Double-blind comparative study of droperidol, granisetron and granisetron plus dexamethasone as prophylactic anti-emetic therapy in patients undergoing abdominal, gynaecological, breast or otolaryngological surgery

Comparison of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine Versus Dexmedetomidine-Dexamethasone Combination for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Adult Patients After Abdominal Surgeries

INTRODUCTION

 Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem following general anesthesia and is one of the most unpleasant side effects that affects the patient after surgery and is the worst memory of the hospital stay. The present prospective randomized comparative study was designed to compare the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine with dexmedetomidine-dexamethasone combination for preventing PONV following abdominal surgeries in adult patients and evaluating their sedative and analgesic effects.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 75 patients (aged 18-65 years) were assigned to undergo this comparative study via block randomization using a sealed envelope system. They were divided into three groups of 25 each: group A (control) received normal saline, group B received dexmedetomidine, and group C received a combination of dexmedetomidine with dexamethasone over 10 minutes after inducing general anesthesia before skin incision. The primary outcome was to assess PONV, where nausea was assessed by the numerical rating scale and vomiting by the number of gastric content expulsions. The secondary outcome, which is postoperative sedation and pain, was assessed by the Ramsay Sedation Score and Visual Analog Score, respectively, for 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULT

 During the first 24 hours after surgery, the incidence of PONV was similar in both dexmedetomidine and combination groups but lower than the control group. Postoperative sedation and analgesia were both statistically and clinically adequate and similar in dexmedetomidine and combination groups. No major side effects requiring pharmacological intervention were reported.

CONCLUSION

 Dexmedetomidine alone is as effective as its combination with dexamethasone in preventing PONV in adult patients following abdominal surgeries.

Perioperative intravenous dexamethasone for patients undergoing colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Dexamethasone is a glucocorticoid that is often administered intraoperatively as prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined its use in colorectal surgery. This systematic review aims to assess the postoperative impacts of dexamethasone use in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from database inception to January 2023. Articles were included if they compared perioperative intravenous dexamethasone to a control group in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery in terms of postoperative morbidity. The primary outcomes were prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) and PONV. Secondary outcomes included postoperative infectious morbidity and return of bowel function. A pair-wise meta-analysis and GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence were performed.

RESULTS

After reviewing 3476 relevant citations, seven articles (five RCTs, two retrospective cohorts) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 1568 patients received perioperative dexamethasone and 1459 patients received a control. Patients receiving perioperative dexamethasone experienced significantly less PPOI based on moderate-quality evidence (three studies, OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.28-0.74, p < 0.01). Time to first flatus was significantly reduced with intravenous dexamethasone. There was no difference between groups in terms of PONV (four studies, OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.64-1.27, p = 0.55), postoperative morbidity (OR 0.93, 95%CI 0.63-1.39, p = 0.74), or rate of postoperative infectious complications (seven studies, OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.55-1.01, p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

This review presents moderate-quality evidence that perioperative intravenous dexamethasone may reduce PPOI and enhance the return of bowel function following elective colorectal surgery. There was no significant observed effect on PONV or postoperative infectious complications.

Prophylactic antiemetic effects of dexamethasone versus 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in ear surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The optimal strategy for reducing the high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after otologic surgical procedures remains inconclusive. Aim of the review This study compared the prophylactic antiemetic effects of dexamethasone with 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3-RAs) in ear surgery. Method PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched up to October 31, 2020 for randomized controlled trials that used dexamethasone either singly or in combination with 5-HT3-RAs for PONV prophylaxis in adults undergoing ear surgery. Studies in languages other than English and those without a control group of 5-HT3-RAs were excluded. Random effects meta-analyses were performed, and risk of bias was assessed using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Main outcome measures include incidences of early (< 6 h) and overall (0-48 h) PONV, the overall requirement for rescue antiemetics, and the occurrence of adverse events. Results Eight trials of 733 adults were included, and the overall risks of bias were generally low. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) of early and overall PONV of dexamethasone versus 5-HT3-RAs were 2.0 (95% CI 0.8-5.1, I² = 82%), and 1.3 (95% CI 0.6-2.6, I² = 86%). In studies comparing dexamethasone plus 5-HT3-RAs with 5-HT3-RAs alone, pooled RRs of early and overall PONV were 0.8 (95% CI 0.4-1.4, I² = 30%), and 0.5 (95% CI 0.3-0.6, I² = 0%), respectively. Pooled RRs of the overall need for rescue antiemetics comparing 5-HT3-RAs with dexamethasone alone and in combination with 5-HT3-RAs were 1.2 (95% CI 0.4-3.9, I² = 73%) and 0.4 (95% CI 0.1-1.4, I² = 61%), respectively. Common adverse events reported were headache and dizziness, and the incidences range from 0 to 10% without significant differences between the groups. Conclusion The prophylactic antiemetic effects of dexamethasone versus 5-HT3-RAs in ear surgery did not significantly differ in the early and overall postoperative phases. The combination of dexamethasone with 5-HT3-RAs showed superior overall PONV prophylactic effects to 5-HT3-RAs alone in ear surgery, but their differences in the need for rescue antiemetics remained non-significant.

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).

[Optimization of Nasal Drug Absorption from Powder Formulations: The Feasibility of Controlling Drug Absorption by the Use of Pharmaceutical Excipients]

Nasal application of powder formulations has garnered attention because of its significant potential for systemic drug delivery. Because a powder drug must first diffuse from the formulation and dissolve in the nasal cavity fluid before transepithelial permeation, dissolution and diffusion are distinct but important factors for nasal drug absorption. Since the formulation is directly administered onto the nasal mucosal surface, the effect of excipients on drug absorption may be significant. Therefore, the influence of excipients on nasal drug absorption was evaluated. Three types of hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) [HPC (SL), HPC (M), and HPC (H)], lactose, and sodium chloride (NaCl) were used as excipients. Warfarin (WF), piroxicam (PXC), sumatriptan (STP), and norfloxacin (NFX) were selected as model drugs. HPC (M) enhanced the absorption of PXC, while both HPC (M) and HPC (H) enhanced the absorption of STP. All three HPCs failed to enhance the absorption of WF. An increase in the polymerization degree of HPCs decreased the diffusion of drugs in HPC solutions, but prolonged their nasal retention. Lactose and NaCl increased the fluid volume on the nasal mucosal surface by increasing the osmotic pressure, thereby enhancing the nasal absorption of PXC and NFX; however, lactose and NaCl accelerated the nasal clearance of these. These results indicate that nasal drug absorption from powder formulations can be controlled by excipients.

Granisetron and Ondansetron for Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Modified Radical Mastectomy

Modified radical mastectomy is associated with a relatively high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was undertaken to evaluate the comparative profile and efficacy of ondansetron and granisetron to prevent PONV after modified radical mastectomy. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, sixty female patients received ondansetron 4 mg, granisetron 1 mg or saline intravenously just before induction of anaesthesia (n=20 for each group). A standardized general anaesthetic technique was employed. The incidence of PONV and adverse events were recorded for the first 24h postoperatively. The incidence of PONV was 25% with ondansetron, 20% with granisetron and 70% with saline (P<0.05, Chi-square test with Yates’ correction factor). The incidence of adverse events was comparable among the groups. Ondansetron and granisetron are both effective for reducing the incidence of PONV in female patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy.

Extended release granisetron: Review of pharmacologic considerations and clinical role in the perioperative setting

In this review, we evaluate recent literature on use of ER granisetron in clinical practice as compared with current antiemetics and describe its potential uses for perioperative PONV prophylaxis and treatment. Recent literature was evaluated on ER granisetron use compared with currently used antiemetic agents ondansetron, droperidol, metoclopramide, promethazine, and dexamethasone with a focus on procedural anti-emesis. Though promising great effect, application of extended release granisetron to clinical use may be limited by it's increased relative cost.

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of granisetron for control of nausea and vomiting during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of granisetron (5HT3 receptor antagonist) on the incidence of nausea and vomiting in cesarean deliveries under spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

In the randomized, double-blind study, 80 parturients received granisetron 40 μg/kg or placebo (n = 40 each) intravenously, immediately after clamping of the fetal umbilical cord. Nausea, vomiting, and adverse events were then observed for 24 h after administration of spinal anesthesia.

RESULTS

A complete response (defined as no postoperative nausea and vomiting) during 0-4 h after administration of spinal anesthesia was achieved in 80 % of patients with granisetron and in 45 % of patients with placebo. The corresponding incidences during (4-24 h) were 82.5 and 55 % (P value <0.05). No difference in adverse events was observed in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic use of granisetron is effective for preventing emetic episodes during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery.

Efficacy comparison of ramosetron with ondansetron on preventing nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients following spine surgery with a single bolus of dexamethasone as an adjunct

BACKGROUND

Despite the development of a new class of antiemetics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) still remains a frequent and distressing complication. We compared the prophylactic antiemetic effect of administering dexamethasone 5 mg as an adjunct to ramosetron and ondansetron in patients at high-risk for PONV following lumbar spinal surgery.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind study, 120 female non-smoking patients with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) received ramosetron 0.3 mg plus dexamethasone 5 mg (group R + D) or ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 5 mg (group O + D) intravenously. Fentanyl-based PCA was administered for 48 hr postoperatively; ramosetron 0.3 mg or ondansetron 12 mg was added to the PCA regimen according to the allocated group. The incidence of PONV and rescue antiemetic were assessed for 48 hr postoperatively at 0-6, 6-24, and 24-48 hr.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PONV did not differ between the groups (50% vs. 60%, in groups R + D and O + D, respectively). The overall incidence of nausea was similar between groups (47% vs. 60%, in groups R + D and O + D, respectively). The overall frequency of vomiting was also similar between groups (8% vs. 12%, in groups R + D and O + D, respectively). The severity of nausea and the overall use of rescue antiemetic were not different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The antiemetic efficacy of ramosetron plus dexamethasone was similar to that of ondansetron plus dexamethasone on preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women scheduled for breast cancer surgery

Breast cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A number of approaches are available for the management of PONV after breast cancer surgery. First, the risk factors related to patient characteristics, surgical procedure, anesthetic technique, and postoperative care can be reduced. More specifically, the use of propofol-based anesthesia can reduce the incidence of PONV. Secondly, a wide range of prophylactic antiemetics, including butyrophenones (droperidol), benzamides (metoclopramide), glucocorticoids (dexamethasone), clonidine, a small dose of propofol, and serotonin receptor (SR) antagonists (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, and palonosetron), are available for preventing PONV. Thirdly, antiemetic therapy combined with granisetron and droperidol or dexamethasone, and a multimodal management strategy which includes a package consisting of dexamethasone, total intravenous anesthesia with propofol, and ondansetron are highly effective in preventing PONV. Unfortunately, the use of glucocorticoids and SR antagonists for preventing PONV is not permitted in Japan according to national health insurance guidelines. Fourth, electro-acupoint stimulation at the P6 point (Nei-Guwan) as a non-pharmacologic therapy is as effective as ondansetron for preventing PONV. Knowledge of the risk factors for PONV, antiemetics, and a non-pharmacologic approach are needed for the management of PONV in women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

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.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

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.

The Use of Oral Granisetron Versus Intravenous Ondansetron for Antiemetic Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery: The Effect on Emetic Symptoms and Quality of Recovery

Based on comparative studies in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, it has been suggested that granisetron would be more effective than ondansetron for the prevention of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). However, there have been no direct comparisons of these two popular 5-HT3 antagonists with respect to PDNV and quality of recovery. We designed this randomized, double-blind study to compare the antiemetic efficacy of oral granisetron (1 mg) to a standard IV dose of ondansetron (4 mg) when administered for antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in a laparoscopic surgical population. A total of 220 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this prospective study at two major medical centers. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two prophylactic treatment groups: the control (ondansetron) group received an oral placebo 1 h before surgery and ondansetron, 4 mg IV, at the end of the surgery, and the granisetron group received granisetron, 1 mg per os, 1 h before surgery, and normal saline, 2 mL IV, at the end of the surgery. The early recovery profiles, requirement for rescue antiemetics, incidence of PDNV, and the side effects were recorded over the 48 h study period. In addition, nausea scores were assessed using an 11-point verbal rating scale at specific intervals in the postoperative period. The quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores were recorded at 48 h after surgery. The demographic characteristics were similar in the two prophylaxis treatment groups, as well as the recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, and hospital discharge. The incidences of PDNV, requirements for rescue antiemetics, and quality of recovery did not differ between the two study groups. The antiemetic drug acquisition costs to achieve comparable patient satisfaction with ondansetron and granisetron were US 25.65 dollars and 47.05 dollars, respectively. Therefore, ondansetron (4 mg IV) was more cost-effective than granisetron (1 mg per os) for routine antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in patients undergoing either outpatient or inpatient laparoscopic surgery.

Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Scheduled for Breast Surgery

Breast surgery performed under general anaesthesia is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Between 60% and 80% of patients undergoing mastectomy (with axillary dissection) experience PONV. Pharmacological approaches have been investigated to reduce PONV after breast surgery. Traditional antiemetics (droperidol and metoclopramide) are frequently used for the prevention of PONV during the first 24 hours after anaesthesia. The available non-traditional antiemetics that have been shown to be effective for prophylaxis against PONV are dexamethasone, clonidine, propofol and supplemental oxygen. Antiserotonins (ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron and ramosetron) are highly effective for preventing PONV for 24 hours postoperatively, compared with traditional antiemetics. Ramosetron is effective for the long-term (up to 48 hours) prevention of PONV. Better results can be obtained by combining antiemetics, because they have different sites of action. Combination antiemetic therapy is often effective for preventing PONV after breast surgery. Combinations of an antiserotonin (granisetron or dolasetron) and droperidol or dexamethasone are more effective than monotherapy with antiserotonins. A non-pharmacological technique is acupuncture at the P6 (Nei-Kuan) point. Overall, these pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches reduce the incidence of PONV following breast surgery. Most of the published trials indicate improved prophylaxis of PONV following breast surgery by avoiding risk factors, and by using effective antiemetic agents in women scheduled for mastectomy (with axillary dissection). The clinician must weigh the benefits of using pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches for PONV against the risk of occurrence of adverse events.

The efficacy of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists combined with droperidol for PONV prophylaxis is similar to their combination with dexamethasone. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The aim of this quantitative systematic review is to compare the efficacy and side effects of combining one of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT) with droperidol or dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials that compared the antiemetic efficacy of combining one of the 5-HT with droperidol or dexamethasone vs 5-HT alone. Relevant endpoints were prevention of early (0 to 6 hr), and overall (0 to 24 hr) PONV, and side effects. The articles that could meet the inclusion criteria were scored for inclusion and methodological validity using the three-item, five-point, Oxford-scale. Relative risk and numbers needed-to-treat with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each combination vs 5-HT alone. The two combinations were then indirectly compared. A random effects model was used.

RESULTS

We considered 41 trials for analysis but subsequently excluded eight. Thirty-three trials with data from 3,447 patients were analyzed. Except for early nausea with the 5-HT plus droperidol, both combinations were significantly more effective than 5-HT in preventing early and overall PONV. There was no difference in antiemetic efficacy between the two combinations. The incidence of commonly reported side effects was also similar in the two combination groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that there is no statistically significant difference in antiemetic efficacy or side effects profile when one of the 5-HT is combined with either droperidol or dexamethasone and that both combination regimens are significantly more effective than 5-HT alone.

An audit of post-operative nausea and vomiting, following cardiac surgery: scope of the problem

Post-operative nausea and vomiting is a major problem for patients following cardiac surgery. The literature in this area identifies that there are a number of individual patient and post-operative factors which increase the risk of post-operative nausea and vomiting, including female gender, non-smoker, age, use of opioids, pain and anxiety. An audit involving 200 patients, who had undergone cardiac surgery was implemented to assess/evaluate the incidence of nausea and vomiting for this patient group. Data collected included information relating to nausea and vomiting, pain, consumption of morphine and other individual patient variables. The results suggest that nausea and vomiting, is experienced by a large number of patients after cardiac surgery (67%), with the majority suffering on the first day after surgery. The duration of nausea and vomiting for most is short, but for a significant number (7%) it can last up to one-quarter of their initial post-operative course. The paper discusses key implications for practice arising from this project.

Pharmacotherapy of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are two of the most common and unpleasant side effects following anaesthesia and surgery. Despite the development of new anti-emetics and a vast amount of published research, PONV continues to be a problem, especially in high-risk patients. Recent interest has focused on the use of a combination of agents, acting on different receptors and the adoption of a multimodal approach to tackle this problem. The search for the most cost-effective strategy has also been a major goal. This article will discuss the risk factors and physiology of PONV, currently available therapies, the use of a multimodal approach and the cost-effectiveness of PONV management. Finally, recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of PONV will be discussed.

Intravenous droperidol causes a reduction in the bispectral index in propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia

We investigated the effect of IV droperidol on the bispectral index (BIS) in conscious and propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia. Thirty minutes after the induction of spinal anesthesia, 20 patients were given 2 mg of droperidol IV without administration of other sedatives (conscious group). Another group of patients were sedated with a propofol infusion to maintain BIS at 60 +/- 5 and were administered IV saline (placebo group; n = 20), droperidol 1 mg (dro-1 group; n = 20), or droperidol 2 mg (dro-2 group; n = 20) in a randomized order and in a double-blinded fashion. Although BIS remained the same in the conscious and placebo groups, it significantly decreased after administration of droperidol in the dro-1 and dro-2 groups. The decrease in BIS was significantly larger in the dro-2 group than in the dro-1 group. These results suggest that an antiemetic dose of droperidol enhances the hypnotic effect of propofol in a dose-dependent manner during spinal anesthesia.

IMPLICATIONS

An antiemetic dose of IV droperidol causes a decrease in the bispectral index in patients sedated with propofol during spinal anesthesia. We conclude that droperidol may enhance the hypnotic effect of propofol.

Comparison of granisetron and granisetron plus dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomies are associated with an appreciably high rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of granisetron plus dexamethasone with granisetron alone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind study, 120 patients of both sexes received granisetron 40 micro g kg-1 alone or granisetron 40 micro g kg-1 plus dexamethasone 8 mg (n=60 of each) intravenously immediately before induction of anesthesia. Perioperative anesthetic care was standardized in all patients. Patients were then observed for 24 h after administration of the study drug.

RESULTS

A complete response (defined as no PONV and no need for another rescue antiemetic) was achieved in 83% of the patients given granisetron and in 95% of the patients given granisetron plus dexamethasone (P<0.05). The overall cumulative incidences (0-24 h) of PONV were 11 (18.3%) in the granisetron and three (5%) in the combination group. No difference in adverse events were observed in any of the groups.

CONCLUSION

The combination (granisetron plus dexamethasone) further increases the chance of complete response than granisetron alone. Therefore, the combination might be considered clinically relevant in a high risk setting.

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Combination Antiemetic Regimens for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting : Focus on High-Risk Patients

None of the available antiemetics is entirely effective, perhaps because most of them act through the blockade of one receptor. There is a possibility that a combination of antiemetics with different sites of activity would be more effective than one drug alone for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).The clinical use of combined traditional antiemetics, including antihistamines (e.g. diphenhydramine), butyrophenones (e.g. droperidol) and benzamides (e.g. metoclopramide), for the prevention of PONV is limited because of the possibility of additive central nervous system toxicity, such as delayed emergence, drowsiness and extrapyramidal reactions. The efficacy of a combination of a serotonin 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist (ondansetron, granisetron or tropisetron) and dexamethasone is superior to that of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists alone for the prevention of PONV, suggesting that dexamethasone enhances the antiemetic efficacy of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists. The combination of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist with a traditional antiemetic (droperidol, metoclopramide or promethazine) acting at a different emetogenic receptor is more effective in reducing the incidence of PONV than each antiemetic alone acting at one receptor site. The risk of undesirable adverse effects does not increase with the combination of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist and a traditional antiemetic at the doses commonly used for PONV, because of the absence of drug interactions. The combination of a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist (ondansetron) with other agents (propofol and CP-122721) reduces the incidence of PONV to a greater degree than monotherapy. However, no data are available for the combination of 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and small doses of propofol for the prevention of PONV.Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination antiemetic regimens for PONV. Knowledge regarding combinations of these antiemetic drugs may be necessary to completely prevent PONV.

Impact of antiemetic selection on postoperative nausea and vomiting and patient satisfaction

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of antiemetic selection on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and patient satisfaction after ambulatory surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Ambulatory surgery center in an academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Five hundred fifty-four consecutive patients undergoing ambulatory surgical procedures of any kind.

INTERVENTION

Data on antiemetic utilization, occurrence of PONV, and patient satisfaction were collected perioperatively. Multiple regression analyses for antiemetic choice were performed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Prophylactic antiemetic therapy was administered to 292 (52.7%) patients, most often with droperidol (200 patients), metoclopramide (134), or dexamethasone (55). Forty-one (7.4%) patients had an episode of emesis in the postanesthesia care unit. Choice of antiemetic was not a significant predictor of PONV. Patient satisfaction for all patients was 9.5 on a 10-point scale, with no agent more or less successful than any other.

CONCLUSION

As choice of antiemetic drug given for prophylaxis had little impact on clinical outcome or patient satisfaction, traditional agents should form the core of antiemetics used for PONV prophylaxis in ambulatory surgery patients.

Prospective randomized, double-blind comparative study of dexamethasone, ondansetron, and ondansetron plus dexamethasone as prophylactic antiemetic therapy in patients undergoing day-case gynaecological surgery

Dexamethasone alone and in combination with selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists is of benefit in the prophylaxis of post-operative nausea and vomiting. In this study, the effectiveness of such a combination in comparison to either drug alone is investigated in day case gynaecological surgery. A total of 177 patients were randomized to three treatment groups: dexamethasone 8 mg, ondansetron 4 mg, and dexamethasone 8 mg plus ondansetron 4 mg. The only significant difference between groups was seen in the first 3 h when failure of prophylaxis was more frequent in patients who had received dexamethasone alone (P=0.0085; Fisher's exact probability test). Confidence interval analysis indicates a modest treatment effect for the combination and the decision whether to perform a larger study depends upon whether such an effect is clinically relevant.

Combination therapy for postoperative nausea and vomiting - a more effective prophylaxis?

The problem of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains far from being resolved. Despite the introduction of new classes of antiemetics and a vast amount of published research, there is a general impression that there has been little progress in this area. The multifactorial etiology of PONV might be better addressed using a combination of drugs acting at different receptor sites. This approach of balanced antiemesis may be the answer towards achieving a significant improvement in the management of PONV. This article will cover the different strategies used to prevent PONV with particular emphasis on combination antiemetics. A review of the currently available methods to manage PONV as well as the physiological and pharmacological basis of combination therapy is presented.