Efficacy of Palonosetron-Dexamethasone Combination Versus Palonosetron Alone for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting Related to Opioid-Based Analgesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Trial

Impact of body weight-based dosing of palonosetron and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 μg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores.

RESULTS

There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

A Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Update: Current information on New Drugs, Old Drugs, Rescue/Treatment, Combination Therapies and Nontraditional Modalities

This article's objective is to present the latest evidence and information on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV continues to affect 30% of the surgical population causing patient dissatisfaction, extending length of stay, and increasing overall costs. This review includes the introduction of 2 new intravenous formulations of antiemetics (amisulpride, aprepitant), updates on nontraditional therapies, suggestions for combination prophylaxis, emerging data on rescue treatment, and considerations for special populations and settings. Both of the new antiemetics provide promising options for pharmacologic interventions for PONV with favorable safety profiles.

Efficacy and safety analysis of dexamethasone + palonosetron in prevention of post-embolization syndrome after D-TACE: A retrospective study

To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone + palonosetron in the prevention of post-embolization syndrome after drug-eluting beads transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (D-TACE). The data of 278 patients who received D-TACE from January 2018 to December 2021 were collected and divided into 2 groups: D-TACE group (N = 145) and D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group (N = 133). The incidence of post-embolization syndrome and infection after D-TACE was assessed in both groups. Incidence of abdominal pain: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 56.6% versus 40.6%, P = .008; incidence of fever: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 40.0% versus 14.3%, P = .000; incidence of nausea: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 61.4% versus 39.8%, P = .001; incidence of vomiting: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 48.3% versus 21.1%, P = .000; incidence of infection: D-TACE group versus D-TACE + dexamethasone + palonosetron group, 1.4% versus 1.5%, P = .931. The combined use of dexamethasone and palonosetron before D-TACE can effectively reduce the incidence of post-embolization syndrome and reduce the degree of side effects, but it will not increase the risk of infection.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Postoperative recovery: how and when is it assessed: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus about the type of instrument with which to assess postoperative recovery or the time points when assessments are most appropriate. It is also unclear whether instruments measure the four dimensions of postoperative recovery, that is physical, psychological, social, and habitual recovery. This scoping review had three objectives: (1) to identify and describe instruments used in clinical trials to assess postoperative recovery; (2) to determine how, when, and the number of times postoperative recovery was measured; and (3) to explore whether the four dimensions of postoperative recovery are represented in the identified instruments.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. The search terms were related to three search strands: postoperative recovery, instrument, and clinical trials. The limits were English language and publication January 2010 to November 2021. In total, 5015 studies were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 198 studies were included in the results. We identified 20 instruments measuring postoperative recovery. Different versions of Quality of Recovery represented 81.8% of the included instruments. Postoperative recovery was often assessed at one time point (47.2%) and most often on postoperative day 1 (81.5%). Thirteen instruments had items covering all four dimensions of postoperative recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing recovery is important to evaluate and improve perioperative care. We emphasise the importance of choosing the right instrument for the concept studied and, if postoperative recovery is of interest, of assessing more than once. Ideally, instruments should include all four dimensions to cover the whole recovery process.

Comparison of efficacy between palonosetron-midazolam combination and palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing breast surgery and patient controlled analgesia: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study: A CONSORT-compliant study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complaint in patients following general anesthesia. Various antiemetics, including 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, are effective but still have limited efficacy. Therefore, combination therapy is preferable to using a single drug alone in high-risk patients. We performed a comparative study on the antiemetic effect of palonosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, monotherapy vs palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy for the prevention of PONV.

METHODS

A total of 104 female patients scheduled for breast cancer surgery were enrolled. They were randomly divided into 2 groups, a palonosetron monotherapy group (group P) and palonosetron-midazolam combination therapy group (group PM). Both groups received 0.075 mg palonosetron intravenously after induction of anesthesia. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was applied according to the allocated group. Intravenous (IV)-PCA in group P consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml); IV-PCA in group PM consisted of fentanyl 20 μg/kg plus midazolam 4 mg plus normal saline (total volume: 100 ml). Efficacy parameters were collected during 0 to 1, 1 to 6, 6 to 24, and 24 to 48 hours postoperative time intervals. These measures included complete response (defined as no PONV and no rescue anti-emetic use) rate, incidence of PONV, sedation score, rescue antiemetic use, rescue analgesic use, and numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain. The complete response rate during the 0 to 24 hours interval was analyzed as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Although the complete response rate between 0 and 24 hours was higher in group PM (42.3% and 48.1% in group P and PM, respectively), there was no statistically significant difference (P = .55). The complete response rates in other time intervals were not different between the 2 groups as well. The sedation score and NRS score also showed no differences between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination therapy of palonosetron with midazolam did not lead to a greater reduction in the incidence of PONV than monotherapy in patients undergoing breast surgery and receiving IV-PCA containing fentanyl.

Efficacy of palonosetron-dexamethasone combination compared to palonosetron alone for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following surgery, and may be one of the most distressing parts of the surgical journey. With combination pharmacological therapy recommended for PONV prophylaxis, this systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates whether perioperative palonosetron and dexamethasone is more efficacious than palonosetron administered alone.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL; EMBASE; CINAHL; Google Scholar; Web of Science citation index; the US clinical trials register; UK clinical trials register; Australia and New Zealand Clinical trials register; and conference abstracts for major anaesthesia conferences in the last three years.We included randomized controlled trials that compared adult patients undergoing surgery who received palonosetron and dexamethasone, against those who received palonosetron.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (1152 patients) were included. Medium-grade evidence showed that the palonosetron and dexamethasone combination significantly reduced 24-hour rescue anti-emetic requirement (RR: 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.86). There was however no significant difference in the 6-hour (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.61-1.09) and 24-hour PONV incidences (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.33-1.10). Similarly, PONV incidences after 24 h did not differ between groups (RR:0.82, 95% CI: 0.59-1.14). Headache and dizziness were the most common side-effects reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination prophylaxis with palonosetron and dexamethasone reduces post-operative anti-emetic requirement, although is not associated with a significant difference in PONV. There was considerable heterogeneity in the studies, and trial sequential analysis indicates that further studies are needed to strengthen the clinical evidence.

Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV): A Review of Current Recommendations and Emerging Therapies

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most frequent adverse events after surgery and anesthesia. It is distressing for the patient and can lead to other postoperative complications. Management of PONV involves a framework of risk assessment, multimodal risk reduction, and prophylactic measures, as well as prompt rescue treatment. There has been a significant paradigm shift in the approach towards PONV prevention. There have also been several emerging therapeutic options for PONV prophylaxis and treatment. In this review, we will discuss the up-to-date PONV management guidelines and highlight novel therapeutic options which have emerged in the last few years.

The next generation of antiemetics for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) afflict approximately 30% of patients overall and up to 80% of high-risk patients after surgery. Optimal pharmacological prophylaxis of PONV is challenging as it necessitates the consideration of PONV risk, drug efficacy, and potential adverse effects. Despite significant advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology and risk factors of PONV, its incidence has remained largely unchanged. Newer antiemetics have been introduced that may have improved safety profiles, longer duration of action, and better efficacy. This review aims to summarize the recent developments pertaining to these new agents and their potential application toward the management of PONV.

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.

A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial to compare body weight-adjusted and fixed doses of palonosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in obese female patients

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common postsurgical complication. Palonosetron is effective for PONV prevention at the usual dose of 75 μg, but the ideal dose for obese patients has not yet been investigated. The aim of this study was to compare body weight-adjusted and fixed doses of palonosetron for preventing PONV in obese female patients.

Materials and methods

We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial involving 80 female patients, aged 18–80 years with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 2 and 3 and a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg m^-2 who were scheduled to undergo elective breast surgery. Patients received an intravenous body weight-adjusted dose of palonosetron (1 μg kg ^-1, GI = 40 patients) or a fixed dose of palonosetron (75 μg, GII = 40 patients). All patients received dexamethasone (4 mg). The incidence of PONV, complete response rate (CR), severity of nausea and need for rescue antiemetics and analgesics were assessed at: 0–1 h, 1–6 h, 6–24 h and 24–48 h postoperatively.

Results

The mean (± SD) BMI was 35.0 (±5.2) kg m^-2 for GI and 35.7 (±3.6) kg m^-2 for GII. There was no significant difference between groups in PONV incidence, CR, severity of nausea, and need for rescue antiemetics or analgesics. The incidence of PONV for GI and GII was 15% and 27.5%, respectively, during the first 48 h (P = 0.17).

Conclusions

A body weight-adjusted dose of palonosetron was as effective as 75 μg for preventing PONV for 48 h in obese female patients who underwent breast surgery. Hence, the fixed dose may be preferable to the body weight-adjusted dose.

Impact of Local Infiltration Analgesia on the Quality of Recovery After Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is commonly used in anterior total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery; however, evidence for its efficacy is lacking. We hypothesized that LIA with 0.2% ropivacaine when compared with injection of placebo (0.9% saline) would improve patient quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 1, as measured by the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score.

METHODS

Patients scheduled to have a primary unilateral anterior THA with a single surgeon in a tertiary level metropolitan hospital were randomized to receive LIA with either 2.5 mL/kg of 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.9% saline as placebo. Patients and clinical and study personnel were blinded to group allocation. Perioperative care was standardized and this included spinal anesthesia and oral multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was a multidimensional (pain, physical comfort, physical independence, emotions, and psychological support) patient-reported quality of recovery scale, QoR-15, measured on POD 1.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty patients were randomized; 6 patients were withdrawn after randomization and 2 patients had incomplete outcome data. The intention-to-treat analysis included 152 patients. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) QoR-15 score on POD 1 of the ropivacaine group was 119.5 (102-124), compared with the placebo group which had a median (IQR) of 115 (98-126). The median difference of 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], -4 to 7; P = .56) was not statistically or clinically significant. An as-per-protocol sensitivity analysis of 146 patients who received spinal anesthesia without general anesthesia, and the allocated intervention, also showed no evidence of a significant difference between groups. Secondary outcomes (worst pain numerical rating scale at rest and with movement on POD 1, opioid consumption on PODs 1 and 2, mobilization on POD 1, Brief Pain Inventory severity and interference on POD 90, and length of stay) were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LIA with 0.2% ropivacaine when compared with 0.9% saline as placebo did not improve quality of recovery 1 day after anterior THA.