Prophylactic control of post-operative nausea and vomiting using ondansetron and ramosetron after cardiac surgery

Post-operative vomiting and enhanced recovery after congenital cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Post-operative nausea and vomiting is frequent after congenital cardiac surgery.

AIMS

We sought to determine factors associated to severe post-operative vomiting after congenital cardiac surgery and the effect on post-operative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients > 30 days of age who underwent elective cardiac surgical repair as part of an enhanced recovery after congenital cardiac surgery programme were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics and perioperative factors were compared by univariate analysis for patients with severe post-operative vomiting, defined as three events or more, and for patients with no-or-mild post-operative vomiting. All variables with a p-value < 0.1 were included in a multivariable model, and major post-operative outcomes were compared using regression analysis.

RESULTS

From 1 October, 2018 to 30 September, 2019, 430 consecutive patients were included. The median age was 4.8 years (interquartile range 1.2-12.6). Twenty-one per cent of patients (91/430) experienced severe post-operative vomiting. Total intraoperative opioids > 5.0 mg/kg of oral morphine equivalent (adjusted odds ratio 1.72) and post-operative inotropes infusion(s) (adjusted odds ratio 1.64) were identified as independent predictors of severe post-operative vomiting after surgery. Patients suffering from severe post-operative vomiting had increased pulmonary complications (adjusted odds ratio 5.18) and longer post-operative hospitalisation (adjusted coefficient, 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater cumulative intraoperative opioids are associated with severe post-operative vomiting after congenital cardiac surgery. Multimodal pain strategies targeting the reduction of intraoperative opioids should be considered during congenital cardiac surgery to enhance recovery after surgery.

Should nasogastric tube be used routinely in patients undergoing cardiac surgery? A narrative review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Nasogastric tube (NGT) use has been common in the immediate postoperative period in surgical patients for decades. Potential advantages include the decompression of gastric contents and the early administration of time-sensitive medications. However, its routine use after cardiac surgery has not been established as a gold standard yet. The NGT use for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting has been a matter of debate in literature. Also, NGT use has also been associated with the incidence of some respiratory and gastrointestinal complications and it may be a source of significant pain and discomfort to patients. In this article, we review the current available literature regarding the use of NGT during and immediately after cardiac surgery, with particular emphasis on its potential role in enhanced postoperative recovery.

METHODS

We performed a database search in October 2021 using Embase, Cochrane Library, and Medline to identify studies that examined the use of NGT in patients that underwent cardiac surgery. Data and literature about NGT's impact on post-operative nausea and vomiting, early administration of medications, interference with imaging, post-operative complications, respiratory complications, gastrointestinal complications, pain and discomfort, and enhanced recovery after surgery were examined.

RESULTS

Three reports investigating the use of NGT to reduce post-operative nausea and vomiting were examined with sample sizes of 114, 104, and 202. The use of NGT did not significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting in 2/3 of the studies: a 2% nausea reduction with NGT (p < 0.05), a 7.7% nausea reduction with NGT (p = 0.6), and a 14% vomiting reduction with NGT (p = 0.007). The prevalence of pneumonia following NGT use has been shown to vary ranging from 4 to 95% with associated mortality rates of 17 to 62%.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, there is currently not sufficient evidence to support the routine use of NGT during cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to establish the role of NGT in this patient population.

Early Postoperative Ondansetron Exposure is Associated with Reduced 90-Day Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Background

Ondansetron is a widely used anti-emetic for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting for patients in critical care. Recent retrospective cohort studies suggest the potential beneficial effects of ondansetron in critically ill patients. In this study, we investigate the impact of ondansetron use on patient outcomes after cardiac surgery.

Material and Methods

The MIMIC-III database was used to identify two types of cardiac surgical patients: those who were administered early ondansetron and those who were not given this early medication in the first 48 h in the postoperative period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the effect of ondansetron exposure on 90-day mortality, acute kidney injury, and malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Sensitivity analyses utilizing the inverse probability of treatment weighting and covariate balancing propensity score models were conducted to test the robustness of our findings.

Results

A total of 12.4% of patients received ondansetron. Ondansetron use was associated with a lower risk of 90-day mortality in the multivariable logistic regression model (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.72; P = 0.006) and sensitivity analyses. Additionally, ondansetron exposure was associated with less postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.69 to 0.96; P = 0.017) but did not increase the risk of postoperative malignant ventricular arrhythmias (OR: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.09 to 1.16; P = 0.191).

Conclusions

In a population of cardiac surgical patients, early postoperative use of ondansetron appears to be associated with decreased 90-day mortality and acute kidney injury.

Isoflurane not at the expense of postoperative nausea and vomiting in cardiac anesthesia - an observational study

OBJECTIVES

Inhalative anesthesia is of common use, but is generally known to potentiate postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). With an internal change of anesthesia regimen from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) to isoflurane (in terms of myocardial protection) in cardiac anesthesia a higher incidence of PONV was to be expected. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence of PONV after the simultaneous implementation of PONV prophylaxis.

METHODS

The incidence of PONV, prospectively assessed in 197 cardiac surgery patients (68 y ± 10.4, 66.5% male) having isoflurane plus dual PONV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and droperidol, was compared with previous data of 190 controls (67 y ± 9.6, 71% male) having TIVA without and with single or dual PONV prophylaxis (n = 64 dexamethasone and droperidol, n = 25 dexamethasone, n = 101 only TIVA), and the Apfel-scoring (0-4 depending on PONV-risk). DRKS00014275. Statistics: Chi²-test, p < .05 (Bonferroni).

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV under isoflurane with antiemetic prophylaxis was 20.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.4; 27.4) compared to 30.5% (95%CI 24; 37.6) under TIVA (p = .029; dexamethasone and droperidol 23.4% (95%CI 13.8; 35.7); dexamethasone 32% (95%CI 14.9; 53.5); only TIVA 34.7% (95%CI 25.5; 44.8)), but was not lower in high-risk patients than predicted according to Apfel-scoring 4 (71.4 vs. 78%).

CONCLUSION

In cardiac anesthesia, the use of isoflurane is not at the expense of PONV when using a risk-independent two-drug-prophylaxis. It is even beneficial resulting surprisingly in a lower incidence of PONV than under TIVA unless with and without prophylaxis. Patients with the highest risk for PONV and receiving isoflurane should receive a third antiemetic prophylactic drug.

Guidelines for enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery. Consensus document of Spanish Societies of Anesthesia (SEDAR), Cardiovascular Surgery (SECCE) and Perfusionists (AEP)

The ERAS guidelines are intended to identify, disseminate and promote the implementation of the best, scientific evidence-based actions to decrease variability in clinical practice. The implementation of these practices in the global clinical process will promote better outcomes and the shortening of hospital and critical care unit stays, thereby resulting in a reduction in costs and in greater efficiency. After completing a systematic review at each of the points of the perioperative process in cardiac surgery, recommendations have been developed based on the best scientific evidence currently available with the consensus of the scientific societies involved.

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.

Comparison of palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in women using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

Background

We compared the effects of palonosetron with ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the first 24 h after surgery in women receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with fentanyl for pain control.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 204 healthy patients who were undergoing elective surgery with general anesthesia were enrolled. In the palonosetron group (n = 102), 0.075 mg bolus was given intravenously (i.v.) 30 min before the end of surgery and 8 ml saline was added to the IV-PCA. In the ondansetron group (n = 102), 8 mg bolus i.v. was given 30 min before the end of surgery and 16 mg of ondansetron was added to the IV-PCA. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, and use of rescue anti-emetics were evaluated 6 and 24 h after the operation.

Results

The incidences of nausea (55.6%) and vomiting (14.1%) in the palonosetron group did not differ from those (58.3 and 19.8%) in the ondansetron group during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the severity of nausea and use of rescue anti-emetics between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

The effects of palonosetron in preventing PONV were not different from those of ondansetron during the first 24 h postoperatively in women receiving IV-PCA with fentanyl.

Ramosetron Does Not Reduce the Analgesic Efficacy of Tramadol after Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery

Background

The effect of ramosetron on the analgesic action of tramadol is not well known when ramosetron is added to intravenous-tramadol patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) and infused continuously. The aim of this randomized noninferiority study was to evaluate the effects of ramosetron on the analgesic action of tramadol when it is administered simultaneously in women undergoing laparoscopic gynecology who are receiving tramadol via IV PCA.

Method

This study used a prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority clinical trial design and compared the analgesic effect of tramadol plus ramosetron with that of tramadol only. A total of 110 postoperative patients, who were using IV PCA tramadol, were randomly assigned either to a group receiving ramosetron (group R, n=49) or to a group that received the same volume of normal saline continuously (group N, n=51). Observation time points for cumulative tramadol consumption were the first hour, and every 4 h up to 12 h and then 24 h after surgery. Pain intensity at rest and during movement, coughing, and nausea scores, the analgesic and antiemetic doses used, side effects, and patient satisfaction were evaluated 1 and 24 h after surgery.

Results

Groups R and N received, respectively, 88 ± 55 vs. 79 ± 42 mg tramadol (P=0.511) after 1 h, 211 ± 122 vs. 198 ± 109 mg cumulative tramadol (P=0.610) after 4 h, 244 ± 150 vs. 231 ± 134 mg cumulative tramadol (P= 0.793) after 8 h, 250 ± 156 vs. 247 ± 153 mg cumulative tramadol (P=0.972) after 12 h, and 294 ± 190 vs. 284 ± 178 mg cumulative tramadol (P=0.791) after 24 h, postsurgery. Tramadol plus ramosetron was shown to be not significantly inferior to tramadol alone in alleviating the postoperative pain.

Conclusions

The analgesic effect of tramadol combined with ramosetron was found to be noninferior to tramadol alone for postoperative PCA after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery.

Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after cardiac surgery in high-risk patients: A randomized controlled study

Context:

The role of prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in cardiac surgery is under debate.

Aims:

To study the risk factors for PONV after cardiac surgery and the role of betamethasone with or without droperidol for its prevention.

Setting and Design:

Randomized open-label controlled study comparing standard care with PONV prophylaxis from February to November 2016.

Methods:

Five hundred and two patients with planned nonemergent cardiac surgery were included. Interventions: In the intervention arm, PONV prophylaxis (4 mg betamethasone with/without 0.625 mg droperidol) was administered in high-risk patients (two or more risk factors). Patients in the control arm were treated as per routine hospital practices.

Results:

Female sex, past history of PONV, and migraines were associated with a significantly increased risk of PONV, while motion sickness, smoking status, and volatile anesthetics were not. Pain and treatment with nefopam or ketoprofen were associated with an increased risk of PONV. PONV was less frequent in the active arm compared to controls (45.5% vs. 54.0%, P = 0.063; visual analogic scale 10.9 vs. 15.3 mm, P = 0.043). Among the 180 patients (35.6%) with ≥2 risk factors, prophylaxis was associated with reduced PONV (intention-to-treat: 46.8% vs. 67.8%, P = 0.0061; per-protocol: 39.2% vs. 69%, P = 0.0002). In multivariate analysis, prophylaxis was independently associated with PONV (odds ratio [OR]: 0.324, 95% confidence interval: 0.167–0.629, P = 0.0009), as were female sex, past history of PONV, and migraines (OR: 3.027, 3.031, and 2.160 respectively). No drug-related side effects were reported.

Conclusion:

Betamethasone with/without droperidol was effective in decreasing PONV in high risk cardiac surgical patients without any side effect.

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery complications: A review for emergency clinicians

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains a high-risk procedure, and many patients require emergency department (ED) management for complications after surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review provides an evidence-based summary of the current data for the emergency medicine evaluation and management of post-CABG surgery complications.

DISCUSSION

While there has been a recent decline in all cardiac revascularization procedures, there remains over 200,000 CABG surgeries performed in the United States annually, with up to 14% of these patients presenting to the ED within 30 days of discharge with post-operative complications. Risk factors for perioperative mortality and morbidity after CABG surgery can be divided into three categories: patient characteristics, clinician characteristics, and postoperative factors. Emergency physicians will be faced with several postoperative complications, including sternal wound infections, pneumonia, thromboembolic phenomena, graft failure, atrial fibrillation, pulmonary hypertension, pericardial effusion, strokes, renal injury, gastrointestinal insults, and hemodynamic instability. Critical patients should be evaluated in the resuscitation bay, and consultation with the primary surgical team is needed, which improves patient outcomes. This review provides several guiding principles for management of acute complications. Understanding these complications and an approach to the management of hemodynamic instability is essential to optimizing patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complications of CABG surgery can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Physicians must rapidly diagnose these conditions while evaluating for other diseases. Early surgical consultation is imperative, as is optimizing the patient's hemodynamics, including preload, heart rate, cardiac rhythm, contractility, and afterload.

Efficacy and Safety of Ramosetron Injection for Nausea and Vomiting in Colorectal-Cancer Patients Undergoing a Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparative Study

Purpose

A laparoscopic colectomy in colorectal-cancer patients is usually associated with a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of injection of long-acting 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist for the reduction of PONV in patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

A total of 48 patients scheduled to undergo a laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer were randomized in a double-blinded fashion. Patients were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups and assigned to receive either 0.3 mg of ramosetron intravenously (group A, n = 25) or 2 mL of normal saline (placebo) (group B, n = 22) immediately after the operation. The incidence of PONV, the nausea severity scale score, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain, the total amount of patient-controlled analgesia used, the recovery of bowel function, and morbidities were assessed at 1 hour and at 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery.

Results

The baseline and the operative characteristics were similar between the groups (P > 0.05). The number of cases without PONV (complete response) was higher for group A (ramosetron) than group B (normal saline): 24 hours after surgery, 92.0% (23 of 25) for group A versus 54.5% (12 of 22) for group B; 48 hours after surgery, 92% (23 of 25) for group A versus 81.8% (18 of 22) for group B (both P < 0.05). No serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Postoperative ramosetron injection is effective for the prevention of PONV after a laparoscopic colectomy in colorectal-cancer patients.

Comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

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.

Comparative Pharmacology and Guide to the Use of the Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Since the introduction of the serotonin 5-hydroxy tryptamine 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists in the early 1990s, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) has decreased, yet continues to be a problem for the surgical patient. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists has helped define the approach and role of these antiemetics in the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. Pharmacological and clinical differences exist among these medications resulting in corresponding differences in effectiveness, safety, optimal dosage, time of administration, and use as combination and rescue antiemetic therapy. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist antiemetics has improved the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. The most recent consensus guidelines for PONV published in 2014 outline the use of these antiemetics. The 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists play an important role to help prevent PONV and PDNV in perioperative care pathways such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). Comparisons and guidelines for use of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists in relation to the risk for PONV and PDNV are reviewed.

Efficacy of Intravenous Ondansetron for Prevention of Postspinal Shivering during Lower Segment Cesarean Section: A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial

Background and Aims:

Elective lower segment cesarean section under spinal anesthesia is frequently associated with shivering. Ondansetron has been shown to be effective for postspinal shivering. In the present study, we compare the efficacy of ondansetron to prevent postspinal shivering in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia.

Materials and Methods:

A total of eighty full-term parturients scheduled for elective lower segment cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups. Group O received 8 mg/4 ml ondansetron, and Group S received 4 ml normal saline intravenously immediately before induction of spinal anesthesia. The level of sensory block, core body temperature, shivering score, and presence or absence of nausea and vomiting during the perioperative period, 1^st and 5^th min neonates Apgar scores were recorded. The data analysis was carried out with Z-test and Chi-square test.

Results:

Ten percent (4/40) of patients in Group O and 42.5% (17/40) of patients in Group S had Grade III shivering during the perioperative period and that was treated with intravenous injection tramadol (P = 0.001). Two patients (5%) in ondansetron and 19 patients (47.5%) in control group had nausea and vomiting (P < 0.001) and was treated with intravenous 10 mg metoclopramide. 1^st and 5^th min Apgar scores of neonates were not statistically different in the groups.

Conclusions:

Ondansetron is an effective way to prevent shivering, nausea and vomiting during lower segment cesarean section under spinal anesthesia with no effect on Apgar score.

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.

Population pharmacokinetics and prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron in surgical patients

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.

Incidence and risk factors for postoperative vomiting following atrial septal defect repair in children

BACKGROUND

The incidence and risk factors for postoperative vomiting (POV) after pediatric cardiac surgery has not been studied.

AIMS

This study sought to assess the incidence and risk factors for POV in children undergoing surgical repair of an atrial septal defect (ASD).

METHODS

We retrospectively collected perioperative data from 160 patients who underwent surgical repair of an ASD and met early extubation criteria. Demographic and clinical data that could potentially influence the incidence of POV were collected. Univariate analysis was performed using Student t-test or Wilcoxon rank test to identify factors associated with POV. Continuous variables were dichotomized based on the cutoff values derived from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the Youden-J index. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis using backward selection to determine the independent predictors using a univariate cutoff of P < 0.10 for inclusion and P > 0.05 for removal to determine factors independently associated with POV. The accuracy of our multivariate model was assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Overall the incidence of POV was 37.5% in all the children who underwent surgical ASD repair. POV did not significantly differ between patients who received and did not receive antiemetics intraoperatively. Age of ≥4 years and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time ≥51 min were identified as independent risk predictors for POV and the AUC of logistic regression model was 0.650 (95% confidence interval; 0.565-0.735).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of POV in children undergoing surgical ASD repair was 37.5%. Age ≥4 years and CPB time ≥51 min were identified as independent predictors.

Comparative safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients, but these agents may be harmful. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

METHODS

Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564.

RESULTS

Overall, 120 studies and 27,787 patients were included after screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly more patients receiving granisetron plus dexamethasone experienced an arrhythmia relative to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.96, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.11-7.94), ondansetron (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.17-8.95), dolasetron (OR 4.37, 95 % CI 1.51-12.62), tropisetron (OR 3.27, 95 % CI 1.02-10.43), and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OR 5.75, 95 % CI 1.71-19.34) in a NMA including 31 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 6,623 patients of all ages. No statistically significant differences in delirium frequency were observed across all treatment comparisons in a NMA including 18 RCTs and 3,652 patients.

CONCLUSION

Granisetron plus dexamethasone increases the risk of arrhythmia.

Comparison of ramosetron with ondansetron for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients

Background and Aims:

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has an 80% incidence in high-risk patients. This is despite the availability of several antiemetic drugs. Selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are considered first-line for prophylaxis, ondansetron being the most commonly used agent. Ramosetron, another selective 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, is more potent and longer acting than ondansetron. This study was conducted to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of ramosetron in comparison with ondansetron in patients at a high risk of PONV.

Methods:

This was a prospective randomised double-blind study carried out over a 6-month period in which 206 patients with at least two risk factors for PONV were randomised to receive ramosetron 0.3 mg or ondansetron 8 mg, 30 min before the end of surgery. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea and need for rescue antiemetic were recorded over the next 24 h. Primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcomes included severity of nausea and need for rescue. The data were analysed using the Predictive Analytics Software (PASW, version 18: Chicago, IL, USA).

Results:

The incidence of PONV was found to be 35% in the ramosetron group as opposed to 43.7% in the ondansetron group (P = 0.199). Need for rescue antiemetic was 23.3% in the ramosetron group and 32% in the ondansetron group (P = 0.156) in the 24 h following surgery.

Conclusion:

Ramosetron 0.3 mg and ondansetron 8 mg were equally effective in reducing the incidence of PONV in high risk patients.

Efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common side effect of general anesthesia. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting using the most recently published randomized controlled clinical studies.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of ramosetron and ondansetron. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Dichotomous outcomes are presented as the relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 898 patients from nine selected studies were treated with antiemetics after surgery, including 450 patients who received ondansetron 4 mg and 448 patients who received ramosetron 0.3 mg. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to prevention of postoperative nausea (PON) during different time periods in the 48 hours after surgery. When comparing the efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative vomiting (POV), at various time intervals in the 24 hours after surgery, ramosetron was significantly more efficient than ondansetron: 0–6 hours (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24–0.92; P=0.03), 0–24 hours (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52–1.00; P=0.05), and 6–24 hours (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31–0.84; P=0.008). At other time periods between 24 and 48 hours after surgery, ramosetron did not show better efficacy than ondansetron. When comparing the safety profiles of ramosetron and ondansetron, fewer side effects were recorded in the ramosetron group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.91; P=0.01).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that ramosetron was more effective than ondansetron in the prevention of early POV (0–24 hours) with fewer recorded side effects. However, our study did not reveal any statistically significant differences in efficacy between ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PON or late POV (at 24–48 hours).

Wrist acupressure for post-operative nausea and vomiting (WrAP): A pilot study

Post-operative nausea and vomiting are undesirable complications following anaesthesia and surgery. It is thought that acupressure might prevent nausea and vomiting through an alteration in endorphins and serotonin levels. In this two-group, parallel, superiority, randomised control pilot trial we aimed to test pre-defined feasibility outcomes and provide preliminary evidence for the efficacy of PC 6 acupoint stimulation vs. placebo for reducing post-operative nausea and vomiting in cardiac surgery patients. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to either an intervention PC 6 acupoint stimulation via beaded intervention wristbands group (n=38) or placebo sham wristband group (n=42). The main outcome was assessment of pre-defined feasibility criteria with secondary outcomes for nausea, vomiting, rescue anti-emetic therapy, quality of recovery and adverse events. Findings suggest that a large placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of PC 6 stimulation on PONV in the post-cardiac surgery population is feasible and justified given the preliminary clinically significant reduction in vomiting in the intervention group in this pilot. The intervention was tolerated well by participants and if wrist acupressure of PC 6 acupoint is proven effective in a large trial it is a simple non-invasive intervention that could easily be incorporated into practice.

Efficacy of palonosetron and ramosetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting related to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids after gynecological laparoscopic surgery (double-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial)

PURPOSE

The study was designed to assess the efficacy of palonosetron and ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) related to intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids after gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to 4 groups-C, P, R0.3 and RPCA. At the end of surgery, group C received an infusion of 50 ml normal saline, group P received palonosetron 75 μg mixed in 50 ml normal saline, and groups R0.3 and RPCA received ramosetron 0.3 mg mixed in 50 ml normal saline. A PCA pump containing fentanyl was connected for all groups; however, ramosetron 0.6 mg was mixed with the PCA regimen for the RPCA group. PONV and postoperative pain were assessed.

RESULTS

PONV incidence and scale, and Rhodes index in RPCA group between 24 and 72 h after discharge from the post-anesthetic care unit (PACU) showed significantly lower values, compared with the other groups. PONV incidence and scale, and Rhodes index in P group and R0.3 group were lower than the corresponding values in C group at all times, without statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

A single dose of palonosetron 75 μg or ramosetron 0.3 mg was unable to prevent PONV related to IV PCA with opioids in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. The combination of a single dose of ramosetron 0.3 mg, followed by ramosetron 0.6 mg mixed with PCA, significantly decreased PONV compared with a single dose of palonosetron 75 μg or ramosetron 0.3 mg.

Evaluation of the ability of continuous palonosetron infusion, using a patient-controlled analgesia device, to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of palonosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), as well as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, has already been demonstrated in multiple clinical studies. The purpose of this study was to determine whether continuous infusion of palonosetron following single injection could reduce PONV to a greater extent than single injection only of palonosetron.

METHODS

In total, 132 women were enrolled in the study. All subjects were over the age of 20 years and were scheduled to undergo gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. In both groups, patients received 0.075 mg of palonosetron intravenously, immediately before induction of anesthesia. In the continuous palonosetron infusion group, 0.075 mg (1.5 ml) of palonosetron was added to the patient-controlled analgesia device. In the single-injection palonosetron group, 1.5 ml of normal saline was added.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the continuous palonosetron infusion group than the single-injection palonosetron group (31.8 vs. 56.1%, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous palonosetron infusion, following single injection, reduces the incidence of PONV compared with single injection only.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, and multicenter trial of prophylactic effects of ramosetronon postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy: comparison with ondansetron

Background

Craniotomy patients have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This prospective, randomized, double-blind, multi-center study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic ramosetron in preventing PONV compared with ondansetron after elective craniotomy in adult patients.

Methods

A total of 160 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II patients aged 19–65 years who were scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy for various intracranial lesions were enrolled in this study. All patients received total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups to receive ondansetron (4 mg; group A, n  =  55), ondansetron (8 mg; group B, n  =  54), or ramosetron (0.3 mg; group C, n  =  51) intravenously at the time of dural closure. The incidence of PONV, the need for rescue antiemetics, pain score, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) consumption, and adverse events were recorded 48 h postoperatively.

Results

Among the initial 160 patients, 127 completed the study and were included in the final analysis. The incidences of PONV were lower (nausea, 14% vs. 59% and 41%, respectively; P  <  0.001; vomiting, P  =  0.048) and the incidence of complete response was higher (83% vs. 37% and 59%, respectively; P  <  0.001) in group C than in groups A and B at 48 h postoperatively. There were no significant differences in the incidence of PONV or need for rescue antiemetics 0–2 h postoperatively, but significant differences were observed in the incidence of PONV and complete response among the three groups 2–48 h postoperatively. No statistically significant intergroup differences were observed in postoperative pain, PCA consumption, or adverse events.

Conclusion

Intravenous administration of ramosetron at 0.3 mg reduced the incidence of PONV and rescue antiemetic requirement in craniotomy patients. Ramosetron at 0.3 mg was more effective than ondansetron at 4 or 8 mg for preventing PONV in adult craniotomy patients.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) Identifier: KCT0000320. Registered 9 January 2012.

Efficacy of palonosetron versus ramosetron on preventing opioid-based analgesia-related nausea and vomiting after lumbar spinal surgery: a prospective, randomized, and double-blind trial

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, and double-blind study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of ramosetron and palonosetron on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCAopioid) after lumbar spinal surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

IV-PCAopioid, an effective method to control pain after lumbar spinal surgery, accompanies PONV. Ramosetron and palonosetron are novel 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 antagonists known to have longer action duration and higher receptor affinity than their congeners, whereas their relative efficacy has not been validated yet.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-six patients were randomly and evenly allocated to receive either 0.3 mg of ramosetron or 0.075 mg of palonosetron 10 minutes before the end of operation. Ramosetron or palonosetron were also added to the IV-PCAopioid, which was continuously infused for 48 hours postoperatively. The incidence and intensity of PONV were serially assessed for 72 hours postoperatively. Intensity of pain, volume of IV-PCAopioid consumption, use of rescue analgesics and antiemetics, and adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PONV was lower in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group (50% vs. 67%, P = 0.014) without any intergroup difference in the incidence of vomiting. Nausea intensity scores were also lower until 6 (P = 0.041) and 24 hour (P = 0.026) postoperatively in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group. Pain intensity scores were significantly lower in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group for 72 hours postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in term of reducing the incidence and severity of nausea associated with IV-PCAopioid after lumbar spinal surgery. This favorable influence of ramosetron on PONV was translated to significant postoperative pain reduction compared with palonosetron.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Risk assessment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia environment: predictive values of the Apfel's simplified risk score for identification of high-risk patients

PURPOSE

Opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) is popular method of postoperative pain control, but many patients suffer from IV PCA-related postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). In this retrospective observational study, we have determined independent predictors of IV PCA-related PONV and predictive values of the Apfel's simplified risk score in pursuance of identifying high-risk patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 7000 patients who received IV PCA with background infusion after elective surgery. Patients who maintained IV PCA for a postoperative period of 48 hr (completion group, n=6128) were compared with those who have discontinued IV PCA within 48 hr of surgery due to intractable PONV (cessation group, n=872). Patients, anesthetics, and surgical factors known for predicting PONV were evaluated by logistic regression analysis to identify independent predictors of IV PCA related intractable PONV.

RESULTS

In a stepwise multivariate analysis, weight, background infusion dose of fentanyl, addition of ketolorac to PCA, duration of anesthesia, general anesthesia, head and neck surgery, and Apfel's simplified risk score were revealed as independent risk factors for intractable PONV followed by the cessation of IV PCA. In addition, Apfel's simplified risk score, which demonstrated the highest odds ratio among the predictors, was strongly correlated with the cessation rate of IV PCA.

CONCLUSION

Multimodal prophylactic antiemetic strategies and dose reduction of opioids may be considered as strategies for the prevention of PONV with the use of IV PCA, especially in patients with high Apfel's simplified risk scores.

Reevaluation of the effectiveness of ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ramosetron has been shown to have a very strong effect for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in previous meta-analyses. However, these previous meta-analyses included a number of studies by Fujii et al. which have now been proven to have been fabricated. In the present meta-analysis, we reevaluated the effectiveness of ramosetron in preventing PONV after excluding Fujii et al.'s randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Web of Science. All double-blind randomized controlled trials that tested the efficacy of ramosetron compared with a placebo or other drugs as a control in the prophylaxis of PONV were considered to be eligible. The first postoperative 24 hours were divided into early (0-6 hours) and late (6-24 hours) time periods, and we collected these data separately.

RESULTS

A total of 1372 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with a placebo, ramosetron reduced the incidence of early postoperative nausea (PON) (relative risk [RR] [95% confidence interval] 0.59 [0.47-0.73]: number needed to treat [NNT] [95% confidence interval] 6.0 [4.3-9.7]), late PON (RR 0.65 [0.49-0.85]: NNT 7.2 [4.6-16.6]), early postoperative vomiting (POV) (RR 0.48 [0.31-0.74]: NNT 14.8 [8.3-70.4]), and late POV (RR 0.50 [0.35-0.73]: NNT 12.3 [7.1-47.6]). Compared with ondansetron, ramosetron reduces early POV (RR 0.50 [0.28-0.90]: NNT 24.1 [10.7-98.0]) and late POV (RR 0.53 [0.34-0.81]: NNT 27.2 [12.0-102.0]) but not PON.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramosetron has a significant effect for preventing PONV compared with a placebo, but less than that reported in previous analyses. Ramosetron also has statistically significant differences in preventing early and late POV compared with ondansetron, but the clinical significance may be questioned because the NNTs are large.

Comparison of palonosetron with ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after gynecological laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications after anesthesia and surgery. This study was designed to compare the effects of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients receiving intravenous opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

One hundred non-smoking female patients scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomly assigned into the palonosetron group (n = 50) or the ondansetron group (n = 50). Palonosetron 0.075 mg was injected as a bolus in the palonosetron group. Ondansetron 8 mg was injected as a bolus and 16 mg was added to the IV-PCA in the ondansetron group. The incidences of nausea, vomiting and side effects was recorded at 2 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h, postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of PONV during 72 h after operation. However, the incidence of vomiting was lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group (18% vs. 4%, P = 0.025). No differences were observed in use of antiemetics and the side effects between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV were similar in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery and receiving opioid-based IV-PCA.

A randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy of ramosetron and palonosetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological laparoscopic surgery

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after anesthesia and surgery; 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists have been considered as a first-line therapy. Ramosetron and palonosetron are more recently developed drugs and have greater receptor affinity and a longer elimination half-life compared with older 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists. The purpose of this study was to determine which drug is more effective for preventing PONV between ramosetron and palonosetron.

Methods

We enrolled 100 patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery into this study. The subjects were divided into ramosetron group and palonosetron group. The medications were provided immediately before the induction of anesthesia. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea according to a visual analogue scale, and rescue anti-emetic drug use were monitored immediately after the end of surgery and at 0-6 h, 6-24 h, and 24-48 h post-surgery.

Results

The incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group during 0-6 h (6% vs 26%, P = 0.012) and 0-48 h (14% vs 34%, P = 0.034). The incidence of nausea and overall PONV, and the use of rescue antiemetic were not significantly different during all time intervals. The severity of nausea was not different between the two groups.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the incidence of PONV between the ramosetron and the palonosetron group have not shown the difference during 0-48 h, although palonosetron results in a lower incidence of vomiting during 0-6 h post-surgery.

Practice guidelines for postanesthetic care: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Postanesthetic Care

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Anti-emetic effect of ondansetron and palonosetron in thyroidectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron is a new potent 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 antagonist. Although this drug is thought to be more effective in patients receiving opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), clinical data are lacking. This study compared the effects of i.v. ondansetron and palonosetron administered at the end of surgery in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients receiving i.v. PCA after thyroidectomy.

METHODS

A total of 100 female non-smoking subjects were randomly assigned into a palonosetron group or an ondansetron group. Ondansetron was given as an 8 mg bolus and 16 mg was added to the i.v. PCA mixture. In the palonosetron group, 0.075 mg was injected as a bolus only. Fentanyl-based PCA was provided for 24 h after operation. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea, requirement for rescue anti-emetics, and adverse effects were evaluated during 0-2 and 2-24 h.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during the 24 h postoperative period was lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group (42% vs 62%, P=0.045). No differences were observed between the groups during the first 2 h. However, the incidence of nausea and vomiting and nausea severity were significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group during 2-24 h. The only difference in the use of rescue anti-emetics was at 2-24 h (10% with palonosetron compared with 28% with ondansetron, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron is more effective than ondansetron for high-risk patients receiving fentanyl-based PCA after thyroidectomy, especially 2-24 h after surgery.

Ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): a meta-analysis

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a challenge for patients and health professionals despite various newly developed prophylactic interventions. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of ramosetron in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the prevention of PONV.

Methods

We reviewed 18 randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy and safety of ramosetron in comparison with placebo or any other drugs. Relevant studies were searched in the MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane database libraries. Our end points of concern were prevention of PONV and adverse effects as dichotomous data.

Results

The prophylactic effect of 0.3 mg ramosetron was observed in early PON (relative risk, RR: 0.4; 95% CI 0.3-0.6), early POV (RR: 0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.6), late POV (RR: 0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.6), but not late PON (RR: 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.0). Compared with placebo, the efficacy of 0.3 mg ramosetron in adults and 6 µg/kg in children were consistently beneficial in preventing PONV overall (RR: 0.4; 95% CI: 03-0.6). The effects of 0.3 mg ramosetron and 3 mg granisetron were similar. No serious side effects or adverse events resulted from ramosetron and other active drugs, and incidence was similar to those of the placebo group.

Conclusions

Ramosetron is effective and safe in children and adults without serious adverse effects compared with placebo or other active drugs, as shown in pooled data of RCTs, in terms of the prevention of PONV.