-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Antiemetic drugs are only partially effective in preventing PONV. An... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Antiemetic drugs are only partially effective in preventing PONV. An alternative approach is to stimulate the PC6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, updated in 2009 and now in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of PC6 acupoint stimulation with or without antiemetic drug versus sham or antiemetic drug for the prevention of PONV in people undergoing surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2014), MEDLINE (January 2008 to December 2014), EMBASE (January 2008 to December 2014), ISI Web of Science (January 2008 to December 2014), World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the PC6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy, or combined PC6 acupoint and drug therapy compared to drug therapy, for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in people undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the incidences of nausea and vomiting after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias domains for each trial. We used a random-effects model and reported risk ratio (RR) with associated 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We used trial sequential analyses to help provide information on when we had reached firm evidence in cumulative meta-analyses of the primary outcomes, based on a 30% risk ratio reduction in PONV.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 59 trials involving 7667 participants. We rated two trials at low risk of bias in all domains (selection, attrition, reporting, blinding and other). We rated 25 trials at high risk in one or more risk-of-bias domains. Compared with sham treatment, PC6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced the incidence of nausea (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77; 40 trials, 4742 participants), vomiting (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.71; 45 trials, 5147 participants) and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; 39 trials, 4622 participants). As heterogeneity among trials was substantial and there were study limitations, we rated the quality of evidence as low. Using trial sequential analysis, the required information size and boundary for benefit were reached for both primary outcomes.PC6 acupoint stimulation was compared with six different types of antiemetic drugs (metoclopramide, cyclizine, prochlorperazine, droperidol. ondansetron and dexamethasone). There was no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the incidence of nausea (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 14 trials, 1332 participants), vomiting (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 19 trials, 1708 participants), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.16; 9 trials, 895 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, due to the study limitations. Using trial sequential analyses, the futility boundary was crossed before the required information size was surpassed for both primary outcomes.Compared to antiemetic drugs, the combination of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic therapy reduced the incidence of vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.91; 9 trials, 687 participants) but not nausea (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; 8 trials, 642 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as very low, due to substantial heterogeneity among trials, study limitations and imprecision. Using trial sequential analysis, none of the boundaries for benefit, harm or futility were crossed for PONV. The need for rescue antiemetic was lower in the combination PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic group than the antiemetic group (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; 5 trials, 419 participants).The side effects associated with PC6 acupoint stimulation were minor, transient and self-limiting (e.g. skin irritation, blistering, redness and pain) in 14 trials. Publication bias was not apparent in the contour-enhanced funnel plots.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of PC6 acupoint stimulation over sham. Compared to the last update in 2009, no further sham comparison trials are needed. We found that there is moderate-quality evidence showing no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs to prevent PONV. Further PC6 acupoint stimulation versus antiemetic trials are futile in showing a significant difference, which is a new finding in this update. There is inconclusive evidence supporting the use of a combined strategy of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drug over drug prophylaxis, and further high-quality trials are needed.
Topics: Acupuncture Points; Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wrist
PubMed: 26522652
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub4 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver... Jun 2024Mammoplasty, a common cosmetic procedure involving breast augmentation and reduction surgeries, has gained global popularity. Recently, attention has shifted towards...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Mammoplasty, a common cosmetic procedure involving breast augmentation and reduction surgeries, has gained global popularity. Recently, attention has shifted towards understanding the prevalence and significance of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms following mammoplasty. This systematic review aims to consolidate existing literature to provide a comprehensive overview of the type and frequency of GI problems associated with various mammoplasty procedures.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted until January 22, 2024, identifying observational and interventional studies examining GI symptoms post-mammoplasty. Inclusion criteria covered human studies, while exclusion criteria ensured specificity. Two independent investigators performed screening, and data extraction included study characteristics, surgical procedures, anesthesia methods, and interventions.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies, involving 2,487 subjects, were included in the review. Breast reconstruction emerged as the most studied procedure, followed by breast reduction, augmentation, mastectomy, and breast cancer surgery. Predominant GI symptoms included nausea and vomiting, with varying rates across mammoplasty types. Anesthesia modality influenced symptomatology, with general, local, and combined anesthesia associated with GI disturbances. Antiemetics, notably ondansetron and droperidol, showed variable efficacy. Non-pharmacological approaches, such as preoperative hypnosis, were explored for symptom management.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review reveals insights into GI symptoms post-mammoplasty, emphasizing the common occurrence of symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, alongside less frequent manifestations such as constipation, dry mouth, retching, abdominal pain, and tightness. Variations in symptom prevalence were noted across diverse mammoplasty surgeries, anesthesia methods, and the use of antiemetics, underscoring the complex nature of post-mammoplasty GI disturbances.
Topics: Humans; Mammaplasty; Female; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Adult; Prevalence
PubMed: 38944853
DOI: 10.15403/jgld-5598 -
Yakugaku Zasshi : Journal of the... Feb 2001Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with morphine therapy develops in more than 60% of patients after surgery, markedly reducing patient QOL. The prophylactic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with morphine therapy develops in more than 60% of patients after surgery, markedly reducing patient QOL. The prophylactic effect of several antiemetics has already been studied, but evaluations, and even those using the same drug, are not uniform. The present research involved a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on prophylactic drug therapy for PONV in patients receiving morphine for the treatment of postoperative pain. The efficacy of the prophylactic administration of the drugs was examined. As a result, meta-analysis of five drugs was possible and the evidence of efficacy was shown for three drugs ranked in order of an increasing odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI): dexamethasone (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.15-0.35, p < 0.00001), droperidol (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.00001), and metoclopramide (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.75, p < 0.001). These results suggest that the three drugs are effective in prophylactic treatment for PONV. Of them, dexamethasone used as a prophylactic drug for PONV provided the best results. Dexamethasone was shown to reduce the incidence of PONV from 66-80% to 16-50% with a dose of 1.25 to 10 mg and to be suitable as a first drug of choice.
Topics: Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Droperidol; Humans; Metoclopramide; Morphine; Ondansetron; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 11218733
DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.121.179 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013Antipsychotic agents are often used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in dementia, although the literature is sceptical about their long-term use for this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antipsychotic agents are often used to treat neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in dementia, although the literature is sceptical about their long-term use for this indication. Their effectiveness is limited and there is concern about adverse effects, including higher mortality with long-term use. When behavioural strategies have failed and drug therapy is instituted, regular attempts to withdraw these drugs are recommended. Physicians, nurses and families of older people with dementia are often reluctant to try to stop antipsychotics, fearing deterioration of NPS. Strategies to reduce antipsychotic use have been proposed, but a systematic review of interventions aimed at withdrawal of antipsychotic agents in older people with dementia has not yet been performed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate whether withdrawal of antipsychotic agents is successful in older people with dementia in community or nursing home settings, to list the different strategies for withdrawal of antipsychotic agents in older people with dementia and NPS, and to measure the effects of withdrawal of antipsychotic agents on behaviour.
SEARCH METHODS
ALOIS, the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, clinical trials registries and grey literature sources were searched on 23 November 2012. The search included the following terms: antipsychotic* or neuroleptic* or phenothiazines or butyrophenones or risperidone or olanzapine or haloperidol or prothipendyl or methotrimeprazine or clopenthixol or flupenthixol or clothiapine or metylperon or droperidol or pipamperone or benperidol or bromperidol or fluspirilene or pimozide or penfluridol or sulpiride or veralipride or levosulpiride or sultopride or aripiprazole or clozapine or quetiapine or thioridazine combined wither terms such as discontinu* or withdraw* or cessat* or reduce* or reducing or reduct* or taper* or stop*.ALOIS contains records from all major healthcare databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), as well as from many clinical trials registries and grey literature sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, placebo-controlled trials comparing an antipsychotic withdrawal strategy to continuation of antipsychotics in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, rated their risk of bias and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with 606 randomised participants. Seven trials were conducted in nursing homes, one trial in an outpatient setting and one in both settings. In these trials, different types of antipsychotics prescribed at different doses were withdrawn. Both abrupt and gradual withdrawal schedules were used. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low regarding blinding and outcome reporting and unclear for randomisation procedures and recruitment of participants.There was a wide variety of outcome measures. Our primary efficacy outcomes were success of withdrawal (i.e. remaining in study off antipsychotics) and NPS. Eight of nine trials reported no overall significant difference between groups on the primary outcomes, although in one pilot study of people with psychosis and agitation that had responded to haloperidol, time to relapse was significantly shorter in the discontinuation group (Chi(2) = 4.1, P value = 0.04). The ninth trial included people with psychosis or agitation who had responded well to risperidone therapy for four to eight months and reported that discontinuation led to an increased risk of relapse, that is, increase in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)-core score of 30% or greater (P value = 0.004, hazard ratio (HR) 1.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 3.45 at four months). The only outcome that could be pooled was the full NPI-score, used in two studies. For this outcome there was no significant difference between people withdrawn from and those continuing on antipsychotics at three months (mean difference (MD) -1.49, 95% CI -5.39 to 2.40). These two studies reported subgroup analyses according to baseline NPI-score (14 or less versus > 14). In one study, those with milder symptoms at baseline were significantly less agitated at three months in the discontinuation group (NPI-agitation, Mann-Whitney U test z = 2.4, P value = 0.018). In both studies, there was evidence of significant behavioural deterioration in people with more severe baseline NPS who were withdrawn from antipsychotics (Chi(2) = 6.8; P value = 0.009 for the marked symptom score in one study).Individual studies did not report significant differences between groups on any other outcome except one trial that found a significant difference in a measure of verbal fluency, favouring discontinuation. Most trials lacked power to detect clinically important differences between groups.Adverse events were not systematically assessed. In one trial there was a non-significant increase in mortality in people who continued antipsychotic treatment (5% to 8% greater than placebo, depending on the population analysed, measured at 12 months). This trend became significant three years after randomisation, but due to dropout and uncertainty about the use of antipsychotics in this follow-up period this result should be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that many older people with Alzheimer's dementia and NPS can be withdrawn from chronic antipsychotic medication without detrimental effects on their behaviour. It remains uncertain whether withdrawal is beneficial for cognition or psychomotor status, but the results of this review suggest that discontinuation programmes could be incorporated into routine practice. However, two studies of people whose agitation or psychosis had previously responded well to antipsychotic treatment found an increased risk of relapse or shorter time to relapse after discontinuation. Two other studies suggest that people with more severe NPS at baseline could benefit from continuing their antipsychotic medication. In these people, withdrawal might not be recommended.
Topics: Aged; Antipsychotic Agents; Dementia; Humans; Mental Disorders; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence
PubMed: 23543555
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007726.pub2 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Jun 2001Numerous drugs have been used to prevent or to treat opioid-induced pruritus in the surgical setting. Their relative efficacy is not well understood. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Numerous drugs have been used to prevent or to treat opioid-induced pruritus in the surgical setting. Their relative efficacy is not well understood.
METHODS
The methods employed involved the systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, bibliographies, without language restriction, up to June 2000) for full reports of randomized comparisons of any intervention which is thought to be anti-pruritic (active) compared with placebo or no treatment (control) in surgical (including labour) patients receiving opioids. The number of patients who had no pruritus were analysed using relative risk and number-needed-to-treat with 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Twenty-two trials (1477 patients) were analysed. Two trials (66 patients), both with low-dose propofol, were on treatment of established pruritus; propofol had no anti-pruritic effect compared with Intralipid. In prophylaxis trials, the average incidence of pruritus with control was 59% (range, 10% to 100%). Most mu-receptor antagonists were efficacious: intravenous naloxone 0.25-2.4 microg kg-1 h-1, relative risk 2.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.54), number-needed-to-treat to prevent pruritus compared with control 3.5; oral naltrexone 9 mg, relative risk 2.80 (1.35-5.80), number-needed-to-treat 1.7; naltrexone 6 mg was less effective and 3 mg did not work; different intravenous and epidural nalbuphine regimens, relative risk 1.71 (1.12-2.62), number-needed-to-treat 4.2. Intravenous nalmefene 0.5 or 1 mg was not anti-pruritic. Intravenous (but not epidural) droperidol 2.5 mg was efficacious, relative risk, 1.71 (1.28-2.29), number-needed-to-treat 4.9. There was a lack of evidence for any anti-pruritic efficacy with prophylactic propofol, epidural or intrathecal epinephrine, epidural clonidine, epidural prednisone, intravenous ondansetron, or intramuscular hydroxyzine.
CONCLUSION
Naloxone, naltrexone, nalbuphine and droperidol are efficacious in the prevention of opioid-induced pruritus; minimal effective doses remain unknown. There is a lack of valid data on the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of established pruritus.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists; Pruritus
PubMed: 11412287
DOI: 10.1046/j.0265-0215.2000.00826.x -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Apr 2004The aim of this quantitative systematic review is to compare the efficacy and side effects of combining one of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT) with droperidol or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists combined with droperidol for PONV prophylaxis is similar to their combination with dexamethasone. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
The aim of this quantitative systematic review is to compare the efficacy and side effects of combining one of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT) with droperidol or dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials that compared the antiemetic efficacy of combining one of the 5-HT with droperidol or dexamethasone vs 5-HT alone. Relevant endpoints were prevention of early (0 to 6 hr), and overall (0 to 24 hr) PONV, and side effects. The articles that could meet the inclusion criteria were scored for inclusion and methodological validity using the three-item, five-point, Oxford-scale. Relative risk and numbers needed-to-treat with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each combination vs 5-HT alone. The two combinations were then indirectly compared. A random effects model was used.
RESULTS
We considered 41 trials for analysis but subsequently excluded eight. Thirty-three trials with data from 3,447 patients were analyzed. Except for early nausea with the 5-HT plus droperidol, both combinations were significantly more effective than 5-HT in preventing early and overall PONV. There was no difference in antiemetic efficacy between the two combinations. The incidence of commonly reported side effects was also similar in the two combination groups.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that there is no statistically significant difference in antiemetic efficacy or side effects profile when one of the 5-HT is combined with either droperidol or dexamethasone and that both combination regimens are significantly more effective than 5-HT alone.
Topics: Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Droperidol; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15064259
DOI: 10.1007/BF03018234