Comparison of efficacy and safety between palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a prevalent and distressing complication, especially in laparoscopic surgeries. This review compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at three postoperative time points T1 (0-2 hours), T2 (2-6 hours), T3 (6-24 hours) and safety (incidence of adverse effects). Meta-analysis of relative risk was performed using a random effect model and subgroup analysis based on factors such as antiemetic dose and timing of administration, type of surgery, and anesthetic agents.

Results

Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were published between 2011 and 2022, involving 2,043 participants. Nineteen trials were included in the meta-analysis (efficacy, 17; safety, 11). The pooled risk ratio revealed that patients receiving palonosetron demonstrated significantly less likelihood of developing nausea and vomiting at various postoperative time points. Subgroup analysis indicated significantly less PONV when palonosetron was administered before intubation and in combination with isoflurane anesthesia. Headache, dizziness, constipation, and drowsiness were the most commonly reported. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable.

Conclusion

Palonosetron exhibits superior efficacy within the first 24 hours postoperatively and requires less rescue antiemetic intervention compared to ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery patients. Both demonstrate nearly comparable safety profiles. Future trials focusing on cardiac safety (QT interval) and cost consideration are needed.

Palonosetron versus ondansetron for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We tested the hypothesis that, within the margin of 15% of risk difference, palonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized, controlled trial of 212 patients aged 18 to 65 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia in two secondary care hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either palonosetron (0.075.ßmg) or ondansetron (8.ßmg) intravenously at induction of anesthesia. Ondansetron (8.ßmg) was also administered 8 and 16.ßhours postoperatively. All anesthetic and surgical procedures were standardized. Patients were evaluated for 24.ßhours postoperatively for the occurrence of PONV.

RESULTS

A high incidence of PONV was observed at 2...6.ßhours postoperatively, with a rate of 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.2...46.3) in the palonosetron group, as compared to 43.4% (95% CI 34.4...52.9) in the ondansetron group. The risk difference (95% CI) between palonosetron and ondansetron for PONV was 0 (-10.9 to 10.9) at 0...2.ßhours, -6.6 (-19.4 to 6.5) at 2...6.ßhours, -0.9 (-11.0 to 9.2) at 6...12.ßhours, and -2.8 (-9.6 to 3.6) at 12...24.ßhours. There was no statistically significant difference between the palonosetron and ondansetron groups in the use of rescue medication (dimenhydrinate). There were no adverse events associated with the medications under study.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron is not inferior to ondansetron in patients at risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, providing a good option for PONV prophylaxis, as it can be administered in a single dose.

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

Background

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

Methodology

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

A randomized study to compare palonosetron with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following middle ear surgeries

Background and Aims:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has multifactorial etiology. It is a commonly encountered morbidity after anesthesia specially following middle ear surgery. Various antiemetic medications have been tried with mixed responses. Palonosetron is a newer 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist marketed for PONV prophylaxis. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after middle ear surgeries.

Material and Methods:

One hundred patients of ASA class 1 or 2, aged 18 years and above, weighing between 40 and 90 kg scheduled for elective middle ear surgeries were randomly assigned into palonosetron group (n = 50) and ondansetron group (n = 50). Palonosetron was administered in dose of 1 mcg/kg maximum up to 75 mcg and ondansetron in dose of 0.1 mg/kg maximum up to 8 mg. Intraoperative monitoring of QTc interval was also done to see any significant change after the antiemetic administration. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and side effects were recorded over 2, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. All parameters were compared between the two groups as mean ± standard deviation and as count (%). Two sided P values of <0.05 were considered significant.

Results:

The incidence of PONV (P = 0.002), nausea (P = 0.0002) and vomiting (P = 0.006) was significantly lower in palonosetron group than in ondansetron group in 2- to 12-hour period. QTc interval prolongation, a known side effect of ondansetron was not found in palonosetron group intraoperatively.

Conclusion:

Palonosetron was found to be superior to ondansetron up to 12 hours after the surgery with no significant effect on QTc interval.

Efficacy of Palonosetron-Dexamethasone Combination Versus Palonosetron Alone for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting Related to Opioid-Based Analgesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Trial

Background: The efficacy of dexamethasone plus palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis is not firmly established. This randomized, double-blind, controlled study evaluated whether the combination was superior to palonosetron alone in preventing PONV in patients receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after upper extremity surgery. Methods: A total of 202 patients undergoing upper extremity surgery were randomly assigned to group P (palonosetron alone) or group PD (palonosetron plus dexamethasone). Group P patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg and normal saline 1.6 mL; group PD patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg. In both groups, palonosetron was added to the IV-PCA opioid infusion, which was continued for 48 h postoperatively. Incidence and severity of nausea, incidence of vomiting, rescue antiemetic requirements, pain intensity, and rescue analgesic requirements were evaluated for 72 h postoperatively. Quality of recovery was assessed using the quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) questionnaire. Results: The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group PD than in group P at 0-48 h postoperatively (61.5% vs 77.1%; p = 0.019). Severity of nausea at 0-6 h postoperatively was significantly less in group PD compared with group P (none/mild/moderate/severe: 49/22/15/10 vs. 36/16/25/19, p = 0.008). The incidence of vomiting and rescue antiemetic requirements were similar between groups. Pain intensity was significantly less in group PD than in group P at 0-48 h and 48-72 h postoperatively. Global QoR-15 was similar 24 h postoperatively between groups. Conclusions: Dexamethasone-palonosetron combination therapy reduced PONV incidence and postoperative pain in patients receiving opioid-based analgesia after upper extremity surgery.

Efficacy of Palonosetron vs. Ramosetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

This study was designed as a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included the comparison of palonosetron and ramosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, KoreaMed, and Google Scholar databases (PROSPERO protocol number CRD42015026009). Primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first 48 hrs after surgery. The total 48-hr period was further analyzed in time epochs of 0-6 hrs (early), 6-24 hrs (late), and 24-48 hrs (delayed). Subgroup analyses according to number of risk factors, sex, and type of surgery were also performed.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 1373 patients were analyzed. There was no difference in PON or POV between the two drugs for the total 48-hr period after surgery. However, palonosetron was more effective in preventing POV during the delayed period overall [relative risk (RR), 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39 to 0.89; p=0.013], as well as after subgroup analyses for females and laparoscopies (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86; p=0.009 and RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.94; p=0.033). Subgroup analysis for spine surgery showed that ramosetron was more effective in reducing POV during the total 48-hr (RR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.46 to 7.63; p=0.004) and early periods (RR, 8.47; 95% CI, 1.57 to 45.72; p=0.013).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis discovered no definite difference in PONV prevention between the two drugs. The significant findings that were seen in different time epochs and subgroup analyses should be confirmed in future RCTs.

Intraoperative management of critical arrhythmia

The incidence of intraoperative arrhythmia is extremely high, and some arrhythmias require clinical attention. Therefore, it is essential for the anesthesiologist to evaluate risk factors for arrhythmia and understand their etiology, electrophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Anesthetic agents reportedly affect normal cardiac electrical activity. In the normal cardiac cycle, the sinoatrial node initiates cardiac electrical activity through intrinsic autonomous pacemaker activity. Sequential atrial and ventricular contractions result in an effective cardiac pumping mechanism. Arrhythmia occurs due to various causes, and the cardiac pumping mechanism may be affected. A severe case may result in hemodynamic instability. In this situation, the anesthesiologist should eliminate the possible causes of arrhythmia and manage the condition, creating hemodynamic stability under proper electrocardiographic monitoring.

Cardiac tachyarrhythmias and anaesthesia: General principles and focus on atrial fibrillation

Cardiac tachyarrhythmias are encountered commonly during the perioperative period and need to be promptly identified and appropriately managed by the anaesthesiologist. This review intends to highlight important aspects of these tachyarrhythmias and explore a temporal relationship between common medications employed in the perioperative period and their causation. Mechanisms of initiation of tachyarrhythmias, drugs that can trigger those, as well as their diagnosis and management, are also parts of the current review. Cardiac tachyarrhythmias may not always require treatment, and sometimes, aggressive management can trigger more serious types of arrhythmias. A thorough understanding of these tachyarrhythmias and their pathogenesis enables adopting a more objective approach, eschewing risks of inappropriate or unnecessary management strategies. We performed a MEDLINE search using combinations of MeSH terms such as ‘cardiac’, ‘arrhythmias’, ‘anaesthesia’, ‘perioperative’, ‘tachyarrhythmias’ and ‘anaesthetic implications’. We reviewed the relevant publications with regard to cardiac tachyarrhythmias occurring in the perioperative period.

Effect of ramosetron on QTc interval: a randomised controlled trial in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery

Background

Ramosetron is a relatively new 5-hydroxytryptamine three receptor antagonist with higher binding affinity and more prolonged duration of action compared to ondansetron. The present study was performed to evaluate the effects of ramosetron on QTc interval and possible cardiovascular adverse effects in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Method

A total of 114 patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery were enrolled in this randomised placebo-controlled trial. Patients were allocated into two groups that received intravenous injection of 0.3 mg ramosetron or normal saline during induction of anaesthesia. QTc intervals were measured before the operation, intraoperatively (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, and 240 min after injection of ramosetron or normal saline), at the end of the operation, and on postoperative day 1.

Results

There were no differences in mean QTc interval between groups at every time point. However, maximal change in QTc interval during surgery was higher in the ramosetron group than the placebo group (25.1 ± 22.0 vs. 17.5 ± 14.5 ms, 95 % CI 0.34–14.78, P = 0.040). Also, there were more patients with a QTc interval increase of > 60 ms in the ramosetron group (5 vs. 0, 95 % CI 1.6–18.0, P = 0.021). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular complications.

Conclusions

Ramosetron administered during induction of anaesthesia may affect maximal change in QTc interval during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Ramosetron should be used with caution in high risk patients for developing Torsades de Pointes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02139241. Registered November 12, 2013

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-016-0222-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving multiple-day highly or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: role of transdermal granisetron

Granisetron transdermal delivery system (GTDS) is the first 5-HT3 drug to be transdermally delivered and represents a convenient alternative to oral and intravenous antiemetics for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. GTDS is effective and well tolerated in patients receiving multiple-day moderate-to-highly emetogenic chemotherapy. In this setting noninferiority studies showed similar efficacy when GTDS was compared with intravenous and oral granisetron and intravenous palonosetron. GTDS has shown good cardiovascular safety; however, special caution is needed in patients at risk for developing excessive QTc interval prolongation and arrhythmias. So far, GTDS has been investigated for intravenous prevention in comparison with granisetron and palonosetron; however, further prospects open the route to future clinical investigations.