-
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are commonly prescribed. There is currently no consensus as to the optimum drug treatment of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
OBJECTIVES
To provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of antiemetic medications in the management of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1980 to August 2014) and ISI Web of Science (January 1955 to August 2014). We also searched relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any drug in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the treatment of adults in the ED. Study eligibility was not restricted by language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted authors of studies to obtain missing information if required.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight trials, involving 952 participants, of which 64% were women. Included trials were generally of adequate quality, with six trials at low risk of bias, and two trials at high risk of bias. Three trials with 518 participants compared five different drugs with placebo; all reported the primary outcome as mean change in visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 100) for nausea severity from baseline to 30 minutes. Trials did not routinely report other primary outcomes of the change in nausea VAS at 60 minutes or number of vomiting episodes. Differences in mean VAS change from baseline to 30 minutes between placebo and the drugs evaluated were: metoclopramide (three trials, 301 participants; mean difference (MD) -5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.33 to 0.80), ondansetron (two trials, 250 participants; MD -4.32, 95% CI -11.20 to 2.56), prochlorperazine (one trial, 50 participants; MD -1.80, 95% CI -14.40 to 10.80), promethazine (one trial, 82 participants; MD -8.47, 95% CI -19.79 to 2.85) and droperidol (one trial, 48 participants; MD -15.8, 95% CI -26.98 to -4.62). The only statistically significant change in baseline VAS to 30 minutes was for droperidol, in a single trial of 48 participants. No other drug was statistically significantly superior to placebo. Other included trials evaluated a drug compared to "active controls" (alternative antiemetic). There was no convincing evidence of superiority of any particular drug compared to active control. All trials included in this review reported adverse events, but they were variably reported precluding meaningful pooling of results. Adverse events were generally mild, there were no reported serious adverse events. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low, mainly because there were not enough data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In an ED population, there is no definite evidence to support the superiority of any one drug over any other drug, or the superiority of any drug over placebo. Participants receiving placebo often reported clinically significant improvement in nausea, implying general supportive treatment such as intravenous fluids may be sufficient for the majority of people. If a drug is considered necessary, choice of drug may be dictated by other considerations such as a person's preference, adverse-effect profile and cost. The review was limited by the paucity of clinical trials in this setting. Future research should include the use of placebo and consider focusing on specific diagnostic groups and controlling for factors such as intravenous fluid administered.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Ondansetron; Prochlorperazine; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Analog Scale; Vomiting
PubMed: 26411330
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010106.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2010, on droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2010, on droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal illness and can be very unpleasant and distressing. There are several different types of antiemetic treatments that can be used to control these symptoms. Droperidol is an antipsychotic drug and has been used and studied as an antiemetic in the management of postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE (1950-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1981-) and AMED (1985-), using relevant search terms and synonyms. The basic search strategy was ("droperidol" OR "butyrophenone") AND ("nausea" OR "vomiting"), modified for each database. We updated the search on 2 December 2009. We performed updated searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and AMED 2009 to 2013 on 19 November 2013 and of CINAHL on 20 November 2013. We also searched trial registers (metaRegister of controlled trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct), clinicaltrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/)) on 22 November 2013, using the keyword "droperidol".
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of droperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We judged the potential relevance of studies based on their titles and abstracts, and obtained studies that we anticipated might meet the inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently reviewed the abstracts for the initial review and four review authors reviewed the abstracts for the update to assess suitability for inclusion. We discussed discrepancies to achieve consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
The 2010 search strategy identified 1664 abstracts (and 827 duplicates) of which we obtained 23 studies in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.The updated searches carried out in November 2013 identified 304 abstracts (261 excluding duplicates) of which we obtained 18 references in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria, therefore there were no included studies in this review.We found no registered trials of droperidol for the management of nausea or vomiting in palliative care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since first publication of this review, no new studies were found. There is insufficient evidence to advise on the use of droperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Studies of antiemetics in palliative care settings are needed to identify which agents are most effective, with minimum side effects.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Humans; Nausea; Palliative Care; Terminal Care; Vomiting
PubMed: 25429434
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006938.pub3 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Mar 2015There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line.
METHODS
A peer-reviewed search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) was carried out to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute pain relief in adults presenting with migraine to emergency settings. Where possible, data were pooled into meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Two independent reviewers screened 831 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Three independent reviewers subsequently evaluated 120 full text articles for inclusion, of which 44 were included. Individual studies were then assigned a US Preventive Services Task Force quality rating. The GRADE scheme was used to assign a level of evidence and recommendation strength for each intervention.
INTERPRETATION
We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.
Topics: Canada; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pain Management; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Societies, Medical; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24875925
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414535997 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... 2013To assess the efficiency and safety of parenteral analgesics for pain relief in acute pancreatitis. (Review)
Review
AIM
To assess the efficiency and safety of parenteral analgesics for pain relief in acute pancreatitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We carried out an electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, WEIPU, CNKI and CBM and a manual search for eligible studies. The methodological quality of included trials and quality of evidence were examined by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and GRADE, respectively. The data were mainly analyzed descriptively and some were pooled by Review manager 5.
RESULTS
Eight randomized controlled trials with a total of 356 patients were finally included in this systematic review. Compared with procaine, pentazocine led to lower pain severity: day 1, Mean Difference (MD), 95%CI: 40.0 [35.3, 44.7]; day 2, MD, 95%CI: 24.00 [20.88, 27.12]; day 3, MD, 95%CI: 5.00 [2.17, 7.83], and it decreased the requirement for additional analgesics, Relative Risk, 95%CI: 2.23 [1.63, 3.05]. The combination of fentanyl, atropine, droperidol and lidocaine rendered lower pain score: day 1, MD, 95%CI: -5.46 [-6.95, -3.97]; day 2, MD, 95%CI: -5.78 [-7.39, -4.17]. Patients treated with metamizole tended to had lower pain than those treated with morphine, MD, 95%CI: -2.60 [-2.95, -2.25]. Nausea, emesis and vomiting were the common adverse events reported and there was almost no significant difference between different agents on safety.
CONCLUSIONS
The systemic review showed that the randomized controlled trials comparing different analgesics were of low quality and did not favor clearly any particular analgesic for pain relief in acute pancreatitis.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Atropine; Buprenorphine; Dipyrone; Droperidol; Drug Combinations; Female; Fentanyl; Humans; Lidocaine; Male; Meperidine; Middle Aged; Morphine; Pain Management; Pancreatitis; Pentazocine
PubMed: 23719588
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2013.02.003 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2012Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and can also occur in the period... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are distressing symptoms which are experienced commonly during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and can also occur in the period following the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions given prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 February 2012) and reference lists of identified studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-two studies met the inclusion criteria but only 41 studies, involving 5046 women, provided useable data for the review involving women having caesareans under regional anaesthesia. The majority of the studies involved women undergoing elective caesarean section. Only two studies included emergency surgery, however, they did not stratify data according to type of surgery. The studies covered numerous comparisons, but the majority of studies involved 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists, corticosteroids or acupressure. Studies were mainly small and of unclear quality.Three classes of intervention were found to be effective in at least three out of four of our primary outcomes (intraoperative nausea, intraoperative vomiting, postoperative nausea and postoperative vomiting). These interventions were 5-HT(3) antagonists, dopamine antagonists and sedatives. Other classes of intervention were effective for fewer than three of our primary outcomes.With 5-HT antagonists, we found a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.88, eight studies, 720 women). There were also reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.64, four studies, 405 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.77, five studies, 565 women). We did not detect a significant reduction in intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00, seven studies, 668 women).Dopamine antagonists demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.57, nine studies, 636 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64, eight studies, 536 women), with similar reductions in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91, five studies, 412 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91, six studies, 472 women). These differences were observed with both metoclopramide and droperidol.Sedatives (most commonly propofol) demonstrated a reduction in intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, four studies, 285 women) and intraoperative vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68, four studies, 285 women), also with a reduction in postoperative nausea (average RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.71, two studies 145 women) and vomiting (average RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.28, two studies, 145 women).Acupressure was found to be effective for intraoperative nausea (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.90, six studies, 649 women) but not postoperative nausea (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00, three studies, 429 women). Acupressure was not effective at reducing vomiting either intraoperatively (average RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.18, six studies, 649 women) or postoperatively (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.06, three studies, 429 women).Other effective intervention classes included corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics.There were insufficient data to demonstrate any class of intervention was superior to another. There were no significant differences observed in the comparison of combined versus single interventions.Few studies assessed our secondary outcomes or the incidence of adverse effects. However, one study showed an increase in respiratory depression with sedation (midazolam) compared with dopamine antagonists.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review indicates that many different interventions have efficacy in preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for caesarean section. There is little evidence that combinations of treatment are better than single agents.
Topics: Acupressure; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anesthesia, Conduction; Cesarean Section; Dopamine Antagonists; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intraoperative Complications; Nausea; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Vomiting
PubMed: 22972112
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007579.pub2 -
Anaesthesia Oct 2012The population sampling in randomised controlled trials by Fujii et al. have been shown to exhibit unusual distributions. This systematic review analysed the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The population sampling in randomised controlled trials by Fujii et al. have been shown to exhibit unusual distributions. This systematic review analysed the effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetics in trials by Fujii et al. compared with other authors. Granisetron was more effective in trials by Fujii et al., relative risk ratios (RRR (95% CI)): nausea 0.53 (0.42-0.67), p=0.00021; vomiting 0.60 (0.50-0.73), p=0.00094. Ramosetron was also more effective in studies by Fujii et al.: vomiting 0.60 (0.39-0.91), p=0.02; nausea or vomiting 0.71 (0.56-0.91); p=0.006. In comparison with granisetron, droperidol was less effective in trials by Fujii et al. than others: nausea 2.41 (1.72-3.36), p=2.5×10(-7); vomiting 1.73 (1.26-2.38), p=6.4×10(-4). Postoperative nausea and vomiting was less likely to trigger rescue antiemesis after granisetron and metoclopramide in studies by Fujii et al., 0.40 (0.27-0.60), p=9.7×10(-6). Triggered rates of rescue were not different in studies by others for droperidol, granisetron and metoclopramide, but were less common after granisetron than droperidol and metoclopramide in studies by Fujii et al., 0.50 (0.38-0.66), p=1.7×10(-6) and 0.47 (0.34-0.64), p=2.6×10(-6), respectively. There was no synergism between antiemetics in trials by other authors. In contrast, in studies by Fujii et al., postoperative nausea and vomiting was more likely if granisetron was administered alone: nausea 4.20 (1.94-9.08), p=2.6×10(-4) ; vomiting 4.50 (2.55-7.97), p=2.3×10(-7); nausea or vomiting 5.00 (2.84-8.81), p=2.5×10(-8). Similarly, droperidol was less effective in studies by Fujii et al. if administered alone: vomiting 2.76 (1.25-6.11), p=0.01; nausea or vomiting 2.96 (1.46-6.00), p=2.7×10(-3). The conclusion is that if, as recommended, data with unusual distributions are removed from meta-analysis and articles by Fujii et al. excluded, then the antiemetic effects of granisetron and ramosetron are greatly reduced; further, there is no evidence of synergism between antiemetics and indeed, some evidence of antagonism between antiemetic agents.
Topics: Antiemetics; Benzimidazoles; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Droperidol; Drug Interactions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Granisetron; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22734848
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2012.07232.x -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Jun 2012Droperidol is widely used for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in European countries. It is unclear how efficacious low-dose droperidol is in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Low-dose droperidol (≤1 mg or ≤15 μg kg-1) for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults: quantitative systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
CONTEXT
Droperidol is widely used for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in European countries. It is unclear how efficacious low-dose droperidol is in the prevention of PONV.
OBJECTIVES
To test the efficacy of low-dose droperidol in the prevention of PONV in adults and to test for dose-responsiveness.
DESIGN
Systematic review of randomised controlled trials with meta-analyses.
DATA SOURCES
Comprehensive search in electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Central) up to June 2011. Additional trials were obtained from bibliographies of retrieved reports. No language restriction was applied.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised trials testing prophylactic intravenous droperidol ≤1 mg or ≤15 μg kg compared with placebo (or no treatment) in adults undergoing general anaesthesia and reporting on PONV.
RESULTS
We analysed 25 trials (2957 patients). Doses varied from 0.25 to 1.0 mg. For prevention of early nausea (within 6 h postoperatively), relative risk (RR) was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.58); number needed to treat (NNT) was 7, 4, and 2 for low, medium and high baseline risk (i.e. control event rate 25, 50, 75%). For prevention of early vomiting, RR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.74), NNT 11, 6, and 4. For prevention of late nausea (within 24 h), RR was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.87), NNT 15, 8, and 5. For prevention of late vomiting, RR was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80), NNT 10, 5, and 3. Droperidol decreased the risk of headache but increased the risk of restlessness. For these outcomes there was no evidence of dose-responsiveness. There were no differences in the incidences of sedation or dizziness. Two patients receiving droperidol 0.625 mg had extrapyramidal symptoms. Cardiac toxicity data were not reported.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic doses of droperidol of 1 mg or below are antiemetic. Because adverse drug reactions are likely to be dose-dependent, there is an argument to stop using doses of more than 1 mg.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Droperidol; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Statistics as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 22488335
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328352813f -
CJEM Mar 2011Butyrophenones have been reported to provide effective migraine relief in the emergency department (ED). We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for their use... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Butyrophenones have been reported to provide effective migraine relief in the emergency department (ED). We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for their use in the ED.
DATA SOURCE
We searched the Cochrane, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies were randomized trials of a parenteral butyrophenone (droperidol, haloperidol) versus placebo or a comparator in migraine or benign headache with results available in English. Study quality was determined using the Jadad score. Six articles were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
Primary outcomes were subjective or objective headache relief (>50% improvement in visual analogue scale scores). Secondary outcomes included side effects. We reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for subjective or objective headache relief for butyrophenones versus placebo or comparator agents.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Three studies reported subjective headache relief with a butyrophenone versus placebo or meperidine in migraine. Two studies reported objective headache relief with droperidol versus prochlorperazine, whereas one study compared droperidol versus olanzapine in benign headache. The pooled OR for subjective headache relief was 8.08 (95% CI 1.54-42.30) for a butyrophenone versus placebo, whereas it was 1.50 (95% CI 0.33-6.77) for droperidol versus meperidine in migraine. The pooled OR for objective headache relief was 2.96 (95% CI 1.36-6.43) for droperidol versus prochlorperazine in benign headache. Rates of side effects were 10 to 45%; akathesia and sedation were the most common.
CONCLUSIONS
Butyrophenones are effective for the relief of migraine or benign headache. However, adverse effects make it difficult to recommend butyrophenones above agents with similar effectiveness and fewer problems.
Topics: Butyrophenones; Droperidol; Emergency Service, Hospital; Haloperidol; Headache; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21435315
DOI: 10.2310/8000.2011.100301