The effects of intravenous fosaprepitant and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in neurosurgery patients: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

Fosaprepitant Does Not Interfere With Commonly Used Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Modalities Under General Anesthesia: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

Fosaprepitant [Emend®], a neurokinin type-1 [NK-1] receptor antagonist, is a highly effective for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting [PONV] after general anesthesia; it is particularly effective in patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures. Based on the widespread distribution of NK-1 receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems, we sought to determine whether fosaprepitant administration would interfere with commonly used intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring modalities during general anesthesia.

METHODS

Eleven patients having propofol-based general anesthesia for interventional neuroradiology procedures were administered 150 mg fosaprepitant intravenously after baseline electroencephalogram [EEG], transcranial motor evoked potential [TcMEP], and somatosensory evoked potential [SSEP] recordings were obtained. Recordings of these neuromonitoring modalities at 30, 60, and 90 min after fosaprepitant administration were compared to baseline.

RESULTS

Fosaprepitant did not have a significant effect on SSEP/TcMEP amplitudes or latencies, or on TcMEP morphology. There were also no changes in EEG voltage, frequency, or symmetry.

CONCLUSION

Fosaprepitant does not appear to markedly interfere with SSEP, TcMEP, or EEG neuromonitoring modalities during propofol-based general anesthesia.

Fosaprepitant for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major problem after surgery. Even with double prophylactic therapy including dexamethasone and a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, the incidence is still high in many at-risk patients. Fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic, but its efficacy and safety in combination antiemetic therapy for preventing PONV remain unclear.

METHODS

In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, 1154 participants at high risk of PONV and undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery were randomly assigned to either a fosaprepitant group (n=577) receiving fosaprepitant 150 mg i.v. dissolved in 0.9% saline 150 ml, or a placebo group (n=577) receiving 0.9% saline 150 ml before anaesthesia induction. Dexamethasone 5 mg i.v. and palonosetron 0.075 i.v. mg were each administered in both groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV (defined as nausea, retching, or vomiting) during the first 24 postoperative hours.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV during the first 24 postoperative hours was lower in the fosaprepitant group (32.4% vs 48.7%; adjusted risk difference -16.9% [95% confidence interval: -22.4 to -11.4%]; adjusted risk ratio 0.65 [95% CI: 0.57 to 0.76]; P<0.001). There were no differences in severe adverse events between groups, but the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was higher (38.0% vs 31.7%, P=0.026) and intraoperative hypertension (40.6% vs 49.2%, P=0.003) was lower in the fosaprepitant group.

CONCLUSIONS

Fosaprepitant added to dexamethasone and palonosetron reduced the incidence of PONV in patients at high risk of PONV undergoing laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. Notably, it increased the incidence of intraoperative hypotension.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04853147.

Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Despite the availability of several classes of antiemetics, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a substantial burden for patients following surgery, resulting in patient dissatisfaction and prolonged stays in post-anesthesia care units and ultimately increasing the cost of care. Enhanced recovery protocols and PONV management guidelines are now centered on the assessment of the individual patient's risk for developing PONV, as well as multimodal prophylaxis using antiemetics targeting different mechanisms of action. Over the last two decades, the neurokinin-1 receptor (NK1R) has emerged as a therapeutic target for the management of PONV. This review of the literature explains the role of the NK1R and its ligand-substance P-in vomiting, describes the pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties of NK1R antagonists (NK1RAs) and summarizes the clinical evidence supporting NK1RAs for PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery. In particular, we discuss the therapeutic application of NK1RA in PONV prophylaxis protocols owing to their advantages over other antiemetic classes in efficacy, duration of efficacy, safety, pharmacology, and ease of administration. Future studies will be aimed at further investigating the efficacy and safety of NK1RA-based multimodal combinations, particularly among vulnerable populations (e.g., children and elderly).

Impact of Emend on Perioperative Bariatric Surgery Antiemetic Utilization, Patient Satisfaction, and Costs

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common adverse effects of anesthesia and surgery, resulting in patient discomfort and dissatisfaction. Latest research has demonstrated the efficacy of NK-1 receptor antagonists in PONV management and its use in chemotherapy nausea prophylaxis. The authors of this article would like to provide evidence to support the use fosaprepitant, as monotherapy, in postoperative care, replacing a polypharmacological standard of care regimen.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of 400 patients who received standard of care antiemetic regimen or received fosaprepitant (No-Fosaprepitant vs. Fosaprepitant groups, respectively). The primary outcome of this study is to evaluate the impact of fosaprepitant (administered intravenously) on perioperative antiemetic use, treatment cost, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Total PONV medication cost decreased with the replacement of standard of care regimen for fosaprepitant, from 46.47±20.54 United States Dollars in the no-Fosaprepitant group to 25.69±14.84 United States Dollars in the Fosaprepitant group. There was a significant reduction in antiemetic doses between groups; 0.37±0.745 versus 7.61±5.202 for ondansetron ( P =0.001), 92±1.279 versus 2.21±2.399 for promethazine ( P =0.001), 0.25±0.685 versus 1.41±0.577 for scopolamine patch ( P =0.001), and 0.05±0.218 versus 1.14±0.398 for dexamethasone ( P =0.001). Patient satisfaction, measured by a questionnaire, was a 11.6% higher in the Fosaprepitant group.

CONCLUSION

Fosaprepitant is a relevant alternative in preventing and treating PONV in patients who underwent bariatric/metabolic surgical procedures.

A pharmacological overview of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affects 30% of all patients undergoing surgery and up to 80% of high-risk patients. Antiemetics for PONV prophylaxis target a variety of receptor systems, with varying degrees of efficacy and side effect profile. Neurokinin -1 receptor antagonists are the most recent class of compounds investigated for PONV prophylaxis, with aprepitant being the only one currently approved for this indication.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers the pathophysiology of PONV, current recommendations for PONV prophylaxis, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of aprepitant, and the evidence for its efficacy in the management of PONV as a single agent and in combination therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Aprepitant is effective for PONV prophylaxis. It has superior antivomiting efficacy, long half-life, and favorable side effect profile. Data on antiemetic combinations involving aprepitant are limited, and it not clear if the addition of other antiemetics to aprepitant result in improved PONV prophylaxis. The oral route of administration of aprepitant is a potential limitation in a busy clinical practice. However, the recent approval of an intravenous formulation could provide a more convenient route of administration. Aprepitant remains more expensive than other antiemetics, and there are no studies assessing the cost effectiveness of its use.

Remimazolam decreased the incidence of early postoperative nausea and vomiting compared to desflurane after laparoscopic gynecological surgery

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse event after surgery. Remimazolam is a novel sedative agent recently approved for general anesthesia in Japan. This study evaluated the efficacy of remimazolam in the incidence of PONV after laparoscopic gynecological surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized controlled trial included 64 women who underwent laparoscopic gynecological surgery. The patients were randomly assigned to undergo general anesthesia with either remimazolam (REM group) or desflurane (DES group, n = 30, each group). The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV in the two groups at 2 h and 24 h after the surgery. The incidence of vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and severity of nausea were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In the REM group, the incidence of PONV (27% versus 60%, respectively; P = 0.02), rescue antiemetic use (0 versus 7, respectively; P = 0.01), and nausea score (P = 0.01) were significantly decreased during the first 2 h after surgery. No parameters were significantly different 24 h after surgery between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Remimazolam can reduce the incidence of PONV after laparoscopic gynecological surgery compared to general anesthesia with desflurane during the early postoperative period.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Craniotomy: An Evidence-based Review of General Considerations, Risk Factors, and Management

One of the most common and distressing symptoms after craniotomy is postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV could generate delayed postanesthesia care and hospitalization discharge, lower patient satisfaction, and an increase in overall hospitalization costs. The incidence of reported PONV after craniotomy is 22% to 70% without prophylaxis, and a multimodal regimen of medication has been recommended. We conducted a comprehensive literature review of the clinical evidence related to PONV prevention and management after craniotomy. All clinical trials in adult populations relevant to PONV after craniotomy available in English language and indexed in PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases from January 1997 up to September 2018 were retrieved using a combination of free-text words related to PONV in craniotomy. After screening manuscripts identified in the initial search, 23 clinical trials investigating systemic pharmacological intervention versus placebo or active control in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anesthesia met the criteria for inclusion in this comprehensive narrative review. The pathophysiology and mechanisms of PONV after craniotomy could be multifactorial in etiology. Therefore, based on current evidence, PONV management after craniotomy should focus on perioperative patient assessment, surgical, and anesthesia-related risk factors and the selection of systemic pharmacological considerations to reduce its incidence and complications. A multimodal regimen of medication targeting different chemoreceptors in the vomiting center is recommended. Ondansetron and dexamethasone, or their combination, are the most frequently used and effective agents. Further randomized clinical trials comparing different regimens that significantly reduce the incidence of PONV in craniotomy would provide relevant evidence-based data for PONV management in this patient population.

Neurokinin-1 Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are the second most frequent adverse events after surgery second only to postoperative pain. Despite the advances in antiemetics and implementation of multimodal prophylactic interventions, the clinical management of PONV remains problematic. Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor is a tachykinin receptor found throughout the central and peripheral nervous systems, with a particular affinity towards substance P. NK-1 receptors interact with several parts of the neuronal pathway for nausea and vomiting. This includes the chemoreceptor trigger zone, the gastrointestinal tract, and dorsal motor nucleus of the vagus. NK-1 antagonists are thought to prevent nausea and vomiting by downregulating the emetogenic signals at those points. As more head-to-head trials are conducted between the various anti-emetics, there is emerging evidence that NK-1 antagonists may be more effective in preventing PONV than several other antiemetics currently in use. In this review, we will discuss the pharmacology of NK-1 antagonists, their efficacy in clinical practice, and how they could fit into the framework of PONV management.

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).

[Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis]

BACKGROUND

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of general anesthesia. Several kinds of antiemetics, including 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists and Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, have been used to treat PONV.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the antiemetic effect of NK-1 receptor antagonists, including fosaprepitant.

DATA SOURCES

Online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library databases) were used.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) performed in patients over 18 years with ASA-PS of I-III, aimed to assess the efficacy of antiemetics including NK-1 receptor antagonists and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, and compared the incidence of PONV were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

All statistical assessments were conducted by a random effect approach and odds ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Aprepitant 40mg and 80mg significantly reduced the incidence of vomiting 0-24hours postoperatively (Odds Ratio [OR = 0.40]; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI 0.30-0.54]; p < 0.001, and OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.56; p < 0.001). Fosaprepitant could also reduce the incidence of vomiting significantly both 0-24h and 0-48hours postoperatively (OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; p < 0.001 and OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.23; p < 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Risk factors for PONV are not considered, RCTs using multiple antiemetics are included, RCTs for fosaprepitant is small, and some bias may be present.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Aprepitant and fosaprepitant can be effective prophylactic antiemetics for postoperative vomiting. However, more studies are required for higher-quality meta-analyses.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019120188.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting following lower limb surgery :a comparison between single-injection intraarticular anesthesia and continuous epidural anesthesia

Study Objective : the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following single-injection intraarticular anesthesia was compared to that following continuous epidural anesthesia. Design : Prospective, double-blind, randomized study. Setting : University-affiliated teaching hospital. Patients : Forty-eight patients finally participated in this study, and each group contained twenty-four patients. Interventions : Patients scheduled to undergo lower limb surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups, to receive either single-injection intraarticular or continuous epidural anesthesia for postoperative analgesia. Measurements : The incidence and severity of PONV, complete response rates (i.e., no vomiting or rescue antiemetic use), and pain scores were recorded 2, 24, and 48 h postoperatively. Main results : No significant differences between groups were observed in the incidence and severity of PONV, rescue antiemetic use, or complete response rate at any of the time points, but only the use of rescue analgesics was significantly less in continuous epidural anesthesia group during the 2-24h postoperative period (P=0.04). Conclusion : While the use of single-injection intraarticular anesthesia following lower limb surgery did not prevent PONV more than continuous epidural anesthesia in this study, the intraarticular technique still provides greater simplicity, safety, and cost-effectiveness. J. Med. Invest. 66 : 303-307, August, 2019.

Anti-emetic Drugs for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting After Craniotomy: An Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: There is uncertainty about the effect of antiemetic drugs (AED) for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of AED for PONV.

Methods and Findings: We searched online databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wiley, Elsevier Science Direct, Ovid LWW, and Springer for publications from 1985 to June 2018. Adults undergoing craniotomy with the prophylactic use of at least one AED were included. The primary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first and second day. A total of 1,433 participants from 17 clinical trials were enrolled in this Network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Compared to placebo, ramosetron was the most effective treatment for PON 24 h after surgery (OR = 0.063, 95% Crl: 0.006–0.45), with a 69.2% probability. On the other hand, for POV, droperidol was the best treatment during the first 2 h with a 71.1% probability (OR = 0.029, 95% Crl: 0.003–0.25); while fosaprepitant was the most effective treatment at 0–24 h (OR = 0.027, 95% Crl: 0.007–0.094; 66.9% probability) and 0–48 h (OR = 0.036, 95% Crl: 0.006–0.18; 56.6% probability). Besides, ramosetron showed a significantly higher incidence of complete response (OR = 29. 95% Crl: 1.4–6.5e + 02), as well as lower requirement for rescue AED (OR = 0.022, 95% Crl: 0.001–0.2). Granisetron was associated with the lowest incidence of headache and excessive sedation.

Conclusions: Compared with placebo, ramosetron appears to be the best prophylactic treatment for PON 24 h after craniotomy, with higher complete responses. Fosaprepitant appears to be the most effective prophylaxis option for POV on the first 0–24 and 0–48 h. Both may be better applied in combination with perioperative dexamethasone. These findings may guide clinicians to provide improved pharmacological prophylaxis for PONV after craniotomy with fewer adverse effects.

[Postoperative nausea and vomiting in neurosurgery: the approaches are varied but the problem remains unsolved]

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can induce brain displacement and herniation, especially in patients with cerebral edema.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the urgency of the problem associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting in current clinical practice (with modern approaches being used for its prevention) and to reveal the risk factors of PONV that are typically encountered in neurosurgical patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective observational study involved 240 patients who had undergone elective surgeries at the N.N. Burdenko National Scientific and Practical Center for Neurosurgery between July and November 2017. The data were collected from the questionnaires filled out by the patients during the first 48 h after the surgery and from patients' medical records.

RESULTS

The overall rate of PONV was 39.6%. Thirty-six out of 53 (68%) patients developed PONV after the posterior fossa surgeries. The risk of PONV in this group was significantly higher (p<0.05) compared to the rate of PONV after interventions at a different location. The rate of PONV after treatment of extracranial pathology was ~10.5%; for a different location, it was as high as 32-37%. Intraoperative dexamethasone was used in 156 (65%) patients; in this group, the rate of PONV was 39.9%. Patients received ondansetron at a dose of 8 mg for a preventive purpose at the end of the surgery. A total of 162 patients were given the drug; 59 (36.4%) of them developed POTV during 48 h post-administration. Seventy-eight patients did not receive ondansetron. Thirty-six of them (46.2%) (p>0.05) developed POTV. The rate of POTV assessed during the first 8 h after surgery was 22.8% in patients who had received ondansetron and 37.2% in those who had not received it (p<0.05). Patients who had not intraoperatively received a combination of these drugs developed POTV in 55 (45%) cases (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The problem associated in POTV remains topical in neurosurgery. The current approaches are not absolutely effective for prevention of POTV, whose rate ranges between 10.5 and 68% depending on surgery location. Further studies focused on administration of NK-1 receptor antagonists and electrical stimulation of the median nerve are needed to enhance the effectiveness of POTV prevention.

A Comparison of Fosaprepitant and Ondansetron for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Moderate to High Risk Patients: A Retrospective Database Analysis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occur in 30–50% of patients undergoing general anesthesia and in 70–80% of high PONV risk patients. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of fosaprepitant, a neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist, compared to ondansetron, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in moderate to high PONV risk patients from our previous randomized controlled trials. Patients (171 patients from 4 pooled studies) with the Apfel simplified score ≥ 2 and undergoing general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive intravenous fosaprepitant 150 mg (NK1 group, n = 82) and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (ONS group, n = 89) before induction of anesthesia. Incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in the NK1 group compared to the ONS group 0–2, 0–24, and 0–48 hours after surgery (2 versus 17%, 2 versus 28%, and 2 versus 29%, resp.). However, no significant differences in PONV, complete response, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea score were observed between groups 0–48 hours after surgery. In moderate to high PONV risk patients, fosaprepitant decreased the incidence of vomiting and was superior to ondansetron in preventing postoperative vomiting 0–48 hours after surgery.

Fosaprepitant versus droperidol for prevention of PONV in craniotomy: a randomized double-blind study

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after craniotomy. Vomiting may be a potentially hazardous complication in neurosurgical patients. We compared the efficacy of fosaprepitant and droperidol for the prevention of PONV, vomiting in particular, after craniotomy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy were enrolled in the study and randomly divided in a double-blind manner into two groups to receive either 150 mg of fosaprepitant (group F) or 1.25 mg of droperidol (group D). Dexamethasone (9.9 mg) was given to all patients, except those with diabetes mellitus. The incidence of PONV, frequency of vomiting, nausea score, and use of rescue antiemetic during the first 72 h after surgery were assessed at five time intervals (0-2, 2-6, 6-24, 24-48, and 48-72 h).

RESULTS

Of the 200 randomized patients eligible for entry into the study, 186 were ultimately included for analysis. There were no significant differences in demographics or intraoperative variables between the two treatment groups. Over the entire 72-h post-craniotomy observation period the overall and cumulative incidence of vomiting was significantly lower in group F patients than in group D patients, while there were no between-group differences in the overall and cumulative incidence of PONV or in complete response (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic). The incidence and frequency of vomiting during each of the five observational periods were significantly lower in group F patients than group D patients, although there were no differences in the nausea score and antiemetic use between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results, fosaprepitant was more effective than droperidol in the prevention of vomiting after craniotomy over the entire 72-h study period. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea and antiemetic use.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Double-Dummy Pilot Study to Assess the Preemptive Effect of Triple Therapy with Aprepitant, Dexamethasone, and Promethazine versus Ondansetron, Dexamethasone and Promethazine on Reducing the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Experienced by Patients Undergoing Craniotomy Under General Anesthesia

Introduction

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is among the most common distressing complications of surgery under anesthesia. Previous studies have demonstrated that patients who undergo craniotomy have incidences of nausea and vomiting as high as 50–70%. The main purpose of this pilot study is to assess the incidence of PONV by using two different prophylactic regimens in subjects undergoing a craniotomy. Thus, we designed this study to assess the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with the combination of dexamethasone, promethazine, and aprepitant versus ondansetron to reduce the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy.

Materials and methods

This is a prospective, single center, two-armed, randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, pilot study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment groups. Subjects received 40 mg of aprepitant pill (or matching placebo pill) 30–60 min before induction of anesthesia and 4 mg of ondansetron IV (or 2 ml of placebo saline solution) at induction of anesthesia. In addition, all subjects received 25 mg of promethazine IV and 10 mg of dexamethasone IV at induction of anesthesia. Assessments of PONV commenced for the first 24 h after surgery and were subsequently assessed for up to 5 days.

Results

The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 31.0% (n = 15) in the aprepitant group and 36.2% (n = 17) for the ondansetron group. The median times to first emetic and significant nausea episodes were 7.6 (2.9, 48.7) and 14.3 (4.4, 30.7) hours, respectively, for the aprepitant group and 6.0 (2.2, 29.5) and 9.6 (0.7, 35.2) hours, respectively, for the ondansetron group. There were no statistically significant differences between these groups. No adverse events directly related to study medications were found.

Conclusion

This pilot study showed similar effectiveness when comparing the two PONV prophylaxis regimens. Our data showed that both treatments could be effective regimens to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomy under general anesthesia. Future trials testing new PONV prophylaxis regimens in this surgical population should be performed to gain a better understanding of how to best provide prophylactic treatment.

Plasma substance P concentrations in patients undergoing general anesthesia: an objective marker associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting

Background

This study investigated plasma concentrations of substance P (SP) in patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This prospective, observational, cohort study included 23 patients who underwent scheduled surgery under general anesthesia. Blood was collected from the radial artery at predetermined time points (15-30 mins prior anesthesia, 15-30 mins after surgery/GA, and 24 h after surgery). PONV, SP concentrations, risk factors, and analgesics used were measured.

Findings

Nine of 23 patients experienced PONV. In patients without PONV, SP concentrations significantly decreased (P < 0.0001) at the end of surgery/GA, compared to baseline, and recovered at 24 h after surgery/GA (452.9 ± 146.2 vs. 666.9 ± 176.5 vs. 580.7 ± 168.6 pg/mL, respectively), whereas SP levels were unchanged during surgery/GA and increased at 24 hours after surgery (P = 0.020) in patients with PONV (726.1 ± 167.8 vs. 655.8 ± 168.0 vs. 779.7 ± 220.7 pg/mL, respectively).

Conclusions

These finding suggest that SP levels may be utilized as an objective marker for PONV.