Dataset Information

Effects of intravenous dextrose on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is reported that postoperative nausea and vomiting, common general anesthesia complications, may be prevented by perioperative intravenous dextrose administration, but with controversial clinical effectiveness.

Objective

To evaluate perioperative intravenous dextrose for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

Data sources

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception until 22 June 2019.

Eligibility criteria

Trials investigating intravenous dextrose effects vs. placebos on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent general anesthesia.

Results

Eleven trials (1,250 patients) were included. All participants were ASA1-2. The nine trials included laparoscopic surgeries, and 92.2% of the participants were women. The timing of dextrose infusion was before, during, and after surgery in three, five, and three trials, respectively. Our results revealed intravenous dextrose administration significantly reduced postoperative nausea, but not vomiting, during early and late postoperative periods (risk ratio [95% confidence interval], early nausea: 0.76 [0.59-0.99], late nausea: 0.65 [0.48-0.89]; early vomiting: 1.00 [0.81-1.25], late vomiting: 0.96 [0.43-2.16]). Evidence quality was downgraded to low because the trial sequential analysis indicated more trials are needed for firm conclusions.

Conclusions

Compared with placebos, perioperative intravenous dextrose administration may decrease postoperative nausea but not vomiting.

Trial registration

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: UMIN000030901).

SUBMITTER: Yokoyama C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7170240 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of intravenous dextrose on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Yokoyama Chisaki C Mihara Takahiro T Kashiwagi Shizuka S Koga Motokazu M Goto Takahisa T

PloS one 20200420 4

<h4>Background</h4>It is reported that postoperative nausea and vomiting, common general anesthesia complications, may be prevented by perioperative intravenous dextrose administration, but with controversial clinical effectiveness.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate perioperative intravenous dextrose for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE, the Cochrane Ce ...[more]

PMID: 32310996

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intravenous lidocaine in adults undergoing general anesthesia has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the anti-postoperative vomiting (POV) effect of lidocaine in pediatric patients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on prevention of POV/PONV. METHODS:Six databases including trial registration sites were searched. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the incidence of POV/PONV after intravenous lidocaine compared with control were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of POV within 24 hours after general anesthesia. The incidence of POV was combined as a risk ratio with 95% confidence interval using a random-effect model. We used the I2 to assess heterogeneity. We evaluated the quality of trials using the Cochrane methodology, and we assessed quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We also assessed adverse events. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:Six trials with 849 patients were included, of whom 433 received intravenous lidocaine. Three trials evaluated the incidence of POV, and 3 evaluated the incidence of PONV. The overall incidence of POV within 24 hours after anesthesia was 45.9% in the lidocaine group and 63.4% in the control group (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.00; I2 = 32%; p = 0.05). The incidence of PONV within 24 hours after anesthesia was 3.73% in the lidocaine group and 4.87% in the control group (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.36-1.59; I2 = 0%; p = 0.47). The quality of evidence was downgraded to "very low" due to the study designs, inconsistency, imprecision, and possible publication bias. CONCLUSION:Our meta-analysis suggests that intravenous lidocaine infusion may reduce the incidence of POV, however, the evidence quality was "very low." Further trials with a low risk of bias are necessary.

Project description:BackgroundPostoperative 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsRamosetron 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 registrationUniversity hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry: UMIN000022980.

Project description:BackgroundAdequate intravenous fluid replacement is recommended as an effective nonpharmacologic strategy for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), one of the most common and stressful complications of general anesthesia. We aimed to evaluate the effect of hydration, according to the type of fluid, on PONV as previous studies have reported inconsistent results.MethodsWe performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing infusion of colloid with that of crystalloid in terms of PONV incidence and the need for rescue antiemetic therapies for 24 hours after surgery under general anesthesia. The effect of fluid infusion according to the duration of anesthesia was also examined. A literature search was performed, using MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus, up to February 2018.ResultsWe included 8 RCTs. Compared with the crystalloid infusion, perioperative colloid infusion did not reduce PONV incidence, with a relative risk of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.25). However, subgroup analysis by duration of anesthesia showed a statistically significant subgroup effect (P = .04, I = 77.4%), suggesting that the effect of colloid differed from that of crystalloid depending on the duration of anesthesia. In the subgroup that underwent anesthesia for more than 3 hours, in which the patients had mostly undergone abdominal surgeries, colloid infusion significantly reduced the incidence of PONV compared with crystalloid infusion (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.89). In the subgroup that underwent anesthesia for <3 hours, colloid infusion did not reduce the incidence of PONV compared with crystalloid infusion (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.76-2.27). The requirement for antiemetics was comparable between colloid and crystalloid infusions, with an RR of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.55-1.58).ConclusionColloid administration had a more preventive effect on PONV than crystalloid administration in patients undergoing abdominal surgery under general anesthesia for more than 3 hours but did not show a preventive effect in patients undergoing anesthesia for <3 hours.

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of published studies to comprehensively compare and rank the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery.MethodsA systematic and comprehensive search will be performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases, beginning from their inceptions to July and August 2019. Only randomized clinical trials on the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery will be included.The primary endpoints will be the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the following recovery phases: before discharge (recovery phase I and II), after discharge but within 24 hours following surgery, and after discharge, after the initial 24-hour postoperative period.The incidences of delayed post-discharge nausea, post-discharge vomiting, and post-discharge nausea and vomiting, which occur after the initial 24-hour postoperative period, severities of PON, POV, and PONV, use of rescue antiemetics, and the incidence of complete response, as well as safety issues, including complications, such as headache, dizziness, and drowsiness, will be also assessed.We will conduct both pairwise meta-analysis and NMA. We will use surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and rankograms to present the hierarchy of the pharmacologic interventions. A comparison-adjusted funnel plot will be used to assess the presence of small-study effects. The quality of the studies included will be assessed using the risk of bias tool 2.0. All statistical analyses will be performed using Stata SE, version 15.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).ResultsThe results of this systematic review and NMA will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.ConclusionThis systematic review and NMA will provide comprehensive and convincing evidence summarizing the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery.Trial registration numberCRD42018103068.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.Eligibility criteria, participants, and interventionsRandomized clinical trials that investigated the efficacy of pharmacologic interventions in preventing PONV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy were included. The primary endpoints were the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), use of rescue antiemetics, and incidence of complete response in the overall postoperative phases. The secondary endpoints were the same parameters assessed in the early, middle, and late postoperative phases. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and rankograms were used to present the hierarchy of pharmacologic interventions.ResultsTwenty-six studies (n = 3,467 patients) that investigated 17 different pharmacologic interventions were included. According to the SUCRA values, the incidence of PONV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (16.1%), followed by palonosetron (27.5%), and with tropisetron (28.7%). The incidence of PON among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with propofol alone (11.8%), followed by tropisetron and propofol combination (14%), and ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (18.0%). The incidence of POV among the overall postoperative phases was lowest with tropisetron and propofol combination (2.2%), followed by ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (23.2%), and tropisetron alone (37.3%). The least usage of rescue antiemetics among the overall postoperative phases and the highest complete response was observed with tropisetron and propofol combination (3.9% and 96.6%, respectively).ConclusionPropofol and tropisetron alone and in combination, and the ramosetron and dexamethasone combination effectively prevented PONV, PON, POV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy, with some heterogeneity observed in this NMA of full-text reports. Their use minimized the need for rescue antiemetics and enhanced the complete response.Trial registration numberCRD42018100002.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Postoperative 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. OBJECTIVES:To determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV. SEARCH STRATEGY:We 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 CRITERIA:All 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 ANALYSIS:Two 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 RESULTS:We 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' CONCLUSIONS:P6 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.

Project description:BackgroundAcupuncture therapy for preventive and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV), a condition which commonly present after anaesthesia and surgery is a subject of growing interest.ObjectiveThis paper included a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of different type of acupuncture and acupoint selection in PONV prevention and treatment.MethodsRandomised controlled trials(RCTs) comparing acupuncture with non-acupuncture treatment were identified from databases PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, Ovid, CNKI and Wanfangdata. Meta-analysis on eligible studies was performed using fixed-effects model with RevMan 5.2. Results were expressed as RR for dichotomous data, with 95%CI.ResultsThirty RCTs, 1276 patients (intervention) and 1258 patients (control) were identified. Meta-analysis showed that PC6 acupuncture significantly reduced the number of cases of early vomiting (postoperative 0-6h) (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.19,0.71; P=0.003) and nausea (postoperative 0-24h) (RR=0.25, 95%CI 0.10,0.61; P=0.002), but not early nausea (postoperative 0-6h) (RR=0.64, 95%CI 0.34,1.19; P=0.150) and vomiting (postoperative 0-24h) (RR=0.82, 95%CI 0.48,1.38; P=0.450). PC6 acupressure significantly reduced the number of cases of nausea (RR=0.71, 95%CI 0.57,0.87; P=0.001) and vomiting (RR=0.62, 95%CI 0.49,0.80; P=0.000) at postoperative 0-24h. PC6 electro-acupoint stimulation significantly reduced the number of cases of nausea (RR=0.49, 95%CI 0.38,0.63; P<0.000) and vomiting (RR=0.50, 95%CI 0.36,0.70; P<0.000) at postoperative 0-24h. Stimulation of PC6 with other acupoint(s) significantly reduced the number of cases of nausea and vomiting (RR=0.29, 95%CI 0.17,0.49; P<0.000) at postoperative 0-24h. Stimulation of other acupoint(s)(non PC6) also significantly reduced the number of cases of nausea and vomiting (RR=0.63, 95%CI 0.49,0.81; P=0.000) at postoperative 0-24h. However, the quality of study was generally low in studies of PC6 combined with other acupoint(s) and other acupoint(s). Details of blinding were not reported in most reports.ConclusionsBesides PC6, PC6 combined with other acupoint(s) and other alternative acupoint(s) might be beneficial in prevention and treatment of PONV, the evidence justifies future high-quality studies.

Dataset Information

Effects of intravenous dextrose on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Background

Objective

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Effects of intravenous dextrose on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure