Palonosetron and Ramosetron Compared for Effectiveness in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of a combination of midazolam with ramosetron and midazolam with palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

A multimodal therapeutic strategy for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) benefits moderate- and high-risk surgical patients. We compared the efficacy of a combination of midazolam and ramosetron and a combination of midazolam and palonosetron for PONV prophylaxis in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

We enrolled 68 patients aged 20 to 65 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were randomly allocated to the midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with ramosetron 0.3 mg (MR) or midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with palonosetron 0.075 mg (MP) groups. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, use of rescue antiemetics, and pain severity were evaluated at 2, 24, and 48 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

The incidence (38.2% vs 5.9%) and severity of postoperative nausea were significantly lower in the MP group at 2 hours after surgery (P < .05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or pain severity between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The combination of midazolam with palonosetron significantly decreased the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea compared with midazolam combined with ramosetron, especially in the early postoperative phase (0-2 hours) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Palonosetron and Ramosetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with that of ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A total of 17 randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV were included. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV, which were measured in early, late, and overall phases. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of the administration time of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and divided into two phases: early phase and the end of surgery. A total of 17 studies with 1823 patients were included in the final analysis. The incidence of retching (relative risk [RR] = 0.525; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.390 to 0.707) and late POV (RR = 0.604; 95% CI = 0.404 to 0.903) was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group. No significant differences were demonstrated in the incidence of PON, PONV, complete response, use of antiemetics, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis showed that palonosetron was superior to ramosetron in terms of early PON, late PON, overall POV, and use of rescue antiemetics when they were administered early; in terms of retching, regardless of the timing of administration. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in terms of early PON when they were administered late. The prophylactic administration of palonosetron was more effective than that of ramosetron in preventing the development of retching and late POV. In this meta-analysis, no significant differences in PONV prevention between the two drugs were demonstrated. Further studies are required to validate the outcomes of our study.

Effect of Palonosetron on Physical Symptoms of Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a typical and unpleasant physical symptom that occurs in patients after surgery, and it may be one of the most challenging elements of the recovery process. PONV can be caused by a variety of factors, including surgery itself, anesthesia, or medications. Palonosetron is a medication that is now licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of this ailment. The efficacy of palonosetron in reducing physical symptoms in patients following surgery was investigated in this meta-analysis and comprehensive review. Methods. Following a quick search of databases such as CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, the Science quotation index’s Web site, the United States clinical trial check-in, the United Kingdom clinical trial check-in, the New Zealand clinical trial check-in, and the Australia check-in, as well as outlines of major anesthesia meetings held in the previous five years, we were able to get a good start on our research. Growing adults who had surgery and were given other drugs were compared to individuals who did get palonosetron in randomized controlled trials. Results. A total of 8324 participants were recruited in 10 different clinical studies. It has been shown that palonosetron may significantly reduce the 24-hour PONV incidence and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41–0.86. When comparing the 6-hour and 48-hour time periods, the incidences of experiencing PONV were neither statistically different (RR: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.61–1.09) or considerably different (RR: 0.60, 95% confidence interval: 0.33–1.10). Following in a similar vein, there was no significant difference between the groups in the occurrence of PONV after 48 hours (RR: 0.82, 95 percent CI: 0.59–1.14). The most often reported side effects of the medicine were headaches and dizziness, which were the most common. Regardless of the drug used, the difference in adverse reactions was not statistically significant. Conclusion. When it comes to the prevention of early PONV, it has been shown that palonosetron is more effective than other medications. Palonosetron, on the other hand, has been demonstrated to be more effective than other medications in preventing vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

Effects of Ramosetron on Nausea and Vomiting Following Spinal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal surgery is associated with severe pain within the first few days after surgery. Opioids are commonly used to control postoperative pain, but these can lead to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, use of more effective and better-tolerated agents would be beneficial for these patients. Serotonin receptor antagonists, such as ramosetron, have been used to reduce PONV in patients receiving anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and tolerance of ramosetron to prevent PONV after spinal surgery.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index databases were systematically searched for relevant RCT articles published between January 1979 and November 2020. Full text articles restricted to English language that described RCTs comparing the use of ramosetron with other serotonin antagonists to treat PONV following spinal surgery in adult patients were considered for meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction of all articles. Differences were resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

The search identified 88 potentially relevant articles, of which only 3 met our selection criteria. Study drugs were administered at the end of spinal surgery in all 3 included articles. The meta-analysis revealed that ramosetron (0.3 mg) reduced the pain score (mean difference = -0.66; 95% CI -1.02 to -0.30), lowered the risk of PONV (risk ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97), and postoperative vomiting (risk ratio = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17-0.60), and limited the use of rescue antiemetics (risk ratio = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.96) after spinal surgery. However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative nausea, the use of rescue pain medications, the number of rescue analgesics required, and the risk of discontinuation of patient-controlled analgesia between ramosetron and palonosetron (0.075 mg) or ondansetron (4 mg). There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of adverse events among the 3 medications.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of 3 RCTs showed that ramosetron reduced the risk of PONV and POV, limited the use of rescue antiemetics, reduced the postoperative pain score, and did not increase the risk of discontinuing patient-controlled analgesia compared with palonosetron or ondansetron after spinal surgery in 3 RCTs. Therefore, this meta-analysis indicates that ramosetron is an effective and well tolerated antiemetic that can be used to prevent PONV following spinal surgery in adult patients. PROSPERO identifier: CRD42020223596 (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2022; 83:XXX-XXX)© 2022 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.

Effects of preoperative, scheduled administration of antiemetics in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty

There is no established protocol regarding the timing of administration of antiemetics in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to determine whether preoperative, rather than postoperative administration of an antiemetic could reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing TKA, and whether there was a difference in postoperative pain, patient satisfaction and complications after TKA between the 2 different administration times.The included patients (N = 101) either received intravenous administration of the ramosetron 1 hour before surgery (N = 50) or at the end of surgery (N = 51) consecutively order. The incidence of PONV and the frequency of rescue medicine use were recorded until 48 hours postoperatively. The severity of postoperative pain and patient satisfaction were assessed using the visual analogue scale. The incidence of complications associated with use of antiemetic was assessed.Preoperative administration of ramosetron did not decrease PONV during the first 48 hours. There was no significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, and the severity of nausea (P > .05). Postoperative pain, satisfaction scores, and the incidence of complications were not different between the 2 groups (P > .05).Preoperative administration of ramosetron did not show clinical advantage in reducing POVN, postoperative pain and improving patient satisfaction. However, the outcomes of complications were not inferior to those of postoperative administration. Therefore, under the current protocol of multimodal therapies, timing of administration of pre-emptive antiemetic did not have significant effect on PONV.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

Anti-Tumor Potential of a 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonist as a Novel Autophagy Inducer in Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Clinical Study with In Vitro Confirmation

Unlike 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT, serotonin) 1 and 5-HT2, the effect of 5-HT3 receptors on tumor cells is poorly understood. We conducted this study to determine whether the perioperative use of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, which are widely used antiemetics, impacts the recurrence and mortality after lung cancer surgery and related anti-tumor mechanisms. From data on 411 patients, propensity score matching was used to produce 60 1:2 matched pairs of patients, and variables associated with the prognosis after open lung cancer surgery were analyzed. Additionally, the effects of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were confirmed in vitro on A549 human lung adenocarcinoma cells. Cancer recurrence occurred in 10 (8.2%) and 14 (22.95%) patients (p = 0.005), treated or untreated, with palonosetron or ramosetron. Perioperative usage of palonosetron or ramosetron was also associated with lower recurrence rate after lung cancer surgery (hazard ratio (HR), 0.293; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.110-0.780, p = 0.0141). Our in vitro experiments also showed that palonosetron and ramosetron inhibited cell proliferation and colony formation and reduced migration, which was associated with autophagic cell death via the extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway. Palonosetron and ramosetron may have anti-tumor potential against lung cancer cells, suggesting the need to consider these drugs as first-choice antiemetics in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery.

Effect of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing microvascular decompression under propofol-maintained anesthesia: A retrospective observational study

Microvascular decompression (MVD) is associated with a particularly high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) among craniotomy patients. However, there is no information regarding the effect of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex on PONV in patients undergoing MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia.Medical records of 274 adults who had undergone MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia were reviewed. Patients were classified into 4 groups, based on the reversal agent used (sugammadex/pyridostigmine) and whether or not prophylactic palonosetron was used. The PONV incidence and risk factors were analyzed according to the use of these agents.The overall incidence of PONV was 30.7% during the first 24 hours postoperatively. The incidence of PONV was lower in the group using combination of prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex (19.3%) compared with the group not using both agents (37.2%). The combined use of the prophylactic palonosetron and sugammadex was identified as a factor affecting the occurrence of PONV in both univariable (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.21-0.77, P = .006) and multivariable (OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.75, P = .005) logistic regression analyses. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, female sex was also significant independent risk factor in PONV (OR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.35-5.08, P = .004).In this retrospective observational study, the combined use of prophylactic palonosetron before anesthetic induction and sugammadex as a reversal of neuromuscular blockade are associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing MVD under propofol-maintained anesthesia.

Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses present results by combining and analyzing data from different studies conducted on similar research topics. In recent years, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been actively performed in various fields including anesthesiology. These research methods are powerful tools that can overcome the difficulties in performing large-scale randomized controlled trials. However, the inclusion of studies with any biases or improperly assessed quality of evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses could yield misleading results. Therefore, various guidelines have been suggested for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses to help standardize them and improve their quality. Nonetheless, accepting the conclusions of many studies without understanding the meta-analysis can be dangerous. Therefore, this article provides an easy introduction to clinicians on performing and understanding meta-analyses.