Evaluation of antiemetic effect of intravenous palonosetron versus intravenous ondansetron in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

CYP2D6 isoenzyme and ABCB1 gene polymorphisms associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is still a common complication. Serotonin receptor antagonists are commonly used in clinical practice for antiemetic prophylaxis. Interindividual variations in drug response, including single nucleotide polymorphisms, are related to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes in these drugs and may lead to a poor therapeutic response. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of CYP2D6 isoenzyme and ABCB1 gene polymorphisms on the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting with the use of ondansetron or palonosetron.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind clinical trial including 82 women aged 60 years or over undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy was conducted. Patients were randomized to receive either ondansetron or palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. DNA was extracted from saliva. Genetic polymorphisms were analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. The following polymorphisms were analyzed: rs3892097 C/T, rs1128503 A/G, rs16947 A/G, rs1065852 A/G, rs1045642 A/G, rs2032582 C/A, and rs20325821 C/A.

RESULTS

Overall, vomiting, and severe nausea occurred in 22.5% and 57.5% of patients, respectively. In the palonosetron group, patients with the GG genotype (rs16947 A/G) experienced more severe nausea (p = 0.043). In the ondansetron group, patients with the AA genotype (rs16947 A/G) presented mild nausea (p = 0.034), and those with the AA genotype (rs1065852 A/G) experienced more vomiting (p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

A low antiemetic response was observed with ondansetron in the presence of the AA genotype (rs16947 A/G) and the AA genotype (rs1065852 A/G), and a low therapeutic response was found with palonosetron in the presence of the GG genotype (rs16947 A/G) in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

REGISTER

ClinicalTrials.gov.

Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron Compared with the Combination of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Gynaecological Surgery

Background and aims

For the prevention of PONV, we evaluated the efficacy of palonosetron compared with ondansetron along with dexamethasone in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.

Methods

A total of 84 adults, posted for elective laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia were included in the study. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups (n = 42 each). Immediately after induction, patients in the first group (group I) received 4 mg ondansetron with 8 mg dexamethasone, and patients in the second group (group II) received 0.075 mg palonosetron. Any incidences of nausea and/or vomiting, the requirement of rescue antiemetic, and side effects were recorded.

Results

In group I, 66.67% of the patients had an Apfel score of 2, and 33.33% of the patients had a score of 3. In group II, 85.71% of patients had an Apfel score of 2, and 14.29% of the patients had a score of 3. At 1, 4, and 8 hours, the incidence of PONV was comparable in both groups. At 24 hours there was a significant difference in the incidence of PONV in the group treated with ondansetron with dexamethasone combination (4/42) when compared to the palonosetron group (0/42). The overall incidence of PONV was significantly higher in group I (23.81%: ondansetron and dexamethasone combination) than in group II (7.14%: palonosetron). The need for rescue medication in group I was significantly high. Conclusion: Palonosetron was more efficacious compared to the combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone for preventing PONV for laparoscopic gynaecological surgery.

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).

A randomized study to compare palonosetron with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following middle ear surgeries

Background and Aims:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has multifactorial etiology. It is a commonly encountered morbidity after anesthesia specially following middle ear surgery. Various antiemetic medications have been tried with mixed responses. Palonosetron is a newer 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist marketed for PONV prophylaxis. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV after middle ear surgeries.

Material and Methods:

One hundred patients of ASA class 1 or 2, aged 18 years and above, weighing between 40 and 90 kg scheduled for elective middle ear surgeries were randomly assigned into palonosetron group (n = 50) and ondansetron group (n = 50). Palonosetron was administered in dose of 1 mcg/kg maximum up to 75 mcg and ondansetron in dose of 0.1 mg/kg maximum up to 8 mg. Intraoperative monitoring of QTc interval was also done to see any significant change after the antiemetic administration. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and side effects were recorded over 2, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. All parameters were compared between the two groups as mean ± standard deviation and as count (%). Two sided P values of <0.05 were considered significant.

Results:

The incidence of PONV (P = 0.002), nausea (P = 0.0002) and vomiting (P = 0.006) was significantly lower in palonosetron group than in ondansetron group in 2- to 12-hour period. QTc interval prolongation, a known side effect of ondansetron was not found in palonosetron group intraoperatively.

Conclusion:

Palonosetron was found to be superior to ondansetron up to 12 hours after the surgery with no significant effect on QTc interval.

Effects of palonosetron and ondansetron on preventing nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery

Background

This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with general anesthesia.

Methods

We searched for randomized controlled clinical trials in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library.

Results

Nine studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis and showed no statistically significant difference between palonosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PONV in the first 24 hours after surgery (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35–1.10). Palonosetron more effectively prevented vomiting at various time intervals during the first 24 hours postoperatively than did ondansetron: 0–2 hours (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26–0.78), 2–6 hours (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39–1.40), and 6–24 hours (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.55–2.64). No significant differences in side effects were found between palonosetron and ondansetron (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40–1.14).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that palonosetron is not more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of early PONV. However, palonosetron was more efficacious than ondansetron in the prevention of vomiting after laparoscopic surgery.

A Meta-Analysis of Palonosetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Adults

PURPOSE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of palonosetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

DESIGN

A meta-analysis using a systematic search strategy was performed.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials was performed to compare palonosetron with first-generation 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) or placebo to prevent PONV. Fixed or random effect models were used to combine homogenous data.

FINDINGS

A total of 10 randomized controlled clinical trials including 1,827 patients were identified. The data showed statistically significant differences in favor of palonosetron (0.075 mg) in the prevention of acute PONV (P < .00001) and delayed PONV (P < .002), reducing the risk of PONV by 49% and 51%, respectively. Subgroup analyses indicated significant differences in favor of palonosetron compared with placebo (P < .00001) or first-generation 5-HT3RA (P = .002). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of headache, dizziness, and constipation between palonosetron and control groups (P = .85, P = .22, and P = .30, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that intravenous palonosetron could become a prophylactic antiemetic 5-HT3RA in the prevention of PONV compared with first-generation 5-HT3RAs or placebo. No increased risk of side effects with palonosetron were found.

Efficacy of palonosetron in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)-a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with proposed higher efficacy and sustained action for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving adult population undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia comparing palonosetron to placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron were included. Data were extracted for vomiting incidence (VI), complete response (no nausea/vomiting; Complete Response [CR]), and rescue antiemetic need. This was categorized as early phase (24 hours postoperative for ramosetron and 6 hours for rest) and delayed phase (48 hours for ramosetron and 24 hours for rest). VI and CR were used as markers of drug efficacy. Any adverse effects were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two trials (4 with 3 groups) were included (comparing palonosetron to placebo in 5, ramosetron in 5, granisetron in 4, and ondansetron in 12 subgroups). Palonosetron demonstrated statistical superiority over placebo for VI and CR, both early/delayed PONV prevention. For delayed phase, palonosetron surpassed ramosetron in all 3 variables; however, none of the variables attained statistical significance during early phase. In early phase, palonosetron had better VI and CR than did granisetron; however, variables other than CR (better for palonosetron) failed to achieve statistical significance for delayed phase. All 3 outcomes were significantly better for palonosetron compared with ondansetron in delayed phase, but statistical superiority could only be demonstrated for VI in early phase. Being inconsistently documented across trials, nausea scores could not be evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron is as safe as and more effective than placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron in preventing delayed PONV. For early PONV, it has higher efficacy over placebo, granisetron, and ondansetron.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Palonosetron with Dexamethasone vs. Ondansetron with Dexamethasone in Laparoscopic Hysterectomies

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the most common complication seen following laparoscopic surgery. Our study sought to evaluate the efficacy of the newer drug palonosetron with that of ondansetron, in combination with dexamethasone, for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomies. .

METHODS

A total of 90 patients, aged between 30-50 years old, posted for elective laparoscopic hysterectomies under general anesthesia belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status I and II were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into one of two groups (n=45). Before induction, patients in the first group (group I) received 0.075mg palonosetron with 8mg dexamethasone and patients in the second group (group II) received 4mg ondansetron with 8mg dexamethasone. Postoperatively, any incidences of early or delayed vomiting, requirement of rescue antiemetic, and side effects were recorded. Patient's hemodynamics were also monitored. Statistical analysis was done using Student's t-test, chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. .

RESULTS

Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative heart rate, mean arterial pressure, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation were statistically not significant (p>0.050) in either group. In group II, eight patients had nausea in the first two hours and three patients had nausea in the two to six-hour postoperative period. In group I, three patients experienced nausea in the first six hours period. Eight patients in group II had vomited in the first two-hour period compared to one patient in group I (p=0.013). The requirement of rescue antiemetic was greater in group II than group I (20% vs. 4%). No side effects of antiemetic use were observed in either group. .

CONCLUSION

The combination of palonosetron with dexamethasone is more effective in treating early, delayed, and long term PONV compared to ondansetron with dexamethasone in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic hysterectomies under general anesthesia.

Update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be one of the most common postsurgical medical problems. An understanding of the pathophysiology of PONV and the pharmacological profiles of agents affecting receptors involved in emesis is necessary to effectively treat PONV.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although serotonin receptor antagonists remain key in the multimodal approach to PONV management, new research developments involving antiemetics, such as neurokinin-1 antagonists, corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists, and cholinergic antagonists, have yielded valuable efficacy and safety information.

SUMMARY

Proper management of PONV includes an evaluation of risk factors, a strategy for prophylaxis, and rescue antiemetic treatment if necessary. In high-risk patients, combination therapy is recommended in preventing PONV. Knowledge of antiemetic efficacy and safety may facilitate an increase in patient satisfaction, decreased negative health consequences, and reduced medical costs.

Palonosetron Versus Ramosetron Prophylaxis for Control of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Cesarean Delivery under Spinal Anesthesia

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery are distressing to both patients and surgeons. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ramosetron (both newer and highly potent 5HT3 receptor antagonists) in nausea and vomiting in cesarean delivery after spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind study, 109 women received either palonosetron (0.075 mg) or ramosetron (0.3 mg) intravenously immediately after clamping of the fetal umbilical cord. Nausea, vomiting, adverse events, and overall satisfaction were then observed for 48 h after administration of spinal anesthesia.

RESULTS

A complete response (defined as no postoperative nausea and vomiting) during first 0-2 h postoperative after administration of spinal anesthesia was achieved in 85.5 % of patients with palonosetron and in 83.3 % of patients with ramosetron (p > 0.05). However, the corresponding incidence during 2 to 24 h was 70.9 and 53.7 %, respectively (p < 0.05), while it was 63.3 and 44.4 % at 24-48 h after anesthesia (p < 0.05). Along with a more complete response, the severity of nausea was also lesser with palonosetron during the corresponding study periods (2-24 and 24-48 h, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients who received palonosetron were also more satisfied than those who received ramosetron (p < 0.05). No difference in adverse events was observed in any of the groups.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, prophylactic therapy with palonosetron is more effective than prophylactic therapy with ramosetron for the long-term prevention of PONV after cesarean section.

Comparison of low and standard pressure gas injection at abdominal cavity on postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background and Objective: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the main concern for 40-70% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Our objective was to compare carbon dioxide gas at low pressure and standard pressure for the occurrence of PONV on patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods: This double- blind trial was conducted on 50 women patients aged between 18 to 60 years with acute cholecystectomy. The patients were divided into two groups: low pressure (LP) (received LP gas, 7-9 mmHg) and standard pressure (SP) (received SP gas, 14-15 mmHg). Nausea and vomiting in patients at hours 0-4, 4-8, 8-12, 12-24 after the surgery were recorded.

Results: The frequency of PONV in the LP and SP groups did not demonstrate statistically significant different (P > 0.05). Nevertheless the frequency of shoulder pain after 4 hours at the LP group compared with SP group was significantly different (P < 0.023).

Conclusions: The use of low pressure gas compared to standard pressure gas to create pneumoperitoneum could not reduce the PONV whereas the frequency of shoulder pain in LP group was reduced. Low pressure gas was associated with reduction of surgeon visibility and subsequently more prolonged surgery duration.

Evaluation of the ability of continuous palonosetron infusion, using a patient-controlled analgesia device, to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of palonosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), as well as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, has already been demonstrated in multiple clinical studies. The purpose of this study was to determine whether continuous infusion of palonosetron following single injection could reduce PONV to a greater extent than single injection only of palonosetron.

METHODS

In total, 132 women were enrolled in the study. All subjects were over the age of 20 years and were scheduled to undergo gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. In both groups, patients received 0.075 mg of palonosetron intravenously, immediately before induction of anesthesia. In the continuous palonosetron infusion group, 0.075 mg (1.5 ml) of palonosetron was added to the patient-controlled analgesia device. In the single-injection palonosetron group, 1.5 ml of normal saline was added.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the continuous palonosetron infusion group than the single-injection palonosetron group (31.8 vs. 56.1%, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous palonosetron infusion, following single injection, reduces the incidence of PONV compared with single injection only.

Palonosetron versus ondansetron as rescue medication for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a randomized, multicenter, open-label study

BACKGROUND

This study compared palonosetron and ondansetron as rescue medications for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients who received prophylactic ondansetron. Although guidelines recommend use of an agent from a different class when prophylaxis has failed, palonosetron has unique properties relative to other serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Prior trials assessing its use for rescue have had conflicting results. Although palonosetron has compared favorably with ondansetron for PONV prevention, the drugs have not been compared in the rescue setting of failure of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist prophylaxis.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of intravenous palonosetron 0.075 mg and intravenous ondansetron 4 mg in patients experiencing PONV following laparoscopic abdominal or gynecological surgery despite prophylactic ondansetron.

RESULTS

Of 239 patients screened, 220 were enrolled and 98 were treated for PONV: 48 and 50 in the palonosetron and ondansetron arms, respectively. Complete control during 72 hours after study drug administration was achieved in 25.0% of palonosetron recipients and 18.0% of ondansetron recipients (95% confidence interval [CI], -9.2, 23.3; p = 0.40). Corresponding incidences of vomiting were 29.2% for palonosetron and 48.0% for ondansetron (95% CI, -0.06, 37.7; p = 0.057), and 62.5% and 56.0% required additional rescue treatment, respectively (95% CI, -25.9, 12.9; p = 0.52). Other than a similar incidence of procedural pain in the 2 groups, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events, which were generally mild, were headache (14.6% vs 12.0%), constipation (8.3% vs 10.0%), and dizziness (6.3% vs 8.0%), for the palonosetron and ondansetron groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron and ondansetron did not show differences in the primary efficacy endpoint of CC during the 72 hours after study drug administration. There was a trend toward less emesis in the 0-72 h time period favoring palonosetron. While larger studies are needed to fully assess any clinical benefits of palonosetron to rescue patients who have failed ondansetron prophylaxis for PONV, the benefit, if any, would be limited based on this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00967499 (Registered August 27, 2009).

Long-acting serotonin antagonist (Palonosetron) and the NK-1 receptor antagonists: does extended duration of action improve efficacy?

In a growing outpatient surgical population, postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) is unfortunately a common and costly anesthetic complication. Identification of risk factors for both postoperative nausea and vomiting and PDNV is the hallmark of prevention and management. New pharmacologic interventions with extended duration of action, including palonosetron and aprepritant, may prove to be more efficacious.