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.83, -0.15]} and 24 h [MD -0.48 (95% CI: -0.62, -0.35)] after surgery. Dexamethasone-treated patients used less opioids at 2 h [MD -0.87 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI: -1.40 to -0.33)] and 24 h [MD -2.33 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI: -4.39, -0.26)], required less rescue analgesia for intolerable pain [relative risk 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.93)], had longer time to first dose of analgesic [MD 12.06 min (95% CI: 0.80, 23.32)], and shorter stays in the post-anaesthesia care unit [MD -5.32 min (95% CI: -10.49 to -0.15)]. There was no dose-response with regard to the opioid-sparing effect. There was no increase in infection or delayed wound healing with dexamethasone, but blood glucose levels were higher at 24 h [MD 0.39 mmol litre(-1) (95% CI: 0.04, 0.74)].

CONCLUSIONS

A single i.v. perioperative dose of dexamethasone had small but statistically significant analgesic benefits.