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

Comparison of aprepitant versus ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background and Aims

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after surgery. Preventing PONV in high-risk patients often requires a multimodal approach combining antiemetic drugs with diverse mechanisms. While aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is recognised as highly effective for PONV prevention, uncertainties remain regarding its effectiveness.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The analysis assessed the effectiveness of aprepitant (A), aprepitant plus ondansetron (AO) and aprepitant plus dexamethasone and ondansetron (ADO) in preventing PONV compared to ondansetron alone (O) or in combination with dexamethasone (DO).

Results

In the analysis of 12 studies involving 2729 patients, aprepitant demonstrated significant efficacy in preventing PONV compared to ondansetron alone (A versus [vs.] O: PONV incidence 12.5% vs. 28.5%, relative risk [RR] = 0.45, P < 0.001; complete response rate 55.97% vs. 50.35%, RR = 1.13, P = 0.010). The combination of aprepitant with ondansetron (AO) also showed a significantly lower incidence of PONV compared to ondansetron alone (11.3% vs. 26.8%, RR = 0.43, P < 0.001) and a higher complete response rate (38.1% vs. 26.84%, RR = 1.41, P = 0.020). In addition, ADO significantly reduced PONV incidence compared to DO (ADO vs. DO: 13.63% vs. 35.38%, RR = 0.38, P = 0.006).

Conclusion

Aprepitant, whether used alone or in combination with ondansetron or both ondansetron and dexamethasone, consistently outperforms ondansetron in achieving a complete response as it lowers vomiting rates and reduces the need for rescue therapy during the crucial 24-48-h postoperative period.

Assessing the impact of aprepitant and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting in orthognathic surgeries: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common side effect associated with general anesthesia. Both ondansetron and aprepitant been effectively used to prevent PONV. However, there is a disagreement of opinions regarding the superiority of these two drugs. This study aims to compare the efficacy of aprepitant with ondansetron in preventing PONV following orthognathic surgeries.

METHODS

In this double-blinded clinical trial, 80 patients scheduled for orthognathic surgery at Imam Hossein Hospital, Tehran, Iran, were randomly assigned to two groups. A standardized anesthesia protocol was used for all patients. The first group received a placebo capsule administered one hour before the surgical procedure along with 4 mg (2 ml) of ondansetron intravenously after anesthesia induction. The second group was given 80 mg aprepitant capsules one hour before the surgery, followed by an injection of 2 ml intravenous distilled water after anesthesia induction. The occurrence and severity of PONV, the amount of rescue medication required, and the complete response of patients assessed within 24 h after the surgery.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. Patients in the aprepitant group had a significantly lower incidence and severity of nausea (2.5% versus 27.5%), vomiting (5% versus 25%), and required fewer rescue medications (7.5% versus 62.5%) compared to the ondansetron group. Additionally, the aprepitant group showed a higher complete response rate (90% versus 67.5%) in the 0-2 and 12-24 postoperative hours.

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of this study, aprepitant has demonstrated a greater efficacy in preventing PONV following orthognathic surgery, when compared to ondansetron.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT code: IRCT20211205053279N3), date of registration: 16/12/2022.

The use of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are adverse effects after surgery, which may increase the risk of complications. Aprepitant is a neurokinin-1 receptor blocker and has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and PONV. However, its role in endoscopic skull base surgery remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of aprepitant in reducing PONV in endoscopic transsphenoidal (TSA) pituitary surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review between July 2021 and January 2023 of 127 consecutive patients who underwent TSA was performed at a tertiary academic institution. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on preoperative aprepitant use. Two groups were matched based on known risk factors of PONV (age, sex, nonsmoking, and history of PONV). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcome measures included the number of anti-emetic use, length of stay, and postoperative cererebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak.

RESULTS

After matching, 48 patients were included in each group. The aprepitant group demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of vomiting than the non-aprepitant group (2.1% vs 22.9%, p = 0.002). The number of nausea episodes and anti-emetic use decreased with aprepitant use (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of nausea, length of stay, or postoperative CSF leak. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that aprepitant decreased the incidence of postoperative vomiting with odds ratio of 0.107.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant may serve as a useful preoperative treatment to reduce PONV in patients undergoing TSA. Further studies are needed to evaluate its impact in other arenas of endoscopic skull base surgery.

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

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

An assessment of the effects of neurokinin1 receptor antagonism against nausea and vomiting: Relative efficacy, sites of action and lessons for future drug development

A broad-spectrum anti-vomiting effect of neurokinin1 receptor antagonists (NK1 RA), shown in pre-clinical animal studies, has been supported by a more limited range of clinical studies in different indications. However, this review suggests that compared with vomiting, the self-reported sensation of nausea is less affected or possibly unaffected (depending on the stimulus) by NK1 receptor antagonism, a common finding for anti-emetics. The stimulus-independent effects of NK1 RAs against vomiting are explicable by actions within the central pattern generator (ventral brainstem) and the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS; dorsal brainstem), with additional effects on vagal afferent activity for certain stimuli (e.g., highly emetogenic chemotherapy). The central pattern generator and NTS neurones are multifunctional so the notable lack of obvious effects of NK1 RAs on other reflexes mediated by the same neurones suggests that their anti-vomiting action is dependent on the activation state of the pathway leading to vomiting. Nausea requires activation of cerebral pathways by projection of information from the NTS. Although NK1 receptors are present in cerebral nuclei implicated in nausea, and imaging studies show very high receptor occupancy at clinically used doses, the variable or limited ability of NK1 RAs to inhibit nausea emphasizes: (i) our inadequate understanding of the mechanisms of nausea; and (ii) that classification of a drug as an anti-emetic may give a false impression of efficacy against nausea vs. vomiting. We discuss the potential mechanisms for the differential efficacy of NK1 RA and the implications for future development of drugs that can effectively treat nausea, an area of unmet clinical need.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Despite the availability of several classes of antiemetics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a substantial burden for patients following surgery, resulting in patient dissatisfaction and prolonged stays in post-anesthesia care units and ultimately increasing the cost of care. Enhanced recovery protocols and PONV management guidelines are now centered on the assessment of the individual patient's risk for developing PONV, as well as multimodal prophylaxis using antiemetics targeting different mechanisms of action. Over the last two decades, the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) has emerged as a therapeutic target for the management of PONV. This review of the literature explains the role of the NK1R and its ligand-substance P-in vomiting, describes the pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties of NK1R antagonists (NK1RAs) and summarizes the clinical evidence supporting NK1RAs for PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery. In particular, we discuss the therapeutic application of NK1RA in PONV prophylaxis protocols owing to their advantages over other antiemetic classes in efficacy, duration of efficacy, safety, pharmacology, and ease of administration. Future studies will be aimed at further investigating the efficacy and safety of NK1RA-based multimodal combinations, particularly among vulnerable populations (e.g., children and elderly).

Patient-reported nausea after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for gynae-oncology patients

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze the adherence to strategies to prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for gynae-oncology patients. Patient-reported nausea before and after ERAS was also studied.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included all patients undergoing laparotomy for a suspicious pelvic mass or confirmed advanced ovarian cancer before (pre-ERAS) and after the implementation of ERAS (post-ERAS) at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Patients were a priori stratified according to the planned extent of surgery into two cohorts (Cohort 1: Surgery of advanced disease; Cohort 2: Surgery for a suspicious pelvic tumor). Clinical data including baseline characteristics and outcome data were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients were included, 243 pre-ERAS and 196 post-ERAS. At baseline, 27% of the patients reported any grade of nausea. In the post-ERAS cohort, statistically significantly more patients received double post-operative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (64% pre-ERAS vs 84% post-ERAS, p<0.0001). There was no difference in the need for rescue medication (82% pre-ERAS vs 79% post-ERAS; p=0.17) and no statistically significant difference between pre- and post-ERAS or between the surgical cohorts in patient-reported nausea of any grade on day 2. Patients who reported none/mild nausea on day 2 had significantly less peri-operative fluid administered during surgery than those who reported moderate or severe nausea (median 12.5 mL/kg/hour vs 16.5 mL/kg/hour, p=0.045) but, in multivariable analysis, fluid management did not remain significantly associated with nausea.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an ERAS protocol increased the adherence to post-operative nausea and vomiting prevention guidelines. Nausea, both before and after laparotomy, remains an unmet clinical need of gynae-oncology patients also in an ERAS program. Patient-reported outcome measures warrant further investigation in the evaluation of ERAS.

The efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common adverse reactions after surgery. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antiemetic drugs suggest that aprepitant has the strongest antiemetic effect of any single drug. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of aprepitant for preventing PONV based on the existing literature.

METHODS

To identify RCTs investigating the use of aprepitant for PONV prevention, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published prior to March 20, 2022. Seventeen RCTs were identified, with 3299 patients, meeting the inclusion criteria. PONV incidence, complete response, 80 mg aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and ondansetron, vomiting, nausea, and analgesic dose-response were the main outcomes measured.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, PONV incidence was significantly reduced among those receiving aprepitant (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26, 0.44; P < .0001), with a more complete response (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.59; P = .0004). Supplementation of 80 mg aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron substantially improved the effects of PONV (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.82; P = .01). Further, administration of 80 mg aprepitant was better at preventing vomiting than nausea (OR: 8.6; 95% CI: 3.84, 19. 29; P < .00001). No statistically significant difference between the dose-response of analgesics was identified (mean difference: -1.09; 95% CI: -6.48, 4.30; P = .69). The risk of bias was assessed independently by paired evaluators.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant effectively reduces the incidence of PONV; however, the effects of postoperative analgesia require further exploration.

Postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) in children: A review and observational study

Postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) cause substantial pediatric morbidity with potentially serious postoperative complications. However, few studies have addressed PDNV prevention and treatment in pediatric patients. Here we searched the literature and processed it in a narrative review describing PDNV incidence, risk factors, and management in pediatric patients.. A successful strategy for reducing PDNV considers both the pharmacokinetics of the antiemetic agents and the principle of multimodal prophylaxis, utilizing agents of different pharmacologic classes. Since many highly effective antiemetic agents have relatively short half-lives, a different approach must be used to prevent PDNV. A combination of oral and intravenous medications with longer half-lives, such as palonosetron or aprepitant, can be used. In addition, we designed a prospective observational study with the primary objective of determining PDNV incidence. In our study group of 205 children, the overall PDNV incidence was 14.6% (30 of 205), including 21 children suffering from nausea and 9 suffering from vomiting.

A pharmacological overview of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 30% of all patients undergoing surgery and up to 80% of high-risk patients. Antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis target a variety of receptor systems, with varying degrees of efficacy and side effect profile. Neurokinin -1 receptor antagonists are the most recent class of compounds investigated for PONV prophylaxis, with aprepitant being the only one currently approved for this indication.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pathophysiology of PONV, current recommendations for PONV prophylaxis, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of aprepitant, and the evidence for its efficacy in the management of PONV as a single agent and in combination therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Aprepitant is effective for PONV prophylaxis. It has superior antivomiting efficacy, long half-life, and favorable side effect profile. Data on antiemetic combinations involving aprepitant are limited, and it not clear if the addition of other antiemetics to aprepitant result in improved PONV prophylaxis. The oral route of administration of aprepitant is a potential limitation in a busy clinical practice. However, the recent approval of an intravenous formulation could provide a more convenient route of administration. Aprepitant remains more expensive than other antiemetics, and there are no studies assessing the cost effectiveness of its use.

Investigating the Association Between a Risk-Directed Prophylaxis Protocol and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Validation in a Low-Income Setting

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prevention protocols in low-income countries is not well known. Different surgical procedures, available medications, and co-occurring diseases imply that existing protocols may need validation in these settings. We assessed the association of a risk-directed PONV prevention protocol on the incidence of PONV and short-term surgical outcomes in a teaching hospital in Rwanda.

METHODS

We compared the incidence of PONV during the first 48 hours postoperatively before (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2019; preintervention) and immediately after (July 1, 2019-September 30, 2019; postintervention) implementing an Apfel score-based PONV prevention strategy in 116 adult patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgery at Kigali University Teaching Hospital in Rwanda. Secondary outcomes included time to first oral intake, hospital length of stay, and rate of wound dehiscence. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to assess the associated temporal slopes of the outcome before and immediately after implementation of the risk-directed PONV prevention protocol.

RESULTS

Compared to just before the intervention, there was no change in the odds of PONV at the beginning of the postintervention period (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-1.01). There was a decreasing trend in the odds of nausea (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97) per month. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea immediately after implementation of the protocol (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.25-3.72) or in the slope between preintervention and postintervention periods (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.60-3.65). In contrast, there was no change in the odds of vomiting during the preintervention period (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.61-1.67) per month. The odds of vomiting decreased at the beginning of the postintervention period compared to just before (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.47; P = .004). Finally, there was a significant decrease in the average time to first oral intake (estimated 14 hours less; 95% CI, -25 to -3) when the protocol was first implemented, after adjusting for confounders; however, there was no difference in the slope of the average time to first oral intake between the 2 periods ( P = .44).

CONCLUSIONS

A risk-directed PONV prophylaxis protocol was associated with reduced vomiting and time to first oral intake after implementation. There was no substantial difference in the slopes of vomiting incidence and time to first oral intake before and after implementation.

A Randomized Controlled Trial for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Aprepitant/Dexamethasone vs. Mirtazapine/Dexamethasone

Background

Coadministration of different antiemetics proved to decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). This trial compared aprepitant/dexamethasone (A/D) combination vs mirtazapine/dexamethasone (M/D) combination vs dexamethasone (D) alone for prevention of PONV in morbidly obese patients undergoing LSG.

Methods

Ninety patients scheduled for LSG were randomly allocated to receive 8 mg dexamethasone intravenous infusion (IVI) only in the D group or in addition to 80 mg aprepitant capsule in the A/D group or in addition to 30 mg mirtazapine tablet in the M/D group. Assessment of PONV was carried out at 0-2 h (early) and 2-24 h (late). The primary outcome was the complete response 0-24 h after surgery. Collective PONV, postoperative pain, side effects and patient satisfaction score were considered as secondary outcomes.

Results

The A/D and M/D groups were superior to the D group for a complete response within 0-24 h after surgery (79.3% for the A/D group, 78.6% for the M/D group, and 20.7% for the D group). The D group was inferior to the A/D and M/D groups regarding collective PONV and use of rescue antiemetic 0-24 h after surgery (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). The peak nausea scores (2-24 h) were significantly reduced in the M/D group in comparison to the D group (P=0.005). Patients in the M/D group showed high sedation scores, while those in the A/D group showed low pain scores (2-24 h) and less analgesic requirements (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). The A/D and M/D groups were superior to the D group with regard to the patient satisfaction score (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Aprepitant/dexamethasone combination and mirtazapine/dexamethasone combination were superior to dexamethasone alone in alleviating postoperative nausea and vomiting in morbidly obese patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04013386.

comparison of palonosetron and aprepitant for prevention of post operative nausea and vomiting in females undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy under general anesthesia

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the second most common complaint following pain after surgery. In this era of daycare and outpatient-based surgery, PONV is the cause of delayed recovery and discharge from hospital settings. This study was designed to compare Palonosetron and Aprepitant for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy under general anesthesia. Methods: 70 patients were included in this randomized double-blind study. Each group was allocated to receive either 0.075 mg of intravenous Palonosetron or 40mg of oral Aprepitant for PONV prophylaxis. A standard regimen of general anesthesia was administered to both groups for surgery. The primary outcome was the PONV impact severity scale (PISS) score at 48 hours following surgery in both groups. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of clinically significant PONV in both groups and the requirement of rescue antiemetics.  Results: Mean PISS score at 48 hours was significantly lower (0.91±0.13 vs 3.43±0.2) in the Palonosetron group than in the Aprepitant Group. Incidence of PONV (16/35 vs 33/35) was significantly lower with Palonosetron. Incidence of clinically significant PONV and requirement of rescue antiemetics was significantly lower (2/35 vs 13/35) in the Palonosetron group. 

Neurokinin-1 Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the second most frequent adverse events after surgery second only to postoperative pain. Despite the advances in antiemetics and implementation of multimodal prophylactic interventions, the clinical management of PONV remains problematic. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor is a tachykinin receptor found throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems, with a particular affinity towards substance P. NK-1 receptors interact with several parts of the neuronal pathway for nausea and vomiting. This includes the chemoreceptor trigger zone, the gastrointestinal tract, and dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus. NK-1 antagonists are thought to prevent nausea and vomiting by downregulating the emetogenic signals at those points. As more head-to-head trials are conducted between the various anti-emetics, there is emerging evidence that NK-1 antagonists may be more effective in preventing PONV than several other antiemetics currently in use. In this review, we will discuss the pharmacology of NK-1 antagonists, their efficacy in clinical practice, and how they could fit into the framework of PONV management.

Risk Factors of Postoperative Vomiting in the Eye of "Real-World Evidence"-Modifiable and Clinical Setting-Dependent Risk Factors in Surgical Trauma Patients

Numerous studies on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have been carried out since the early days of contemporary surgery. The incidence of PONV has been greatly reduced in recent years and new drugs for PONV keep evolving in the market; however, a substantial number of patients are still under the threat of PONV. Female gender, non-smokers, a history of PONV/motion sickness, and postoperative opioid use are four well-recognized risk factors of PONV. Many potential risk factors reported in previous studies were not consistently presented as predictors for PONV. Two questions then arise; are risk factors clinical setting dependent and are risk factors modifiable? We attempted to answer the questions through a comprehensive review of perioperative records of surgical patients from the Trauma Department of our hospital. As nausea is subjective and no standard is applicable for its measurement, postoperative vomiting (POV) was used as an endpoint in this study. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to address the POV issue in surgical trauma patients. A total of 855 patients were enrolled in this study after excluding age below 20 years old, total intravenous anesthesia, desflurane anesthesia, or records with missing data. Our results showed that female gender (OR 4.89) is the strongest predicting factor, followed by a less potent predicting factor—more intraoperative opioid consumption (OR 1.07)—which favor more POV. More intraoperative crystalloid supply (OR 0.71) and a higher body weight (OR 0.9) favor less POV. Other potential risk factors did not reach statistical significance in this study as independent risk factors. Our results also showed that when the intraoperative crystalloid infusion rate is greater than 4 mL/kg/h (OR 0.20), it favors a lower rate of POV; when intraoperative opioid consumption is greater than 12 mg morphine equivalents, MME (OR 1.87), it favors a higher rate of POV. We concluded that dominance of any independent risk factor over other risk factors depends on how individual factors interact with the clinical setting. Some risk factors could be modified, and a cut-off value could be derived to facilitate a better plan for POV prevention.

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

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

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).

A Single Prophylactic Dose of Ondansetron Given at Cessation of Postoperative Propofol Sedation Decreases Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common occurrence after cardiac surgery. However, in contrast to other surgical populations, routine PONV prophylaxis is not a standard of care in cardiac surgery. We hypothesized that routine administration of a single prophylactic dose of ondansetron (4 mg) at the time of stopping postoperative propofol sedation before extubation in the cardiac surgery intensive care unit would decrease the incidence of PONV.

METHODS

With institutional human ethics board approval and written informed consent, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients ≥19 years of age with no history of PONV undergoing elective or urgent cardiac surgery procedures requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV in the first 24 hours postextubation, compared by the χ test. Secondary outcomes included the incidence and times to first dose of rescue antiemetic treatment administration, the incidence of headaches, and the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias.

RESULTS

PONV within the first 24 hours postextubation occurred in 33 of 77 patients (43%) in the ondansetron group versus 50 of 82 patients (61%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.70 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51-0.95]; absolute risk difference, -18% [95% CI, -33 to -2]; number needed to treat, 5.5 [95% CI, 3.0-58.4]; χ test, P = .022). Kaplan-Meier "survival" analysis of the times to first rescue antiemetic treatment administration over 24 hours indicated that patients in the ondansetron group fared better than those in the placebo group (log-rank [Mantel-Cox] test; P = .028). Overall, 32 of 77 patients (42%) in the ondansetron group received rescue antiemetic treatment over the first 24 hours postextubation versus 47 of 82 patients (57%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.52-1.00]; absolute risk difference, -16% [95% CI, -31 to 1]); P = .047. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of postoperative headache (ondansetron group, 5 of 77 patients [6%] versus placebo group, 4 of 82 patients [5%]; Fisher exact test; P = .740) or ventricular arrhythmias (ondansetron group, 2 of 77 patients [3%] versus placebo group, 4 of 82 patients [5%]; P = .68).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the routine administration of ondansetron prophylaxis at the time of discontinuation of postoperative propofol sedation before extubation in patients following cardiac surgery. Further research is warranted to optimize PONV prophylaxis in cardiac surgery patients.

Bayesian Design for Pediatric Clinical Trials with Binary Endpoints When Borrowing Historical Information of Treatment Effect

The efficacy evaluation in pediatric population is an important component of drug development and is generally required by the regulatory agencies. It is often challenging to enroll pediatric subjects for a large trial especially when the incidence rate is low in certain disease areas. Bayesian framework can provide analytic avenues to effectively utilize historical information of the treatment effect and help make pediatric trials more efficient by reducing the sample size when there is evidence to suggest similarity of the treatment responses between the populations. Schoenfeld et al. (Clin Trials 6(4):297-304, 2009) proposed a Bayesian hierarchical model for efficacy extrapolation for continuous endpoints, which connects a single historical trial and the current trial by a variance parameter in the prior distribution. In this manuscript, we extend the existing model to borrow strength from multiple historical trials under the same assumptions and develop a quantitative method to borrow historical information more efficiently. Furthermore, we extend Schoenfeld's method based on continuous endpoints to binary endpoints with a hierarchical binomial model to extrapolate efficacy. Sensitivity analyses for the underlying assumptions are discussed with simulations and the methods are illustrated with a real case study, along with some practical considerations about how to choose the prior distribution.

[Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

BACKGROUND

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of general anesthesia. Several kinds of antiemetics, including 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists and Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, have been used to treat PONV.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the antiemetic effect of NK-1 receptor antagonists, including fosaprepitant.

DATA SOURCES

Online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library databases) were used.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) performed in patients over 18 years with ASA-PS of I-III, aimed to assess the efficacy of antiemetics including NK-1 receptor antagonists and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and compared the incidence of PONV were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

All statistical assessments were conducted by a random effect approach and odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Aprepitant 40mg and 80mg significantly reduced the incidence of vomiting 0-24hours postoperatively (Odds Ratio [OR = 0.40]; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 0.30-0.54]; p < 0.001, and OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.56; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant could also reduce the incidence of vomiting significantly both 0-24h and 0-48hours postoperatively (OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; p < 0.001 and OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.23; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Risk factors for PONV are not considered, RCTs using multiple antiemetics are included, RCTs for fosaprepitant is small, and some bias may be present.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant can be effective prophylactic antiemetics for postoperative vomiting. However, more studies are required for higher-quality meta-analyses.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019120188.

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

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

An update on the management of PONV in a pediatric patient

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major cause of patient dissatisfaction following anesthesia. The difficulty in diagnosing nausea in much of the pediatric population has led to an emphasis on anti-emetic prophylaxis for all. Assessment scores and prognostic tools enable the anesthesiologist to identify patients who are at a greater risk and appropriately apply more aggressive prophylactic, multi-drug strategies. New antiemetics emerging from other medical disciplines, particularly oncology, may have potential use in prophylaxis and treatment of nausea and vomiting in the pediatric surgical population. New agents, many of which have a long duration of action, will augment the anesthesiologist's ability to adequately prevent PONV, and to treat persistent nausea and vomiting that extend beyond the immediate post-operative period.

A pharmacological profile of intravenous amisulpride for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

The issue of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains important in surgical practice, contributing to patient distress, slower recovery, and increased use of healthcare resources. Many surgical patients report it to be a worse problem than the pain. New antiemetics of different classes are still needed to help manage PONV effectively, especially the treatment of established PONV after the failure of common prophylactic antiemetics such as 5-HT₃-antagonists and corticosteroids. Intravenous amisulpride, a drug with a long history of safe use in oral form as an antipsychotic, has recently been approved in the US (trade name: Barhemsys) as an intravenous antiemetic for the prevention and treatment of PONV.

AREAS COVERED

This review article summarizes the published data on the clinical pharmacology, safety, and efficacy of intravenous amisulpride as an antiemetic, supplemented by published data on oral amisulpride, where relevant to the intravenous form. Literature was obtained via the PubMed search terms 'intravenous amisulpride' and 'amisulpride AND safety.' Both primary and secondary pharmacology are covered, along with clinical pharmacokinetics (distribution, metabolism, and excretion). The review of clinical safety and efficacy includes data from four studies in the prevention of PONV, two in the treatment of PONV and two investigating effects on the QT interval of the electrocardiogram in healthy volunteers.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the importance of sufficient PONV prevention for patients and the healthcare system, the availability of intravenous amisulpride is helpful, restoring the dopamine-antagonist class as a potential mainstay in both combination prophylaxis and treatment.

Perioperative Administration of Emend® (Aprepitant) at a Tertiary Care Children's Hospital: A 12-Month Survey

Introduction

Aprepitant (Emend^®) is a novel antiemetic agent that works through antagonism of neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptors. To date, there are limited data regarding its use to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in children. We retrospectively reviewed our initial 12-months experience with aprepitant after it was made available for perioperative use.

Methods

The anesthetic records of patients who received aprepitant were retrospectively reviewed and demographic, surgical, and medication data retrieved.

Results

The study cohort included 31 patients (15 male and 16 female) ranging in age from 4 to 27 years (15.7 ± 7.4 years) and in weight from 14.4 to 175.7 kilograms (59.3 ± 30.2 kgs). Most of the patients (30 of 31) received the capsule form and 1 received the liquid. The average dose of aprepitant administered was 0.9 ± 0.6 mg/kg; however, only one patient received dosing expressed as mg/kg, and the majority received a 40 mg capsule. All of the patients in the cohort had either a previous history of PONV or risk factors for PONV. PONV occurred in the PACU in 1 patient and during the first 24 postoperative hours in 3 additional patients. No adverse effects related to aprepitant use were noted.

Conclusion

Aprepitant was easily added to the preoperative regimen for pediatric patients who may require it. Our approach limited overuse and subsequent cost concerns. Future studies with a comparator group and a greater sample size are needed to demonstrate its efficacy, especially in comparison to time-honored agents such as ondansetron. No adverse effects were noted in our limited study cohort.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in pediatric subjects

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

This multicenter, randomized, partially-blinded phase IIb study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK)/pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of aprepitant in pediatric subjects for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Subjects aged birth to 17 years scheduled to undergo surgery and receive general anesthesia with ≥1 risk factor for PONV were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 aprepitant dose regimens (a single oral dose of aprepitant equivalent to adult doses of 10 mg, 40 mg, or 125 mg), or a control regimen of ondansetron before anesthesia. Assessments included PK, safety, and exploratory efficacy (complete response [CR; no emesis, retching, or dry heaves and no rescue therapy within 0-24 h following surgery] and no vomiting [NV; no emesis, retching, or dry heaves within 0-24 h following surgery]).

RESULTS

Of 220 randomized and treated subjects, 119 receiving a single aprepitant dose were sampled for PK analysis and had evaluable aprepitant plasma concentrations. A dose-dependent relationship in exposure (AUC0-8 h and Cmax) was observed. Aprepitant was generally well tolerated, and the CR and NV rates were high (>80%) across treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PK, safety, and preliminary efficacy analyses support further clinical evaluation of aprepitant for PONV prophylaxis in pediatric patients. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV ID

NCT01732458 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level I.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: comparison of two prophylactic antiemetic regimens

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) provide optimal perioperative care for surgical patients. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after colorectal surgery (CRS). We aim to compare the efficacy of aprepitant to a cost-effective alternative, perphenazine, as components of triple antiemetic prophylaxis in ERP patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ERP CRS at a single institution from July 2015 to July 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Only subjects who received aprepitant (Group 1) or perphenazine (Group 2) preoperatively for PONV prophylaxis were included. Patient characteristics, simplified Apfel PONV scores, perioperative medications, and PONV incidence were compared between the groups. PONV was defined as the need for rescue antiemetics on postoperative days (POD) 0-5.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-seven patients underwent CRS of which 498 met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty-one (46.4%) received aprepitant and 267 (53.6%) received perphenazine. The incidence of early PONV (POD 0-1) was comparable between the two groups: 44.2% in Group 1 and 44.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.926). Late PONV (POD 2-5) occurred less often in Group 1 than Group 2, respectively (35.9% vs. 45.7%, P = 0.027). After matching the groups for preoperative, procedural, and anesthesia characteristics (164 pairs), no difference in early or late PONV could be demonstrated between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PONV remains high despite most patients receiving three prophylactic antiemetic medications. Perphenazine can be considered a cost-effective alternative to oral aprepitant for prophylaxis of PONV in patients undergoing CRS within an ERP.

Effect of multimodal intervention on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery, and achieving good results is difficult with a single antiemetic method. This study investigated whether multimodal intervention can reduce PONV in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

A total of 153 patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomized into the control group and multimodal group. Patients in the multimodal group received dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg intravenously 15 minutes before induction of anesthesia. A bilateral transversus abdominis plane block was performed with 0.375% ropivacaine 30 mL after induction of anesthesia. Scores of postoperative nausea and vomiting, the visual analog scale, and the Bruggemann comfort scale (BCS) were assessed 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

Nausea and vomiting scores were significantly lower at 2, 6, and 24 hours in the multimodal group compared with the control group. BCS scores were significantly higher at 0 to 24 hours in the multimodal group compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal intervention improves PONV and increases patients' comfort. The multimodal approach can also enhance recovery after gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Comparing the efficacy of aprepitant and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): A double blinded, randomised control trial in patients undergoing breast and thyroid surgeries

Background and Aims:

Aprepitant, a Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, has been evaluated in abdominal and neurosurgeries, but its effect is less clear in breast and thyroid surgeries, which are also known to be high risk for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was done to compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and aprepitant in women undergoing mastectomy and thyroidectomy.

Methods:

One hundred and twenty-five ASA I and II, female patients, aged between 18 and 65 years were randomly assigned into Group I (ondansetron group, n = 62) or Group II (aprepitant group, n = 63), by computer-generated random sequencing. Per protocol analysis was done to assess the incidence and severity of PONV, use of rescue antiemetics, and patient satisfaction with PONV control between the two groups, till 24 h post-surgery.

Results:

In the immediate postoperative period, 79.7% of patients in Group I and 85.2% in Group II were free of emesis (P value: 0.49). In Group I, the first episode of vomiting occurred within a median duration 90 min (IQR 2575: 45-147) postoperatively, whereas the median duration in Group II was 160 min (IQR 25-75: 26-490), with request for rescue antiemetic at 60 min in Group I (IQR 25-75: 27-360) and 147 min in Group II (IQR 25-75: 11-457).

Conclusion:

A single dose of oral aprepitant has comparable effects to injection ondansetron administered eighth hourly in preventing PONV, the severity of nausea, number of rescue antiemetics, and the time to first emetic episode in the 24-h postoperative period.

CTRI Reg No:

REF/2017/06/014637.

Effect of the Dexamethasone-Ondansetron Combination Versus Dexamethasone-Aprepitant Combination to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem associated with general anaesthesia. The incidence can be as high as 80% in high-risk patients. Our primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron and dexamethasone-aprepitant in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Seventy 18 to 60 years old patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. Sixty-seven patients completed the study. Patients in the dexamethasone-aprepitant group (group DA, n=35) received 40 mg of aprepitant orally 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 2 mL saline intravenously (iv) within the last 30 minutes of surgery; patients in the dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO, n=35) received oral placebo identical to aprepitant 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 4 mg ondansetron iv within the last 30 minutes of surgery. All patients received 8 mg dexamethasone iv after the induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was a complete response (no postoperative nausea, retching and vomiting and no need for rescue antiemetic); the secondary outcomes were the incidence of nausea, retching, vomiting, the need of rescue antiemetic and opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery.

Results

A complete response was not significantly different between the groups (group DO: 67%, DA: 69%) at 24 hours (p=0.93). The incidence of PONV and postoperative opioid consumption was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

The study was designed to evaluate whether the combination of dexamethasone-aprepitant is better than the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron regarding the complete response for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The results however showed that dexamethasone-aprepitant has not improved the complete response for PONV compared to dexamethasone-ondansetron.

Effect of the Dexamethasone-Ondansetron Combination Versus Dexamethasone-Aprepitant Combination to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem associated with general anaesthesia. The incidence can be as high as 80% in high-risk patients. Our primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron and dexamethasone-aprepitant in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Seventy 18 to 60 years old patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. Sixty-seven patients completed the study. Patients in the dexamethasone-aprepitant group (group DA, n=35) received 40 mg of aprepitant orally 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 2 mL saline intravenously (iv) within the last 30 minutes of surgery; patients in the dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO, n=35) received oral placebo identical to aprepitant 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 4 mg ondansetron iv within the last 30 minutes of surgery. All patients received 8 mg dexamethasone iv after the induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was a complete response (no postoperative nausea, retching and vomiting and no need for rescue antiemetic); the secondary outcomes were the incidence of nausea, retching, vomiting, the need of rescue antiemetic and opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery.

Results

A complete response was not significantly different between the groups (group DO: 67%, DA: 69%) at 24 hours (p=0.93). The incidence of PONV and postoperative opioid consumption was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

The study was designed to evaluate whether the combination of dexamethasone-aprepitant is better than the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron regarding the complete response for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The results however showed that dexamethasone-aprepitant has not improved the complete response for PONV compared to dexamethasone-ondansetron.

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

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

Aprepitant in combination with palonosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate aprepitant in combination with palonosetron as compared to palonosetron alone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in female patients receiving fentanyl- based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA).

Methods

In this randomized single-blinded study, 100 female patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were randomized to two groups: Group AP (80 mg aprepitant plus 0.075 mg palonosetron, n = 50) and Group P (0.075 mg palonosetron, n = 50). The patients in group AP received 80 mg aprepitant per oral 1–3 h before surgery, while all patients received 0.075 mg palonosetron after induction of standardized anesthesia. All patients had postoperative access to fentanyl-based IV-PCA. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, use of rescue medication, and severity of nausea were evaluated at 6 and 24 h after surgery.

Results

The incidence of nausea (54%) and vomiting (2%) in group AP did not differ significantly from that in group P (48% and 14%, respectively) during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). Patient requirements for rescue medication in group AP (29%) were similar to those in group P (32%) at 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). There was no difference between the groups in severity of nausea during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Aprepitant combined with palonosetron did not reduce the incidence of PONV as compared to palonosetron alone within 24 h of surgery in women receiving fentanyl-based IV-PCA.

Assessment of pre-operative maropitant citrate use in macaque (Macaca fasicularis & Macaca mulatta) neurosurgical procedures

BACKGROUND

Retrospective analysis of post-operative vomiting (POV) in non-human primates at our institution was 11%. Based on this additional risk factor for post-operative complications, we aimed to eliminate or decrease POV by adding an antiemetic, maropitant citrate, to the pre-medication protocol.

METHODS

Retrospective and prospective data were collected over a 5-year period from 46 macaques of two species during 155 procedures. Additionally, blood was collected from five Macaca mulatta to perform a pharmacokinetic analysis.

RESULTS

A 1 mg/kg subcutaneous dose of maropitant given pre-operatively significantly decreased POV. Findings indicated post-neurosurgical emesis in Macaca fasicularis was significantly greater than in Macaca mulatta. Pharmacokinetic analysis of maropitant in Macaca mulatta determined the mean maximum plasma concentration to be 113 ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

Maropitant administration prior to anesthesia for neurosurgeries decreased our incidence of POV to 1%. The plasma concentration reaches the proposed plasma level for clinical efficacy approximately 20 minutes after administration.

The pathophysiology, incidence, impact, and treatment of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

Opioid medications are integral in managing acute moderate-to-severe pain. Opioid analgesics bind to μ (mu), κ (kappa), or δ (delta) opioid receptors in the brain, spinal cord, and digestive tract. However, opioids cause adverse effects that may interfere with their therapeutic use. Some adverse effects wane over time, but patients using opioids for acute pain struggle with opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) the entire time they take the opioid. This article discusses the underlying mechanisms, clinical implications, and treatment strategies of OINV.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search and review of Medline, PubMed, and Google Scholar for articles relating to OINV. In addition, package inserts provided pharmacologic data and dose recommendations as needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Research suggests approximately 40% of patients may experience nausea and 15%-25% of patients may experience vomiting after opioid administration. Nausea often precedes vomiting, although they can occur separately. Many patients receiving opioids rate the nausea and vomiting as worse than their pain. Nausea and vomiting can lead to complications including electrolyte imbalances, malnutrition, and volume depletion, and can also negatively affect quality of life and postoperative recovery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

There are several medications that can be used to treat OINV including serotonin receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists. Healthcare providers should be proactive about discussing OINV with patients, as this may improve patient outcomes and pain relief.

A Comparison of Fosaprepitant and Ondansetron for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Moderate to High Risk Patients: A Retrospective Database Analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occur in 30–50% of patients undergoing general anesthesia and in 70–80% of high PONV risk patients. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist, compared to ondansetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in moderate to high PONV risk patients from our previous randomized controlled trials. Patients (171 patients from 4 pooled studies) with the Apfel simplified score ≥ 2 and undergoing general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive intravenous fosaprepitant 150 mg (NK1 group, n = 82) and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (ONS group, n = 89) before induction of anesthesia. Incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the NK1 group compared to the ONS group 0–2, 0–24, and 0–48 hours after surgery (2 versus 17%, 2 versus 28%, and 2 versus 29%, resp.). However, no significant differences in PONV, complete response, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea score were observed between groups 0–48 hours after surgery. In moderate to high PONV risk patients, fosaprepitant decreased the incidence of vomiting and was superior to ondansetron in preventing postoperative vomiting 0–48 hours after surgery.

Consensus Review of Optimal Perioperative Care in Breast Reconstruction: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery following surgery can be achieved through the introduction of evidence-based perioperative maneuvers. This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing breast reconstructive surgery and to provide evidence-based recommendations for an enhanced perioperative protocol.

METHODS

A systematic review of meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohorts was conducted for each protocol element. Smaller prospective cohorts and retrospective cohorts were considered only when higher level evidence was unavailable. The available literature was graded by an international panel of experts in breast reconstructive surgery and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. Each recommendation was graded following a consensus discussion among the expert panel. Development of these recommendations was endorsed by the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society.

RESULTS

High-quality randomized controlled trial data in patients undergoing breast reconstruction informed some of the recommendations; however, for most items, data from lower level studies in the population of interest were considered along with extrapolated data from high-quality studies in non-breast reconstruction populations. Recommendations were developed for a total of 18 unique enhanced recovery after surgery items and are discussed in the article. Key recommendations support use of opioid-sparing perioperative medications, minimal preoperative fasting and early feeding, use of anesthetic techniques that decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain, use of measures to prevent intraoperative hypothermia, and support of early mobilization after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Based on the best available evidence for each topic, a consensus review of optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing breast reconstruction is presented.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, V.

Post-operative nausea and vomiting in bariatric surgery patients: an observational study

BACKGROUND

The risk of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing bariatric surgery is unclear. The aim of the study was to investigate the risk of PONV and the use and effectiveness of PONV prophylaxis.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 74 patients undergoing bariatric surgery with total intravenous anaesthesia. Patients were given PONV prophylaxis based on published guidelines and a simplified PONV risk score. Perioperative data were collected and a questionnaire was used at 2, 4, 6, 24, 48 and 72 h after the operation to evaluate PONV. Data are presented as risk (%) with the 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Sixty five per cent (54-75) of the patients experienced PONV in the first 24 post-operative hours and the risk increased with the number of risk factors for PONV. PONV occurred in 78% (66-87) of women and 26% (12-49) of men during the first 24 h. In relation to the guidelines, one patient received suboptimal PONV prophylaxis, 23% received optimal prophylaxis and 76% supra-optimal prophylaxis. The risk of PONV was 82% (59-94) with optimal prophylaxis and 59% (46-71) with supra-optimal prophylaxis. Of all patients, 34% (24-45) experienced severe PONV in the first 24 h that limited their activity.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PONV in bariatric surgery patients was high despite a PONV prophylaxis regime following current guidelines. These results cast doubt as to the effectiveness of the usual PONV prophylaxis in this patient group and point to the need for further investigation of PONV prophylaxis and treatment in bariatric surgery patients.

An update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

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

Aprepitant: A New Modality for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: An Evidence-Based Review

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects as many as 30% of surgical patients. Aprepitant, an antagonist of the neurokinin-1 receptor with a 40% half-life, may be effective for prophylaxis for PONV. This review describes the evidence of adding aprepitant to antiemetic therapy for PONV prophylaxis.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to answer the population-intervention-comparison-outcome-time (PICOT) question: In adult patients undergoing general anesthesia (P), does aprepitant (I) decrease PONV (O) postoperatively (T) as compared to patients receiving other antiemetic therapy or a placebo (C)?

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials, one prognostic study, and one post hoc analysis were appraised. Perioperatively, aprepitant decreased the severity and number of episodes of PONV.

DISCUSSION

Aprepitant appears to be more effective in decreasing the incidence of PONV postoperatively as compared with ondansetron. It is recommended that aprepitant is used to treat patients at risk for PONV and for whom PONV could lead to catastrophic adverse outcomes.

Fosaprepitant versus droperidol for prevention of PONV in craniotomy: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after craniotomy. Vomiting may be a potentially hazardous complication in neurosurgical patients. We compared the efficacy of fosaprepitant and droperidol for the prevention of PONV, vomiting in particular, after craniotomy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy were enrolled in the study and randomly divided in a double-blind manner into two groups to receive either 150 mg of fosaprepitant (group F) or 1.25 mg of droperidol (group D). Dexamethasone (9.9 mg) was given to all patients, except those with diabetes mellitus. The incidence of PONV, frequency of vomiting, nausea score, and use of rescue antiemetic during the first 72 h after surgery were assessed at five time intervals (0-2, 2-6, 6-24, 24-48, and 48-72 h).

RESULTS

Of the 200 randomized patients eligible for entry into the study, 186 were ultimately included for analysis. There were no significant differences in demographics or intraoperative variables between the two treatment groups. Over the entire 72-h post-craniotomy observation period the overall and cumulative incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in group F patients than in group D patients, while there were no between-group differences in the overall and cumulative incidence of PONV or in complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic). The incidence and frequency of vomiting during each of the five observational periods were significantly lower in group F patients than group D patients, although there were no differences in the nausea score and antiemetic use between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, fosaprepitant was more effective than droperidol in the prevention of vomiting after craniotomy over the entire 72-h study period. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea and antiemetic use.

Aprepitant for antiemesis after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Ondansetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, and aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, block the emetic effect of serotonin and neurokinin, respectively. Aprepitant combined with ondansetron can be more effective for preventing emesis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prophylactic effect of combining aprepitant with ondansetron compared with ondansetron alone on PONV in patients with fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) after laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.

DESIGN

Single-centre, double-blinded randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

A major university hospital in Seoul, Korea, between July 2012 and April 2013.

PATIENTS

One hundred and twenty-five female patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status 1 or 2) with fentanyl-based intravenous PCA after gynaecological laparoscopy were recruited to the study, and 110 completed the protocol.

INTERVENTIONS

Oral aprepitant 80 mg or placebo was given 1 h before anaesthesia. In all patients, ondansetron 4 mg was administered intravenously at the end of surgery and 12 mg was added to the PCA solution.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetics) up to 48 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the proportion of complete responses to 48 h between the groups (P = 0.05), but in the post-anaesthesia care unit and up to 24 h postoperatively, the proportion was significantly higher in the aprepitant and ondansetron group than in the ondansetron only group (76 vs. 50%, P = 0.004 and 38 vs. 16%, P = 0.011, respectively). In the aprepitant and ondansetron group, the time to first PONV was delayed (P = 0.014) and the incidence of nausea up to 24 h postoperatively was lower (P = 0.014). However, there were no differences in the incidences of retching or vomiting, the severity of nausea, use of rescue antiemetics or the incidence of side-effects.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant 80 mg orally with ondansetron is effective in suppressing early PONV up to 24 h postoperatively and delays the time to first PONV in patients with fentanyl-based intravenous PCA after gynaecological laparoscopy. However, the combination prophylaxis with aprepitant and ondansetron failed to reach the predefined primary study outcome when compared with ondansetron alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov identifier: NCT01897337.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Double-Dummy Pilot Study to Assess the Preemptive Effect of Triple Therapy with Aprepitant, Dexamethasone, and Promethazine versus Ondansetron, Dexamethasone and Promethazine on Reducing the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Experienced by Patients Undergoing Craniotomy Under General Anesthesia

Introduction

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is among the most common distressing complications of surgery under anesthesia. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients who undergo craniotomy have incidences of nausea and vomiting as high as 50–70%. The main purpose of this pilot study is to assess the incidence of PONV by using two different prophylactic regimens in subjects undergoing a craniotomy. Thus, we designed this study to assess the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with the combination of dexamethasone, promethazine, and aprepitant versus ondansetron to reduce the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy.

Materials and methods

This is a prospective, single center, two-armed, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, pilot study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Subjects received 40 mg of aprepitant pill (or matching placebo pill) 30–60 min before induction of anesthesia and 4 mg of ondansetron IV (or 2 ml of placebo saline solution) at induction of anesthesia. In addition, all subjects received 25 mg of promethazine IV and 10 mg of dexamethasone IV at induction of anesthesia. Assessments of PONV commenced for the first 24 h after surgery and were subsequently assessed for up to 5 days.

Results

The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 31.0% (n = 15) in the aprepitant group and 36.2% (n = 17) for the ondansetron group. The median times to first emetic and significant nausea episodes were 7.6 (2.9, 48.7) and 14.3 (4.4, 30.7) hours, respectively, for the aprepitant group and 6.0 (2.2, 29.5) and 9.6 (0.7, 35.2) hours, respectively, for the ondansetron group. There were no statistically significant differences between these groups. No adverse events directly related to study medications were found.

Conclusion

This pilot study showed similar effectiveness when comparing the two PONV prophylaxis regimens. Our data showed that both treatments could be effective regimens to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anesthesia. Future trials testing new PONV prophylaxis regimens in this surgical population should be performed to gain a better understanding of how to best provide prophylactic treatment.

Plasma substance P concentrations in patients undergoing general anesthesia: an objective marker associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting

Background

This study investigated plasma concentrations of substance P (SP) in patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This prospective, observational, cohort study included 23 patients who underwent scheduled surgery under general anesthesia. Blood was collected from the radial artery at predetermined time points (15-30 mins prior anesthesia, 15-30 mins after surgery/GA, and 24 h after surgery). PONV, SP concentrations, risk factors, and analgesics used were measured.

Findings

Nine of 23 patients experienced PONV. In patients without PONV, SP concentrations significantly decreased (P < 0.0001) at the end of surgery/GA, compared to baseline, and recovered at 24 h after surgery/GA (452.9 ± 146.2 vs. 666.9 ± 176.5 vs. 580.7 ± 168.6 pg/mL, respectively), whereas SP levels were unchanged during surgery/GA and increased at 24 hours after surgery (P = 0.020) in patients with PONV (726.1 ± 167.8 vs. 655.8 ± 168.0 vs. 779.7 ± 220.7 pg/mL, respectively).

Conclusions

These finding suggest that SP levels may be utilized as an objective marker for PONV.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: A simple yet complex problem

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the complex and significant problems in anesthesia practice, with growing trend toward ambulatory and day care surgeries. This review focuses on pathophysiology, pharmacological prophylaxis, and rescue therapy for PONV. We searched the Medline and PubMed database for articles published in English from 1991 to 2014 while writing this review using “postoperative nausea and vomiting, PONV, nausea-vomiting, PONV prophylaxis, and rescue” as keywords. PONV is influenced by multiple factors which are related to the patient, surgery, and pre-, intra-, and post-operative anesthesia factors. The risk of PONV can be assessed using a scoring system such as Apfel simplified scoring system which is based on four independent risk predictors. PONV prophylaxis is administered to patients with medium and high risks based on this scoring system. Newer drugs such as neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant) are used along with serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3) receptor antagonist, corticosteroids, anticholinergics, antihistaminics, and butyrophenones for PONV prophylaxis. Combination of drugs from different classes with different mechanism of action are administered for optimized efficacy in adults with moderate risk for PONV. Multimodal approach with combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological prophylaxis along with interventions that reduce baseline risk is employed in patients with high PONV risk.