Postoperative nausea and vomiting after surgery for prognathism: Not only a question of patients' comfort. A placebo-controlled comparison of dolasetron and droperidol

Subramanya Kumar AVS. Efficacy of palonosetron in the management of postoperative nausea vomiting in oral and maxillofacial surgery

Objective:

The objective is to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic single intravenous dose of palonosetron in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following oral and maxillofacial surgical interventions performed through an intraoral approach under general anesthesia (GA).

Materials and Methods:

A prospective study was conducted on 100 subjects who underwent intraoral surgical procedures for the management of maxillofacial trauma, pathology, dentofacial anomalies, and deformities under GA. All subjects received a prophylactic single intravenous dose of 0.075 mg palonosetron along with premedication. Predisposing factors for PONV such as patient age, gender, Apfel risk score, history of motion sickness, smoking, type of procedure, and administration of postoperative opioids were taken into consideration. All the patients were monitored for PONV for the 1^st 24 h postoperatively (PO). First, at an interval of 30 min for 1^st 4 h and then at every 2 h interval for next 8 h followed by monitoring every 6 h interval till 24 h. Time and frequency of rescue medication were noted.

Results:

Seventy-nine percentage subjects did not have PONV. 15% subjects had a single episode of vomiting PO which could be attributed to multiple intra oral surgical sites performed as well as longer duration of exposure to anesthetic agents in addition to providing opioid analgesics for the management of postoperative pain. Only 6% subjects needed rescue antiemetic drug. Palonosetron did not show any significant changes in cardiac status and serum profile.

Conclusion:

Palonosetron is effective in the management of PONV for maxillofacial surgical procedures performed through an intraoral approach under GA.

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).

Factors associated to post-operative nausea and vomiting following oral and maxillofacial surgery: a prospective study

AIM

This study aims to address and assess possible factors associated with nausea and vomiting (NV) following oral and maxillofacial surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study was carried out in the period from December 2013 to January 2016 targeting all attended cases in that period. For statistical analysis, Pearson chi-square and Fisher tests were used to verify association and ANOVA and Student's t tests to test for significant difference, p was defined as ≤0.05. The sample group consisted of 207 patients with an average age of 33.56 years (±13.23), and 70.5% of subjects were male.

RESULTS

Calculations based on the predictive model showed that a female patient with prior history of nausea and vomiting who used opioids and had intra-oral surgical access would have a 96% chance of experiencing a nausea and vomiting episode. Other factors like age, being overweight, anesthesia, surgery duration, and duration of hospital stay also contribute so that these aspects must be paid careful attention prior to surgery to ensure a suitably orientated treatment that will avoid disturbances caused by post-operative nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of post-operative nausea and vomiting after oral and maxillofacial surgery was found to be more higher incidence associated to female patients who used opioids, who had a prior history of NV, whose surgery involved intra-oral access, who were in the second or third decades of their lives, who have above average weight, and who have long anesthesia when undergoing surgery, resulting in a long hospital stays.

Comparative safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients, but these agents may be harmful. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

METHODS

Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564.

RESULTS

Overall, 120 studies and 27,787 patients were included after screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly more patients receiving granisetron plus dexamethasone experienced an arrhythmia relative to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.96, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.11-7.94), ondansetron (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.17-8.95), dolasetron (OR 4.37, 95 % CI 1.51-12.62), tropisetron (OR 3.27, 95 % CI 1.02-10.43), and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OR 5.75, 95 % CI 1.71-19.34) in a NMA including 31 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 6,623 patients of all ages. No statistically significant differences in delirium frequency were observed across all treatment comparisons in a NMA including 18 RCTs and 3,652 patients.

CONCLUSION

Granisetron plus dexamethasone increases the risk of arrhythmia.

Multimodal protocol reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of a multimodal antiemetic protocol on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after Le Fort I osteotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy with or without additional procedures at a single academic institution were recruited as the intervention cohort for an institutional review board-approved prospective clinical trial with a retrospective comparison group. The intervention cohort was managed with a multimodal antiemetic protocol, including total intravenous anesthesia; prophylactic ondansetron, steroids, scopolamine, and droperidol; gastric decompression at surgery end; opioid-sparing analgesia; avoidance of morphine and codeine; prokinetic erythromycin; and fluids at a minimum of 25 mL/kg. The comparison group consisted of consecutive patients from a larger study who underwent similar surgical procedures before protocol implementation. Data, including occurrence of PONV, were extracted from medical records. Data were analyzed in bivariate fashion with the Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Logistic regression was used to compare the likelihood of nausea and vomiting in the 2 cohorts after controlling for demographic and surgical characteristics. A P value less than .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

The intervention (n = 93) and comparison (n = 137) groups were similar in gender (58% and 65% female patients; P = .29), race (72% and 71% Caucasian; P = .85), age (median, 19 and 20 years old; P = .75), proportion of patients with known risk factors for PONV (P = .34), percentage undergoing bimaxillary surgery (60% for the 2 groups), and percentage for whom surgery time was longer than 180 minutes (63% and 59%; P = .51). Prevalence of postoperative nausea was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the comparison group (24% vs 70%; P < .0001). Prevalence of postoperative vomiting was likewise significantly lower in the intervention group (11% vs 28%; P = .0013). The likelihood that patients in the comparison group would develop nausea was 8.9 and that for vomiting was 3.7 times higher than in the intervention group.

CONCLUSION

This multimodal protocol was associated with substantially decreased prevalence of PONV in patients undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy.

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.

The effect of anesthetic technique on recovery after orthognathic surgery: a retrospective audit

We audited the recovery characteristics of 51 patients who had undergone orthognathic maxillofacial surgery at a single center. Patients whose anesthesia had been maintained with intravenous propofol and remifentanil (n  =  21) had significantly higher pain scores during the first 4 hours after surgery than those whose anesthesia was maintained with volatile inhalational agents and longer-acting opioids (n  =  30) (P  =  .016). There was a nonsignificant trend towards shorter recovery times in the former group, while there were no differences in early postoperative opioid usage, hemodynamic parameters, or postoperative nausea and vomiting . Given that our data were collected retrospectively and without the ability to control for potential confounders, we interpret the results with caution. Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe this is the first report comparing the effects of different opioid-based anesthetic regimens on early recovery from orthognathic surgery, and we believe this report may be used as the starting point for a controlled study.

A network meta-analysis on the efficacy of serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists used in adults during the first 24 hours for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

The serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron are potential prophylactic agents for patients with mild to moderate risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A few trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy among 2 to 3 of these 4 agents. However, the comparative efficacy of all four 5-HT(3) antagonists has not yet been quantitatively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to investigate whether the 5-HT(3) antagonists--ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron-differ in efficacy when used for the prevention of PONV.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled, double-blind studies measuring efficacy in terms of PONV prophylaxis. A Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted using published studies of 5-HT(3) antagonists for PONV prophylaxis. The odds of patients with no PONV and postoperative vomiting (POV) within each study arm 24 hours after surgery were the primary indices of drug efficacy. Data were extracted and analyzed via indirect comparisons using random effects Bayesian models in WinBUGS version 1.4.3.

RESULTS

A total of 85 studies were identified, representing 15,269 patients. The results indicate that granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53 [95% credible interval (CI), 1.15-2.00]) and dolasetron (OR = 1.67 [95% CI, 1.12-2.38]) in preventing PONV. Four antiemetic drugs had comparable efficacy in terms of preventing POV: granisetron showed similar efficacy compared with ondansetron (OR = 1.49 [95% CI, 0.90-2.43]), tropisetron (OR = 1.69 [95% CI, 0.92-3.13]), and dolasetron (OR = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.71-2.38]). Ondansetron exhibited comparable efficacy compared with tropisetron (OR = 1.14 [95% CI, 0.66-1.96]) and dolasetron (OR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.51-1.47]). Tropisetron and dolasetron were also similar in efficacy (OR = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.40-1.45]). All 5-HT(3) antagonists were statistically significantly better at preventing PONV or POV than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to PONV prophylaxis, granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron and dolasetron; ondansetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron exhibited similar efficacy. With respect to POV prophylaxis, ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron seemed to have comparable efficacy.

Prophylactic antiemetics in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a requiem?

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures and to evaluate the rationale behind prophylactic antiemetic medications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 167 patients, irrespective of age and gender, undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia/dissociative anesthesia, were included. Risk factors associated with PONV such as gender, type of anesthetic agent used, nature of surgical procedure, surgical approach used, and duration of surgery and postoperative use of opioids were assessed. A "watch and wait" policy was adopted in all cases of recorded PONV with gastric lavage (GL) to be performed in patients with more than 2 episodes of PONV in the 6-hour postoperative period. The efficacy of such an intervention was also assessed. Antiemetic medications were given in only those cases which did not respond favorably to GL. A chi(2) test was performed using SPSS software (Chicago, IL) to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

Of the 167 patients included, 19 patients experienced episodes of PONV. GL was performed in 3 patients, and all showed cessation of emesis after this intervention. No antiemetic medications were administered. A significant association was observed between PONV and female gender, duration of surgery, type of anesthetic agent used, and specific surgical procedures such as oncologic and temporomandibular joint surgeries. The role of surgical approach and the use of opioids in the postoperative period on the incidence of PONV were found to be insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Information regarding the incidence of PONV after oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures remains scanty. We conclude that there does not appear to be a rationale for the prophylactic administration of antiemetic drugs in such surgical procedures. A watch-and-wait policy and simple GL may provide significant relief. Antiemetic medications are to be considered only in case of non-responders and intractable PONV.