The additive interactions between ondansetron and droperidol for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

Comparative Efficacy of Granisetron and Droperidol After Orthognathic Surgery for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In the fall of 2021, granisetron was approved for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management in Japan. However, the comparative efficacy of droperidol and granisetron in the field of orthognathic surgery has not been determined.

PURPOSE

We compare the efficacy of droperidol and granisetron for PONV prophylaxis following orthognathic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at a single institution from September 2020 to December 2022. Patients who had undergone Le Fort I osteotomy with sagittal split ramus osteotomy or isolated sagittal split ramus osteotomy were included. Patients were divided into three groups; the isolated droperidol (D), isolated granisetron (G), and droperidol with granisetron (DG) groups. General anesthesia was performed using total intravenous anesthesia for all patients; however, droperidol and granisetron were administered at the anesthesiologist's discretion.

PREDICTOR VARIABLE

PONV prophylactic therapy included isolated droperidol, isolated granisetron, and droperidol with granisetron administration.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

Postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) were determined through medical examination within 48 hours following surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications due to droperidol and/or granisetron administration.

COVARIATES

Age, sex, body mass index, Apfel's score, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative blood loss, and type of surgery.

ANALYSES

Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction for univariate comparison, and modified Poisson regression for comparison of PON and POV prophylactic efficacy for multivariate analyses. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Our study included 218 participants. There were no significant differences in covariates between groups D (n = 111), G (n = 52), and DG (n = 55). No significant difference in PON incidence was observed between groups. However, POV incidence was significantly lower in group DG than group D (relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.86; P = .03). No significant difference in complication incidence was observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Granisetron was as effective as droperidol for PONV management, while droperidol combined with granisetron was more effective than isolated droperidol for POV management. As compared to the use of each drug separately, their combination was considered safe, with no increase in complication rates.

The efficacy of aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common adverse reactions after surgery. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating antiemetic drugs suggest that aprepitant has the strongest antiemetic effect of any single drug. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of aprepitant for preventing PONV based on the existing literature.

METHODS

To identify RCTs investigating the use of aprepitant for PONV prevention, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published prior to March 20, 2022. Seventeen RCTs were identified, with 3299 patients, meeting the inclusion criteria. PONV incidence, complete response, 80 mg aprepitant combined with dexamethasone and ondansetron, vomiting, nausea, and analgesic dose-response were the main outcomes measured.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, PONV incidence was significantly reduced among those receiving aprepitant (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26, 0.44; P < .0001), with a more complete response (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.59; P = .0004). Supplementation of 80 mg aprepitant in combination with dexamethasone and ondansetron substantially improved the effects of PONV (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.82; P = .01). Further, administration of 80 mg aprepitant was better at preventing vomiting than nausea (OR: 8.6; 95% CI: 3.84, 19. 29; P < .00001). No statistically significant difference between the dose-response of analgesics was identified (mean difference: -1.09; 95% CI: -6.48, 4.30; P = .69). The risk of bias was assessed independently by paired evaluators.

CONCLUSION

Aprepitant effectively reduces the incidence of PONV; however, the effects of postoperative analgesia require further exploration.

[Postoperative nausea and vomiting-recommendations for its prevention and therapy in paediatric medicine]

Post-operative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV/POV) are among the biggest problems occurring in the paediatric recovery room and in the course of the following post-operative period. Apart from pain and emergence delirium, PONV is one of the main causes of post-operative discomfort in children. The DGAI Scientific Working Group on Paediatric Anaesthesia already worked out recommendations for the prevention and treatment of PONV in children years ago. These recommendations have now been revised by a team of experts, the current literature has been reviewed, and evidence-based core recommendations have been consented. Key elements of the new recommendations consist of effective individual measures for prevention and therapy, next to the implementation of a fixed dual prophylaxis in the clinical routine applicable to all children ≥ 3 years of age.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Opioid-Free Anesthesia Versus Opioid Based Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a usual complication in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Minimized opioid use due to surgery has been shown to have a better effect on patient recovery after surgery. In this study we evaluate the effect of opioid free anesthesia for postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Materials and methods: 80 patients aged 20-65 years old were included in this randomized, clinical and prospective trial. The patients belonged to the ASA classifications 1 and 2 and were scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were classified into two groups: group 1 (fentanyl group- FG), which included 40 patients who received opioid anesthesia, and group 2 (opioid free anesthesia group-OFAG) which included 40 patients who received opioid free anesthesia. In patients from group 1 (fentanyl group -FG) introduction to general anesthesia consisted of giving midazolam at 0.04 mg/kg, fentanyl at 0.002 mg/kg, 2 mg/kg of propofol and 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium bromide. These patients received fractionated bolus doses of fentanyl during surgery. Prior to general anesthesia these patients did not receive dexamethasone. The patients from group 2 (opioid free anesthesia group - OFAG) received dexamethasone at 0.1 mg/kg and 1 g of paracetamol before introduction to anesthesia as a pre-emptive analgesia. Introduction to anesthesia consisted of giving midazolam at 0.04 mg/kg, lidocaine at 1 mg/kg, propofol at 2 mg/kg, ketamine at 0.5 mg/kg, and 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium bromide. Immediately after intubation, continuous intravenous infusion with lidocaine at 2 mg/kg/h and magnesium sulfate at 1.5 g/h was given. In this group, fentanyl was not given either during the introduction of anesthesia or during the intraoperative period. Immediately after extraction of the gallbladder patients from group 2 (OFAG) received 2.5 g of metamizole intravenously. PONV were recorded in the postoperative period of 24 hours after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference with respect to age, weight, sex, duration of surgery, and anesthesia time. PONV at different time intervals were statistically not significant at all postoperative time points - 1 hr, 4 hr, 8 hr, 12 hr and 24 hr after surgery in fentanyl group compared to opioid free anesthesia group. Even not statistically significant, PONV have occurred more often in patients who received opioid anesthesia. Conclusion: Postoperative nausea and vomiting occurs more often in patients who received opioids during laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to patients who received opioid free anesthesia, but without statistical significance.

Comparison of efficacy between palonosetron-midazolam combination and palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing breast surgery and patient controlled analgesia: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study: A CONSORT-compliant study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint in patients following general anesthesia. Various antiemetics, including 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are effective but still have limited efficacy. Therefore, combination therapy is preferable to using a single drug alone in high-risk patients. We performed a comparative study on the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, monotherapy vs palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy for the prevention of PONV.

METHODS

A total of 104 female patients scheduled for breast cancer surgery were enrolled. They were randomly divided into 2 groups, a palonosetron monotherapy group (group P) and palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy group (group PM). Both groups received 0.075 mg palonosetron intravenously after induction of anesthesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was applied according to the allocated group. Intravenous (IV)-PCA in group P consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml); IV-PCA in group PM consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus midazolam 4 mg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml). Efficacy parameters were collected during 0 to 1, 1 to 6, 6 to 24, and 24 to 48 hours postoperative time intervals. These measures included complete response (defined as no PONV and no rescue anti-emetic use) rate, incidence of PONV, sedation score, rescue antiemetic use, rescue analgesic use, and numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain. The complete response rate during the 0 to 24 hours interval was analyzed as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Although the complete response rate between 0 and 24 hours was higher in group PM (42.3% and 48.1% in group P and PM, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .55). The complete response rates in other time intervals were not different between the 2 groups as well. The sedation score and NRS score also showed no differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination therapy of palonosetron with midazolam did not lead to a greater reduction in the incidence of PONV than monotherapy in patients undergoing breast surgery and receiving IV-PCA containing fentanyl.

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).

Effect of multimodal intervention on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery, and achieving good results is difficult with a single antiemetic method. This study investigated whether multimodal intervention can reduce PONV in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

A total of 153 patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomized into the control group and multimodal group. Patients in the multimodal group received dexmedetomidine 1 µg/kg intravenously 15 minutes before induction of anesthesia. A bilateral transversus abdominis plane block was performed with 0.375% ropivacaine 30 mL after induction of anesthesia. Scores of postoperative nausea and vomiting, the visual analog scale, and the Bruggemann comfort scale (BCS) were assessed 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

Nausea and vomiting scores were significantly lower at 2, 6, and 24 hours in the multimodal group compared with the control group. BCS scores were significantly higher at 0 to 24 hours in the multimodal group compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal intervention improves PONV and increases patients' comfort. The multimodal approach can also enhance recovery after gynecological laparoscopic surgery.

Local-anesthetic like inhibition of the cardiac sodium channel Nav1.5 α-subunit by 5-HT3 receptor antagonists

5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor (5-HT3 receptor) antagonists are administered for prevention and therapy of nausea and vomiting. Although regarded as safe therapeutics, they can also provoke arrhythmias by prolonging the QRS interval. However, the mechanisms mediating this cardiotoxicity are poorly understood. Here we investigated effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists on the cardiac Na(+) channel Nav1.5. We explored the interaction of dolasetron, tropisetron, granisetron and ondansetron on the human α-subunit Nav1.5 heterologously expressed in HEK293 cells. Sodium currents were explored by means of whole-cell patch clamp recordings. All four substances inhibited the Nav1.5 in a concentration and state-dependent manner. Dolasetron displayed the lowest blocking efficacy, and tropisetron was the most potent blocker with a half maximum blocking concentration of 18µM for tonic block of inactivated channels. Tropisetron was also the most potent use-dependent inhibitor, and it also induced a strong open -channel block. Both tonic and use-dependent block by tropisetron were abbreviated on the local-anesthetic insensitive mutant Nav1.5-F1760A. Co-administration of tropisetron and the local anesthetic bupivacaine or the hypnotic propofol augmented inhibition of Nav1.5. Our data demonstrate that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists induce a local-anesthetic like inhibition of Nav1.5, and that they display different blocking efficacies. Reports on a relevant cardiotoxicity of dolasetron as opposed to other 5-HT3 receptor antagonists do not seem to correlate with a block of Nav1.5. As inhibition of Nav1.5 was enhanced by propofol and bupivacaine however, it is possible that a combined administration of Na(+) channel blockers and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists can provoke arrhythmias.

Drug-drug interactions and QT prolongation as a commonly assessed cardiac effect - comprehensive overview of clinical trials

Background

Proarrhythmia assessment is one of the major concerns for regulatory bodies and pharmaceutical industry. ICH guidelines recommending preclinical tests have been established in attempt to eliminate the risk of drug-induced arrhythmias. However, in the clinic, arrhythmia occurrence is determined not only by the inherent property of a drug to block ion currents and disturb electrophysiological activity of cardiac myocytes, but also by many other factors modifying individual risk of QT prolongation and subsequent proarrhythmia propensity. One of those is drug-drug interactions. Since polypharmacy is a common practice in clinical settings, it can be anticipated that there is a relatively high risk that the patient will receive at least two drugs mutually modifying their proarrhythmic potential and resulting either in triggering the occurrence or mitigating the clinical symptoms. The mechanism can be observed either directly at the pharmacodynamic level by competing for the molecular targets, or indirectly by modifying the physiological parameters, or at the pharmacokinetic level by alteration of the active concentration of the victim drug.

Methods

This publication provides an overview of published clinical studies on pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions in humans and their electrophysiological consequences (QT interval modification). Databases of PubMed and Scopus were searched and combinations of the following keywords were used for Title, Abstract and Keywords fields: interaction, coadministration, combination, DDI and electrocardiographic, QTc interval, ECG. Only human studies were included. Over 4500 publications were retrieved and underwent preliminary assessment to identify papers accordant with the topic of this review. 76 papers reporting results for 96 drug combinations were found and analyzed.

Results

The results show the tremendous variability of drug-drug interaction effects, which makes one aware of complexity of the problem, and suggests the need for assessment of an additional risk factors and careful ECG monitoring before administration of drugs with anticipated QT prolongation.

Conclusions

DDIs can play significant roles in drugs’ cardiac safety, as evidenced by the provided examples. Assessment of the pharmacodynamic effects of the drug interactions is more challenging as compared to the pharmacokinetic due to the significant diversity in the endpoints which should be analyzed specifically for various clinical effects. Nevertheless, PD components of DDIs should be accounted for as PK changes alone do not allow to fully explain the electrophysiological effects in clinic situations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40360-016-0053-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: A simple yet complex problem

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the complex and significant problems in anesthesia practice, with growing trend toward ambulatory and day care surgeries. This review focuses on pathophysiology, pharmacological prophylaxis, and rescue therapy for PONV. We searched the Medline and PubMed database for articles published in English from 1991 to 2014 while writing this review using “postoperative nausea and vomiting, PONV, nausea-vomiting, PONV prophylaxis, and rescue” as keywords. PONV is influenced by multiple factors which are related to the patient, surgery, and pre-, intra-, and post-operative anesthesia factors. The risk of PONV can be assessed using a scoring system such as Apfel simplified scoring system which is based on four independent risk predictors. PONV prophylaxis is administered to patients with medium and high risks based on this scoring system. Newer drugs such as neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant) are used along with serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3) receptor antagonist, corticosteroids, anticholinergics, antihistaminics, and butyrophenones for PONV prophylaxis. Combination of drugs from different classes with different mechanism of action are administered for optimized efficacy in adults with moderate risk for PONV. Multimodal approach with combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological prophylaxis along with interventions that reduce baseline risk is employed in patients with high PONV risk.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

Granisetron plus dexamethasone increases the risk of arrhythmia.

Droperidol transiently prolongs the QT interval in children undergoing single ventricle palliation

Historically, droperidol was commonly used for postoperative sedation of critically ill children. A FDA black box warning regarding its arrhythmogenic potential greatly reduced its use. We hypothesized that administration of neuroleptic dose droperidol during volatile anesthesia would transiently prolong the corrected QT interval (QTc) in patients undergoing single ventricle palliation. As part of a prospective study in children undergoing stage 2 or 3 single ventricle palliation, we recorded electrocardiograms preoperatively, after induction of volatile anesthesia, immediately after completion of 30 min intravenous infusion of 75 mcg/kg droperidol, and shortly after arrival in the cardiac intensive care unit. Mean absolute QT intervals and heart rate data were analyzed in a blinded fashion and the longest QT interval was determined. QT intervals were corrected for heart rate (QTc) with the Bazett and Friderici formulae. Any perioperative arrhythmias were recorded. Complete data were available for 62 patients. Volatile anesthesia was associated with significant prolongation of the QTc interval. Administration of droperidol after cardiopulmonary bypass was associated with further significant QTc prolongation. All QTc changes were transient and the postoperative QTc, while still prolonged relative to baseline, was significantly shorter than the QTc immediately postdroperidol. No episodes of Torsades de Pointes (TdP) or ventricular arrhythmias were observed. The administration of a neuroleptic dose of droperidol during volatile anesthesia in patients undergoing single ventricle palliation was associated with a significant prolongation of QTc, which was transient and did not result in TdP or other ventricular arrhythmias in our study population.

Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Ondansetron: a review of pharmacokinetics and clinical experience in postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is associated with poor patient satisfaction and delayed recovery after general anesthesia. Multiple neurotransmitters are involved in the mediation of PONV but despite the introduction of new antiemetics, no completely effective drug exists for its prevention or treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a detailed description of ondansetron's chemistry, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, toxicity and a brief review of clinical trials involving ondansetron and the management of PONV. We searched reviews, meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials (Medline, Embase and article reference lists).

EXPERT OPINION

According to current literature, administering ondansetron 4 mg i.v. near the end of surgery provides sufficient protection against PONV in low- and moderate-risk patients, comparable to traditional antiemetics such as antihistamines and droperidol. High-risk patients require a multimodal approach since one quarter of them will not respond to monotherapy. In the future, transdermal formulation or formulations for nasal or buccal delivery will be available. The development of non-racemic mixture consisting of R-ondansetron would enhance the safety profile and probably the efficacy too.

Perioperative torsade de pointes: a systematic review of published case reports

BACKGROUND

Torsade de pointes is a rare but potentially fatal arrhythmia. More than 40 cases of perioperative torsade de pointes have been reported in the literature; however, the current evidence regarding this complication is very limited. To improve our understanding, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published case reports of perioperative torsade de pointes.

METHODS

MEDLINE was systematically searched for cases of perioperative torsade de pointes. We included patients of all age groups and cases that occurred from the immediate preoperative period to the third postoperative day. Patient and case characteristics as well as QT interval data were extracted.

RESULTS

Forty-six cases of perioperative torsade de pointes were identified; 29 occurred in women (67%), and 2 episodes were fatal (case fatality rate: 4%). Craniotomies and cardiac surgery accounted for 40% of all cases. Preceding events identified by the authors were hypokalemia (12/46, 26%; 99% confidence interval [CI], 9%-43%) and bradycardia (7/46, 15%; 99% CI, 2%-28%). Drugs were implicated in approximately one third of the events (14/46, 30%; 99% CI, 13%-48%). The mean corrected QT (QTc) at baseline was 457 ± 67 milliseconds (minimum 320 milliseconds; maximum 647 milliseconds; data available in 27/46 patients). At the time of the event, the mean QTc increased to 575 ± 77 milliseconds (minimum 413 milliseconds; maximum 766 milliseconds; data available in 33/46 patients). On average, QTc increased by +118 milliseconds (99% CI, 70-166 milliseconds; P < 0.001) between baseline and after the torsade de pointes event. All patients, except for 2, had a substantial prolongation of their QTc interval at the time of the event.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified several common risk factors for perioperative torsade de pointes. Given the nearly uniform presence of a substantial QTc interval prolongation at the time of a torsade de pointes episode, increased vigilance for perioperative QTc interval prolongation may be warranted.

Prophylactic administration of haloperidol plus midazolam reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting better than using each drug alone in patients undergoing middle ear surgery

Aims:

The efficacy of using midazolam or haloperidol for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has been investigated before. The main object of the present study was to evaluate the anti-emetic effects of combining administration of intravenous haloperidol with intravenous midazolam on PONV in patients underwent middle ear surgery in comparison with using each drug alone.

Methods:

Study design was randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled. 80 patients, aged 18-60 years, scheduled for middle ear surgery in Kashani Hospital Medical Center under general anesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were divided into 4 groups of 20 each and received haloperidol 2 mg i.v. (Group H); midazolam 2 mg i.v. (Group M); haloperidol 2 mg plus midazolam 2 mg i.v. (Group HM); saline i.v. (Group C). The incidences of PONV and complete response were evaluated at 0-2 hours after arrival to the PACU and 2-24 hours after arrival to the ward in 4 groups.

Results:

Patients in group HM had significantly lower incidence of PONV compared with groups H, M, and C throughout 0-24 h (P<00.5). The HM group had the lowest incidence of PONV (0-2, 2-24, and 0-24 h) and the highest incidence of complete response. Postoperative anti-emetic requirement was significantly less in group HM compared with group M or H (P<0.05).

Conclusion:

Combine administration of haloperidol 2 mg plus midazolam 2 mg significantly reduced PONV better than using each drug alone in patients underwent middle ear surgery under general anesthesia.

Evaluation of Ondansetron-induced QT interval prolongation in the prophylaxis of postoperative emesis

Background:

To avert nausea and vomiting the 5-Hydroxytryptamine3 (5-HT3) antagonists have become the first line of treatment ifassociated with cardiovascular effects andappear to cause QT prolongation.

Objective:

Evaluate the effect of 1 mg, 4 mg, and 8 mg bolus doses of intravenous Ondansetron, relative to placebo, in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and to find out the changes of QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc).

Materials and Methods:

This prospective randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study was carried out among 136 adult participants of both sexes in a tertiary care postgraduate teaching institute at Kolkata. mg, 4 mg or 8 mg inj. Ondansetron was diluted to 10 ml with normal saline, was infused 30 min before extubation in relation with a control group. Time to first rescue antiemetic medication and in QTc interval at different time intervals, in each group was noted in different in the various surgical operation theaters (OTs).

Results:

Requirement of the first rescue antiemetic in the postoperative period between 60 to 120 min in the mg, 4 mg or 8 mg Ondansetron groups was in 28%, 24% and 7% participants respectively; between 120 to 240 min in 63%, 72% and 57% respectively; and within 360 min in 9%, 4% and 36% respectively. Significant and maximal QTc prolongation was observed in the participants with mg or 8 mg Ondansetron 3 and 5 min of drug administration.

Conclusions:

One mg Ondansetron in healthy adult participants can effectively prevent PONV causing no or insignificant prolongation of QTc interval.

5 HT(3)-receptor antagonists and cardiac repolarization time in patients expressing a novel genetic target associated with baseline QTc interval abnormalities

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a common single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), rs10494366, is associated with significant prolongation of the QTc interval following administration of 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists in the perioperative setting.

DESIGN

Post-hoc analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples and electrocardiographic (ECG) data from an established perioperative genomics database.

SETTING

University teaching hospital.

MEASUREMENTS

DNA samples of 132 ASA physical status 1, 2, and 3 patients were obtained from an established genomic database of surgical patients who had received either granisetron or dolasetron as part of their general anesthesia plan. ECG recordings were collected on all subjects before administration of antiemetic medication, then 10 minutes after drug injection. DNA analysis was performed using TaqMan real-time PCR genotyping assay. Results from the TaqMan real-time PCR assay were used to calculate relative frequencies of the T (major) and G (minor) alleles, in addition to calculating the genotype frequencies. QTc intervals were calculated according to Bazett's formula.

RESULTS

Relative frequencies for T and G alleles were 0.63 and 0.37, respectively. The relative frequencies of the pertinent genotypes were TT 39.4%, TG 46.9%, and GG 13.7%. No significant difference was noted in QTc interval pre-antiemetic or post-antiemetic drug administration for the homozygous carriers of the minor allele GG (P = 0.059), but a significant difference was seen in the pre-drug and post-drug QTc intervals in the heterozygous and homozygous carriers of the major allele TG and TT (P = 0.003 and P = 0.017, respectively). Compared with homozygous carriers of the minor allele, absolute risk increase for QTc interval prolongation after antiemetic administration was 0.08 and 0.15 in heterozygous and homozygous carriers of the major allele, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Homozygous and heterozygous carrier status for the major SNP, rs10494366 allele (T), in intron 1 of the human NOSA1P gene may be associated with an increased risk of QTc interval prolongation following administration of 5-HT(3)-receptor antagonists in the perioperative setting, when compared with homozygotes for the minor (G) allele.

Fangjiomics: in search of effective and safe combination therapies

Millennia-old Chinese medicine treats disease with many combination therapies involving ingredients used in clinic practice. Fangjiomics is the science of identifying and designing effective mixtures of bioactive agents and elucidating their modes of action beyond those of Chinese patent medicines. Omics profiling and quantitative optimal modeling have been used to associate the various responses with biological pathways related to disease phenotype. Fangjiomics seeks to study myriad compatible combinations that may act through multiple targets, modes of action, and biological pathways balancing on off-target and on-target effects. This approach may lead to the discovery of controllable array-designed therapies to combine less potent elements that are more effective collectively but have fewer adverse side effects than does any element singly.

The effects of stimulation of acupressure point p6 on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review of literature

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) can complicate and delay patient recovery from general and neuraxial anesthesia. Even with a new generation of anesthetic drugs and antiemetics, a high number of patients are affected by PONV. PONV has a multifactor etiology, but there are ways to reduce its occurrence. Although it is not a traditionally recognized method, stimulation of acupressure points, specifically P6, has been identified as a potentially effective method of reducing PONV. This study is a state of the science paper reviewing research on both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic prophylaxis and various methods of acupressure. It was conducted to add information to the currently available knowledge regarding PONV in hopes of stimulating the use of acupressure for treatment of PONV. The study is divided into six categories: pathophysiology of PONV, background studies of PONV, nonpharmacologic prophylaxis, pharmacological prophylaxis, acupressure and related techniques, and benefits of routine antiemetic prophylaxis.

Intravenous droperidol: a review of its use in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Droperidol (Dehydrobenzperidol, Dehidrobenzoperidol, Dridol, Droleptan, Inapsine) is a dopamine D(2) receptor antagonist that has been widely used in adults and children for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) over several decades and, more recently, for the prevention of opioid-induced PONV during patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in adults. In well controlled clinical trials of patients undergoing surgery, the efficacy of single-dose intravenous (IV) droperidol in preventing PONV was similar to that of ondansetron and dexamethasone. Droperidol significantly reduced opioid-induced PONV in adults during PCA and had a morphine-sparing effect. Droperidol is generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse effects is similar to that observed with placebo and the serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (setrons). Guidelines recommend that, in adults, droperidol monotherapy be considered for those at moderate risk of PONV, and droperidol in combination with a setron and/or dexamethasone be considered for patients at moderate or high risk of PONV. In children with moderate or high risk of PONV, droperidol is recommended for first-line use in some countries, and second-line use in others.