Effect of pretreatment with palonosetron on withdrawal movement associated with rocuronium injection

Impact of Palonosetron on Cough Suppression in Females Undergoing Sevoflurane-Remifentanil Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Trial

Remifentanil has been used to suppress peri-extubation cough. Palonosetron, a 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, is an effective antiemetic, and 5-HT receptors mediate the cough reflex. We assessed the impact of palonosetron on effect-site concentration (Ce) of remifentanil for preventing emergence cough in females. Forty-five female patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy randomly received 0.075 mg of palonosetron (n = 21) or normal saline (n = 24) intravenously at the end of surgery. The remifentanil Ce for 50% (EC₅₀) and for 95% (EC₉₅) of patients were estimated via Dixon’s up-and-down method or isotonic regression. Using Dixon’s method, EC₅₀ in the control group (1.33 ± 0.38 ng/mL) was comparable to that of the palonosetron group (1.42 ± 0.75 ng/mL) (p = 0.813). Using isotonic regression, EC₅₀ (83% CIs) and EC₉₅ (95% CIs) did not reveal significant differences between the control and the palonosetron groups (1.17 (0.86–1.43) and 1.90 (1.45–1.96) ng/mL and 0.88 (0.78–1.23) and 2.43 (1.94–2.47) ng/mL, respectively). No difference was found in the remifentanil Ce to suppress emergence cough in the palonosetron group compared with the control group. It may indicate no effect of palonosetron on antitussive activity of remifentanil.

The Effect of 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor Antagonist in Preventing Pain/Limb Shrinkage Reaction Associated with Rocuronium Injection

Objectives

To evaluate the effect and safety of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) receptor antagonist in alleviating the pain of patients under general anesthesia induced by rocuronium injection and preemptive analgesia.

Methods

Meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.1 software by electronically retrieving the databases of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, and CNKI and collecting the published random control tests (RCTs) where 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist was used to alleviate the pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection.

Results

Seven RTCs, including 556 patients, were included. The results of meta-analysis showed the following. (1) Compared to the control group, 5-HT receptor antagonist could prevent the total pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection [RR=0.62, 95% CI (0.54, 0.71), P<0.00001] and reduce the incidence rate of mild and moderate pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection [RR=0.46, 95% CI (0.33, 0.63), P<0.00001; RR=0.18, 95% CI (0.11, 0.31), P<0.000 01]. (2) Compared to the lidocaine group, the incidence rate was higher in preventing the pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection by 5-HT receptor antagonist, which was statistically significant [RR=1.33, 95% CI (1.05, 1.68), P=0.02].

Conclusion

5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist may be effective in preventing the pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection.

[The effect of palonosetron on rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement]

BACKGROUND

Rocuronium causes pain and withdrawal movement during induction of anesthesia. In this study, palonosetron was investigated to have analgesic effect on the reduction of rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement.

METHODS

120 patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups to receive either saline, lidocaine 20mg, or palonosetron 0.075mg with a tourniquet applied two minutes before thiopental sodium (5mg.kg^-1) was given intravenously. After loss of consciousness, rocuronium (0.6mg.kg^-1) was injected and the withdrawal movement was estimated by 4-point scale in a double-blind manner.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of rocuronium withdrawal movement was 50% with lidocaine (p=0.038), 38% with palonosetron (p=0.006) compared with 75% for saline. The incidence of no pain to mild pain was significantly lower in the lidocaine and palonosetron groups (85% and 92% respectively) than in the saline group (58%). However, there was no significant difference in withdrawal movement between the lidocaine and palonosetron groups. There was no severe movement with palonosetron.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment of palonosetron with venous occlusion may attenuate rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement as effective as the use of lidocaine. It suggested that peripheral action of palonosetron was effective to reduce rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for reducing rocuronium bromide induced pain on injection in children and adults

BACKGROUND

Rocuronium bromide is a routinely used muscle relaxant in anaesthetic practice. Its use, however, is associated with intense pain on injection. While it is well established that rocuronium bromide injection causes pain in awake patients, anaesthetized patients also tend to show withdrawal movements of the limbs when this muscle relaxant is administered. Various strategies, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, have been studied to reduce the incidence and severity of pain on rocuronium bromide injection. We wanted to find out which of the existing modalities was best to reduce pain on rocuronium injection.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this review were to assess the ability of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to reduce or eliminate the pain that accompanies rocuronium bromide administration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1966 to July 2013) and EMBASE via Ovid SP (1980 to July 2013). We also searched specific websites. We reran the searches in February 2015 and will deal with the 11 studies of interest found through this search when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of any drug or a non-pharmacological method with control patients, or those receiving no treatment to reduce the severity of pain with rocuronium injection. Our primary outcome was pain on rocuronium bromide injection measured by a pain score assessment. Our secondary outcomes were rise in heart rate and blood pressure following administration of rocuronium and adverse events related to the interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standardized methods for conducting a systematic review as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two authors independently extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data from reports of all trials considered eligible for inclusion. We made all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We used a fixed-effect model where there was no evidence of significant heterogeneity between studies and a random-effects model if heterogeneity was likely.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 studies with 7840 participants in the review, though most analyses were based on data from fewer participants. In total there are 17 studies awaiting classification. No studies were at a low risk of bias. We noted substantial statistical and clinical heterogeneity between trials. Most of the studies reported the primary outcome pain as assessed by verbal response from participants in an awake state but some trials reported withdrawal of the injected limb as a proxy for pain after induction of anaesthesia in response to rocuronium administration. Few studies reported adverse events and no study reported heart rate and blood pressure changes after administration of rocuronium. Lidocaine was the most commonly studied intervention drug, used in 29 trials with 2256 participants. The risk ratio (RR) of pain on injection if given lidocaine compared to placebo was 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.31; I² = 65%, low quality of evidence). The RR of pain on injection if fentanyl and remifentanil were given compared to placebo was 0.42 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.70; I² = 79%, low quality of evidence) and (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26; I² = 74%, low quality of evidence), respectively. Pain on injection of intervention drugs was reported with the use of lidocaine and acetaminophen in one study. Cough was reported with the use of fentanyl (one study), remifentanil (five studies, low quality evidence) and alfentanil (one study). Breath holding and chest tightness were reported with the use of remifentanil in two studies (very low quality evidence) and one study (very low quality evidence), respectively. The overall rate of complications was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence to suggest that the most commonly investigated pharmacological interventions reduce pain on injection of rocuronium is of low quality due to risk of bias and inconsistency. There is low or very low quality evidence for adverse events, due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision of effect. We did not compare the various interventions with one another and so cannot comment on the superiority of one intervention over another. Complications were reported more often with use of opioids.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention for rocuronium-induced withdrawal movement in the Korean population: a meta-analysis of 41 studies including 4,742 subjects

BACKGROUND

We purposed to systemically review studies investigating the prophylactic effect of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological modalities against rocuronium induced withdrawal movement (RIWM) in the Korean population.

METHODS

Literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Koreamed, KMBASE, KISS and RISS up to March 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions with placebo aimed for the Korean population were included. Outcome measures were the incidence and severity of RIWM. We conducted subgroup analyses according to each intervention method.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 41 RCTs totaling 4,742 subjects. The overall incidence of RIWM was about 80% (range 56-100%). Incidence and severity of RIWM were significantly reduced with lidocaine (risk ratio [RR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.49-0.74; standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.74, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.44), opioids (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.18-0.44; SMD -1.71, 95% CI -2.09 to -1.34) and hypnotics (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.52; SMD -2.20, 95% CI -2.62 to -1.79). Regardless of tourniquet use, lidocaine showed a prophylactic effect against incidence and severity of RIWM: tourniquet (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21-0.62; SMD -1.51, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.86); non-tourniquet (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.71; SMD -0.74, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.44). Dilution and slow injection of rocuronium decreased incidence and severity of RIWM: dilution (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.56; SMD -1.64, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.81); slow injection (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.70; SMD -2.13, 95% CI -2.74 to -1.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The greater part of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions showed prophylactic effect against the incidence and severity of RIWM in the Korean population.