Comparison of ramosetron and ondansetron for the prevention of
postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objective

We conducted a systematic literature search and meta-analysis to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV; PON and POV, respectively) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to March 2019 to identify relevant studies.

Results

The final pooled analysis included 6 RCTs and revealed that postoperative treatment with ramosetron at 24 to 48 hours after surgery significantly reduced the incidence of PON and POV relative to treatment with ondansetron. In a subgroup analysis, ramosetron 0.3 mg tended to reduce PON (0–2 hours) and POV (24–48 hours) more effectively than ondansetron 4 mg. However, no statistical difference was observed between ramosetron 0.3 mg and ondansetron 8 mg in terms of the reduction of PON or POV during any time interval within the first 48 hours after surgery.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that ramosetron 0.3 mg is superior to ondansetron 4 mg and comparable to ondansetron 8 mg for PONV prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery.

Related collections

Most cited references 33

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Postoperative nausea and vomiting. Its etiology, treatment, and prevention.

M Watcha, Aaron P White (1992)

In a recent editorial, Kapur described perioperative nausea and vomiting as "the big 'little problem' following ambulatory surgery."257 Although the actual morbidity associated with nausea is relatively low in health outpatients, it should not be considered an unavoidable part of the perioperative experience. The availability of an emesis basin for every patient in the postanesthesia recovery unit is a reflection of the limited success with the available therapeutic techniques.257 There had been little change in the incidence of postoperative emesis since the introduction of halothane into clinical practice in 1956. However, newer anesthetic drugs (e.g. propofol) appear to have contributed to a recent decline in the incidence of emesis. Factors associated with an increased risk of postoperative emesis include age, gender (menses), obesity, previous history of motion sickness or postoperative vomiting, anxiety, gastroparesis, and type and duration of the surgical procedure (e.g., laparoscopy, strabismus, middle ear procedures). Anesthesiologists have little, if any, control over these surgical factors. However, they do have control over many other factors that influence postoperative emesis (e.g., preanesthetic medication, anesthetic drugs and techniques, and postoperative pain management). Although routine antiemetic prophylaxis is clearly unjustified, patients at high risk for postoperative emesis should receive special considerations with respect to the prophylactic use of antiemetic drugs. Minimally effective doses of antiemetic drugs can be administered to reduce the incidence of sedation and other deleterious side effects. Potent nonopioid analgesics (e.g., ketorolac) can be used to control pain while avoiding some of the opioid-related side effects. Gentle handling in the immediate postoperative period is also essential. If emesis does occur, aggressive intravenous hydration and pain management are important components of the therapeutic regimen, along with antiemetic drugs. If one antiemetic does not appear to be effective, another drug with a different site of action should be considered. With the availability of new antiserotonin drugs, the incidence of recurrent (intractable) emesis could be further decreased. Research into the mechanisms of this common postoperative complication may help in improving the management of emetic sequelae in the future. As suggested in a recent editorial, improvement in antiemetic therapy could have a major impact for surgical patients, particularly after ambulatory surgery. Patients as well as those involved in their postoperative care look forward to a time when the routine offering of an emesis basin after surgery becomes a historical practice.

0 comments Cited 168 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Tong Gan (2006)

Knowledge of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) risk factors allows anesthesiologists to optimize the use of prophylactic regimens. Modern PONV risk research began in the 1990s with publication of studies using logistic regression analysis to simultaneously identify multiple independent PONV predictors and publication of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. This literature shows that female gender post-puberty, nonsmoking status, history of PONV or motion sickness, childhood after infancy and younger adulthood, increasing duration of surgery, and use of volatile anesthetics, nitrous oxide, large-dose neostigmine, or intraoperative or postoperative opioids are well established PONV risk factors. Possible risk factors include history of migraine, history of PONV or motion sickness in a child's parent or sibling, better ASA physical status, intense preoperative anxiety, certain ethnicities or surgery types, decreased perioperative fluids, crystalloid versus colloid administration, increasing duration of anesthesia, general versus regional anesthesia or sedation, balanced versus total IV anesthesia, and use of longer-acting versus shorter-acting opioids. Early-phase menstruation, obesity and lack of supplemental oxygen are disproved risk factors. Current risk scoring systems have approximately 55%-80% accuracy in predicting which patient groups will suffer PONV. Further research examining genetic and under-investigated clinical patient characteristics as potential risk factors, and involving outpatients and children, should improve predictive systems.

0 comments Cited 127 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are both common and important to avoid? The perspective of a panel of expert anesthesiologists.

P. Truong, M Weinger, A Macario … (1999)

Anesthesia groups may need to determine which clinical anesthesia outcomes to track as part of quality improvement efforts. The goal of this study was to poll a panel of expert anesthesiologists to determine which clinical anesthesia outcomes associated with routine outpatient surgery were judged to occur frequently and to be important to avoid. Outcomes scoring highly in both scales could then be prioritized for measurement and improvement in ambulatory clinical practice. A mailed survey instrument instructed panel members to rate 33 clinical anesthesia outcomes in two scales: how frequently they believe the outcomes occur and which outcomes they expect patients find important to avoid. A feedback process (Delphi process) was used to gain consensus rankings of the outcomes for each scale. Importance and frequency scores were then weighted equally to qualitatively rank order the outcomes. Of the 72 anesthesiologists, 56 (78%) completed the questionnaire. The five items with the highest combined score were (in order): incisional pain, nausea, vomiting, preoperative anxiety, and discomfort from IV insertion. To increase quality of care, reducing the incidence and severity of these outcomes should be prioritized. Expert anesthesiologists reached a consensus on which low-morbidity clinical outcomes are common and important to the patient. The outcomes identified may be reasonable choices to be monitored as part of ambulatory anesthesia clinical quality improvement efforts.

0 comments Cited 64 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): J Int Med Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J. Int. Med. Res

Journal ID (publisher-id): IMR

Journal ID (hwp): spimr

Title: The Journal of International Medical Research

Publisher: SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )

ISSN (Print): 0300-0605

ISSN (Electronic): 1473-2300

Publication date (Electronic): 6 September 2019

Publication date (Print): October 2019

Volume: 47

Issue: 10

Pages: 4591-4603

Affiliations

[1 ]The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China

[2 ]Department of MRI, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China

Author notes

[*]Aiping Ouyang, The Affiliated Ganzhou Hospital of Nanchang University, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, 341000, China. Email: Dahai_ouyang@ 123456sina.com

Author information

Aiping Ouyang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0203-5699

Article

Publisher ID: 10.1177_0300060519871171

DOI: 10.1177/0300060519871171

PMC ID: 6997786

PubMed ID: 31638464

SO-VID: 4ce9dfad-63af-4a80-bd13-56f80560ad48

License:

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Comparison of ramosetron and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Read this article at

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

International Journal of Medicine and Medical Research

Most cited references 33

Postoperative nausea and vomiting. Its etiology, treatment, and prevention.

Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are both common and important to avoid? The perspective of a panel of expert anesthesiologists.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 911

Most referenced authors 421