Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic ramosetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of ramosetron compared to no antiemetic medications for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) from the healthcare payer and societal perspectives in South Korea. METHOD: A decision analytic model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of prophylactic ramosetron use versus no antiemetic therapy at 24-hour and 48-hour periods post-surgery over a 5-day duration. The model was populated using costs and utility parameters from published studies as well as from surveys of an expert panel of physicians using structured questionnaires. The cost parameters included the costs of drugs, treatment, patient time, productivity loss, and transportation. Effectiveness was measured using quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The study outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The parameter uncertainties were addressed using deterministic and probabilistic scenario analyses. RESULTS: The base-case analysis showed that, on average, patients treated with prophylactic ramosetron had lower costs from both the healthcare payer (US$16.88 vs US$17.33) and societal (US$16.89 vs US$18.72) perspectives and higher QALYs (0.0121 vs 0.0114) over the 5-day study duration compared to patients without any antiemetic medications. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of results for the parameters included in the model. The acceptability curve probability showed that treating patients with ramosetron compared to no antiemetic medications was more than 99% cost-effective at a willingness-to pay threshold of US$5,000/QALY from both payer and societal perspectives. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that prophylactic use of ramosetron compared to no antiemetic therapy is highly cost-effective to prevent PONV for patients undergoing surgery from both healthcare payer and societal perspectives. The cost effectiveness is the result of the decrease in the incidence of PONV and the direct treatment costs of severe PONV with improved patient quality of life.

Analysis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients with lung cancer undergoing thoracoscopic surgery under general anesthesia and its influencing factors: a observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current situation and influencing factors of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery under general anesthesia, providing a reference for developing targeted PONV prevention and management strategies. METHODS: Using a consecutive sampling method, 200 lung cancer patients who underwent their first thoracoscopic surgery under general anesthesia between November 18, 2021, and March 1, 2022, at a tertiary class A cancer hospital in Liaoning Province, China, were selected. The occurrence of PONV within 24 h post-operation was assessed using WHO Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Rating Criteria. Patient general information, surgical and medication data were systematically collected to analyze the independent influencing factors of PONV. RESULTS: Among the 200 patients undergoing thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery under general anesthesia, 75 (37.5%) experienced PONV. Logistic regression analysis indicated that being female, having a history of motion sickness, and a history of PONV were independent risk factors for the occurrence of PONV in these patients. Long-acting antiemetics such as penehyclidine hydrochloride and methylprednisolone were protective factors against PONV. CONCLUSION: The incidence of PONV in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lung cancer surgery under general anesthesia is relatively high. Nursing staff should focus on female patients and those with a history of motion sickness and PONV. Comprehensive preoperative assessments should be conducted, exploring multimodal analgesia and applying integrated prevention measures to reduce the occurrence of PONV and promote the rapid recovery of patients.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine in postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common side effect of all types of surgeries, especially so in bariatric surgery. Dexmedetomidine (DX) is an α2-agonist that may be useful as an adjunct prophylactic medication for PONV. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of DX in reducing the incidence and severity of PONV in laparoscopic bariatric surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases were searched for articles with the determined MESH terms and keywords before February 2022. Identified articles were screened and 13 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from the articles and statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager. RESULTS: Administration of DX significantly reduced the incidence of PONV and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scores for PONV. The outcome was probably due to the intrinsic sympatholytic effect of the medication, reduction of postoperative pain and total postoperative opioid usage. DX showed better efficacy as PONV prophylaxis if the duration of surgery was < 120 minutes. Delivery of DX as a continuous infusion without a loading dose before infusion was found to be effective in reducing PONV compared to infusion after a loading dose. CONCLUSION: Administration of DX can reduce the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. However, further studies are required to investigate the optimal dose of DX as an antiemetic, considering its side effects to increase the applicability of our results in future guidelines for laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

Multi-day vs single-day dexamethasone for the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, several randomized controlled trials have compared single-day dexamethasone (dexamethasone-sparing) regimens to the current standard multi-day dexamethasone antiemetic regimen for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing regimens to standard multi-day dexamethasone, used for the prophylaxis of CINV. METHODS: Ovid Medline and Embase were searched from database inception to March 2024. Studies were included if they reported on randomized controlled trials of adult cancer patients receiving different scheduling of dexamethasone, for the endpoints of complete response, complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety was also assessed. Meta-analysis, leave-one-out meta-analysis, and cumulative meta-analysis were conducted to generate summary effect estimates and assess the influence of single trials on the summary effect estimate. RESULTS: Ten trials reporting on 2234 patients were included. Dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to control arm in the acute (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.08), delayed (RR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05) and overall phases (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.06) for complete response. There was likewise no difference for complete control, no nausea, no vomiting, and no use of rescue medication. Safety profile was similar. There was no concern for bias in the published literature. No difference was found between studies reporting on anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). CONCLUSION: In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, dexamethasone-sparing regimens were found to be no different to current multi-day regimens with respect to efficacy and safety for MEC and anthracycline/cyclophosphamide-based regimens. Clinicians and future guidelines should strongly consider greater adoption and endorsement of dexamethasone-sparing regimens.

Antiemetic medications for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Children continue to experience chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), despite effective antiemetic medications. Recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are underpinned by narrative syntheses and meta-analyses that compare only two treatments. This means not all antiemetics have been compared to one another, and estimates remain imprecise. We apply network meta-analysis (NMA) to overcome these limitations by comparing multiple treatments simultaneously. METHODS: A systematic review identified and critically appraised RCTs comparing antiemetics recommended and licensed for the prevention of CINV in children. Bayesian NMA compared and ranked antiemetic effectiveness for the outcomes complete (CR) and partial response (PR) in the acute, delayed, and overall phases, nausea, and decreased food intake. Antiemetics given with and without dexamethasone were compared in separate networks as their underlying populations differed. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs (3115 patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC)) were included. When given with dexamethasone, NK1 antagonists with ondansetron ranked highest for CR and PR in the acute and overall phases, PR in the delayed phase, and decreased food intake. Post hoc analysis shows further a benefit of adding olanzapine to regimens of aprepitant and ondansetron. Ondansetron ranked lower than palonosetron, for CR in the delayed and overall phases, and ondansetron was less effective than palonosetron for nausea prevention. Rankings for other regimens, including those given without dexamethasone, were uncertain or inconsistent across outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings serve to support the current recommendations of olanzapine (when given with aprepitant and ondansetron) and NK1 antagonists' regimens receiving HEC, but note that evidence of a significant difference in relative benefit, between patients receiving MEC and HEC, does not yet exist. Recommendations for palonosetron as the preferred 5HT3 antagonists may be extended, particularly, to those who are at high risk of nausea.

Placebo-controlled efficacy of 5-HT3 antagonists for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in supratentorial craniotomies: A systematic review and comparative meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common and distressing complications following neurosurgical procedures, affecting up to 73 % of patients undergoing craniotomy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the placebo-controlled efficacy of 5-HT3 antagonists to prevent PONV following supratentorial craniotomies. METHODS: We searched Medline, Web of Science, and Embase databases following PRISMA guidelines for RCTs comparing the outcomes of prophylactic use of 5-HT3 antagonists with placebo to prevent PONV following supratentorial craniotomy. We pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals with a random-effects model. I2 statistics was used to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: Five RCTs, comprising 347 patients, of which 145 received a placebo, were included. The analysis identified a lower likelihood of early postoperative vomiting in 5-HT3 antagonists group (OR=0.47; 95 % CI: 0.24-0.91, p<0.05; I2=7 %), a lower likelihood of vomit within the 24-h period in 5-HT3 antagonists group (OR=0.27; 95 % CI: 0.15-0.48, p<0.01; I2=40 %), a lower likelihood of nausea within the 24-h period in 5-HT3 antagonists group (OR=0.47; 95 % CI: 0.28-0.72, p<0.01; I2=34 %), and a lower likelihood of rescue interventions in 5-HT3 antagonists group (OR = 0.18; 95 % CI: 0.10-0.34; I2 = 0 %. Subgroup analyses focusing on ondansetron also identified a lower likelihood of nausea and vomiting within the 24-h period in the 5-HT3 antagonist group. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified that 5-HT3 antagonists are effective in preventing PONV in the postoperative period following supratentorial craniotomy when compared to placebo. Our findings provide synthesized and robust evidence derived from randomized studies to support the use of 5-HT3 antagonists in clinical practice.

[Update of guidelines of the AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNCM, SFCE, GFRP for the management of radio-induced nausea and vomiting]. / Actualisation du référentiel AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNCM, SFCE, GFRP : nausées et vomissements radio-induits.

BACKGROUND: Radiation-induced nausea and vomiting have mutiple clinical consequences: delay or refusal of irradiation (decreased antineoplastic efficacy of irradiation), altered quality of life, dehydration, malnutrition, interruption of treatment, decompensation of comorbidities and aspiration. These guidelines aim at defining good clinical practices for management of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). METHODS: AFSOS, SFRO, SFH, SFNEP, SFCE and GFRP applied an expert consensus methodology to propose updated guidelines. RESULTS: RINV are underdiagnosed and undertreated. Assessment of the emetogenic risk depends on two main factors: 1) the irradiated anatomical localization and 2) the associated concomitant chemotherapy. In case of exclusive radiotherapy, primary antiemetic prophylaxis depends on the emetogenic risk of irradiated anatomical localization. Primary antiemetic prophylaxis is initiated at the onset of irradiation and continues until 24h after the end of the irradiation. In the case of concomitant radiochemotherapy, the emetogenic risk is generally higher for chemotherapy and the primary antiemetic prophylaxis corresponds to that of chemo-induced nausea and vomiting. In the case of persistence of these symptoms, subject to a well-conducted treatment, a rigorous diagnostic procedure must be carried out before being attributed to radiotherapy and precise evaluation of their impact. Remedial treatments are less well codified. CONCLUSION: It is essential to know and good management practices for radiation-induced nausea and vomiting.

Tropisetron, an Antiemetic Drug, Exerts an Anti-Epileptic Effect Through the Activation of α7nAChRs in a Rat Model of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

BACKGROUND: Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), a prevalent chronic neurological disorder, affects millions of individuals and is often resistant to anti-epileptic drugs. Increasing evidence has shown that acetylcholine (ACh) and cholinergic neurotransmission play a role in the pathophysiology of epilepsy. Tropisetron, an antiemetic drug used for chemotherapy in clinic, has displayed potential in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, depression, and schizophrenia in animal models. However, as a partial agonist of α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (α7nAChRs), whether tropisetron possesses the therapeutic potential for TLE has not yet been determined. METHODS: In this study, tropisetron was intraperitoneally injected into pilocarpine-induced epileptic rats for 3 weeks. Alpha-bungarotoxin (α-bgt), a specific α7nAChR antagonist, was applied to investigate the mechanism of tropisetron. Rats were assessed for spontaneous recurrent seizures (SRS) and cognitive function using video surveillance and Morris's water maze testing. Hippocampal impairment and synaptic structure were evaluated by Nissl staining, immunohistochemistry, and Golgi staining. Additionally, the levels of glutamate, γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA), ACh, α7nAChRs, neuroinflammatory cytokines, glucocorticoids and their receptors, as well as synapse-associated protein (F-actin, cofilin-1) were quantified. RESULTS: The results showed that tropisetron significantly reduced SRS, improved cognitive function, alleviated hippocampal sclerosis, and concurrently suppressed synaptic remodeling and the m6A modification of cofilin-1 in TLE rats. Furthermore, tropisetron lowered glutamate levels without affecting GABA levels, reduced neuroinflammation, and increased ACh levels and α7nAChR expression in the hippocampi of TLE rats. The effects of tropisetron treatment were counteracted by α-bgt. CONCLUSION: In summary, these findings indicate that tropisetron exhibits an anti-epileptic effect and provides neuroprotection in TLE rats through the activation of α7nAChRs. The potential mechanism may involve the reduction of glutamate levels, enhancement of cholinergic transmission, and suppression of synaptic remodeling. Consequently, the present study not only highlights the potential of tropisetron as an anti-epileptic drug but also identifies α7nAChRs as a promising therapeutic target for the treatment of TLE.

Assessment of intermediate phase post anesthesia quality of recovery and its affecting factors.

BACKGROUND: Recovery after surgery and anesthesia is dependent on patient, surgical, and anesthetic characteristics, as well as the presence of any of numerous adverse sequelae. Postoperative recovery is a complex and multidimensional process that requires a holistic view of the recovery of capacities and homeostasis after anesthesia and surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of recovery after anesthesia and its affecting factors at Wachamo University Nigist Eleni Mohamed Memorial Comprehensive Hospital. METHOD: a prospective observational study was conducted at Wachamo University Nigist Eleni Mohamed Memorial Comprehensive Hospital among 384 surgical patients who undergone under anesthesia. Quality of recovery was assessed by using Quality of Recovery 40. Student t-test and one-way ANOVA were utilized to compare the mean of Quality of recovery in different groups. Binary regression was used to find out the factors affecting Quality of recovery quality of recovery. SPSS 27 was used for analysis. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULT: Sex and smoking history were the factors that we failed to find an association with poor quality of recovery. Preoperative antiemetic administration; premedication with benzodiazepines and emergency procedures were the factors that show potential relation with poor quality of recovery after anesthesia and surgery. Procedures performed under general anesthesia; Patients who had coexisting diseases; post-anesthesia incidence of nausea and vomiting; Visual Analog Scale score >/= 7 during discharge and prolonged duration of surgery were the factors that had a significant association with poor quality of recovery. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of good quality of recovery was 65.6% whereas 34.4% scored poor quality of recovery. The predictors for the prevalence of poor quality of recovery were found to be orthopedic procedures; procedures undergone under general anesthesia; incidence of post-anesthesia nausea and vomiting; prolonged length of the procedure and severity of pain.

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after cesarean delivery under neuraxial anesthesia and postpartum analgesia in Japan: A cross-sectional study.

AIMS: This study aims to investigate the clinical practice of physicians working in obstetric setting toward postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery (CD) with neuraxial anesthesia. METHODS: We conducted this online survey to all active members of the Japan Society of Obstetric Anesthesiology and Perinatology (JSOAP), where leads academic society in obstetric anesthesia in Japan. The questionnaire was developed using the Delphi method. The survey included questions about routine practices for PONV prevention, the use of neuraxial opioids, optimal practices, and perceived obstacles. The email sent three times every 2 weeks as a reminder. RESULTS: A total of 1046 e-mails were sent, and 307 JSOAP members responded to the survey (29.3%). More than half of responders (62.7%) used neuraxial opioids with intrathecal morphine being the most frequent. They had a higher rate of multimodal PONV prophylaxis compared with who did not use neuraxial opioids for postoperative analgesia (19.9% vs 6.7%). Metoclopramide was the commonest medication for PONV prevention, and there was a significant difference in the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonists (19.9% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.012). We observed that 80% of physicians reported the routine administration of prophylaxis for PONV for CD. Among these, 20% indicated the use of two or more agents. Conversely, in the cohort not administering neuraxial opioids, only 6.7% reported the use of two or more agents. CONCLUSION: The online survey showed that the physicians using neuraxial opioids for CD had a higher proportion of multimodal PONV management involving two or more agents.

Effect of remimazolam for general anesthesia on postoperative nausea and vomiting : A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV); however, conflicting results have been reported regarding the use of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis examines whether remimazolam reduces PONV incidence compared with propofol or volatile agents used in general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, were searched on 31 July 2023. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcomes included PONV severity, rescue antiemetic use, amounts of remifentanil used, and participant satisfaction scores. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool. RESULTS: A total of 1514 adult patients from 11 randomized controlled trials were included. The incidences of PONV in the remimazolam and control groups were 16.1% and 16.5%, respectively. Remimazolam did not increase the incidence of PONV (OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37-1.04; p = 0.0676; I2 = 48%). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in PONV with remimazolam vs. volatile agents (OR 0.25; 95% CI, 0.13-0.47; P = 0.0000; I2 = 0%) but not vs. propofol (OR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70-1.56; p = 0.8332; I2 = 0%). More remifentanil was used in the remimazolam group vs. the volatile group, with no significant difference between remimazolam and propofol groups. Participant satisfaction scores were higher with remimazolam. CONCLUSION: Remimazolam did not increase PONV risk compared to propofol and reduced PONV incidence compared to volatile agents, with higher participant satisfaction. To validate the present findings, further well-planned large clinical trials are required.

Clinical practice guideline-inconsistent chemotherapy-induced vomiting prophylaxis in pediatric cancer patients in community settings: A Children's Oncology Group study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients receiving clinical practice guideline (CPG)-inconsistent care related to chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) prophylaxis, and to describe the association between CPG-inconsistent care and site size. The association between delivery of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes (CIV control, admission prolongation, and unplanned healthcare visits) was also described. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at Children's Oncology Group (COG) National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites. Eligible patients received highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) as inpatients from January 2014 through December 2015, and were previously enrolled in a COG study. The COG generated a patient list from which patients were randomly selected for chart review by participating sites. A central panel adjudicated CIV prophylaxis received as CPG-consistent or -inconsistent. RESULTS: Twenty-four sites participated. Over half of patients received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis (HEC: 59/112, 52.6%; MEC: 119/215, 55.3%). The most common reasons for CPG-inconsistency were shortened duration of antiemetic administration or omission of dexamethasone. Site size was not found to be associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery (HEC: adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.23; MEC: adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24). Additionally, there was no statistically significant association between receipt of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving MEC or HEC often received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis. Site size was not associated with receipt of CPG-inconsistent care. Future studies should evaluate strategies to improve CIV control among pediatric oncology patients including those aimed at improving CPG adherence.

Pharmacokinetic study of granisetron in human plasma measured by UPLC-MS/MS and its use in healthy Chinese subjects.

In this study, a rapid, simple and sensitive UPLC-MS/MS method was established for the quantification of granisetron in human plasma for the prevention of vomiting after radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The precipitated proteins were extracted and gradient eluted on a ZORBAX Eclipse Plus C18 column (2.1×50mm, 1.8µm) to achieve ideal chromatographic separation. Multiple reaction mode (MRM) was performed using a Turboion Spray API5500 mass spectrometer equipped with Electron Spray Ionization (ESI). For method validation, good linearity was observed for each analyte of interest in the validation concentration range of 0.05 to 20.0ng/mL. The CV% of inter-batch and intra-batch precision were in the range of -3.6% to 4.7% and the precision of both inter-batch and intra-batch was ≤15.0%. In addition, the method had the advantage of a low matrix effect. In human plasma, all analytes remained stable for 2 hours when kept at room temperature; samples were stable within the autosampler (5°C) for 141 h after preparation and after four freeze-thaw cycles at -20°C and -70°C for 48 days. The UPLC-MS method that had been validated was later utilized for the pharmacokinetic investigation of granisetron hydrochloride tablets in orally administered doses to healthy Chinese volunteers, both before and after meals.

Effect of antiemetics on zolbetuximab-induced gastric injury and emesis in ferrets.

Claudin-18 splice variant 2 (CLDN18.2), a tight junction protein, is a highly cell type-specific antigen that is expressed by differentiated gastric mucosa cells. The expression of CLDN18.2 in gastric mucosa cells may be retained upon malignant transformation and is displayed on the surface of several tumors, including gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Zolbetuximab is a genetically engineered, highly purified chimeric (mouse/human IgG1) antibody directed against CLDN18.2. Nausea and vomiting were observed as adverse events of zolbetuximab. To investigate the mechanism of nausea and vomiting in humans, we evaluated emesis (retching and vomiting) and conducted histopathologic assessment in ferrets after the administration of zolbetuximab. Emesis was frequently observed in all ferrets treated with zolbetuximab in the first hour after administration. Histopathologic assessment revealed the surface of the gastric mucosa was the primary site of emesis-associated tissue damage. The effect of antiemetics (dexamethasone, ondansetron, fosaprepitant, and olanzapine) on emesis induced by zolbetuximab was investigated. Fosaprepitant showed suppressive effects on emesis, and use of dexamethasone or concomitant use of fosaprepitant with other antiemetics tended to alleviate gastric tissue damage. The onset of emesis in humans receiving zolbetuximab may be associated with damage in the gastric mucosa, and antiemetics may mitigate gastrointestinal adverse events.

Acustimulation combined with pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis among patients undergoing laparoscopy abdominal surgery: a research protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the efficacy of integrating percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation at the pericardium 6 (PC6) acupuncture point through a wearable acustimulation device with standard pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This prospective study will enrol 302 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgery. Participants will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: acustimulation combined with pharmacological prophylaxis or sham stimulation combined with pharmacological prophylaxis. Randomisation will involve a computer-generated sequence, with allocation concealment implemented through sealed envelopes. The acustimulation group will receive electrical stimulation at the PC6 point starting 30 min before surgery and continuing until discharge from the postanaesthesia care unit. Sham group will wear a wristband that does not provide stimulation. The primary outcome is the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcomes include the severity of PONV, incidence rates of nausea and vomiting at different postoperative intervals and indices of gastrointestinal functional recovery. Exploratory outcomes will assess haemodynamic parameters, baroreflex sensitivity, hospital stay duration, costs and both short-term and long-term postoperative recovery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants will provide written informed consent. The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking Union Medical Hospital (approval number: I-23PJ1712). Results will be published open access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06241547.

Droperidol administration among emergency department patients with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to examine the common usage patterns of droperidol in the relatively unrestricted environment of an urban, academic medical center. We focused specifically on the most common use of droperidol in our department: patients with a chief complaint of abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. METHODS: For this retrospective, observational, single-center study, we extracted records of all administrations of droperidol from August 2019 to August 2020. Patients with a chief complaint of abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting, or any combination thereof, were included in data analysis. RESULTS: Between April 2019 to August 2020, 830 discrete patient visits involving droperidol administration were identified, comprising 706 patients. The average age was 39 years old with a range of 15 to 80. Seven patients (0.08%) were younger than 18, and 35 (4%) were older than 65. Five hundred sixty-five patients (68%) were female. Droperidol doses ranged from 0.625 mg to 5 mg intravenous (IV), with a median dose of 0.625 mg (interquartile range 0.625-1.25 mg), with 590 patients (71%) receiving a dose of 0.625 mg. Only 19 patients (2.3%) had a documented adverse event. Seven had akathisia or restlessness, 7 had anxiety or agitation, 3 had dystonia or stiffness, 1 had fatigue, and 1 had dizziness. For the entire cohort, there were no cardiac dysrhythmias, syncope, seizures, other major adverse events, or fatalities recorded. CONCLUSION: At one institution, droperidol is being used commonly for the chief complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. The preferred dosing is nearly universally below the 2.5 mg IV dose for which the FDA warning applies. Similar to previous studies, identification of adverse events was rare, and no major adverse outcomes such as dysrhythmia or death were identified.

Efficacy and safety of dexamethasone sparing for the prevention of nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic risk antineoplastic agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antiemesis 2023 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) are common side effects, classified according to timing and severity. Conventional agents such as dexamethasone are effective but have various side effects. For moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapies have been developed to minimize these side effects. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: We performed a thorough literature search for studies related to dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy with neurokinin-1 antagonists (NK1RA) for HEC using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web databases. A qualitative analysis of the combined data was performed and risk differences with confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Two reviewers independently assessed the 425 records and 12 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility. Two studies were included in the qualitative and meta-analyses. These studies included anthracycline-cyclophosphamide (AC) regimens and cisplatin-based regimens, with palonosetron as the serotonin receptor antagonist. In the two studies, no difference was found in the prevention of vomiting (delayed complete response). However, non-inferiority was not demonstrated in the subgroup that received cisplatin-containing regimens. Delayed complete control showed different results for nausea prevention; however, there was no significant difference in the meta-analysis. Only one report has shown non-inferiority for delayed total control. Although the strength of evidence for individual outcomes varied, there was no difference in the duration of dexamethasone administration. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that dexamethasone-sparing antiemetic therapy with NK1RA and palonosetron can be used to prevent CINV in HEC, limited to AC combination therapy.

Defining the clinical benefits of adding a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical practice guidelines for antiemesis 2023 from the Japan society of clinical oncology.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) commonly affects patient quality of life and the overall effectiveness of chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether adding neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1RAs) to 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) and corticosteroids provides clinically meaningful benefits in preventing CINV in patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Ichushi-Web to identify clinical studies evaluating NK1RAs combined with 5-HT3RAs and dexamethasone for managing CINV in MEC. The endpoints were complete response (CR), complete control (CC), total control (TC), adverse events, and costs. The data were analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS: From 142 articles identified, 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 4,405 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Approximately 60% of the patients received carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. The meta-analysis showed that triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with NK1RA was significantly more effective for achieving CR than doublet prophylaxis in each phase. Regarding CC, the triplet antiemetic prophylaxis was significantly more effective than the doublet in the overall (risk difference [RD]: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06-0.17) and delayed (RD: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.13) phases. For TC, no significant differences were observed in any phase. Adding NK1RA did not cause adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Adding NK1RA to CBDCA-based chemotherapy has shown clinical benefits. However, the clinical benefits of NK1RA-containing regimens for overall MEC have not yet been established and require RCTs that exclusively evaluate MEC regimens other than CBDCA-based chemotherapy.

Establishing a nausea-free ward model to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: A retrospective study.

The objective of this study was to establish a nausea-free ward model and evaluate the effect of an intervention procedure guided by this model on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in cancer patients. A total of 105 chemotherapy patients from March to September 2022 before the establishment of nausea-free ward in the Chongqing Jiulongpo District People's Hospital were selected as the control group as well as 105 chemotherapy patients from March to September 2023 after the establishment of nausea-free ward as the intervention group. The intervention group was managed by comprehensive standardized CINV management on the basis of the control group. Finally, the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology grading tool for nausea and vomiting and the Functional Living Index-Emesis were used to evaluate the effect. Under the intervention of the nausea-free ward model, the intervention group exhibited significantly lower ratings of nausea and vomiting compared to the control group (all P-value <.05). The nausea score, vomiting score, and total score of the intervention group were significantly lower than the control group (all P-value <.05). Our study found CINV symptoms and quality of life can be significantly improved by the application of the nausea-free ward model. The nausea-free ward model is instructive in clinical practice and can guide clinical work as well as bring management experience to clinical workers.