Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after cardiac surgery in high-risk patients: A randomized controlled study

Opioid-free anesthesia versus opioid-based anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite their extensive clinical use, opioids are characterized by several side effects. These complications, coupled with the ongoing opioid epidemic, have favored the rise of opioid-free-anesthesia (OFA). Herein, we perform the first pairwise meta-analysis of clinical outcomes for OFA vs opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing OFA and OBA in patients undergoing cardiovascular or thoracic surgery. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Our pooled analysis included 919 patients (8 studies), of whom 488 underwent surgery with OBA and 431 with OFA. Among cardiovascular surgery patients, compared to OBA, OFA was associated with significantly reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.57; P = .042), inotrope need (RR .84, P = .045), and non-invasive ventilation (RR, .54; P = .028). However, no differences were observed for 24hr pain score (SMD, -.35; P = .510) or 48hr morphine equivalent consumption (SMD, -1.09; P = .139). Among thoracic surgery patients, there was no difference between OFA and OBA for any of the explored outcomes, including post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.41; P = .025).

CONCLUSION

Through the first pooled analysis of OBA vs OFA in a cardiothoracic-exclusive cohort, we found no significant difference in any of the pooled outcomes for thoracic surgery patients. Although limited to 2 cardiovascular surgery studies, OFA was associated with significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, inotrope need, and non-invasive ventilation in these patients. With growing use of OFA in invasive operations, further studies are needed to assess their efficacy and safety in cardiothoracic patients.

Early Postoperative Ondansetron Exposure is Associated with Reduced 90-Day Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery

Background

Ondansetron is a widely used anti-emetic for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting for patients in critical care. Recent retrospective cohort studies suggest the potential beneficial effects of ondansetron in critically ill patients. In this study, we investigate the impact of ondansetron use on patient outcomes after cardiac surgery.

Material and Methods

The MIMIC-III database was used to identify two types of cardiac surgical patients: those who were administered early ondansetron and those who were not given this early medication in the first 48 h in the postoperative period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the effect of ondansetron exposure on 90-day mortality, acute kidney injury, and malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Sensitivity analyses utilizing the inverse probability of treatment weighting and covariate balancing propensity score models were conducted to test the robustness of our findings.

Results

A total of 12.4% of patients received ondansetron. Ondansetron use was associated with a lower risk of 90-day mortality in the multivariable logistic regression model (OR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.72; P = 0.006) and sensitivity analyses. Additionally, ondansetron exposure was associated with less postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.69 to 0.96; P = 0.017) but did not increase the risk of postoperative malignant ventricular arrhythmias (OR: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.09 to 1.16; P = 0.191).

Conclusions

In a population of cardiac surgical patients, early postoperative use of ondansetron appears to be associated with decreased 90-day mortality and acute kidney injury.

The Effect of Preoperative Carbohydrate Loading on Clinical and Biochemical Outcomes after Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background and aim: Preoperative fasting leads to metabolic stress and causes insulin resistance in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of preoperative oral carbohydrate loading (OCH) on outcome in patients undergoing planned cardiac surgery by systematically reviewing the literature and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE/Embase/Cinahl/Web of Science/ClinicalTrials databases was performed to identify relevant RCTs from databased inception until 05/03/2020. We included studies that compared outcome measures between OCH with control (placebo or standard starvation). We conducted a random-effect meta-analysis of clinical and biochemical parameters. Results: Nine studies (N = 9) were included with a total of 507 patients. OCH significantly decreased aortic clamping duration (n = 151, standardized mean difference (SMD) = −0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.521 to −0.038, p = 0.023 and differences in means (DM) = −6.388, 95%CI = −11.246 to −1.529, p = 0.010). Patients from treatment groups had shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (n = 202, SMD = −0.542, 95%CI = −0.789 to −0.295, p < 0.001 and DM = −25.925, 95%CI = −44.568 to −7.283, p = 0.006) and required fewer units of insulin postoperatively (n = 85, SMD = −0.349, 95%CI = −0.653 to −0.044, p = 0.025 and DM = −4.523, 95%CI = −8.417 to −0.630, p = 0.023). The necessity to use inotropic drugs was significantly lower in the OCH group (risk ratio (RR) = 0.795, 95%CI = 0.689 to 0.919, p = 0.002). All other primary outcomes did not reveal a significant effect. Conclusions: Preoperative OCH in patients undergoing cardiac surgery demonstrated a 20% reduction in the use of inotropic drugs, a 50% reduction of the length of ICU stay, a 28% decrease in aortic clamping duration and a 35% decrease of postoperative insulin requirement.

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.

Liraglutide for perioperative management of hyperglycaemia in cardiac surgery patients: a multicentre randomized superiority trial

AIMS

Most cardiac surgery patients, with or without diabetes, develop perioperative hyperglycaemia, for which intravenous insulin is the only therapeutic option. This is labour-intensive and carries a risk of hypoglycaemia. We hypothesized that preoperative administration of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide reduces the number of patients requiring insulin for glycaemic control during cardiac surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, balanced (1:1), multicentre randomized, superiority trial, adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery in four Dutch tertiary hospitals were randomized to receive 0.6 mg subcutaneous liraglutide on the evening before surgery and 1.2 mg after induction of anaesthesia or matching placebo. Blood glucose was measured hourly and controlled using an insulin-bolus algorithm. The primary outcome was insulin administration for blood glucose >8.0 mmol/L in the operating theatre. Research pharmacists used centralized, stratified, variable-block, randomization software. Patients, care providers and study personnel were blinded to treatment allocation.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and August 2018, 278 patients were randomized to liraglutide (139) or placebo (139). All patients receiving at least one study drug injection were included in the intention-to-treat analyses (129 in the liraglutide group, 132 in the placebo group). In the liraglutide group, 55 (43%) patients required additional insulin compared with 80 (61%) in the placebo group and absolute difference 18% (95% confidence interval 5.9-30.0, P = 0.003). Dose and number of insulin injections and mean blood glucose were all significantly lower in the liraglutide group. We observed no difference in the incidence of hypoglycaemia, nausea and vomiting, mortality or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative liraglutide, compared with placebo, reduces insulin requirements while improving perioperative glycaemic control during cardiac surgery.

Incidence of Nausea and Vomiting After Fast-Track Anaesthesia for Heart Surgery

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after fast-track cardiac anesthesia (FTCA) in the first 24-48 hours in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) after open-heart surgery, risk factors for PONV and its influence on CICU length of stay.

Methods

A prospective observational study from January 1, 2013 to the end of December 2015 was performed in the CICU of a university hospital in the north of Jordan and Queen Alia Heart Institute, Amman, Jordan. Three hundred consecutive patients undergoing fast-track cardiac anesthesia in elective cardiac surgery were enrolled in the study. Nausea and vomiting were assessed after tracheal extubation, which was performed within 6-10 hours after surgery and during the first 24-48 hours in the CICU. Metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously was used as the initial antiemetic drug, but ondansetron 4 mg intravenously was also used as second line of management.

Results

Nausea was reported in 46 (15.3%) patients, and vomiting in 31 (10.3%). Among females, 38 (33.9%) patients developed nausea and 20 (17.9%) developed vomiting. Among males, 8 (4.3%) patients developed nausea and 11 (5.9%) developed vomiting.

Conclusion

PONV are relatively low after FTCA and the prophylactic administration of antiemetic drug before anesthesia or after extubation is not necessary.