Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weibel S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8094506 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.
Weibel Stephanie S Rücker Gerta G Eberhart Leopold Hj LH Pace Nathan L NL Hartl Hannah M HM Jordan Olivia L OL Mayer Debora D Riemer Manuel M Schaefer Maximilian S MS Raj Diana D Backhaus Insa I Helf Antonia A Schlesinger Tobias T Kienbaum Peter P Kranke Peter P
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20201019
<h4>Background</h4>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 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8130052 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4204618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: There is uncertainty about the effect of antiemetic drugs (AED) for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy. In this study, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of AED for PONV. Methods and Findings: We searched online databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Wiley, Elsevier Science Direct, Ovid LWW, and Springer for publications from 1985 to June 2018. Adults undergoing craniotomy with the prophylactic use of at least one AED were included. The primary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) during the first and second day. A total of 1,433 participants from 17 clinical trials were enrolled in this Network Meta-Analysis (NMA). Compared to placebo, ramosetron was the most effective treatment for PON 24 h after surgery (OR = 0.063, 95% Crl: 0.006-0.45), with a 69.2% probability. On the other hand, for POV, droperidol was the best treatment during the first 2 h with a 71.1% probability (OR = 0.029, 95% Crl: 0.003-0.25); while fosaprepitant was the most effective treatment at 0-24 h (OR = 0.027, 95% Crl: 0.007-0.094; 66.9% probability) and 0-48 h (OR = 0.036, 95% Crl: 0.006-0.18; 56.6% probability). Besides, ramosetron showed a significantly higher incidence of complete response (OR = 29. 95% Crl: 1.4-6.5e + 02), as well as lower requirement for rescue AED (OR = 0.022, 95% Crl: 0.001-0.2). Granisetron was associated with the lowest incidence of headache and excessive sedation. Conclusions: Compared with placebo, ramosetron appears to be the best prophylactic treatment for PON 24 h after craniotomy, with higher complete responses. Fosaprepitant appears to be the most effective prophylaxis option for POV on the first 0-24 and 0-48 h. Both may be better applied in combination with perioperative dexamethasone. These findings may guide clinicians to provide improved pharmacological prophylaxis for PONV after craniotomy with fewer adverse effects.
| S-EPMC7052291 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3113464 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6708945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a main complication of surgery, and by now, drugs cannot prevent it completely. Some meta-analyses have proved acupuncture therapy can prevent PONV. However, it is still controversial whether noninvasive acupuncture therapies are comparable with invasive ones. This study uses Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of different forms of acupuncture in preventing PONV.MethodsPubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Ebsco, Ovid/Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc will be searched from inception to May 2020. All randomized control trails meet the criterion will be included. Quality evaluation of included studies will be implemented with Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. STATA 14.0 will be used to perform pairwise meta-analysis. Addis 1.16.8, R 3.6.3, OpenBUGS 3.2.3, and STATA 14.0 will be used to conduct network meta-analysis. The evidence will be assessed by the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach using GRADE Profiler 3.6.ResultsThe results of this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and generate a comprehensive review of current evidence.ConclusionOur results will help to improve the clinical decision-making ability and policy-making in PONV domain.Systematic review registrationThe protocol has been registered on INPLASY 202060108.
| S-EPMC7402802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after surgery. However, drugs cannot prevent it completely, and acupuncture therapy shows the potential in preventing PONV, yet the best choice hasn't been demonstrated.ObjectiveThis network meta analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different acupuncture therapies used for preventing PONV in abdominal operation.MethodsAuthors searched articles from PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Ebsco and Ovid/Embase, and established database from setup time to June 2019. Quality evaluation of included studies was performed with Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2.0). Pairwise and network meta analysis were conducted by RevMan and Addis respectively.ResultsTwenty studies with 2862 patients were included in this research. Pairwise meta analysis shows that compared with placebo, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation had lower risk of postoperative nausea (PON) (odds ratio (OR) = 0.42, 95%confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.60), postoperative vomiting (POV) (OR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.36-0.78), PONVs (OR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.31-0.68), and postoperative rescue (POR) (OR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.41-0.90), Capsicum had lower risk of PON (OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.09-0.28), PONVs (OR = 0.23, 95%CI: 0.12-0.45), Acupressure had lower risk of POV (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.25-0.70), POR (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.27-0.64). In network meta analysis, compared with usual care, the probability rank suggested that Acupoint Injection showed lowest risk of PON (OR = 0.02, 95%CI: 0.00-0.11), POV (OR = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.01-0.49), Usual care for PONVs (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.13-0.75), and Capsicum for POR (OR = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.07-2.33). Further study should be carried out to verify this result.ConclusionBoth pairwise and network meta analysis showed acupuncture therapy was superior to placebo and usual care. Different acupuncture therapy regimens may have advantages in different aspects. And compared with POV, PON seems easier to control. Research results may provide guidance for the prevention of PONV.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019147556.
| S-EPMC7306321 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings on the superiority of palonosetron over ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, the present systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016038120) and performed to compare the efficacy of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron. The primary endpoints were defined as the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV. A total of 695 patients were included in the final analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed through administration times which were divided into two phases: the early phase of surgery and the end of surgery. Combined analysis did not show differences between palonosetron and ramosetron in the overall incidence of PON, POV or PONV. Palonosetron was more effective than ramosetron, when the administration time for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was during the early phase of the operation. Otherwise, ramosetron was more effective than palonosetron, when the administration time was at the end of surgery. However, the quality of evidence for each outcome was low or very low and number of included studies was small, limiting our confidence in findings.
| S-EPMC5167547 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7799806 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6986726 | biostudies-literature