Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a distressing complication of surgery, and 5-HT3 receptor antagonists are often prescribed to prevent it. Ondansetron is the agent typically administered to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although ramosetron has a longer duration of action than ondansetron, it remains unclear whether ramosetron is the more effective medication. We performed an updated meta-analysis on the comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Methods

We searched six databases for all trials that randomly assigned patients to ramosetron or ondansetron groups. The primary outcome was postoperative nausea or vomiting in the early, late, and next-day periods. The secondary outcomes were side effects of the medications. We used the random-effects model to combine the results. Trial sequential analyses were performed to correct for repetitive testing in the updated meta-analysis.

Results

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials with 3,811 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results of ramosetron vs. ondansetron efficacy in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting were as follows: Risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.82 [0.69-0.98] for early postoperative nausea, 0.76 [0.65-0.89] for late postoperative nausea, 0.69 [0.57-0.84] for next-day postoperative nausea, 0.78 [0.63-0.98] for early postoperative vomiting, 0.57 [0.45-0.72] for late postoperative vomiting, and 0.61 [0.43-0.86] for next-day postoperative vomiting. Dizziness was significantly lower in ramosetron groups than in ondansetron groups (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.81 [0.66-0.98]). Trial sequential analysis revealed that the results for late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea were conclusive.

Conclusions

Ramosetron is more effective in preventing late postoperative nausea, late postoperative vomiting, and next-day postoperative nausea than ondansetron. The incidence of dizziness may be lower in patients receiving ramosetron than in patients receiving ondansetron.

Trial registration

University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000022980.

SUBMITTER: Yokoi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5627966 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common adverse outcomes after strabismus surgery. The primary outcome of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the incidences of nausea or vomiting, and patient satisfaction of ondansetron and ramosetron after strabismus surgery under general anesthesia. The secondary outcome was to investigate whether the number of involved extraocular muscles (EOMs) in strabismus surgery was related to PONV.One hundred and five patients (aged 18-60 years) undergoing strabismus surgery were allocated randomly to one of the three groups: placebo, ondansetron, or ramosetron. Patients received 2 ml placebo, 4 mg ondansetron, or 0.3 mg ramosetron at the end of surgery. Each of the three groups was subdivided into two subgroups according to the number of EOMs involved in the surgery: subgroup S, single-muscle correction; subgroup M, multiple-muscle correction. The incidences of nausea or vomiting, and patient satisfaction at 2, 24 and 48 h after surgery were analyzed as primary outcome. With regard to subgroups S and M in the placebo, ondansetron and ramosetron groups, incidences of nausea or vomiting, and patient satisfaction at 2, 24 and 48 h after surgery were analyzed as seconadary outcome.The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in the ramosetron group at 2 h (9.4 %) than in the placebo (45.2 %) and ondansetron (34.7 %) groups (P < 0.05). The incidence of nausea was also significantly lower in the ramosetron group at 24 h than in the other groups (P < 0.05). Patients in the ramosetron group were more satisfied at 2 h (8.11 ± 0.98) and 24 h (8.50 ± 0.67) after surgery than those in the other groups (P < 0.05). With regard to subgroups S and M in the placebo, ondansetron and ramosetron groups, there were no significant differences in either the incidence of nausea or patient satisfaction.Ramosetron has superior antiemetic activity to ondansetron in adult strabismus surgery patients. The number of EOMs involved in strabismus surgery was not related to the incidence of PONV.Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) Identifier: KCT0000688 . Date of registration: 27 February 2013.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Drugs to prevent PONV are only partially effective. An alternative approach is to stimulate the P6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.ObjectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV.Search strategyWe searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2008), EMBASE (January 1988 to September 2008), ISI Web of Science (January 1965 to September 2008), the National Library of Medicine publication list of acupuncture studies, and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaAll randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the P6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, an acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in patients undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the risks of nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We collected adverse effect information from the trials. We used a random-effects model and reported relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).Main resultsWe included 40 trials involving 4858 participants; four trials reported adequate allocation concealment. Twelve trials did not report all outcomes. Compared with sham treatment P6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced: nausea (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83); vomiting (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83), and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). Heterogeneity among trials was moderate. There was no clear difference in the effectiveness of P6 acupoint stimulation for adults and children; or for invasive and noninvasive acupoint stimulation. There was no evidence of difference between P6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the risk of nausea (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.13), vomiting (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13). The side effects associated with P6 acupoint stimulation were minor. There was no evidence of publication bias from contour-enhanced funnel plots.Authors' conclusionsP6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV. There was no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs.