Efficacy and Safety of Ramosetron Injection for Nausea and Vomiting in Colorectal-Cancer Patients Undergoing a Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Comparative Study

Postoperative ileus after digestive surgery: Network meta-analysis of pharmacological intervention

AIMS

Several medicinal treatments for avoiding postoperative ileus (POI) after abdominal surgery have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This network meta-analysis aimed to explore the relative effectiveness of these different treatments on ileus outcome measures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to identify RCTs comparing treatments for POI following abdominal surgery. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Direct and indirect comparisons of all regimens were simultaneously compared using random-effects network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs were included in this network meta-analysis reporting on 6371 patients. Our network meta-analysis shows that prokinetics significantly reduce the duration of first gas (mean difference [MD] = 16 h; credible interval -30, -3.1; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.418), duration of first bowel movements (MD = 25 h; credible interval -39, -11; SUCRA 0.25) and duration of postoperative hospitalization (MD -1.9 h; credible interval -3.8, -0.040; SUCRA 0.34). Opioid antagonists are the only treatment that significantly improve the duration of food recovery (MD -19 h; credible interval -26, -14; SUCRA 0.163).

CONCLUSION

Based on our meta-analysis, the 2 most consistent pharmacological treatments able to effectively reduce POI after abdominal surgery are prokinetics and opioid antagonists. The absence of clear superiority of 1 treatment over another highlights the limits of the pharmacological principles available.

Comparing the effects of continuous infusion of esmolol and ramosetron alone and in combination on nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although PONV is usually mild, severe thing can delay recovery and prolong hospitalization. We aimed to investigate the effects of ramosetron and esmolol, alone and in combination, on PONV, and pain.

METHODS

We enrolled 165 patients in their 20s to 50s who had an American Society of Anesthesiology physical status score of 1 or 2 and were scheduled to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy. They were randomly allocated into 3 groups: groups R, E, and E+R. Patients in group R received 0.3 mg of ramosetron following surgery. Those in group E were intravenously administered a bolus of esmolol (1.0 mg/kg) before endotracheal intubation. They were continuously infused with esmolol during the surgery to maintain their heart rate at 60 to 100 beats per minute and mean blood pressure at 60 to 100 mm Hg, followed by a bolus of esmolol (1.0 mg/kg) following surgery. Patients in group E+R were intravenously administered a bolus of esmolol (1.0 mg/kg) before endotracheal intubation, infused esmolol during surgery, and administered 0.3 mg of ramosetron and a bolus of esmolol (1.0 mg/kg) following surgery. We monitored the PONV stages (none, nausea, retching, and vomiting) and symptom severity in 3 postoperative stages (0-30 minutes, 30 minutes to 6 hours, and 6-24 hours), the latter by using the visual analog scale (VAS). We conducted an analysis of variance to compare VAS scores between groups.

RESULTS

Patients in groups E (mean ± standard deviation VAS score, 3.62 ± 1.00) and E+R (3.66 ± 0.71) exhibited less pain (P < .05) until 30 minutes following surgery compared to group R (5.72 ± 1.41). More patients in group E (28/50, 56%) experienced nausea compared to those in groups R (15/50, 30%) and E+R (8/50, 16%) until 30 minutes after surgery (P < .05). However, there were no differences in the severity of retching and vomiting between the groups in any of the phases (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Despite reducing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, esmolol did not prevent PONV, whether used alone or in combination with ramosetron.

Levosulpiride and Ramosetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Double-blind Study

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be common complication of anesthesia and surgery in spite of availability of so many antiemetic drugs and regimens for prevention. This study compared Ramosetron and Levosulpiride in terms of efficacy for PONV prevention after laparoscopic surgery.

Aim

To compare the efficacy of intravenous (i.v.) Levosulpiride 25 mg with i.v. Ramosetron 0.3 mg in preventing PONV.

Setting

S. D. M. College of Medical Sciences and Hospital, Sattur, Dharwad from November 2018 to June 2020.

Design

It is a prospective randomized double-blind study.

Statistical Analysis

All the data were collected, tabulated, and expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 22.0 Evaluation version). Unpaired sample t-test and Chi-square test have been used for the quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. A P value of 0.05 was considered statistically insignificant.

Materials and Methods

This prospective randomized, double-blind study was conducted in 200 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery falling under the inclusion criteria are numbered and every nth patient selected by systemic random sampling procedure and allocated into two groups of 100 each, group Levosulpiride (Group L) and group Ramosetron (group R) study drugs givenwithin 30 min induction of anesthesia. Group L will receive LEVOSULPIRIDE 25 mg i.v. Group R will receive RAMOSETRON 0.3 mg i.v.

Results

The incidence of vomiting in the Levosulpiride group and in the Ramosetron groupduring 0-4 h (20% vs. 30%, P = 0.1110), 4-8 h (4% vs. 5%, P = 0.7450), 8-12 h (5% vs. 4% P = 0.7210) and 12-24 h (0% vs. 0%). The incidence of nausea and overall PONV and the use of rescue antiemetic was not significantly different during all time intervals. The severity of nausea was not different between the two groups. Difference in the efficacy of Levosulpiride and Ramosetron was statistically insignificant (P > 0.05) in the prevention of PONV.

Conclusion

Levosulpiride 25 mg or Ramosetron 0.3 mg given intravenously to prevent PONV inpatients undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia are equally effective in controlling PONV.

Reducing ileus after colorectal surgery: A network meta-analysis of therapeutic interventions

BACKGROUND

Several treatment strategies for avoiding post-operative ileus have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials. This network meta-analysis aimed to explore the relative effectiveness of these different therapeutic interventions on ileus outcome measures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for post-operative ileus following colorectal surgery. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Direct and indirect comparisons of all regimens were simultaneously compared using random-effects network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 48 randomised controlled trials were included in this network meta-analysis reporting on 3614 participants. Early feeding was found to be the best treatment for time to solid diet tolerance and length of hospital stay with a probability of P = 0.96 and P = 0.47, respectively. Early feeding resulted in significantly shorter time to solid diet tolerance (Mean Difference (MD) 58.85 h; 95% Credible Interval (CrI) -73.41, -43.15) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD 2.33 days; CrI -3.51, -1.18) compared to no treatment. Epidural analgesia was ranked best treatment for time to flatus (P = 0.29) and time to stool (P = 0.268). Epidural analgesia resulted in significantly shorter time to flatus (MD -18.88 h; CrI -33.67, -3.44) and shorter time to stool (MD -26.05 h; 95% CrI -66.42, 15.65) compared to no intervention. Gastrograffin was ranked best treatment to avoid the requirement for post-operative nasogastric tube insertion (P = 0.61) however demonstrated limited efficacy (OR 0.50; CrI 0.143, 1.621) compared to no intervention. Nasogastric and nasointestinal tube insertion, probiotics, and acupuncture were found to be least efficacious as interventions to reduce ileus.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis identified early feeding as the most efficacious therapeutic intervention to reduce post-operative ileus in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, in addition to highlighting other therapies that require further investigation by high quality study. In patients undergoing colorectal surgery, emphasis should be placed on early feeding as soon as can be appropriately initiated to support the return of gastrointestinal motility.

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).

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: comparison of two prophylactic antiemetic regimens

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) provide optimal perioperative care for surgical patients. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after colorectal surgery (CRS). We aim to compare the efficacy of aprepitant to a cost-effective alternative, perphenazine, as components of triple antiemetic prophylaxis in ERP patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ERP CRS at a single institution from July 2015 to July 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Only subjects who received aprepitant (Group 1) or perphenazine (Group 2) preoperatively for PONV prophylaxis were included. Patient characteristics, simplified Apfel PONV scores, perioperative medications, and PONV incidence were compared between the groups. PONV was defined as the need for rescue antiemetics on postoperative days (POD) 0-5.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-seven patients underwent CRS of which 498 met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty-one (46.4%) received aprepitant and 267 (53.6%) received perphenazine. The incidence of early PONV (POD 0-1) was comparable between the two groups: 44.2% in Group 1 and 44.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.926). Late PONV (POD 2-5) occurred less often in Group 1 than Group 2, respectively (35.9% vs. 45.7%, P = 0.027). After matching the groups for preoperative, procedural, and anesthesia characteristics (164 pairs), no difference in early or late PONV could be demonstrated between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PONV remains high despite most patients receiving three prophylactic antiemetic medications. Perphenazine can be considered a cost-effective alternative to oral aprepitant for prophylaxis of PONV in patients undergoing CRS within an ERP.