Efficacy of palonosetron in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)-a meta-analysis

Comparison of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in renal transplantation recipients: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal diseases patients have a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), which is multifactorial and need acute attention after renal transplantation for a successful outcome in term of an uneventful postoperative period. The study was done to compare the efficacy of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing early and late-onset PONV in live donor renal transplantation recipients (LDRT).

METHODS

The prospective randomized double-blinded study was done on 112 consecutive patients planned for live donor renal transplantation. Patients of both sexes in the age group of 18...60 years were randomly divided into two groups: Group O (Ondansetron) and Group P (Palonosetron) with 56 patients in each group by computer-generated randomization. The study drug was administered intravenously (IV) slowly over 30.ßseconds, one hour before extubation. Postoperatively, the patients were accessed for PONV at 6, 24, and 72.ßhours using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) nausea score and PONV intensity scale.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV in the study was found to be 30.35%. There was significant difference in incidence of PONV between Group P and Group O at 6.ßhours (12.5% vs. 32.1%, p.ß=.ß0.013) and 72.ßhours (1.8% vs. 33.9%, p.ß<.ß0.001), but insignificant difference at 24.ßhours (1.8% vs. 10.7%, p.ß=.ß0.113). VAS-nausea score was significantly lower in Group P as compared to Group O at a time point of 24.ßhours (45.54.ß...ß12.64 vs. 51.96.ß...ß14.70, p.ß=.ß0.015) and 72.ßhours (39.11.ß...ß10.32 vs. 45.7.ß...ß15.12, p.ß=.ß0.015).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron is clinically superior to ondansetron in preventing early and delayed onset postoperative nausea and vomiting in live-related renal transplant recipients.

Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Palonosetron Hydrochloride in Preventing Nausea And Vomiting After TACE: A Retrospective Analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the mechanism of nausea and vomiting after TACE, and analyze the efficacy and safety of palonosetron hydrochloride in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after TACE.

METHODS

The data of 221 patients who underwent TACE in the Department of Intervention Therapy from August 2018 to August 2020 were collected. The patients were divided into two groups: those who did not use palonosetron hydrochloride before TACE (TACE group, N=116); and those who used palonosetron hydrochloride before TACE (TACE+palonosetron group, N=105). Primary study endpoint: The control rate of nausea and vomiting in the two groups at 0-24 h (acute), 24-120 h (delayed), and 0-120 h. Secondary Study Endpoints: Adverse events of palonosetron hydrochloride.

RESULTS

TACE group vs TACE+palonosetron group: 0-24 h, 74 vs. 44 patients with nausea (63.8% vs. 41.9%); 24-120 h, 50 vs. 16 patients with nausea (43.1% vs. 15.2%); 0-120 h after TACE, 81 vs. 50 patients with nausea (69.8% vs. 47.6%). 0-24 h, 52 vs. 26 patients with vomiting (44.8% vs. 24.8%); 24-120 h, 24 vs. 8 patients with vomiting (20.7% vs. 7.6%); 0-120 h after TACE, 64 vs. 26 patients with vomiting (55.2% vs. 24.8%). The incidence of nausea and vomiting after TACE was significantly lower in the TACE+palonosetron group than in the TACE group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron hydrochloride can significantly reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients after TACE, with exact effect and high safety.

A Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Update: Current information on New Drugs, Old Drugs, Rescue/Treatment, Combination Therapies and Nontraditional Modalities

This article's objective is to present the latest evidence and information on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV continues to affect 30% of the surgical population causing patient dissatisfaction, extending length of stay, and increasing overall costs. This review includes the introduction of 2 new intravenous formulations of antiemetics (amisulpride, aprepitant), updates on nontraditional therapies, suggestions for combination prophylaxis, emerging data on rescue treatment, and considerations for special populations and settings. Both of the new antiemetics provide promising options for pharmacologic interventions for PONV with favorable safety profiles.

Efficacy and safety analysis of dexamethasone + palonosetron in prevention of post-embolization syndrome after D-TACE: A retrospective study

To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone + palonosetron in the prevention of post-embolization syndrome after drug-eluting beads transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (D-TACE). The data of 278 patients who received D-TACE from January 2018 to December 2021 were collected and divided into 2 groups: D-TACE group (N = 145) and D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group (N = 133). The incidence of post-embolization syndrome and infection after D-TACE was assessed in both groups. Incidence of abdominal pain: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 56.6% versus 40.6%, P = .008; incidence of fever: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 40.0% versus 14.3%, P = .000; incidence of nausea: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 61.4% versus 39.8%, P = .001; incidence of vomiting: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 48.3% versus 21.1%, P = .000; incidence of infection: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 1.4% versus 1.5%, P = .931. The combined use of dexamethasone and palonosetron before D-TACE can effectively reduce the incidence of post-embolization syndrome and reduce the degree of side effects, but it will not increase the risk of infection.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Palonosetron and Ramosetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with that of ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A total of 17 randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV were included. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV, which were measured in early, late, and overall phases. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of the administration time of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and divided into two phases: early phase and the end of surgery. A total of 17 studies with 1823 patients were included in the final analysis. The incidence of retching (relative risk [RR] = 0.525; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.390 to 0.707) and late POV (RR = 0.604; 95% CI = 0.404 to 0.903) was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group. No significant differences were demonstrated in the incidence of PON, PONV, complete response, use of antiemetics, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis showed that palonosetron was superior to ramosetron in terms of early PON, late PON, overall POV, and use of rescue antiemetics when they were administered early; in terms of retching, regardless of the timing of administration. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in terms of early PON when they were administered late. The prophylactic administration of palonosetron was more effective than that of ramosetron in preventing the development of retching and late POV. In this meta-analysis, no significant differences in PONV prevention between the two drugs were demonstrated. Further studies are required to validate the outcomes of our study.

Fraud and retraction in perioperative medicine publications: what we learned and what can be implemented to prevent future recurrence

Fraud in medical publications is an increasing concern. In particular, disciplines related to perioperative medicine-including anaesthesia and critical care-currently hold the highest rankings in terms of retracted papers for research misconduct. The dominance of this dubious achievement is attributable to a limited number of researchers who have repeatedly committed scientific fraud. In the last three decades, six researchers have authored 421 of the 475 papers retracted in perioperative medicine. This narrative review reports on six cases of fabricated publication in perioperative medicine that resulted in the paper's retraction. The process that led to the unveiling of the fraud, the impact on clinical practice, and changes in regulatory mechanisms of scientific companies and governmental agencies' policies are also presented. Fraud in medical publications is a growing concern that affects perioperative medicine requiring a substantial number of papers to be retracted. The continuous control elicited by readers, by local institutional review boards, scientific journal reviewers, scientific societies and government agencies can play an important role in preserving the 'pact of trust' between authors, professionals and ultimately the relationship between doctors and patients.

A Randomised Study To Compare Palonosetron With Ondansetron for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) Following Laparoscopic Gynecological Surgeries

Background

Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Methodology

In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, non-smoking females aged 18-70 years, weighing 40-90 kg, and posted for elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries were enrolled into ondansetron (Group A, n = 65) and palonosetron (Group B, n = 65) groups. Palonosetron (1 mcg/kg IV) or ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg IV) were administered just before induction. Postoperatively, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, PONV (scored on a scale of 0-3), need for rescue antiemetic, complete response, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated up to 48 h following surgery. Normally distributed continuous variables were compared using Student’s t-test. In addition, the Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare nominal categorical data as deemed appropriate. P-value <0.05 was observed as statistically significant.

Results

The overall PONV scores and postoperative nausea scores during 0-2 and 24-48 hours were comparable, but PONV scores (p = 0.023) and postoperative nausea scores (p = 0.010) during 2-24 hours were significantly lesser in Group B compared to Group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative vomiting score or retching during 0-48 hours. The amount of first-line rescue antiemetic used during 2-24 hours was significantly higher in Group A (56%) than in Group B (31%) (p = 0.012; p <0.05). A complete response to the drug during 2-24 hours was significantly higher (p = 0.023) in Group B (63%) compared to Group A (40%), whereas response was comparable during 0-2 and 24-48 hours. Both groups had a comparable incidence of adverse effects and patient satisfaction scores.

Conclusion

Palonosetron has a superior anti-nausea effect, less need for rescue antiemetics, and lesser incidence of total PONV compared to ondansetron during 2-24h and comparable effect to ondansetron during 0-2h and 24-48h postoperative period in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Progress in research of postoperative nausea and vomiting after painless gastrointestinal endoscopy

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) refers to nausea and vomiting occurring within 24 h after surgery. PONV seriously affects the quality of postoperative recovery after painless gastrointestinal endoscopy. In this paper, we review the progress in the research of PONV after painless gastrointestinal endoscopy to provide clinical guidance for improving the medical safety and service quality of painless and comfortable anesthesia. PONV after painless gastrointestinal endoscopy has unique factors and characteristics. On the basis of comprehensive evaluation and according to the patient's specific situation, the doctors should identify the risk factors, optimize the anesthesia scheme, choose anesthetics and analgesics rationally, and take comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic measures.

Efficacy of palonosetron-dexamethasone combination compared to palonosetron alone for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following surgery, and may be one of the most distressing parts of the surgical journey. With combination pharmacological therapy recommended for PONV prophylaxis, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates whether perioperative palonosetron and dexamethasone is more efficacious than palonosetron administered alone.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL; EMBASE; CINAHL; Google Scholar; Web of Science citation index; the US clinical trials register; UK clinical trials register; Australia and New Zealand Clinical trials register; and conference abstracts for major anaesthesia conferences in the last three years.We included randomized controlled trials that compared adult patients undergoing surgery who received palonosetron and dexamethasone, against those who received palonosetron.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (1152 patients) were included. Medium-grade evidence showed that the palonosetron and dexamethasone combination significantly reduced 24-hour rescue anti-emetic requirement (RR: 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.86). There was however no significant difference in the 6-hour (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.61-1.09) and 24-hour PONV incidences (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33-1.10). Similarly, PONV incidences after 24 h did not differ between groups (RR:0.82, 95% CI: 0.59-1.14). Headache and dizziness were the most common side-effects reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination prophylaxis with palonosetron and dexamethasone reduces post-operative anti-emetic requirement, although is not associated with a significant difference in PONV. There was considerable heterogeneity in the studies, and trial sequential analysis indicates that further studies are needed to strengthen the clinical evidence.

Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV): A Review of Current Recommendations and Emerging Therapies

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most frequent adverse events after surgery and anesthesia. It is distressing for the patient and can lead to other postoperative complications. Management of PONV involves a framework of risk assessment, multimodal risk reduction, and prophylactic measures, as well as prompt rescue treatment. There has been a significant paradigm shift in the approach towards PONV prevention. There have also been several emerging therapeutic options for PONV prophylaxis and treatment. In this review, we will discuss the up-to-date PONV management guidelines and highlight novel therapeutic options which have emerged in the last few years.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

[Comparison of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in middle ear surgery: a randomized clinical trial]

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60-80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.

RESULTS

Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2-6hours only (p=0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0-24hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (p=0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron-dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number-needed-to-treat was 4. The patient's satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (p=0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (p=0.026).

CONCLUSION

The combination of palonosetron-dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron-dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.

Comparison of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in middle ear surgery: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is the second most common complaint in the postoperative period after pain. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was 60–80% in middle ear surgeries in the absence of antiemetic prophylaxis. Because of this high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, we aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients of middle ear surgery.

Methods

Sixty-four patients, scheduled for middle ear surgery, were randomized into two groups to receive the palonosetron-dexamethasone and ondansetron-dexamethasone combination intravenously before induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia technique was standardized in all patients. Postoperatively, the incidences and severity of nausea and vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, side effects and patient satisfaction score were recorded.

Results

Demographics were similar in the study groups. The incidence difference of nausea was statistically significant between groups O and P at a time interval of 2–6 hours only (p = 0.026). The incidence and severity of vomiting were not statistically significant between groups O and P during the whole study period. The overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (0–24 hours postoperatively) was 37.5% in group O and 9.4% in group P (p = 0.016). Absolute risk reduction with palonosetron–dexamethasone was 28%, the relative risk reduction was 75%, and the number-needed-to-treat was 4. The patient’s satisfaction score was higher in group P than group O (p = 0.016). The frequency of rescue medication was more common in group O than in group P patients (p = 0.026).

Conclusion

The combination of palonosetron-dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron-dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgeries.

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.

Palonosetron versus ondansetron for prevention of nausea and vomiting after total abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Background

Hysterectomy is a widely performed surgery and neuraxial anesthesia with intrathecal morphine provides superior quality of recovery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent problem with intrathecal morphine use. Although palonosetron is effective for prevention of PONV after general anesthesia, its efficacy after neuraxial anesthesia has not been established. This study was conducted to compare the use of palonosetron with ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis in patients at a high risk of PONV during total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine.

Methods

This prospective, randomized double-blind study conducted at São Rafael Hospital involved 140 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II women who underwent TAH under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine and who had at least 3 risk factors for PONV based on Apfel’s simplified score. The patients were randomized into two groups: one received palonosetron whereas the other received ondansetron. All patients received spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine, as well as dexamethasone plus palonosetron or ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis. The overall incidence of PONV, incidence of early- and late-onset nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea, and use of rescue antiemetics were recorded.

Results

The overall incidence of PONV was 42.9% in the palonosetron group and 52.9% in the ondansetron group (p > 0.05). No significant differences existed in the incidence of early- and late-onset nausea or early-onset vomiting between the two groups. The incidence of late-onset vomiting was significantly lower in the palonosetron group.

Conclusions

Palonosetron exhibited efficacy similar to that of ondansetron for reducing the overall incidence of PONV after TAH under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine; however, palonosetron reduced the incidence of late-onset vomiting significantly better than ondansetron.

Trial registration

RBR-4gnm8n (ensaiosclinicos.gov.br), date of registration: August 18, 2014.

Comparison of ondansetron, tropisetron, and palonosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are 2 of the most frequent adverse effects of anesthesia. PONV prolongs hospital stays and also delays the recovery of patients.

Objective

In this study, the effects of ondansetron, tropisetron, and palonosetron on PONV in patients who had undergone middle ear surgeries such as mastoidectomy or tympanoplasty were compared.

Methods

The study included 165 American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 1 and 2 patients aged 18 to 65 years. Patients were randomized into 3 groups by a closed envelope method. Neither the patients nor the nurses administering the treatments knew which patient belonged to which group. The anesthetic technique was standardized for all groups. During skin closure, 0.075 mg palonosetron, 5 mg tropisetron, and 8 mg ondansetron were administered intravenously to the palonosetron, tropisetron, and ondansetron groups, respectively. After completion of the surgery, the patients were followed for 48 hours. Diclofenac sodium (100 mg IM) was administered to patients experiencing pain and metoclopramide chloride (10 mg IM) was administered to patients with nausea or vomiting. Potential side effects such as headache and constipation were recorded in the postanesthesia care unit and ear, nose, and throat clinic.

Results

There was no significant difference in the effects of all 3 antiemetic agents on the severity of PONV (P = 0.081). At 48 hours postoperatively, the incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the palonosteron group (38.2%) than the ondansetron group (63.6%) and tropisetron group (61.8%) (P = 0.011). At 48 hours postoperatively, the incidence of postoperative nausea was significantly lower in the palonosetron group (32.7%) than in the ondansetron group (63.6%) and the tropisetron group (56.4%) (P = .003). The incidence of PONV between hours 12 and 24 postoperatively was significantly higher in the ondansetron group (27.3%) than in the palonosetron group (9.1%) (P = 0.013). The antiemetic requirement in the first hour after surgery was significantly higher in the tropisetron group (25.5%) than in the palonosetron group (7.3%) (P = .019).

Conclusions

The results of the current study support those of earlier studies that suggest that palonosetron was statistically more effective than the other 2 formulations in the prevention of PONV in patients who have undergone middle ear surgery. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2019; 80:XXXXXX).

Effect of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing microvascular decompression under propofol-maintained anesthesia: A retrospective observational study

Microvascular decompression (MVD) is associated with a particularly high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) among craniotomy patients. However, there is no information regarding the effect of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex on PONV in patients undergoing MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia.Medical records of 274 adults who had undergone MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia were reviewed. Patients were classified into 4 groups, based on the reversal agent used (sugammadex/pyridostigmine) and whether or not prophylactic palonosetron was used. The PONV incidence and risk factors were analyzed according to the use of these agents.The overall incidence of PONV was 30.7% during the first 24 hours postoperatively. The incidence of PONV was lower in the group using combination of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex (19.3%) compared with the group not using both agents (37.2%). The combined use of the prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex was identified as a factor affecting the occurrence of PONV in both univariable (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21-0.77, P = .006) and multivariable (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.75, P = .005) logistic regression analyses. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, female sex was also significant independent risk factor in PONV (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.35-5.08, P = .004).In this retrospective observational study, the combined use of prophylactic palonosetron before anesthetic induction and sugammadex as a reversal of neuromuscular blockade are associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia.

Comparison of palonosetron and dexamethasone with ondansetron and dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting in postchemotherapy ovarian cancer surgeries requiring opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia: A randomised, double-blind, active controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery after chemotherapy and requiring opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) are at high-risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone combination for these patients for prevention of PONV.

METHODS

This study included 2 groups and 150 patients. At the time of wound closure, patients in group A received ondansetron 8 mg intravenous (IV) + dexamethasone 4 mg IV and group B received palonosetron 0.075 mg IV + dexamethasone 4 mg IV. Postoperatively for 48 hours, group A patients received ondansetron 4 mg 8 hourly IV, group B patients received normal saline 8 hourly IV in 2 cc syringe. The primary objective was the overall incidence of PONV. Independent t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test were used and multivariate regression analysis was done.

RESULTS

Vomiting was significantly higher in group A (37.3%) as compared with group B (21.3%) at 0-48 hours (P = 0.031). Significantly more patients in Group A had nausea as compared with group B at 90-120 minutes (30.66% vs 18.66%, P = 0.043) and 6-24 hours (32.0% vs 22.66%, P = 0.029). PCA opioid usage in microgram was significantly higher in group A at 0-24 hours (690.53 ± 332.57 vs 576.85 ± 250.79, P = 0.024) and 0-48 hours (1126.10 ± 512.18 vs 952.13 ± 353.85, P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron with dexamethasone is more effective than ondasetron with dexamethasone for prevention of PONV in post-chemotherapy ovarian cancer surgeries receiving opioid-based patient controlled analgesia.

Effects of palonosetron for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Background

The preemptive multimodal pain protocols used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often cause emesis postoperatively. We investigated whether palonosetron prophylaxis reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients after TKA.

Methods

We randomized 120 female patients undergoing TKA to receive either palonosetron (0.075 mg, intravenous) or no antiemetic prophylaxis (0.9% saline, control group). All patients were given spinal anesthesia, a continuous femoral nerve block, and fentanyl-based intravenous patient controlled analgesia. Patients undergoing staged bilateral TKA were assigned to one group for the first knee and the other group for the second knee. The overall incidence of PONV, the incidences of both nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea, complete response, requirement for rescue antiemetics, pain level, opioid consumption, and satisfaction scores were evaluated during three periods: 0–2, 2–24, and 24–48 h postoperatively. We also compared PONV and pain between the first and second TKA.

Results

The incidence of PONV during the first 48 h was lower in the palonosetron group compared with the controls (22 vs. 41%, p = 0.028), especially 2–24 h after surgery, as was the nausea and vomiting respectively. The severity of nausea was lower in the palonosetron group (p = 0.010). The complete response rate (93 vs. 73%, p = 0.016) and satisfaction score (84 ± 12 vs. 79 ± 15, p = 0.032) were higher in the palonosetron group during 2–24 h after surgery. Patients who underwent a second operation complained of more severe pain, and consumed more opioids than those of the first operation. There was no difference in the incidence of PONV between the first and second operations.

Conclusions

Palonosetron prophylaxis reduced the incidence and severity of PONV in high-risk patients managed with multimodal pain protocol for 48 h, notably 2–24 h after TKA.

Cost-effectiveness assessment in outpatient sinonasal surgery

AIMS

To assess the cost-effectiveness of outpatient sinonasal surgery in terms of clinical efficacy and control of expenses.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted from January 2014 to January 2016. Patients scheduled for outpatient sinonasal surgery were systematically included. Clinical data were extracted from surgical and anesthesiology computer files. The cost accounting methods applied in our institution were used to evaluate logistic and technical costs. The standardized hospital fees rating system based on hospital stay and severity in diagnosis-related groups (Groupes homogènes de séjours: GHS) was used to estimate institutional revenue.

RESULTS

Over 2years, 927 outpatient surgical procedures were performed. The crossover rate to conventional hospital admission was 2.9%. In a day-1 telephone interview, 85% of patients were very satisfied with the procedure. All outpatient cases showed significantly lower costs than estimated for conventional management with overnight admission, while hospital revenue did not differ between the two.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the efficacy of outpatient surgery in this indication. Lower costs could allow savings for the health system by readjusting the rating for the procedure. More precise assessment of cost-effectiveness will require more fine-grained studies based on micro costing at hospital level and assessment of impact on conventional surgical activity and post-discharge community care.

A comparison of palonosetron and dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting in orthopedic patients receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the major concerns after anesthesia and surgery, and it may be more frequent in orthopedic patients receiving patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone on the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty and receiving PCEA.

Methods

Patients scheduled for total hip or knee arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia/PCEA were randomly allocated to receive either intravenous palonosetron (0.075 mg, n = 50) or dexamethasone (5 mg, n = 50). Treatments were administered intravenously to the patients 30 min before the beginning of surgery. The total incidence of PONV and incidence in each time period, severity of nausea, need for rescue anti-emetics, pain score, and adverse effects during the first 48 h postoperatively were evaluated.

Results

The total incidence of PONV was lower in the palonosetron group compared with the dexamethasone group (18.4% vs. 36.7%, P = 0.042), but there were no statistically significant differences in incidence between the groups at all time points. No significant intergroup differences were observed in the severity of nausea, use of rescue anti-emetics, pain score, and adverse effects.

Conclusions

Although there were no significant differences in the incidence of PONV between the treatment groups at all time points, intravenous palonosetron reduced the total incidence of PONV in orthopedic patients receiving PCEA compared with dexamethasone.

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.

Comparative Pharmacology and Guide to the Use of the Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Since the introduction of the serotonin 5-hydroxy tryptamine 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists in the early 1990s, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) has decreased, yet continues to be a problem for the surgical patient. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists has helped define the approach and role of these antiemetics in the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. Pharmacological and clinical differences exist among these medications resulting in corresponding differences in effectiveness, safety, optimal dosage, time of administration, and use as combination and rescue antiemetic therapy. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist antiemetics has improved the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. The most recent consensus guidelines for PONV published in 2014 outline the use of these antiemetics. The 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists play an important role to help prevent PONV and PDNV in perioperative care pathways such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). Comparisons and guidelines for use of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists in relation to the risk for PONV and PDNV are reviewed.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Chronic Pain: A Meta-analysis

Background:

In this meta-analysis, we explore the role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive neuromodulation technique in the treatment of chronic pain.

Methods:

Studies comparing rTMS and conventional treatment for chronic pain were searched. The comparison was made for decrease in the pain scores with and without (sham) the use of rTMS after a follow-up interval of 4–8 weeks. All reported pain scores were converted into a common scale ranging from “0” (no pain) to “10” (worst pain).

Results:

Nine trials with 183 patients in each of the groups were included in the analysis. The decrease in pain scores with rTMS was 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] being 1.46–0.78) (fixed effects, I² = 0%, P < 0.001) and in sham-rTMS was 0.28 (95% CI being 0.49–0.07) (Fixed effects, I² = 0, P = 0.01). The pooled mean drop in pain scores with rTMS therapy was higher by 0.79 (95% CI being 0.26–1.33) (fixed effects, I² = 0, P < 0.01). The duration and frequency of rTMS were highly variable across trials. Publication bias was unlikely (Egger's test, X-intercept = 0.13, P = 0.75).

Conclusions:

Use of rTMS improves the efficacy of conventional medical treatment in chronic pain patients. This treatment is not associated with any direct adverse effects. However, the duration and frequency of rTMS therapy is presently highly variable and needs standardization.