Droperidol and dolasetron alone or in combination for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after vitrectomy

An optimal response adaptive design for multi-treatment clinical trials with ordinal categorical outcomes

In clinical trials, fixed randomizations in a prefixed proportion (e.g. 1:1 or 2:1 for two treatment trials) may be adopted to allocate the entering patients among the competing treatments. However, such an allocation procedure ignores the knowledge obtained from the accrued information on the performance of the treatments until that point. However, while allocating, a fixed randomization may favor the most and the least effective treatments in a prefixed manner, and hence becomes instrumental to induce a conflict with the "individual ethics" requirement. Adaptive allocation designs are considered instead, for their ability to dynamically settle the issue of running randomization towards the treatment doing better - all using the available data but with a scope to compromise in statistical precision. Although most of the developments are pertinent to binary, continuous and survival responses, ordinal categorical responses are natural outcomes in many disciplines of clinical trials like Orthopedics and Ophthalmology. Therefore, to balance between ethics and precision in the context of a multi-treatment clinical trial producing ordinal categorical responses, an optimal response adaptive design is derived by minimizing a measure of "precision" subject to constrained number of "failures" ensuring higher number of assignments to the "best" treatment. Related design and inference-based characteristics are extensively studied - both theoretically and empirically. Further, the practical applicability of the developed design is envisaged through re-designing of a real clinical trial, where the responses are immediate and are measured in ordinal categorical scale.

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).

Efficacy of Three Different Prophylactic Treatments for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Vitrectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after vitreoretinal surgery may potentially be associated with severe complications, such as suprachoroidal hemorrhage. The purpose of the present multicenter clinical trial (NCT02386059) was to assess the efficacy of three different prophylactic treatments for PONV after vitrectomy under local anesthesia. Patients undergoing primary vitrectomy were randomized to the control arm or to one of the treatment arms (4 mg ondansetron, 4 mg dexamethasone, combination of the two drugs). The primary outcome measure was the proportion of complete response (no nausea, no vomiting, no retching, and no use of antiemetic rescue medication) during 24 h after vitrectomy. Secondary outcomes included the severity standardized score of PONV, postoperative pain standardized score, and rate of ocular and non-ocular adverse events. Baseline demographics of the 1287 patients were comparable between the four arms. The combined therapy group showed a statistically significant lower incidence of PONV compared to the placebo and monotherapy (p < 0.001). PONV severity was also reduced in the combination group compared to the others (p < 0.001). Postoperative pain scores and adverse events were comparable among the four groups. Combined therapy with dexamethasone and ondansetron was the most effective treatment for reducing the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing vitrectomy under local anesthesia.

Formulation of a Peribulbar Block for Prolonged Postoperative Pain Management in Vitreoretinal Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate postoperative pain level using a supplemental peribulbar injection at the conclusion of retinal surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, parallel-assigned, single-masked, randomized clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-eight patients undergoing scleral buckle, vitrectomy, or combined surgery.

METHODS

In a single academic institutional practice, 58 patients undergoing scleral buckle, vitrectomy, or combined surgery were enrolled. Exclusion criteria included those with a risk for glaucoma, a pre-existing chronic pain disorder, among others. Patients were assigned randomly to receive a postoperative peribulbar formulation of either bupivacaine, triamcinolone acetonide, and cefazolin (group A) or bupivacaine, balanced salt solution, and cefazolin (group B). The postoperative pain score and ocular motility were assessed by a masked observer on the first postoperative day.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the postoperative pain score. Secondary outcome measures included oral analgesic use, ocular motility, and intraocular pressure (IOP).

RESULTS

The mean pain scores were 2.8±2.9 for group A and 3.8±2.6 for group B (P = 0.095). Pain was absent in 28% of group A patients versus 14% of group B patients (P = 0.11). Group A required less narcotic pain medication (hydroxycodone: group A, 0.7±3 mg vs. group B, 3±6 mg; P = 0.05; oxycodone: group A, 7±7 mg vs. 9±13 mg; P = 0.2) than group B. Motility was full in group B and limited in group A (P ≤ 0.001), with no differences in mean IOP measurements at any point after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in mean postoperative pain scores. However, patients in group A required less hydroxycodone use and had greater akinesia, suggesting prolonged neural blockade.

Analgesic and Sedative Effects of Dezocine and Midazolam During Vitrectomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate the analgesic and sedative effectiveness of dezocine and midazolam in vitrectomy.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty patients undergoing vitrectomy were randomized into four groups. The control group was given local anesthetic in retrobulbar nerve block only, while the other three groups received a single dose of 0.1 mg/kg dezocine or/and 0.05 mg/kg midazolam (groups D, M, DM), respectively, at 10 min before retrobulbar block. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were recorded prior to local anesthesia (Tp), at the start of surgery (T0), 5, 15, 30 min during (T1-T3), and at the end of surgery (T4). Pain at T2 and T4 was assessed by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Level of sedation at T2 was assessed using the Ramsay scale. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) events were recorded for 24 h.

RESULTS

Group DM showed a decrease in HR during T0-T4 compared to Tp (p < 0.001). The MAP of all groups decreased significantly at T0 compared to Tp (p < 0.05), but remained unchanged at T1-T4. At T2, all groups have lower pain level than control (p < 0.001), while group DM showed the lowest pain level. At T4, groups D and DM showed a lower pain level than control (p < 0.01). Groups M and DM showed a higher Ramsay score than group C (p < 0.01). Compared with control, group D had a higher PONV rate (p < 0.1). Groups M and DM showed a lower PONV rate than group D (p < 0.0001), and group M had a lower PONV rate than group C (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Combinatory use of dezocine and midazolam in addition to local anesthetic in retrobulbar nerve block can help relief pain and anxiety during vitrectomy and reduce PONV.

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.

The relationship between perioperative nausea and vomiting and serum serotonin concentrations in patients undergoing cesarean section under epidural anesthesia

Background

Serotonin-also known as 5-hydroxytryptamine or 5-HT-can induce nausea and vomiting (NV) by peripheral mechanisms via the activation of 5-HT₃ receptors. In this study, we observed perioperative NV, including intraoperative NV, and changes in serum 5-HT concentrations. We evaluated the relationship between perioperative NV and serum 5-HT levels in patients undergoing cesarean section under epidural anesthesia, and carried out a pilot study to determine if further studies on a larger scale were justified.

Methods

Twenty-eight patients who were scheduled for cesarean section under epidural anesthesia were included in the study. Patients were assigned to 2 groups according to the occurrence of NV after induction, i.e., an NV-positive or an NV-negative group. Serum 5-HT concentrations were measured before induction, at the time that NV occurred (in the case of the NV-positive group) or 5 min after the umbilical cord clamping (in the case of the NV-negative group) during surgery, and at 2 h postoperatively.

Results

NV occurred in 10 of the 28 patients. No significant differences in serum 5-HT concentrations were found within or between the two groups.

Conclusions

This study suggests that there is no correlation between serum 5-HT concentration and the occurrence of perioperative NV in patients undergoing cesarean section under epidural anesthesia, and the findings do not seem to support further investigations regarding a possible relationship between serum 5-HT concentration and perioperative NV.

Pairwise comparisons with ordered categorical data

Clinical trials frequently involve pairwise comparisons of different treatments to evaluate their relative efficacy. In this study, we examine methods for conducting pairwise tests of treatments with ordered categorical responses. A modified version of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test based on a logistic regression model assuming proportional odds is a popular choice for comparing two treatments. This paper discusses the extension of this test to pairwise comparisons involving more than two treatments. However, when the proportional odds assumption is not valid, the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-type test procedure cannot control the overall type I error rate at the prespecified level of significance. We therefore propose a better strategy in which a latent normal model is employed. We presented a simulated comparative study of power and the overall type I error rate to illustrate the superiority of the latent normal model. Examples are also given for illustrative purposes.

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.

Low-dose droperidol (≤1 mg or ≤15 μg kg-1) for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults: quantitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials

CONTEXT

Droperidol is widely used for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in European countries. It is unclear how efficacious low-dose droperidol is in the prevention of PONV.

OBJECTIVES

To test the efficacy of low-dose droperidol in the prevention of PONV in adults and to test for dose-responsiveness.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Comprehensive search in electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Central) up to June 2011. Additional trials were obtained from bibliographies of retrieved reports. No language restriction was applied.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised trials testing prophylactic intravenous droperidol ≤1 mg or ≤15 μg kg compared with placebo (or no treatment) in adults undergoing general anaesthesia and reporting on PONV.

RESULTS

We analysed 25 trials (2957 patients). Doses varied from 0.25 to 1.0 mg. For prevention of early nausea (within 6 h postoperatively), relative risk (RR) was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.58); number needed to treat (NNT) was 7, 4, and 2 for low, medium and high baseline risk (i.e. control event rate 25, 50, 75%). For prevention of early vomiting, RR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.74), NNT 11, 6, and 4. For prevention of late nausea (within 24 h), RR was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.87), NNT 15, 8, and 5. For prevention of late vomiting, RR was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80), NNT 10, 5, and 3. Droperidol decreased the risk of headache but increased the risk of restlessness. For these outcomes there was no evidence of dose-responsiveness. There were no differences in the incidences of sedation or dizziness. Two patients receiving droperidol 0.625 mg had extrapyramidal symptoms. Cardiac toxicity data were not reported.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic doses of droperidol of 1 mg or below are antiemetic. Because adverse drug reactions are likely to be dose-dependent, there is an argument to stop using doses of more than 1 mg.

Single-dose aprepitant vs ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, double-blind phase III trial in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

The neurokinin(1) antagonist aprepitant is effective for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. We compared aprepitant with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

Nine hundred and twenty-two patients receiving general anaesthesia for major abdominal surgery were assigned to receive a single preoperative dose of oral aprepitant 40 mg, oral aprepitant 125 mg, or i.v. ondansetron 4 mg in a randomized, double-blind trial. Vomiting episodes, use of rescue therapy, and nausea severity (verbal rating scale) were documented for 48 h after surgery. Primary efficacy endpoints were complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) 0-24 h after surgery and no vomiting 0-24 h after surgery. The secondary endpoint was no vomiting 0-48 h after surgery.

RESULTS

Aprepitant at both doses was non-inferior to ondansetron for complete response 0-24 h after surgery (64% for aprepitant 40 mg, 63% for aprepitant 125 mg, and 55% for ondansetron, lower bound of 1-sided 95% CI > 0.65), superior to ondansetron for no vomiting 0-24 h after surgery (84% for aprepitant 40 mg, 86% for aprepitant 125 mg, and 71% for ondansetron; P < 0.001), and superior for no vomiting 0-48 h after surgery (82% for aprepitant, 40 mg, 85% for aprepitant, 125 mg, and 66% for ondansetron; P < 0.001). The distribution of peak nausea scores was lower in both aprepitant groups vs ondansetron (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant was non-inferior to ondansetron in achieving complete response for 24 h after surgery. Aprepitant was significantly more effective than ondansetron for preventing vomiting at 24 and 48 h after surgery, and in reducing nausea severity in the first 48 h after surgery. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated.

Intravenous droperidol: a review of its use in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Droperidol (Dehydrobenzperidol, Dehidrobenzoperidol, Dridol, Droleptan, Inapsine) is a dopamine D(2) receptor antagonist that has been widely used in adults and children for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) over several decades and, more recently, for the prevention of opioid-induced PONV during patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in adults. In well controlled clinical trials of patients undergoing surgery, the efficacy of single-dose intravenous (IV) droperidol in preventing PONV was similar to that of ondansetron and dexamethasone. Droperidol significantly reduced opioid-induced PONV in adults during PCA and had a morphine-sparing effect. Droperidol is generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse effects is similar to that observed with placebo and the serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (setrons). Guidelines recommend that, in adults, droperidol monotherapy be considered for those at moderate risk of PONV, and droperidol in combination with a setron and/or dexamethasone be considered for patients at moderate or high risk of PONV. In children with moderate or high risk of PONV, droperidol is recommended for first-line use in some countries, and second-line use in others.

Risk factors for nausea and vomiting following vitrectomy in adults

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after ophthalmic surgery under general anaesthesia remains a complex and perturbing complication associated with several factors. Little information is available regarding the risk factors for nausea and vomiting after vitrectomy in adults. In this study, we evaluated the potential risk factors for PONV after vitrectomy in adult patients.

METHODS

Univariate and multivariate analyses of clinical factors associated with PONV were undertaken in a retrospective case-control series of 247 adult patients undergoing vitrectomy under general anaesthesia. We examined PONV for the first 48 h. Factors examined were age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, H2-blocker as premedication, type of general anaesthesia (sevoflurane and fentanyl or total intravenous (i.v.) anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl), duration of surgery, and intraoperative fentanyl dose.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (24%) reported one or more episodes of PONV during the study period. Female gender (P < 0.01), lower BMI (P < 0.01) and general anaesthesia with inhalational anaesthetics (P < 0.01) were significantly related to nausea during the first 2 h postoperatively. Female gender (P < 0.01) was significantly related to nausea and vomiting throughout the study period. Other factors, including smoking status, did not alter the risk for nausea and/or vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that female gender, lower BMI and inhalation anaesthesia are the main risk factors for PONV after vitrectomy in adults. Smoking status did not reduce the incidence of PONV in our patients.

Anti-emetic prophylaxis with oral tropisetron and/or dexamethasone

BACKGROUND

The corticosteroid dexamethasone and the serotonine3 -antagonist tropisetron are both effective drugs for the prophylaxis of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) when given intravenously. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the oral use of both drugs as part of a routine oral premedication and to compare their single and combined effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, 320 inpatients with a moderate-high risk of PONV (> or = 40% according to two validated risk scores) received an oral premedication 1-2 h pre-operatively with placebo, a fixed dose of tropisetron 5 mg, dexamethasone 8 mg, or a combination of both drugs. A standardized general anaesthesia was performed, including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, rocuronium, desflurane in air/O2, fentanyl or sufentanil followed by a continuous infusion of remifentanil. Post-operative analgesia and anti-emetic rescue medication were standardized. The main outcome measures were the severity of PONV within the first 24 h (rated by a standardized scoring algorithm). The incidence of PONV was used as the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Data from 310 patients were analyzed. The mean severity score in the placebo-, tropisetron-, dexamethasone- and the combined-groups was 1.37, 0.8, 0.8 and 0.38, respectively. The incidence of PONV of any severity was 59.2%, 37.5%, 40% and 22.8%, respectively. The reduction of the incidence and the severity of PONV were statistically significant with all three interventions. Results from additional analyses suggested that both drugs were equally effective and that there was a simple additive effect of tropisetron and dexamethasone compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Oral tropisetron and dexamethasone were both equally effective in reducing the severity and incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting. The latter could be reduced by approximately 35% in a population of moderate-high risk for PONV. Both drugs had an additive effect. However, even in the combination group there still remained an unacceptably high incidence of PONV of more than 20%. This highlighted the need for a multimodal anti-emetic approach in high-risk patients and the importance of treatment of PONV.

Meta-analysis of the use of rescue antiemetics following PONV prophylactic failure with 5-HT3 antagonist/dexamethasone versus single-agent therapies

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of rescue antiemetic medication following 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) plus dexamethasone therapy versus monotherapy with a 5-HT3RA for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DATA SOURCES

Reports of randomized, controlled trials were identified via a MEDLINE search (1966-September 2005) using the key terms ondansetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, granisetron, 5-HT3, PONV, vomiting, emesis, and nausea.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized, controlled trials of adult populations that had treatment arms comparing 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone combination therapy with 5-HT3RA or dexamethasone monotherapies versus placebo or 5-HT3RA versus dexamethasone or placebo were selected for analysis. Another criterion was that a proportion of patients required rescue medication 48 hours or less following surgery.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval were calculated to determine incidence rates for use of rescue medications within early (0-6 h), late (6-24 h), and overall (0-24 or 48 h) postoperative periods. Overall effect sizes were calculated by pooling ORs within fixed and random effects models.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone was associated with lower use of rescue antiemetics than 5-HT3RA (OR(pooled) = 0.48; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.77) or dexamethasone (OR(pooled) = 0.26; 95% CI 0.12-0.57) monotherapy during the overall postoperative period. Insufficient data were available to assess rescue use during early or late postoperative periods. It appears that patients at high risk of PONV who are treated prophylactically with combination 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone therapy are overall less likely to require rescue medication than if treated with 5-HT3RAs or dexamethasone alone. Additional large prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal regimen and timing of administration of prophylactic antiemetic therapy for different surgical populations.

Meta-analysis of the safety of 5-HT3 antagonists with dexamethasone or droperidol for prevention of PONV

BACKGROUND

Antiemetic guidelines recommend a combination of serotonin (5-HT3) with a second agent such as droperidol or dexamethasone. Physicians have been reluctant to employ these guidelines due to concerns over the black-box warning of droperidol and safety concerns with a steroid.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety profiles of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) monotherapy and combination therapy with a steroid or droperidol for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

A MEDLINE search of English-language reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted (1966-September 2005) using the key terms 5-HT3, granisetron, ondansetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, PONV, postoperative, vomiting, emesis, and nausea. RCTs with treatment arms comparing 5-HT3RA monotherapy (granisetron, ondansetron, dolasetron, or tropisetron) with dexamethasone or droperidol or 5-HT3RA combinations and providing incidence data on adverse events were identified and reviewed. Within-study odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine the incidence rates of all adverse events in RCTs using 5-HT3RA monotherapy and combination therapies. Overall effect sizes for frequently reported adverse events were estimated by pooling ORs using fixed- and random-effect models.

RESULTS

Pooled ORs (OR(pooled)) for adverse events with 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone versus 5-HT3RA for PONV prophylaxis were not significant for any reported adverse events or the overall incidence of adverse events; 5-HT3RA/droperidol versus 5-HT3RA was significant only for decreased headache incidence (fixed model: OR(pooled) 0.35; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.69). The OR(pooled) for 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone versus dexamethasone was not significant for any reported adverse events except headaches (fixed model OR(pooled) 1.75; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.03), none of which was serious. OR(pooled) for 5-HT3RA/droperidol versus droperidol was not significant for any reported adverse events. Avascular necrosis, occult infection, and delayed wound healing were not observed with either combination therapy. Cardiac abnormalities were observed with 5-HT3RA/droperidol therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicates that either therapy has a safety profile similar to that of dexamethasone, droperidol, or 5-HT3RA.