Efficacy comparison of ramosetron with ondansetron on preventing nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients following spine surgery with a single bolus of dexamethasone as an adjunct

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols and Spinal Deformity

The authors outline a review of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative considerations surrounding adult spinal deformity. Preoperative management topics include imaging, hemoglobin A1c levels before spine surgery, osteoporotic management, and prehabilitation. Topics surrounding intraoperative management include the use of antibiotics, liposomal bupivacaine, and Foley catheters. The authors also discuss postoperative questions surrounding analgesia, nausea and vomiting, thromboembolic prophylaxis, and early mobilization. Throughout their discussion, the authors incorporate enhanced recovery after surgery protocols to hopefully lead to future discussions regarding optimizing complex spinal patients.

A comparative clinical study of methylprednisolone with ondansetron versus ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing middle-ear surgeries

Background:

One of the most troublesome complications after middle-ear surgeries has been postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A notable decrease in PONV has been observed with the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 receptor antagonists and glucocorticoids.

Aim:

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the combination of intravenous methylprednisolone and ondansetron with ramosetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing middle-ear surgeries.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study that comprised sixty patients in the age group of 18–60 years belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification I or II and undergoing middle-ear surgery.

Materials and Methods:

With the help of computer-generated randomization table, sixty patients in the age group of 18–60 years belonging to ASA physical status classification I or II and undergoing middle-ear surgery were randomly allotted to receive a combination of methylprednisolone 40 mg (given at the beginning of surgery) and ondansetron 4 mg (given near the end of surgery) (Group MO, n = 30) or ramosetron 0.3 mg (near the end of surgery) (Group R, n = 30). In both the groups, the incidence of PONV was studied.

Statistical Analysis:

Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was utilized to analogize the categorical variables. Independent t-test was utilized to analogize the continuous variables.

Results:

In the first 2 h after the surgery, the difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of PONV was insignificant. Between 2 h and 24 h, the incidence of nausea was lowered significantly in the group MO compared to the group R (P = 0.01). Between 24 h and 48 h, the incidence of nausea was more in group R compared to the combination therapy group, which was statistically significant.

Conclusion:

The combination therapy is better than ramosetron alone for the prevention of PONV after middle-ear surgery. Therefore, we advocate a combination of methylprednisolone and ondansetron for prophylaxis for PONV in middle-ear surgeries.

The effectiveness of ramosetron and ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is a painful procedure, and treatment of emetic events associated with drugs used in the current multimodal pain management remains challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ramosetron or ondansetron to relieve postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Methods

In total, 122 consecutive patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were randomly allocated into three groups: ramosetron group (n = 39), ondansetron group (n = 43), and control group (n = 40). Then, 0.3 mg of ramosetron or 8 mg of ondansetron was administered intravenously at the end of surgery according to group. All patients received general anesthesia and multimodal pain management protocol including preemptive analgesic medication, fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, and postoperative analgesic medication. Incidence of emetic events, rescue antiemetic requirements (10 mg of metoclopramide, IV), complete response, pain level, and side effects were recorded in three periods: 0–6, 6–24, and 24–48 h postoperatively. The severity of nausea and pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale.

Results

The ramosetron group tended to have a lower incidence and severity of nausea during the 6- to 24-h postoperative period and fewer rescue antiemetic drug requirements during the 0- to 48-h period than the control group, showing statistical significance. Additionally, the frequency of complete response of the ramosetron and ondansetron groups was significantly higher than that of the control group. No difference was found among the groups in the pain level except during the 0- to 6-h period. The two groups have a higher complete response during the 6- to 24-h period than the control group.

Conclusions

Ramosetron use led to a lower incidence, mild severity of nausea, and reduced use of rescue antiemetic drug after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair during the 6- to 24-h postoperative period than the control.

Level of evidence

Level I, randomized controlled trials, treatment study

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).

Comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a distressing complication of surgery, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are often prescribed to prevent it. Ondansetron is the agent typically administered to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although ramosetron has a longer duration of action than ondansetron, it remains unclear whether ramosetron is the more effective medication. We performed an updated meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

We searched six databases for all trials that randomly assigned patients to ramosetron or ondansetron groups. The primary outcome was postoperative nausea or vomiting in the early, late, and next-day periods. The secondary outcomes were side effects of the medications. We used the random-effects model to combine the results. Trial sequential analyses were performed to correct for repetitive testing in the updated meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials with 3,811 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results of ramosetron vs. ondansetron efficacy in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting were as follows: Risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.82 [0.69-0.98] for early postoperative nausea, 0.76 [0.65-0.89] for late postoperative nausea, 0.69 [0.57-0.84] for next-day postoperative nausea, 0.78 [0.63-0.98] for early postoperative vomiting, 0.57 [0.45-0.72] for late postoperative vomiting, and 0.61 [0.43-0.86] for next-day postoperative vomiting. Dizziness was significantly lower in ramosetron groups than in ondansetron groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.81 [0.66-0.98]). Trial sequential analysis revealed that the results for late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea were conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramosetron is more effective in preventing late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea than ondansetron. The incidence of dizziness may be lower in patients receiving ramosetron than in patients receiving ondansetron.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000022980.

Comparison of Ramosetron With Ondansetron for Prevention of Intrathecal Morphine-Induced Nausea and Vomiting After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine is a reliable, easy to apply, and cost effective method for controlling pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a major concern. 5-Hydroxytryptamine receptor 3 (5-HT₃) antagonists like ondansetron and ramosetron are commonly used for preventing PONV, but the optimal choice remains unclear. We conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of ramosetron and ondansetron, hypothesizing that the longer acting ramosetron may be better than ondansetron in the first 48 hours after TKA, performed with spinal anesthesia and intrathecal morphine.

METHODS

Patients were randomized preoperatively to either intravenous ondansetron (8 mg) or ramosetron (0.3 mg). The primary outcomes were the incidence rates of PONV. Secondary outcomes were the need for a rescue antiemetic (metoclopramide), pain score, patient satisfaction, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) at 0-6, 6-12, 12-24, and 24-48 hours.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were evaluable; 45 patients/arm. Compared with ondansetron, ramosetron was associated with significantly lower incidence rates of nausea at: (1) 12-18 hours: 3/45 vs 11/45 (P = .016), (2) 18-24 hours: 1/45 vs 9/45 (P = .005), and vomiting at 18-24 hours: 1/45 vs 6/45 (P = .044). There were no significant differences in the use of rescue-antiemetic medicine, pain score, patient satisfaction, and ADRs.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative ramosetron provided more prolonged PONV prophylaxis than ondansetron after TKA in our setting, and had a similar ADR profile. Other trials are needed to confirm our results before ramosetron is adopted widely.

Population pharmacokinetics and prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron in surgical patients

AIMS

This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of ramosetron and compared prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy with that of ondansetron in a large population.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients consented to the pharmacokinetic analysis and were assigned randomly to receive 0.3, 0.45 or 0.6 mg ramosetron after induction of anaesthesia. Blood samples were acquired at preset intervals. Non-compartmental and population pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. In total, 1102 patients consented to the evaluation of prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy and were allocated randomly to receive 0.3 mg ramosetron or 4 mg ondansetron at the end of surgery. An additional 16 mg ondansetron were mixed in the intravenous patient-controlled analgesia pump of the ondansetron group. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were evaluated 6, 24 and 48 h post-operatively using the Rhodes index of nausea, vomiting and retching (RINVR). Administration of rescue anti-emetics and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

The pharmacokinetic parameter estimates were V1 (l) = 5.12, V2 (l) = 108, CL (l⋅min(-1) ) = 0.08 + (59⋅age(-1) ) × 0.09, Q (l⋅min(-1) ) = 1.42. The incidences of PONV in the ramosetron and ondansetron groups were 77 (13.9%) and 113 (20.6%) and 44 (7.9%) and 66 (12.0%) at 24 and 48 h post-operatively, respectively (P = 0.004, 0.030). RINVR was significantly lower in the ramosetron than the ondansetron group 24 and 48 h post-operatively (P = 0.003, 0.025). Use of rescue anti-emetics and incidence of adverse events were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

A two compartment mammillary model was used to describe ramosetron pharmacokinetics. Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ramosetron was significantly better 24 and 48 h post-operatively than that of ondansetron, particularly when the Apfel score was ≥ 3.

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.

Comparison of ramosetron with ondansetron for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients

Background and Aims:

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has an 80% incidence in high-risk patients. This is despite the availability of several antiemetic drugs. Selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are considered first-line for prophylaxis, ondansetron being the most commonly used agent. Ramosetron, another selective 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, is more potent and longer acting than ondansetron. This study was conducted to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of ramosetron in comparison with ondansetron in patients at a high risk of PONV.

Methods:

This was a prospective randomised double-blind study carried out over a 6-month period in which 206 patients with at least two risk factors for PONV were randomised to receive ramosetron 0.3 mg or ondansetron 8 mg, 30 min before the end of surgery. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea and need for rescue antiemetic were recorded over the next 24 h. Primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcomes included severity of nausea and need for rescue. The data were analysed using the Predictive Analytics Software (PASW, version 18: Chicago, IL, USA).

Results:

The incidence of PONV was found to be 35% in the ramosetron group as opposed to 43.7% in the ondansetron group (P = 0.199). Need for rescue antiemetic was 23.3% in the ramosetron group and 32% in the ondansetron group (P = 0.156) in the 24 h following surgery.

Conclusion:

Ramosetron 0.3 mg and ondansetron 8 mg were equally effective in reducing the incidence of PONV in high risk patients.

Efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common side effect of general anesthesia. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting using the most recently published randomized controlled clinical studies.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of ramosetron and ondansetron. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Dichotomous outcomes are presented as the relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 898 patients from nine selected studies were treated with antiemetics after surgery, including 450 patients who received ondansetron 4 mg and 448 patients who received ramosetron 0.3 mg. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to prevention of postoperative nausea (PON) during different time periods in the 48 hours after surgery. When comparing the efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative vomiting (POV), at various time intervals in the 24 hours after surgery, ramosetron was significantly more efficient than ondansetron: 0–6 hours (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24–0.92; P=0.03), 0–24 hours (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52–1.00; P=0.05), and 6–24 hours (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31–0.84; P=0.008). At other time periods between 24 and 48 hours after surgery, ramosetron did not show better efficacy than ondansetron. When comparing the safety profiles of ramosetron and ondansetron, fewer side effects were recorded in the ramosetron group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.91; P=0.01).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that ramosetron was more effective than ondansetron in the prevention of early POV (0–24 hours) with fewer recorded side effects. However, our study did not reveal any statistically significant differences in efficacy between ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PON or late POV (at 24–48 hours).

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, and multicenter trial of prophylactic effects of ramosetronon postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy: comparison with ondansetron

Background

Craniotomy patients have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This prospective, randomized, double-blind, multi-center study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic ramosetron in preventing PONV compared with ondansetron after elective craniotomy in adult patients.

Methods

A total of 160 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I–II patients aged 19–65 years who were scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy for various intracranial lesions were enrolled in this study. All patients received total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups to receive ondansetron (4 mg; group A, n  =  55), ondansetron (8 mg; group B, n  =  54), or ramosetron (0.3 mg; group C, n  =  51) intravenously at the time of dural closure. The incidence of PONV, the need for rescue antiemetics, pain score, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) consumption, and adverse events were recorded 48 h postoperatively.

Results

Among the initial 160 patients, 127 completed the study and were included in the final analysis. The incidences of PONV were lower (nausea, 14% vs. 59% and 41%, respectively; P  <  0.001; vomiting, P  =  0.048) and the incidence of complete response was higher (83% vs. 37% and 59%, respectively; P  <  0.001) in group C than in groups A and B at 48 h postoperatively. There were no significant differences in the incidence of PONV or need for rescue antiemetics 0–2 h postoperatively, but significant differences were observed in the incidence of PONV and complete response among the three groups 2–48 h postoperatively. No statistically significant intergroup differences were observed in postoperative pain, PCA consumption, or adverse events.

Conclusion

Intravenous administration of ramosetron at 0.3 mg reduced the incidence of PONV and rescue antiemetic requirement in craniotomy patients. Ramosetron at 0.3 mg was more effective than ondansetron at 4 or 8 mg for preventing PONV in adult craniotomy patients.

Trial registration

Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) Identifier: KCT0000320. Registered 9 January 2012.

Comparison of the antiemetic effect of ramosetron with the combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron in middle ear surgery: A double-blind, randomized clinical study

Background:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent complication of middle ear surgery. Ondansetron has been shown to be effective for early PONV and dexamethasone has been shown to be effective for late PONV. Therefore, a combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron is commonly used for middle ear surgery. This study was conducted to compare the combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone with ramosetron for early and late PONV up to 48 h after middle ear surgery.

Methods:

One hundred and twenty adults scheduled for middle ear surgery were allocated to receive either dexamethasone 8 mg and ondansetron 4 mg (n=60) or ramosetron 0.3 mg (n=60). General anesthesia with inhalation agents was used for all the patients. The incidence and severity of PONV, administration of rescue antiemetic, and the side effects of the antiemetic were documented during the first 48 h after surgery.

Results:

The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in the dexamethasone and ondansetron group compared to the ramosetron group between 2 and 24 h. The complete response, which is patients with no nausea or vomiting, was significantly more in dexamethasone and ondansetron group compared to ramosetron group between 2 and 24 h and between 24 and 48 h (76% vs. 56%, P=0.02, 93% vs. 81%, P=0.05, respectively). Overall, complete response was more in dexamethasone and ondansetron group compared to ramosetron group (71% vs. 40%, P=0.01).

Conclusion:

The combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron is superior to ramosetron for prevention of PONV after middle ear surgeries.

Palonosetron has superior prophylactic antiemetic efficacy compared with ondansetron or ramosetron in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a major problem, because PONV is associated with delayed recovery and prolonged hospital stay. Although the PONV guidelines recommended the use of 5-hydroxy-tryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists as the first-line prophylactic agents in patients categorized as high-risk, there are few studies comparing the efficacies of ondansetron, ramosetron, and palonosetron. The aim of present study was to compare the prophylactic antiemetic efficacies of three 5HT₃ receptor antagonists in high-risk patients after laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 109 female nonsmokers scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgery were randomized to receive intravenous 4 mg ondansetron (n = 35), 0.3 mg ramosetron (n = 38), or 75 µg palonosetron (n = 36) before anesthesia. Fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia was administered for 48 h after surgery. Primary antiemetic efficacy variables were the incidence and severity of nausea, the frequency of emetic episodes during the first 48 h after surgery, and the need to use a rescue antiemetic medication.

Results

The overall incidence of nausea/retching/vomiting was lower in the palonosetron (22.2%/11.1%/5.6%) than in the ondansetron (77.1%/48.6%/28.6%) and ramosetron (60.5%/28.9%/18.4%) groups. The rescue antiemetic therapy was required less frequently in the palonosetron group than the other groups (P < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the order of prophylactic efficacy in delaying the interval to use of a rescue emetic was palonosetron, ramosetron, and ondansetron.

Conclusions

Single-dose palonosetron is the prophylactic antiemetics of choice in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Reevaluation of the effectiveness of ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ramosetron has been shown to have a very strong effect for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in previous meta-analyses. However, these previous meta-analyses included a number of studies by Fujii et al. which have now been proven to have been fabricated. In the present meta-analysis, we reevaluated the effectiveness of ramosetron in preventing PONV after excluding Fujii et al.'s randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Web of Science. All double-blind randomized controlled trials that tested the efficacy of ramosetron compared with a placebo or other drugs as a control in the prophylaxis of PONV were considered to be eligible. The first postoperative 24 hours were divided into early (0-6 hours) and late (6-24 hours) time periods, and we collected these data separately.

RESULTS

A total of 1372 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with a placebo, ramosetron reduced the incidence of early postoperative nausea (PON) (relative risk [RR] [95% confidence interval] 0.59 [0.47-0.73]: number needed to treat [NNT] [95% confidence interval] 6.0 [4.3-9.7]), late PON (RR 0.65 [0.49-0.85]: NNT 7.2 [4.6-16.6]), early postoperative vomiting (POV) (RR 0.48 [0.31-0.74]: NNT 14.8 [8.3-70.4]), and late POV (RR 0.50 [0.35-0.73]: NNT 12.3 [7.1-47.6]). Compared with ondansetron, ramosetron reduces early POV (RR 0.50 [0.28-0.90]: NNT 24.1 [10.7-98.0]) and late POV (RR 0.53 [0.34-0.81]: NNT 27.2 [12.0-102.0]) but not PON.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramosetron has a significant effect for preventing PONV compared with a placebo, but less than that reported in previous analyses. Ramosetron also has statistically significant differences in preventing early and late POV compared with ondansetron, but the clinical significance may be questioned because the NNTs are large.