Comparison of Prophylactic Anti-Emetic Effects of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone in Women Undergoing Day-Case Gynaecological Laparoscopic Surgery

Combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron in prophylaxis nausea and vomiting in gynecological operation

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting occur in about 20-30% of women; however, some reports have estimated the rate at 70% in at-risk individuals. Gynecological and obstetrical operations are among the most frequent types of surgeries to be associated with nausea and vomiting postoperatively. Ondansetron and dexamethasone have been compared in a variety of studies for postoperative prophylaxis.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted in order to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone and ondansetron, alone or in combination, for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a sample of Iraqi women undergoing gynecological surgeries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted in Al-Diwaniyah Province, a region belonging to the Mid-Euphrates sector of Iraq, at the Child and Maternity Teaching Hospital. The study started in June 2021 and the work with the research was accomplished in September 2022. The study included a total of 100 women undergoing different gynecological surgeries such as ovarian cystectomy, oophorectomy, ectopic pregnancy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and myomectomy. All participants involved in the study were categorized randomly into four groups, namely, dexamethasone, ondansetron, combined, and placebo groups.

RESULTS

The rates of nausea in the different groups were analyzed. The rates of nausea in dexamethasone, ondansetron, and combined groups revealed a significant decrease compared with that of placebo group (P < 0.05), and the rate was significantly lower in combined group when compared with dexamethasone and ondansetron groups (P < 0.05). The rate of nausea in combined group was significantly lower than that of dexamethasone and ondansetron groups. The rate of vomiting in combined group was significantly lower than that of placebo group and less than that of the dexamethasone group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on our study and previous reports, both dexamethasone and ondansetron are efficient and safe in preventing nausea and vomiting in gynecological operations; however, combination of both provides the best results.

What is the impact of dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing general anaesthesia for elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Previous meta-analysis of heterogeneous surgical cohorts demonstrated reduction in postoperative pain with perioperative intravenous dexamethasone, but none have addressed adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of intravenous perioperative dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia.

Methods

This review was prospectively registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020176202). Electronic databases Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Exerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), (CINAHL) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and trial registries were searched to January 28 2021 for randomised controlled trials, comparing dexamethasone to placebo or alternative antiemetic, that reported pain. The primary outcome was pain score, and secondary outcomes were time to first analgesia, opioid requirements and time to post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge.

Results

Fifty-two studies (5768 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Pain scores ≤ 4 hour (h) were reduced in patients who received dexamethasone at rest (mean difference (MD), − 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 0.72 to − 0.35, I² = 81%) and on movement (MD − 0.42, 95% CI − 0.62 to − 0.22, I² = 35). In the dexamethasone group, 4–24 h pain scores were less at rest (MD − 0.31, 95% CI − 0.47 to − 0.14, I² = 96) and on movement (MD − 0.26, 95% CI − 0.39 to − 0.13, I² = 29) and pain scores ≥ 24 h were reduced at rest (MD − 0.38, 95% CI − 0.52 to − 0.24, I² = 88) and on movement (MD − 0.38, 95% CI − 0.65 to − 0.11, I² = 71). Time to first analgesia (minutes) was increased (MD 22.92, 95% CI 11.09 to 34.75, I² = 98), opioid requirements (mg oral morphine) decreased (MD − 6.66, 95% CI − 9.38 to − 3.93, I² = 88) and no difference in time to PACU discharge (MD − 3.82, 95% CI − 10.87 to 3.23, I² = 59%).

Conclusions

Patients receiving dexamethasone had reduced pain scores, postoperative opioid requirements and longer time to first analgesia. Dexamethasone is an effective analgesic adjunct for patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-022-00243-6.

Preoperative electroacupuncture for postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Objective:

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of preoperative electroacupuncture (EA) on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and severity of postoperative pain, in gynecological patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The effects of EA administered at different preoperative time points were compared.

Methods:

A total of 413 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery were randomly allocated into 4 groups receiving EA the day before surgery (Group Pre, n = 103), 30 min before (Group 30, n = 104) or both (Group Comb, n = 103), or usual care alone (Group Usual, n = 103). All acupuncture groups had usual care. The incidence of PONV and pain at 24 h were primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included the severity of postoperative nausea, vomiting and pain, requirement for antiemetic medication and quality of recovery (QoR)-15 scores after surgery.

Results:

There were significant differences between the four groups in nausea and vomiting incidence (0–24 h), postoperative antiemetic use (0–48 h), and postoperative pain (0–6 h), with the EA groups recording the lowest levels. Regarding primary outcomes, incidence of nausea and vomiting at 6-24 h was 28/11/18/11% (p = 0.003) 23/5/8/9% (p < 0.001), respectively, for Groups Usual/Pre/30/Comb. Accordingly, EA reduced the incidence of nausea and vomiting at 6-24 h by 61/34/60% and 79/65/61% for Groups Pre/30/Comb, respectively. Regarding secondary outcomes, incidence of nausea and vomiting at 0-6 h was 20/9/11/7% (p = 0.013) and 17/7/9/6% (p = 0.021), respectively, for Groups Usual/Pre/30/Comb. Rescue antiemetics at 0–6 h were required by 18/4/11/4% (p = 0.001) in Groups Usual/Pre/30/Comb. The mean numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score (0–10) at 0–6 h was significantly different between groups (2.45/1.89/2.01/1.97 for Groups Usual/Pre/30/Comb, p = 0.024). There were no significant differences between the three EA-treated groups.

Conclusion:

In gynecological patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery and treated with multimodal antiemetic methods, one session of preoperative EA may be a safe adjunctive treatment for PONV prophylaxis. Optimal timing of EA requires further verification.

Trial registration number:

ChiCTR-INR-16010035 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry).

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).

Effects of epidural anesthesia on postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery are susceptible to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We hypothesized that a combination of epidural and general anesthesia to minimize intraoperative opioid administration would reduce the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

METHODS

Women undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery were randomly assigned to receive general anesthesia alone (group G, n = 45) or general anesthesia with epidural anesthesia (group GE, n = 45). Patients in group G received fentanyl and remifentanil for intraoperative analgesia, and those in group GE received single-shot ropivacaine at the time of induction of anesthesia. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV within 24 h of surgery. Secondary outcomes included the use of rescue metoclopramide within 24 h of surgery and the time to first incidence of PONV and first use of rescue metoclopramide.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV within 24 h of surgery was 60.0% in group G and 44.4% in group GE [relative risk (RR): 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-1.23, p = 0.14]. There were no intergroup differences in the use of rescue metoclopramide (40.0% in group G, 24.4% in group GE, RR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.20-1.20, p = 0.11) and the time to first incidence of PONV and first use of rescue metoclopramide (p = 0.20 and 0.12, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Minimizing intraoperative opioid administration by combining epidural and general anesthesia did not reduce the 24-h incidence of PONV or rescue metoclopramide use after laparoscopic gynecological surgery.

Dexamethasone alone versus in combination with intra-operative super-hydration for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in female patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Dexamethasone has a prophylactic effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and perioperative hydration is believed to play a role in PONV prophylaxis. This study was performed to examine the combined effects of pre-induction dexamethasone plus super-hydration on PONV and pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

A total of 100 female patients undergoing LC were enrolled and randomized equally into two groups. Group DF received 5 mg dexamethasone (pre-induction) plus 30 ml/kg Ringer's lactate (intraoperative) and group D received 5 mg dexamethasone (pre-induction) alone. Anesthetic and surgical managements were standardized for all patients. The incidence and severity of PONV, and intra and post-operative analgesic and postoperative antiemetic consumption, were assessed during the first 24 h postoperatively. Post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay and aggregated 24 h pain scores were calculated.

Results

Group DF had significantly lower PONV than group D (P = 0.03). The number of patients with the lowest PONV score was significantly increased in group DF (P = 0.03). Ondansetron consumption was significantly lower in group DF (P < 0.0001). The mean accumulated 24 h pain scores were significantly lower in group DF compared to group D (P < 0.0001). The time to first analgesic request was significantly longer in group DF than group D (P < 0.0001). In addition, total meperidine consumption during the first postoperative 24 h was significantly lower in group DF than group D (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

In female patients undergoing LC, pre-induction with 5 mg dexamethasone plus intraoperative 30 ml/kg Ringer's lactate solution decreased PONV and pain during the first 24 h postoperatively compared to 5 mg dexamethasone alone.

Comparison of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a significant complication after laparoscopic surgeries. Ondansetron and dexamethasone are most commonly used drugs for PONV prophylaxis. Comparisons of these two drugs have not been systematically reviewed till date. Methods. PubMed, PubMed Central, and CENTRAL databases were searched with the following words: "dexamethasone," "ondansetron," "laparoscopy," and "PONV" to identify randomized trials that compared ondansetron and dexamethasone for PONV prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgeries. Results. Data of 592 patients from 7 RCTs have been included in this meta-analysis. Incidence of postoperative nausea at 4-6 h is significantly lower when dexamethasone was used instead of ondansetron (p = 0.04; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.98, M-H fixed). Incidence of nausea is similar at 24 hours (p = 0.08, OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48, 1.05; M-H fixed); vomiting is also similar at 4-6 h (p = 0.43, OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.70-2.27; M-H fixed) and also at 24 h (p = 0.46, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73, 1.16; M-H fixed). Conclusion. Dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea after 4-6 h of laparoscopic surgeries. However, both the drugs are of equal efficacy in preventing postoperative vomiting up to 24 h after surgery. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to clinical heterogeneity in the included studies.

Dexamethasone alone vs in combination with transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation or tropisetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in gynaecological patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is commonly reported after surgery and anaesthesia. We compared the effects of combinations of electrical acupoint stimulation or tropisetron with dexamethasone with the effects of dexamethasone alone, for inhibition of PONV in gynaecological patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

We randomized 157 patients undergoing elective gynaecological laparoscopic surgery under general anaesthesia into the following three groups: acupoint stimulation+dexamethasone (Group Acu, n=53), tropisetron+dexamethasone (Group Trp, n=53), and dexamethasone alone (Group Dxm, n=51). The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and need for rescue antiemetics was recorded 2, 6, 24, and 48 h after surgery.

RESULTS

We found significant differences in the incidence of PONV during 24 h after surgery between the combination therapy groups and the dexamethasone-alone group (P=0.021). In the first 24 h, 28% of patients in Group Acu, 26% of patients in Group Trp, and 50% of patients in Group Dxm experienced nausea, vomiting, or both. The incidence of 24 h PONV in Group Acu was significantly lower than that in Group Dxm (P=0.048; odds ratio 0.389; 95% CI 0.170-0.891). The incidence of 24 h PONV in Group Trp was also significantly lower than that in Group Dxm (P=0.042; odds ratio 0.359; 95% CI 0.157-0.819). There was no significant difference between Group Acu and Group Trp (P=0.857). The need for antiemetic rescue medication was similar in the three groups. All groups expressed similar patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined with dexamethasone, electrical acupoint stimulation or tropisetron is more effective in PONV prophylaxis than dexamethasone alone in gynaecological patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT 02096835.

Dexamethasone versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Dexamethasone is an antiemetic alternative to ondansetron. We aimed to compare the effects of dexamethasone and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2014) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes included PONV in the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), PONV in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), and the postoperative anti-emetics used at both stages. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95 % CIs using random- and fixed-effects models.

Results

Seven trials involving 608 patients were included in this meta-analysis, which found that dexamethasone had a comparable effectiveness in preventing PONV (RR, 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.13; P = 0.39) with that of ondansetron within 24 h of laparoscopic surgery, with no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0 %; P = 0.71). In the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), ondansetron was better at decreasing PONV than dexamethasone (RR, 1.71; 95 % CI, 1.05-2.77; P = 0.03), while in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV than ondansetron (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI, 0.27-0.93; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the postoperative anti-emetics used (RR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45).

Conclusions

Dexamethasone was as effective and as safe as ondansetron in preventing PONV. Dexamethasone should be encouraged as an alternative to ondansetron for preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Efficacy of orally disintegrating film of ondansetron versus intravenous ondansetron in prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing elective gynaecological laparoscopic procedures: A prospective randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study

Background and Aims:

Ondansetron is one of the most widely used drugs for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis. Orally disintegrating film (ODF) formulations are relatively recent innovations. We evaluated the efficacy of ODF of ondansetron for the prophylaxis of PONV.

Methods:

One hundred and eighty American Society of Anaesthesiologists-I or II women, in the age group 18-65 years, scheduled for elective gynaecological laparoscopic procedures were studied in a prospective randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The patients were randomised into four groups: Placebo, intravenous (IV) ondansetron 4 mg, ODF of ondansetron 4 mg (ODF4) and 8 mg (ODF8) groups. PONV was assessed in two epochs of 0-6 and 7-24 h. Primary outcome measure was the incidence of PONV and secondary outcome measures were severity of nausea, need for rescue anti-emetic, analgesic consumption, time to oral intake, overall patient satisfaction and side effects such as headache and dizziness. PONV was compared using analysis of variance or Mann–Whitney U-test as applicable.

Results:

Data of 173 patients were analysed. The incidence of postoperative nausea was significantly lower (P = 0.04) only during the 0-6 h in the ODF8 group when compared with the placebo group. During the 0-6 h interval postoperatively, the ODF8 group had a significantly lower incidence of vomiting when compared with the placebo (P = 0.002) and the IV group (P = 0.044). During the 0-24 h interval postoperatively, ODF4 (P = 0.01) and ODF8 (P = 0.002) groups had a significantly lower incidence of vomiting compared to the placebo group.

Conclusions:

Orally disintegrating film of ondansetron is an efficacious, novel, convenient and may be a cost-effective option for the prophylaxis of PONV.

Dexamethasone reduces emesis after major gastrointestinal surgery (DREAMS)

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most common complications affecting patients after surgery and causes significant morbidity and increased length of hospital stay. It is accepted that patients undergoing surgery on the bowel are at a higher risk. In the current era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery combined with enhanced recovery, reducing the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting is particularly important. Dexamethasone is widely, but not universally used. It is known to improve appetite and gastric emptying, thus reduce vomiting. However, this benefit is not established in patients undergoing bowel surgery, and dexamethasone has possible side effects such as increased risk of wound infection and anastomotic leak that could adversely affect recovery.

DESIGN

DREAMS is a phase III, double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with the primary objective of determining if preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal resections. DREAMS aims to randomize 1,350 patients over 2.5 years.Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open colorectal resections for malignant or benign pathology are randomized between 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone and control (no dexamethasone). All patients are given one additional antiemetic at the time of induction, prior to randomization. Both the patient and their surgeon are blinded as to the treatment arm.Secondary objectives of the DREAMS trial are to determine whether there are other measurable benefits during recovery from surgery with the use of dexamethasone, including quicker return to oral diet and reduced length of stay. Health-related quality of life, fatigue and risks of infections will be investigated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN21973627.

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.

Dexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone has an established role in decreasing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV); however, the optimal dexamethasone dose for reducing PONV when it is used as a single or combination prophylactic strategy has not been clearly defined. In this study, we evaluated the use of 4 mg to 5 mg and 8 mg to 10 mg IV doses of dexamethasone to prevent PONV when used as a single drug or as part of a combination preventive therapy.

METHODS

A wide search was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that evaluated systemic dexamethasone as a prophylactic drug to reduce postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. The effects of dexamethasone dose were evaluated by pooling studies into 2 groups: 4 mg to 5 mg and 8 mg to 10 mg. The first group represents the suggested dexamethasone dose to prevent PONV by the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) guidelines, and the second group represents twice the dose range recommended by the guidelines. The SAMBA guidelines were developed in response to studies, which have been performed to examine different dosages of dexamethasone.

RESULTS

Sixty randomized clinical trials with 6696 subjects were included. The 4-mg to 5-mg dose dexamethasone group experienced reduced 24-hour PONV compared with control, odds ratio (OR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.41), and number needed to treat (NNT, 3.7; 95% CI, 3.0-4.7). When used together with a second antiemetic, the 4-mg to 5-mg dexamethasone group also experienced reduced 24-hour PONV compared with control (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.72; NNT, 6.6; 95% CI, 4.3-12.8). The 8-mg to 10-mg dose dexamethasone group experienced decreased 24-hour PONV compared with control (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.32; NNT, 3.8; 95% CI, 3.0-4.3). Asymmetric funnel plots were observed in the 8-mg to 10-mg dose analysis, suggesting the possibility of publication bias. When used together with a second antiemetic, the 8-mg to 10-mg dose group also experienced reduced incidence of 24-hour PONV (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22-0.53; NNT, 6.2; 95% CI, 4.5-10). In studies that provided a direct comparison between groups, there was no clinical advantage of the 8-mg to 10-mg dexamethasone dose compared with the 4-mg to 5-mg dose on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that a 4-mg to 5-mg dose of dexamethasone seems to have similar clinical effects in the reduction of PONV as the 8-mg to 10-mg dose when dexamethasone was used as a single drug or as a combination therapy. These findings support the current recommendation of the SAMBA guidelines for PONV, which favors the 4-mg to 5-mg dose regimen of systemic dexamethasone.

A network meta-analysis on the efficacy of serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists used in adults during the first 24 hours for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

The serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT(3) antagonists) ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron are potential prophylactic agents for patients with mild to moderate risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A few trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy among 2 to 3 of these 4 agents. However, the comparative efficacy of all four 5-HT(3) antagonists has not yet been quantitatively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to investigate whether the 5-HT(3) antagonists--ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron-differ in efficacy when used for the prevention of PONV.

METHODS

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled, double-blind studies measuring efficacy in terms of PONV prophylaxis. A Bayesian meta-analysis was conducted using published studies of 5-HT(3) antagonists for PONV prophylaxis. The odds of patients with no PONV and postoperative vomiting (POV) within each study arm 24 hours after surgery were the primary indices of drug efficacy. Data were extracted and analyzed via indirect comparisons using random effects Bayesian models in WinBUGS version 1.4.3.

RESULTS

A total of 85 studies were identified, representing 15,269 patients. The results indicate that granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53 [95% credible interval (CI), 1.15-2.00]) and dolasetron (OR = 1.67 [95% CI, 1.12-2.38]) in preventing PONV. Four antiemetic drugs had comparable efficacy in terms of preventing POV: granisetron showed similar efficacy compared with ondansetron (OR = 1.49 [95% CI, 0.90-2.43]), tropisetron (OR = 1.69 [95% CI, 0.92-3.13]), and dolasetron (OR = 1.32 [95% CI, 0.71-2.38]). Ondansetron exhibited comparable efficacy compared with tropisetron (OR = 1.14 [95% CI, 0.66-1.96]) and dolasetron (OR = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.51-1.47]). Tropisetron and dolasetron were also similar in efficacy (OR = 0.78 [95% CI, 0.40-1.45]). All 5-HT(3) antagonists were statistically significantly better at preventing PONV or POV than placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

With respect to PONV prophylaxis, granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron and dolasetron; ondansetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron exhibited similar efficacy. With respect to POV prophylaxis, ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, and dolasetron seemed to have comparable efficacy.

A review of the efficacy of dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

AIMS OF THE REVIEW

To consider the efficacy of dexamethasone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting following general anaesthesia and a range of surgical procedures, compared with a placebo of sodium chloride (normal saline). To inform nurses' pharmacological knowledge of the effects of this medication during peri-operative care.

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone was serendipitously discovered to have an effect on reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients receiving various chemotherapeutic regimes. Experience suggests many nurses remain unaware of the anti-emetic effect of this medication.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched and selected articles were restricted to experiments published within the past 10 years. Participants of each study had received dexamethasone or sodium chloride (not administered in combination with any other anti-emetics) preoperatively, undergone general anaesthesia and received a common surgical procedure. Thirteen research articles met these criteria and were reviewed.

RESULTS

The surgical procedures represented have shown high incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting associated with them. Importantly, 12 of the 13 trials reported significant reductions suggesting dexamethasone has a significant preventative effect in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting when given during induction. However, as a preventative of postoperative nausea alone, dexamethasone does not appear to have a significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings clearly support the notion that dexamethasone does have anti-emetic properties. Research examining dexamethasone in combination with other drugs as a cocktail of anti-emetics is welcomed. Future research into the usefulness of dexamethasone given beyond the induction period as an anti-emetic to inform postoperative protocols of care is needed.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses in the peri-operative arena can administer this medication, when ordered, with the knowledge based on research evidence as to why it has been included in preoperative protocols. However, dexamethasone has been noted in postanaesthesia recovery care units as a clinical pathway option for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no retrieved articles discuss this option.

Endocrine and immune effects of dexamethasone in unilateral total knee replacement

The effect of acute pre-surgery dexamethasone treatment on the inflammatory immune and endocrine responses to orthopaedic surgery was investigated. Whole blood samples were obtained before and 5 days after surgery for immune analysis, and serum was obtained before and 6 h, 3 days and 5 days after surgery for endocrine assessment. Dexamethasone did not affect the post-surgery granulocyte response, but inhibited the increase in monocyte count (an average increase of 38.5% was seen in the control group). Peak C-reactive protein concentration (3 days after surgery) was 51.4% lower in the dexamethasone group than in the control group. Dexamethasone had a major effect on cortisol concentrations and the cortisol:testosterone and cortisol:dehydroepiandrosterone ratios, but no effect on anabolic hormone concentrations. In conclusion, acute pre-surgery dexamethasone treatment may have beneficial effects in the post-surgery period, by limiting the extent of systemic inflammation and the cortisol response.

Meta-analysis of the use of rescue antiemetics following PONV prophylactic failure with 5-HT3 antagonist/dexamethasone versus single-agent therapies

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of rescue antiemetic medication following 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) plus dexamethasone therapy versus monotherapy with a 5-HT3RA for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DATA SOURCES

Reports of randomized, controlled trials were identified via a MEDLINE search (1966-September 2005) using the key terms ondansetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, granisetron, 5-HT3, PONV, vomiting, emesis, and nausea.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized, controlled trials of adult populations that had treatment arms comparing 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone combination therapy with 5-HT3RA or dexamethasone monotherapies versus placebo or 5-HT3RA versus dexamethasone or placebo were selected for analysis. Another criterion was that a proportion of patients required rescue medication 48 hours or less following surgery.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval were calculated to determine incidence rates for use of rescue medications within early (0-6 h), late (6-24 h), and overall (0-24 or 48 h) postoperative periods. Overall effect sizes were calculated by pooling ORs within fixed and random effects models.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone was associated with lower use of rescue antiemetics than 5-HT3RA (OR(pooled) = 0.48; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.77) or dexamethasone (OR(pooled) = 0.26; 95% CI 0.12-0.57) monotherapy during the overall postoperative period. Insufficient data were available to assess rescue use during early or late postoperative periods. It appears that patients at high risk of PONV who are treated prophylactically with combination 5-HT3RA/dexamethasone therapy are overall less likely to require rescue medication than if treated with 5-HT3RAs or dexamethasone alone. Additional large prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal regimen and timing of administration of prophylactic antiemetic therapy for different surgical populations.

Outpatient laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with assistance of the lap loop

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the safety and patient satisfaction with laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) performed in an outpatient setting.

DESIGN

Prospective case study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2).

SETTING

Public hospital.

PATIENTS

Forty-three women.

INTERVENTION

Outpatient LSH performed by lap-loop.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The procedure was recommened by 41 out of 43 patients. Three patients (7%) were admitted to the hospital due to complications after the surgery. One patient was admitted because of a vasovagal reaction after anesthesia; she recovered quickly and was discharged after a few hours of observation. One patient was admitted because of postoperative pain and discharged the next day; she had a prolonged postoperative recovery with pain and subfebrile temperature. One patient underwent laparotomy due to major intraabdominal bleeding. Postoperative complications occurred in another five patients (12%) without need for hospitalization (infected intra-abdominal hematoma, urine retention, cystitis, cystitis combined with wound infection, and pneumonia).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy as an outpatient procedure is a safe and highly acceptable treatment.