1
|
Choi BM, Kim E, Kim DH, Kim KM, Bang JY, Noh GJ, Lee EK. Dosing Strategy of Ramosetron to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and Development of Prediction Models Using Data Obtained From Randomized Controlled Trials: A Comparative Study. Clin Ther 2024:S0149-2918(24)00110-3. [PMID: 38897838 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2024.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2024] [Revised: 04/23/2024] [Accepted: 05/06/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The study aimed to compare the postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) preventive effect of repeated administration of ramosetron with the standard treatment group and compare models to predict the incidence of PONV using machine-learning techniques. METHODS A total of 261 patients scheduled for breast surgery were analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of repeated intravenous administration of ramosetron. All patients were administered 0.3 mg ramosetron just before the end of surgery. For the repeated dose of ramosetron group, an additional dose of 0.3 mg was administered at 4, 22, and 46 hours after the end of the surgery. Postoperative nausea, vomiting, and retching were evaluated using the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Previously published randomized controlled data were combined with the data of this study to create a new dataset of 1390 patients, and machine-learning-based PONV prediction models (classification tree, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, and neural network) was constructed and compared with the Apfel model. FINDINGS Fifty patients (38.5%) and 60 patients (45.8%) reported nausea, vomiting, or retching 48 hours postoperatively in the standard and repeated-dose groups, respectively (P = 0.317, χ2 test). Median sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the Apfel model analyzed using the training set were 0.815, 0.344, and 0.495, respectively. IMPLICATIONS The repeated administration of ramosetron did not reduce the incidence of PONV. The Apfel model had high sensitivity, however, its specificity and accuracy were lower than that in machine-learning-based models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Byung-Moon Choi
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
| | - Eunha Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Dong Ho Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Kyung Mi Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ji-Yeon Bang
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Gyu-Jeong Noh
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea; Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Asan Medical Centre, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Eun-Kyung Lee
- Department of Statistics, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kim JH, Kim JS, Jeon YG, Bae J, Shin K, Hwang B. Effect of dexamethasone and ramosetron on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in low-risk patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2023; 23:363. [PMID: 37936053 PMCID: PMC10629132 DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02334-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2023] [Accepted: 10/31/2023] [Indexed: 11/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Several studies have investigated the effect of antiemetics on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk groups. However, few studies have investigated the effect of antiemetics in patients at low risk of developing PONV. METHODS In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 177 patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated to three groups. Patients allocated to group C (control group) received 2 mL of intravenous 0.9% saline, those allocated to group R (ramosetron group) received 0.3 mg of intravenous ramosetron, and those allocated to group DR (ramosetron plus dexamethasone group) received 5 mg of intravenous dexamethasone and 0.3 mg of intravenous ramosetron. RESULTS Finally, 174 patients completed the study, and the types of surgeries were orthopedic (n = 80), rhinologic (n = 47), urologic (n = 29), and others (n = 18). The incidence of PONV up to 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in group DR than in group C. The incidence of PONV up to 0-1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in groups R and DR than in group C. The usage pattern of rescue antiemetics was consistent with the incidence of PONV. The percentage of patients requiring rescue analgesics 0-1 h postoperatively was significantly lower in groups R and DR than in group C. CONCLUSIONS The combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron demonstrated a superior effect in preventing PONV for 48 h after surgery under general anesthesia than saline in patients at low risk of developing PONV. Compared with saline injections, ramosetron injections yielded better outcomes for the incidence of PONV and the use of rescue antiemetics and rescue analgesics 0-1 h postoperatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical trial registration number: criskorea@korea.kr, KCT0006749.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jong-Ho Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hallym University Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, 77 Sakju-ro, Chuncheon, 24253, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin-Sun Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Gangneung Asan Hospital, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, Gangwon, Republic of Korea
| | - Yeong-Gwan Jeon
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Wonju College of Medicine, Yonsei University Hospital, Wonju, Republic of Korea
| | - Jangho Bae
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, 24341, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea
| | - Kiyoung Shin
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, 24341, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea
| | - Byeongmun Hwang
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, 24341, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lee B, Kim SY, Kim SH, Yang H, Jin JH, Choi SH. Heart-Rate-Corrected QT Interval Response to Ramosetron during Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Trial. J Pers Med 2022; 12:811. [PMID: 35629233 PMCID: PMC9146018 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12050811] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2022] [Revised: 05/02/2022] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Ramosetron, often used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, might cause heart-rate-corrected (QTc) interval prolongation, as might robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), which requires a steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum. This study aimed to determine how ramosetron administration affects the QTc interval in patients treated with RALP. Fifty-six subjects were randomly assigned to ramosetron (n = 28) or control (n = 28) groups. The ramosetron group received 0.3 mg of ramosetron after anesthetic induction, whereas the control group received normal saline. The QTc interval was measured before and after induction; after 5, 30, and 60 min of being placed in the Trendelenburg position; immediately after being returned to a supine position; and at the end of surgery. Linear mixed models were used to compare QT intervals between groups. QTc intervals did not differ significantly between groups over time (Pgroup×time = 0.111). However, they increased significantly in both groups after placement in the Trendelenburg position compared with before induction (Ptime < 0.001). This increase in QTc continued until the end of surgery in both groups. Based on these findings, ramosetron can be safely administered for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting among patients undergoing RALP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Seung Ho Choi
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Anesthesia and Pain Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea; (B.L.); (S.Y.K.); (S.H.K.); (H.Y.); (J.H.J.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Choi BM. Interpretation of volume kinetics in terms of pharmacokinetic principles. Korean J Anesthesiol 2021; 74:204-217. [PMID: 33663199 PMCID: PMC8175879 DOI: 10.4097/kja.21085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2021] [Accepted: 03/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Volume kinetics is the pharmacokinetics of infusion fluids and describes the distribution and elimination of infused volume. Generally, pharmacokinetic parameters can be estimated by measuring the concentration of a drug. However, it is almost impossible to directly measure the concentration of fluids. Therefore, in volume kinetics, the disposition of fluids is indirectly quantified by measuring the hemoglobin concentration under the premise of no hemoglobin loss. If the hemoglobin concentration is repeatedly measured while administering the fluids, the dilution (relative change of the plasma volume) for each corresponding hemoglobin concentration can be obtained. The dilution is based on the concept of plasma volume expansion. The method of quantifying the drugs disposition with compartmental analysis has been equally applied to volume kinetics. The transfer of fluids between compartments is explained by first-order kinetics, and it is assumed that fluid is only removed from the central compartment. Population analysis can be used to identify covariates that can account for inter-individual variability in volume kinetic parameters. Body weight and mean blood pressure are well-known representative covariates of kinetic volume parameters. Using volume kinetic parameters, the volume expansion effects of crystalloid and colloid solutions can be understood more effectively, thereby facilitating appropriate fluid therapy. Although limitations exist in volume kinetics, its implications are important for clinicians when administering fluids.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Byung-Moon Choi
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Weibel S, Rücker G, Eberhart LH, Pace NL, Hartl HM, Jordan OL, Mayer D, Riemer M, Schaefer MS, Raj D, Backhaus I, Helf A, Schlesinger T, Kienbaum P, Kranke P. Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 10:CD012859. [PMID: 33075160 PMCID: PMC8094506 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012859.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
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).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie Weibel
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Gerta Rücker
- Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Leopold Hj Eberhart
- Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care Medicine, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - Nathan L Pace
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Hannah M Hartl
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Olivia L Jordan
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Debora Mayer
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Manuel Riemer
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Maximilian S Schaefer
- Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
- Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Diana Raj
- Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK
| | - Insa Backhaus
- Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonia Helf
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Tobias Schlesinger
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| | - Peter Kienbaum
- Department of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Peter Kranke
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Effects of depth of neuromuscular block on postoperative pain during laparoscopic gastrectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2019; 36:863-870. [DOI: 10.1097/eja.0000000000001082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
7
|
Yokoi A, Mihara T, Ka K, Goto T. Comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0186006. [PMID: 28977021 PMCID: PMC5627966 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2017] [Accepted: 09/22/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a distressing complication of surgery, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are often prescribed to prevent it. Ondansetron is the agent typically administered to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although ramosetron has a longer duration of action than ondansetron, it remains unclear whether ramosetron is the more effective medication. We performed an updated meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS We searched six databases for all trials that randomly assigned patients to ramosetron or ondansetron groups. The primary outcome was postoperative nausea or vomiting in the early, late, and next-day periods. The secondary outcomes were side effects of the medications. We used the random-effects model to combine the results. Trial sequential analyses were performed to correct for repetitive testing in the updated meta-analysis. RESULTS Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials with 3,811 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results of ramosetron vs. ondansetron efficacy in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting were as follows: Risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.82 [0.69-0.98] for early postoperative nausea, 0.76 [0.65-0.89] for late postoperative nausea, 0.69 [0.57-0.84] for next-day postoperative nausea, 0.78 [0.63-0.98] for early postoperative vomiting, 0.57 [0.45-0.72] for late postoperative vomiting, and 0.61 [0.43-0.86] for next-day postoperative vomiting. Dizziness was significantly lower in ramosetron groups than in ondansetron groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.81 [0.66-0.98]). Trial sequential analysis revealed that the results for late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea were conclusive. CONCLUSIONS Ramosetron is more effective in preventing late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea than ondansetron. The incidence of dizziness may be lower in patients receiving ramosetron than in patients receiving ondansetron. TRIAL REGISTRATION University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000022980.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ayako Yokoi
- Department of Anesthesiology, Kanagawa Children’s Medical Center, Minami-ku, Yokohama, Japan
| | - Takahiro Mihara
- Department of Anesthesiology, Kanagawa Children’s Medical Center, Minami-ku, Yokohama, Japan
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
- * E-mail:
| | - Koui Ka
- Department of Anesthesiology, Kanagawa Children’s Medical Center, Minami-ku, Yokohama, Japan
| | - Takahisa Goto
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kim KM, Huh J, Lee SK, Park EY, Lee JM, Kim HJ. Combination of gabapentin and ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized comparative study. BMC Anesthesiol 2017; 17:65. [PMID: 28525981 PMCID: PMC5438521 DOI: 10.1186/s12871-017-0357-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2016] [Accepted: 05/11/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background As a drug originally introduced for its anticonvulsant effects, gabapentin has been recently shown to be effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in various clinical settings. This study compared the antiemetic efficacy of oral gabapentin, intravenous ramosetron and gabapentin plus ramosetron in patients receiving fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Methods One hundred and thirty two patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery under general anesthesia were allocated randomly into three groups: group G received 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia, group R received 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery, and group GR received a combination of 300 mg oral gabapentin 1 h before anesthesia and 0.3 mg intravenous ramosetron at the end of surgery. Postoperative nausea, retching, vomiting, rescue antiemetic drug use, pain, rescue analgesic requirements and adverse effects were assessed at 0–2, 2–24 and 24–48 h after surgery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was defined as the presence of nausea, retching or vomiting. Results The incidence of complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetics up to 48 h postoperatively) was significantly higher in group GR (26/40, 65%) than group G (16/40, 40%; P = 0.025) and group R (18/44, 41%; P = 0.027), whereas there was no significant difference between group G and group R (P = 0.932). There were no significant between-group differences in the incidence of emetic episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, severe emesis, use of rescue analgesics or any adverse effects. Postoperative pain scores were also similar among groups. Conclusions The combination with gabapentin and ramosetron is superior to either drug alone for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02617121, registered November 25, 2015.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyung Mi Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, 22 Gwanpyeong-ro, 170 beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang, 431-796, Republic of Korea
| | - Jin Huh
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Kangwon National University Hospital, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, 156 Baengnyeong-Ro, Chuncheon, Gangwon-Do, 200-722, Republic of Korea.
| | - Soo Kyung Lee
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, 22 Gwanpyeong-ro, 170 beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang, 431-796, Republic of Korea
| | - Eun Young Park
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, 22 Gwanpyeong-ro, 170 beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang, 431-796, Republic of Korea
| | - Jung Min Lee
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, 22 Gwanpyeong-ro, 170 beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang, 431-796, Republic of Korea
| | - Hyo Ju Kim
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, 22 Gwanpyeong-ro, 170 beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang, 431-796, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lee YH, Seo JH, Min KT, Lim YJ, Jeong SW, Lee EK, Choi BM, Noh GJ. Population pharmacokinetics and prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron in surgical patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2016; 82:762-72. [PMID: 27195435 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2016] [Revised: 05/06/2016] [Accepted: 05/11/2016] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
AIMS This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of ramosetron and compared prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy with that of ondansetron in a large population. METHODS Fifty-eight patients consented to the pharmacokinetic analysis and were assigned randomly to receive 0.3, 0.45 or 0.6 mg ramosetron after induction of anaesthesia. Blood samples were acquired at preset intervals. Non-compartmental and population pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. In total, 1102 patients consented to the evaluation of prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy and were allocated randomly to receive 0.3 mg ramosetron or 4 mg ondansetron at the end of surgery. An additional 16 mg ondansetron were mixed in the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia pump of the ondansetron group. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were evaluated 6, 24 and 48 h post-operatively using the Rhodes index of nausea, vomiting and retching (RINVR). Administration of rescue anti-emetics and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS The pharmacokinetic parameter estimates were V1 (l) = 5.12, V2 (l) = 108, CL (l⋅min(-1) ) = 0.08 + (59⋅age(-1) ) × 0.09, Q (l⋅min(-1) ) = 1.42. The incidences of PONV in the ramosetron and ondansetron groups were 77 (13.9%) and 113 (20.6%) and 44 (7.9%) and 66 (12.0%) at 24 and 48 h post-operatively, respectively (P = 0.004, 0.030). RINVR was significantly lower in the ramosetron than the ondansetron group 24 and 48 h post-operatively (P = 0.003, 0.025). Use of rescue anti-emetics and incidence of adverse events were comparable. CONCLUSIONS A two compartment mammillary model was used to describe ramosetron pharmacokinetics. Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron was significantly better 24 and 48 h post-operatively than that of ondansetron, particularly when the Apfel score was ≥ 3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yong-Hun Lee
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Centre, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul
| | | | - Kyung-Tae Min
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul
| | - Young-Jin Lim
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul
| | - Seong-Wook Jeong
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju
| | - Eun-Kyung Lee
- Department of Statistics, Ewha Woman's University, Seoul
| | - Byung-Moon Choi
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Centre, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul
| | - Gyu-Jeong Noh
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Asan Medical Centre, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|