Recovery profile after desflurane with or without ondansetron compared with propofol in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological laparoscopy

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.

Comparison of Ramosetron with Palonosetron for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Opioid-Based Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia after Gynecological Laparoscopy

We aimed to compare the effects of ramosetron and palonosetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients that received opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after gynecological laparoscopy. We reviewed the electronic medical records of 755 adults. Patients were classified into two groups, ramosetron (group R, n = 589) versus palonosetron (group P, n = 166). Based on their confounding factors, 152 subjects in each group were selected after the implementation of propensity score matching. The overall incidence of PONV at postoperative day (POD) 0 was lower in group R compared to group P (26.9% versus 36.8%; P = 0.043). The severity of nausea was lower in group R than in group P on postoperative day (POD) 0 (P = 0.012). Also, the complete responder proportion of patients was significantly higher in group R compared to that in group P on POD 0 (P = 0.043). In conclusion, ramosetron showed a greater efficacy in the prevention of postoperative nausea at POD 0 compared to palonosetron in patients after gynecological laparoscopy.

Palonosetron and Ramosetron Compared for Effectiveness in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings on the superiority of palonosetron over ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, the present systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016038120) and performed to compare the efficacy of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron. The primary endpoints were defined as the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV. A total of 695 patients were included in the final analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed through administration times which were divided into two phases: the early phase of surgery and the end of surgery. Combined analysis did not show differences between palonosetron and ramosetron in the overall incidence of PON, POV or PONV. Palonosetron was more effective than ramosetron, when the administration time for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was during the early phase of the operation. Otherwise, ramosetron was more effective than palonosetron, when the administration time was at the end of surgery. However, the quality of evidence for each outcome was low or very low and number of included studies was small, limiting our confidence in findings.

Post-operative intravenous patient-controlled analgesic efficacy of morphine with ketorolac versus nefopam after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a randomized non-inferiority trial

Background

Nefopam is a non-opioid non-steroidal centrally acting analgesic. This study was conducted to assess the analgesic efficacy of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) using nefopam alone, compared with a combination of morphine and ketorolac, after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Methods

Sixty patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery received IV-PCA. Group A (n = 30) received IV-PCA with a combination of morphine 60 mg and ketorolac 180 mg, while group B (n = 30) received nefopam 200 mg (basal rate 1 ml/h, bolus 1 ml, and lockout time 15 min for both). The primary outcome evaluated was analgesic efficacy using the visual analogue scale (VAS). Other evaluated outcomes included the incidence rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), patient satisfaction of pain control, percentage of patients requiring additional opioids, and incidence rate of postoperative adverse effects.

Results

Group B was not inferior to group A in relation to the VAS in the post-anesthesia care unit, and at 12, 24, and 48 h after surgery (mean difference [95% confidence interval], 0.50 [–0.43 to 1.43], -0.30 [-1.25 to 0.65], -0.05 [-0.65 to 0.55], and 0.10 [-0.55 to 0.75], respectively). The incidence rate of nausea was lower in group B than in group A at 12 and 24 h after surgery (P = 0.004 and P = 0.017, respectively). There were no significant differences in the other outcomes between groups.

Conclusions

IV-PCA using nefopam alone has a non-inferior analgesic efficacy and produces a lower incidence of PONV in comparison with IV-PCA using a combination of morphine and ketorolac after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Comparison of palonosetron, granisetron, and ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are reported to have potent antiemetic effects for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron, granisetron, and ramosetron for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized observational study, 105 healthy female patients who were undergoing laparocopic hystectomy under general anaesthesia were enrolled (clinical trial number: NCT01752374, www.clinicaltrials.gov ). Patients were divided into three groups: the palonostron (0.075 mg i.v.; n = 35), the granisetron group (3 mg i.v.; n = 35), and the ramosetron group (0.3 mg i.v.; n = 35). The treatments were given before the end of surgery. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea/vomiting, and the use of rescue antiemetic requirements during the first 48 h after surgery were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PONV was 33.3 % for this series. The number of complete responders at 48 h after the surgery was 21 (60.0 %) for palonosetron, 24 (68.6 %) for granisetron, and 26 (71.4 %) for ramosetron, representing no statistical difference (P = 0.086).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in the overall incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and complete responders for palonosetron, granisetron and ramosetron group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

NCT01752374 , www.clinicaltrials.gov .

Palonosetron and aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients indicated for laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery: a double-blind randomised trial

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common postsurgical complications. Palonosetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist, is effective for PONV prevention. Herein, we compared palonosetron and aprepitant (a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist) for PONV prevention in patients indicated for laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery.

Methods

Ninety-three patients who were scheduled to undergo laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery under general anaesthesia were assigned to receive either a single intravenous injection of 0.075-mg palonosetron or 40-mg oral aprepitant in a double-blind randomised trial. The primary efficacy end points included complete response (visual analogue scale [VAS] nausea score <4 and no use of rescue therapy) 0–48 h after surgery. Nausea severity (0–10) and use of rescue therapy were monitored for 0–48 h. The secondary efficacy end points were the effect of aprepitant quantified using a 10-point VAS for pain, consumption of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, and use of rescue analgesics.

Results

Aprepitant was non-inferior to palonosetron in terms of complete response 0–48 hours after surgery (74% vs. 77%). At 0 and 2 h after administration, the nausea severity with 40-mg aprepitant was significantly lesser than that with 0.075-mg palonosetron (P < 0.05). At 6 and 24 h after administration, fentanyl consumption with 40-mg aprepitant was significantly lower than that with 0.075-mg palonosetron. Greater amounts of rescue analgesics were required in the aprepitant group.

Conclusions

Palonosetron and aprepitant were both effective for PONV prevention in the patients indicated for laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery. The drugs can be used in combination for multimodal therapy because they bind to different receptors. More research is needed to evaluate the effects of aprepitant on pain management in humans.

Oral administration of aprepitant to prevent postoperative nausea in highly susceptible patients after gynecological laparoscopy

PURPOSE

The use of opioids following surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to investigate the effect of orally administered aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, for reducing PONV in patients with fentanyl-based, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) given intravenously after gynecological laparoscopy.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty female patients (ages 21-60) undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy were randomly allocated to receive 80 mg (A80 group, n = 40) or 125 mg aprepitant (A125 group, n = 40) or placebo (control group, n = 40) orally 2 h before anesthesia induction. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and remifentanil, and PCA IV using fentanyl and ketorolac were provided for 48 h after surgery. Incidences of nausea, vomiting/retching, and use of rescue antiemetics were recorded at 2, 24, and 48 h after surgery. Complete response was defined as no PONV and no need for rescue treatment.

RESULTS

The incidence of complete response was significantly lower in the A80 and A125 groups than in controls, 56 % and 63 %, vs. 28 %, respectively, P = 0.007 and P = 0.003, respectively, during the first 48 h, and 65 % and 65 % vs. 38 %, respectively, both P = 0.025, during the first 2 h. However, there were no statistically significant differences between A80 and A125 groups in the incidences of complete response and PONV during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant 80 mg orally was effective in lowering the incidence of PONV in the first 48 h after anesthesia in patients receiving fentanyl-based PCA after gynecological laparoscopy.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonism, aprepitant, effectively diminishes post-operative nausea and vomiting while increasing analgesic tolerance in laparoscopic gynecological procedures

PURPOSE

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains the most frequently reported patient complaint after anesthesia. Aprepitant is the first neurokinin-1(NK1) receptor antagonism available for use as an antiemetic. We investigated whether aprepitant can effectively decrease PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

METHODS

Sixty four patients receiving general anesthesia for laparoscopic gynecological surgery were randomly assigned to either receive a preoperative dose of 80 mg aprepitant or no drug. Efficacy was assessed in 2 and 24 hours after surgery. Primary and secondary endpoints were analyzed for the time intervals 0-2 hours (acute phase) and 2-24 hours (delayed phase). Vomiting, nausea, use of rescue anti-emetic, and visual analog scale (VAS) were assessed. Nausea was assessed on a 4-point scale, from 0 to 3.

RESULTS

Sixty patients participated in the study. At acute phase, PONV was present in both control and NK1 group and were 63% and 43% respectively. The severity of nausea was much less in the NK1 group. PONV prevalence at delayed phase was present in control but absent in NK1 group 27% vs. 0%, respectively. The amount of pain medication used by patients in the NK1 group was significantly less for diclofenac and pentazocine suggesting increase pain tolerance.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonism effectively lowered PONV increased pain tolerance, and expedited recovery in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

Desflurane - revisited

The search for an ideal inhalational general anesthetic agent continues. Desflurane, which was recently introduced in the Indian market, possesses favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and is closer to the definition of an ideal agent. It offers the advantage of precise control over depth of anesthesia along with a rapid, predictable, and clear-headed recovery with minimal postoperative sequelae, making it a valuable anesthetic agent for maintenance in adults and pediatric patients in surgeries of all durations. The agent has advantages when used in extremes of age and in the obese. Its use may increase the direct costs of providing anesthetic care. Methods or techniques, such as low-flow anesthesia, to reduce the overall cost and along with minimal environmental implications must be followed.

Does esomeprazole prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting?

BACKGROUND

Esomeprazole is a potent proton pump inhibitor (PPI), reducing acid production as well as gastric juice volume. This study evaluated the possible beneficial effect of esomeprazole on reducing post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open gynaecological surgery, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to receive three peri-operative doses double blindly of either esomeprazole 40 mg or placebo, given intravenously or orally. All patients were given a standardized anaesthesia regimen including fentanyl and sevoflurane/nitrous oxide.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 284 patients. Demographic data and known PONV risk factors were similar for the two treatment groups. PONV was observed in 77% of patients on esomeprazole vs. 81% on placebo (NS) and rescue antiemetic medication was needed in 56% vs. 53%, respectively (NS). The proportion of patients that vomited during 0-24 h was lower on esomeprazole than placebo (38% vs. 49%; NS), and the mean amount of vomit was significantly lower (52 vs. 86 g; P < 0.05). The use of neostigmine, use of opioids and type of surgery were significant risk factors for PONV (P < 0.05). The 24-h incidence of PONV was 63% after laparoscopic gynaecology, 80% after laparoscopic cholecystectomy and 88% after open gynaecological laparotomy, whereas laparoscopic cholecystectomy had the lowest risk when corrected for other risk factors of PONV.

CONCLUSION

Esomeprazole had no clinically relevant effect on the overall 24-h incidence of PONV. However, esomeprazole significantly reduced the total amount of vomit during 24-h post-operatively. This may be of value in patients with an increased risk of pulmonary aspiration.

The role of new anesthetic agents

The three anesthetic drugs introduced most recently to the market are sevoflurane, desflurane, and ropivacaine. Sevoflurane and desflurane are both inhalational anesthetic agents and ropivacaine is a local anesthetic agent. Sevoflurane provides a rapid onset and offset of action; it is well tolerated with little airway irritation. It is hemodynamically stable, with low potential for toxicity. Concerns about its interaction with soda lime during low-flow anesthesia with the production of Compound A have not proved to be a clinical problem. While desflurane also provides rapid onset and recovery from anesthesia, it is not as hemodynamically stable as sevoflurane, and also causes airway irritation. Ropivacaine is a unique local anesthetic in that it is supplied as the pure S-enantiomer. It is at least as effective as bupivacaine, with lower toxicity and less motor block for the same degree of sensory block.

Prophylactic ondansetron for post-operative emesis: meta-analysis of its effectiveness in patients with and without a previous history of motion sickness

The post-operative anti-emetic efficacy of 4 and 8 mg of ondansetron in adult patients with and without a previous history of motion sickness (PHMS) was assessed by meta-analysis. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the anti-emetic effectiveness of ondansetron in a 24-h period. In the 49 studies found, a further selection was with respect to those studies that noted the patient's previous history of motion sickness. Twelve trials involving 2122 patients; 446 previous history of motion sickness(+) patients and 1676 previous history of motion sickness(-) patients met the selection criteria. The dose of 4 mg ondansetron was 71.5% more effective in previous history of motion sickness(+) than in previous history of motion sickness(-) patients. For the 8 mg dose, the odds ratios (95% CI) were: previous history of motion sickness(+) = 3.11 (1.40-6.93) and previous history of motion sickness(-) = 2.08 (1.35-3.21). The calculated number needed to treat was also more favourable in previous history of motion sickness(+) patients for both doses of ondansetron, demonstrating a higher effectiveness in this subgroup of patients.

Antiemetics for obstetric and gynecological procedures

Nausea and vomiting is a troublesome side-effect that occurs more frequently during obstetric and gynecological procedures than during most other surgical procedures. Recent research has focused on the efficacy and safety of new antiemetic medications, primarily 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 receptor antagonists, as well as clinical comparisons of these new drugs with older, established antiemetics. In the current healthcare environment, the cost-effectiveness of available antiemetic therapies has also become increasingly important, and this has been addressed in some of the recent literature.