-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28715610
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004125.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Droperidol; Haloperidol; Humans; Midazolam; Olanzapine; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27976370
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002830.pub3 -
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 -
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 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2006Postoperative vomiting (POV) remains one of the commonest causes of significant morbidity after tonsillectomy in children. A variety of prophylactic anti-emetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Postoperative vomiting (POV) remains one of the commonest causes of significant morbidity after tonsillectomy in children. A variety of prophylactic anti-emetic interventions have been reported, but there has only been a limited systematic review in this patient group. A systematic search was performed by using Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of prophylactic anti-emetic interventions in children undergoing tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy. The outcome of interest was POV in the first 24 h. Summary estimates of the effect of each prophylactic anti-emetic strategy were derived using fixed effect meta-analysis. Where appropriate, dose-response effects were estimated using logistic regression and 22 articles were identified. Good evidence was found for the prophylactic anti-emetic effect of dexamethasone [odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.16-0.33], and the serotinergic antagonists ondansetron (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.29-0.46), granisetron (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.06-0.19), tropisetron (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.35) and dolasetron (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.1-0.59). Metoclopramide was also found to be efficacious (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.77). There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that dimenhydrinate, perphenazine or droperidol, in the doses studied, are efficacious, nor were gastric aspiration or acupuncture. In conclusion, dexamethasone and the anti-serotinergic agents appear to be the most effective agents for the prophylaxis for POV in children undergoing tonsillectomy.
Topics: Antiemetics; Child; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Tonsillectomy
PubMed: 17005507
DOI: 10.1093/bja/ael256 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2006Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16856030
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004125.pub2 -
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