Ondansetron combined with ST36 (Zusanli) acupuncture point injection for postoperative vomiting

Acupuncture combined with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Consensus guidelines recommend the use of multiple antiemetics as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but the evidence regarding combining acupuncture and antiemetics as a multimodal approach was of very low quality.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effect of combinations of acupuncture with ondansetron versus ondansetron alone for PONV prophylaxis in women at a high risk.

METHODS

This parallel, randomised controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary hospital in China. Patients who had three or four PONV risk factors on the Apfel simplified risk score, undergoing elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgery for benign pathology, were recruited. Patients in the combination group received two sessions of acupuncture treatment and 8 mg intravenous ondansetron, whereas those in the ondansetron group received ondansetron alone. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV within 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, adverse events etc. RESULTS: Between January and July 2021, a total of 212 women were recruited, 91 patients in the combination group and 93 patients in the ondansetron group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. In the first 24 h postoperatively, 44.0% of the patients in the combination group and 60.2% of the patients in the ondansetron group experienced nausea, vomiting, or both (difference, -16.3% [95% CI, -30.5 to -2.0]; risk ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.97]; p = 0.03). However, the results of the secondary outcomes showed that compared to ondansetron alone, acupuncture together with ondansetron was only effective in reducing nausea but did not have a significant impact on vomiting. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Acupuncture combined with ondansetron as a multimodal prophylaxis approach is more effective than ondansetron alone in preventing postoperative nausea in high-risk patients.

Efficacy and safety of electrical acupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting are typical postsurgical complications. Drug therapy is only partially effective. The goal of our meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of electrical acupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting and to score the quality of evidence supporting this concept.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to March 19, 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies (2064 patients) were included. Compared with control treatment, electrical acupoint stimulation reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.57, P < 0.001), postoperative nausea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64, P < 0.001) and postoperative vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70, P < 0.001). Electrical acupoint stimulation also reduced the number of patients requiring antiemetic rescue (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.85, P = 0.004). No differences in adverse events were observed. Subgroup analysis showed that both electroacupuncture (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74, P < 0.001) and transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58, P < 0.001) had significant effects. Electrical acupoint stimulation was effective whether administered preoperatively (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.60, P < 0.001), postoperatively (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.76, P < 0.001), or perioperatively (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.67, P < 0.001). The quality of evidence was moderate to low.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrical acupoint stimulation probably reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting, and reduce the number of patients requiring antiemetic rescue, with few adverse events.

ST36 acupoint injection with anisodamine for postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients after bariatric surgery: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of multimodal pharmacological prophylactic regimes has decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in general but it still occurs in over 60% of female patients after bariatric surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ST36 acupoint injection with anisodamine in prevention of PONV among female patients after bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Ninety patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were randomly allocated to anisodamine or control group at the ratio of 2:1. Anisodamine or normal saline was injected into Zusanli (ST36) bilaterally after induction of general anesthesia. The incidence and severity of PONV were assessed during the first 3 postoperative days and at 3 months. The quality of early recovery of anesthesia, gastrointestinal function, sleep quality, anxiety, depression, and complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Baseline and perioperative characteristics were comparable between two groups. In the anisodamine group, 25 patients (42.4%) experienced vomiting within postoperative 24 h compared with 21 (72.4%) in the control group (relative risk 0.59; 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.85). Time to first rescue antiemetic was 6.5 h in anisodamine group, and 1.7 h in the control group (P = 0.011). Less rescue antiemetic was required during the first 24 h in the anisodamine group (P = 0.024). There were no differences in either postoperative nausea or other recovery characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of ST36 acupoint injection with anisodamine significantly reduced postoperative vomiting without affecting nausea in female patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV): A Review of Current Recommendations and Emerging Therapies

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most frequent adverse events after surgery and anesthesia. It is distressing for the patient and can lead to other postoperative complications. Management of PONV involves a framework of risk assessment, multimodal risk reduction, and prophylactic measures, as well as prompt rescue treatment. There has been a significant paradigm shift in the approach towards PONV prevention. There have also been several emerging therapeutic options for PONV prophylaxis and treatment. In this review, we will discuss the up-to-date PONV management guidelines and highlight novel therapeutic options which have emerged in the last few years.

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).

Effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation combined with palonosetron on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting adversely affects the quality of life of patients who receive chemotherapy via intravenous infusion or transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to investigate the clinical effects of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on nausea and vomiting after TACE.

METHODS

A total of 142 patients who received TACE with cisplatin for primary or metastatic liver cancer were assigned to the active-acupuncture (n = 72) or placebo-acupuncture (n = 70) groups using a covariate-adaptive randomization at a ratio of 1:1. The acupoints Hegu (LI4), Neiguan (P6), and Zusanli (ST36) were stimulated twice daily for 6 days. The effects of TEAS on nausea and vomiting were assessed by using occurrence rate and severity of these symptoms. Anorexia scale and M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) scores were secondary endpoints and were used to assess the effect of TEAS on patient appetite and quality of life. The safety of the treatments was also monitored.

RESULTS

Between the two groups, the differences in occurrence rates and severities of nausea and vomiting after TACE were not significant (all P > 0.05). From the second day after TACE, anorexia scores were significantly lower in the active-acupuncture group than in the placebo-acupuncture group and continued to decrease over time with treatment (all P values less than 0.01). On days 0, 1, and 2, the mean MDASI scores for the active-acupuncture group were slightly lower than those for the placebo-acupuncture group, but the differences were not statistically significant (all P > 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in the occurrence rate of any adverse event (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TEAS appears to be a safe and effective therapy to relieve patients' gastrointestinal discomfort after chemotherapy. Trial registration NCT01895010. Registered 21 June 2013.

Acupuncture for recovery after surgery in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in patients recovering from colorectal cancer resection.

METHODS

We systematically searched four English language databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database)) and one Chinese database (CAJ, China Academic Journals). Randomised trials of acupuncture compared with usual/routine care, sham interventions or active comparators in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection were eligible for inclusion. Postoperative symptoms and quality of life (QoL) were the primary outcomes for the review.

RESULTS

Of 1225 screened hits, seven randomised trials with 540 participants were included. High or uncertain risk of bias and significant heterogeneity were observed. All outcomes were measured before discharge, and no trial explicitly reported post-discharge outcomes. The response to acupuncture in terms of postoperative symptoms was inconsistent across trials. QoL was not measured in the included studies. For certain outcomes reflecting physiological recovery, favourable effects of acupuncture were observed compared with sham acupuncture, namely time to first flatus (n=207, three studies; mean difference (MD) -7.48 h, 95% CI -14.58 to -0.39 h, I(2)=0%) and time to first defaecation (n=149, two studies; MD -18.04 h, 95% CI -31.90 to -4.19 h, I(2)=0%). Two studies reported there were no acupuncture-related adverse events, whereas the remaining studies did not consider adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

We found low-to moderate-quality evidence for the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for recovery after surgery in colorectal cancer patients. Future trials with adequate allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors, and measurement of post-discharge outcomes including QoL or functional recovery are warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42014015537.

Analysis of acupuncture prescription for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting based on the modern literature

AIM: To summarize clinical studies on acupuncture for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting over the last ten years, and to analyze acupuncture prescription for postoperative nausea and vomiting with regards to acupuncture method, acupoint selection, compatibility of acupoints, and acupuncture technique.

METHODS: PubMed, Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CNKI), Wanfang, and VIP Database were searched by computer from September 2005 to September 2015 to identify studies evaluating acupuncture or acupuncture combined with other treatments for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Finally, 52 articles were identified to analyze acupuncture prescription.

RESULTS: Main methods of acupuncture were filiform needle acupuncture, percutaneous electrical stimulation, electric acupuncture, acupoint pressure, and acupoint injection. For the selection of acupoints, a specific point was selected in most cases and bilateral acupoints were often punctured. For the compatibility of acupoints, the site and meridians are the main principles of acupuncture points. For the acupuncture technique, filling purging methods, time and intensity of acupuncture needle were described differently, and the best stimulation method is still uncertain.

CONCLUSION: The optimal acupuncture treatment for postoperative nausea and vomiting remains to be studied. In the future, randomized, multicenter larger sample clinical studies should be carried out to examine acupuncture intervention timing, duration and intensity for postoperative nausea and vomiting.