Intravenous palonosetron increases the incidence of QTc prolongation during sevoflurane general anesthesia for laparotomy

Prevalence, Attributes, and Risk Factors of QT-Interval-Prolonging Drugs and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Introduction Cancer chemotherapy regimens include multiple classes of adjuvant drugs as supportive therapy. Because of the concurrent intake of other drugs (like antiemetics, antidepressants, analgesics, and antimicrobials), there is a heightened risk for possible QT interval prolongation. There is a dearth of evidence in the literature regarding the usage of QT-prolonging anticancer drugs and associated risk factors that have the propensity to prolong QT interval. The purpose was to explore the extent of the use of QT-interval-prolonging drugs and potential QT-prolonging drug-drug interactions (QT-DDIs) in cancer patients attending OPD in a tertiary-care hospital. Methods This was a hospital-based, cross-sectional, observational study. Risk stratification of QT-prolonging drugs for torsades de pointes (TdP) was done by the Arizona Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics (AzCERT)/CredibleMeds-lists, and potential QT-DDIs were determined with four online DDI-checker-software. Results In 1331 cancer patients, the overall prevalence of potential QT-prolonging drug utilization was 97.3%. Ondansetron, pantoprazole, domperidone, and olanzapine were the most frequent QT-prolonging drugs in cancer patients. The top six antineoplastics with potential QT-prolonging and torsadogenic actions were capecitabine, oxaliplatin, imatinib, bortezomib, 5-fluorouracil, and bendamustine. Evidence-based pragmatic QTc interval prolongation risk assessment tools are imperative for cancer patients. Conclusion This study revealed a high prevalence of QT-prolonging drugs and QT-DDIs among cancer patients who are treated with anticancer and non-anticancer drugs. As a result, it's critical to take precautions, stay vigilant, and avoid QT-prolonging in clinical situations. Evidence-based pragmatic QTc interval prolongation risk assessment tools are needed for cancer patients.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in the Older Patient: Optimizing Outcomes

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are still two of the most feared side effects of cancer therapy. Although major progress in the prophylaxis of CINV has been made during the past 40 years, nausea in particular remains a significant problem. Older patients have a lower risk of CINV than younger patients, but are at a higher risk of severe consequences of dehydration and electrolyte disturbances following emesis. Age-related organ deficiencies, comorbidities, polypharmacy, risk of drug–drug interactions, and lack of compliance all need to be addressed in the older patient with cancer at risk of CINV. Guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prophylaxis of CINV, but none of these guidelines offer specific recommendations for older patients with cancer. This means that the recommendations may lead to overtreatment in some older patients. This review describes the development of antiemetic prophylaxis of CINV focusing on older patients, summarizes recommendations from antiemetic guidelines, describes deficiencies in our knowledge of older patients, summarizes necessary precautions, and suggests some future perspectives for antiemetic research in older patients.

The Effect of a Combination Treatment Using Palonosetron, Promethazine, and Dexamethasone on the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and QTc Interval Duration in Patients Undergoing Craniotomy under General Anesthesia: A Pilot Study

Introduction

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a displeasing experience that distresses surgical patients during the first 24 h after a surgical procedure. The incidence of postoperative nausea occurs in about 50%, the incidence of postoperative vomiting is about 30%, and in high-risk patients, the PONV rate could be as high as 80%. Therefore, the study design of this single arm, non-randomized, pilot study assessed the efficacy and safety profile of a triple therapy combination with palonosetron, dexamethasone, and promethazine to prevent PONV in patients undergoing craniotomies under general anesthesia.

Methods

The research protocol was approved by the institutional review board and 40 subjects were provided written informed consent. At induction of anesthesia, a triple therapy of palonosetron 0.075 mg IV, dexamethasone 10 mg IV, and promethazine 25 mg IV was given as PONV prophylaxis. After surgery, subjects were transferred to the surgical intensive care unit or post anesthesia care unit as clinically indicated. Ondansetron 4 mg IV was administered as primary rescue medication to subjects with PONV symptoms. PONV was assessed and collected every 24 h for 5 days via direct interview and/or medical charts review.

Results

The overall incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The incidence of nausea and emesis 24 h after surgery was 30% (n = 12) and 7.5% (n = 3), respectively. The mean time to first emetic episode, first rescue, and first significant nausea was 31.3 (±33.6), 15.1 (±25.8), and 21.1 (±25.4) hours, respectively. The overall incidence of nausea and vomiting after 24–120 h period after surgery was 30% (n = 12). The percentage of subjects without emesis episodes over 24–120 h postoperatively was 70% (n = 28). No subjects presented a prolonged QTc interval ≥500 ms before and/or after surgery.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrated that this triple therapy regimen may be an adequate alternative regimen for the treatment of PONV in patients undergoing neurological surgery under general anesthesia. More studies with a control group should be performed to demonstrate the efficacy of this regimen and that palonosetron is a low risk for QTc prolongation.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier

NCT02635828 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02635828).

Postdischarge Nausea and Vomiting Remains Frequent After Le Fort I Osteotomy Despite Implementation of a Multimodal Antiemetic Protocol Effective in Reducing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

PURPOSE

To assess the prevalence of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) after Le Fort I osteotomy with and without the use of a multimodal antiemetic protocol shown to decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing Le Fort I osteotomy with or without additional procedures at a single academic institution formed the intervention cohort for an institutional review board-approved prospective clinical trial with a retrospective comparison group. The intervention cohort was managed with a multimodal antiemetic protocol. The comparison group consisted of consecutive patients who underwent similar surgical procedures at the same institution before protocol implementation. All patients were asked to complete a postdischarge diary documenting the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. Those who completed the diaries were included in this analysis. Data were analyzed with the Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test. A P value less than .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Diaries were completed by 85% of patients in the intervention group (79 of 93) and 75% of patients in the comparison group (103 of 137). Patients in the intervention (n = 79) and comparison (n = 103) groups were similar in the proportion of patients with validated risk factors for PDNV, including female gender, history of PONV, age younger than 50 years, opioid use in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and nausea in the PACU (P = .37). The prevalence of PDNV was unaffected by the antiemetic protocol. After discharge, nausea was reported by 72% of patients in the intervention group and 60% of patients in the comparison group (P = .13) and vomiting was reported by 22% of patients in the intervention group and 29% of patients in the comparison group (P = .40).

CONCLUSION

Modalities that successfully address PONV after Le Fort I osteotomy might fail to affect PDNV, which is prevalent in this population. Future investigation will focus on methods to minimize PDNV.