A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Palonosetron Versus Ondansetron for Nausea, Vomiting, and Pruritus in Cesarean Delivery with Intrathecal Morphine.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anesthesia and analgesia Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1213/ANE.0000000000007091
Tarvit Worravitudomsuk, Somrat Charuluxananan, Wasin Sukumpanumet, Pin Sriprajittichai
{"title":"A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Palonosetron Versus Ondansetron for Nausea, Vomiting, and Pruritus in Cesarean Delivery with Intrathecal Morphine.","authors":"Tarvit Worravitudomsuk, Somrat Charuluxananan, Wasin Sukumpanumet, Pin Sriprajittichai","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000007091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spinal anesthesia is the preferred anesthetic technique for cesarean deliveries. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pruritus occur in up to 80% and 83% of patients, respectively, after cesarean delivery with intrathecal opioids. Ondansetron is the recommended medication for PONV prophylaxis, but palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, has a higher receptor affinity and a longer half-life. However, studies on palonosetron use in cesarean deliveries are limited. This study aimed to determine whether palonosetron was more effective than ondansetron in preventing intrathecal morphine-induced PONV and pruritus in cesarean deliveries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Parturients who underwent cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomized into 3 groups: P (palonosetron 0.075 mg), O (ondansetron 4 mg), and N (normal saline). The study drug was intravenously administered after the umbilical cord was clamped. The primary outcome measures were the 48-hour incidence of PONV and pruritus. The secondary outcome measures were the PONV and pruritus scores at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and ward, rescue medications, satisfaction scores, and adverse events. Ordinal data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Continuous and categorical data were analyzed using a 1-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pearson's χ2 test, respectively. A value of P < .05 was considered significant. Post hoc analysis pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 300 parturients were enrolled, and 297 parturients completed the study. One patient in the P group and 2 in the O group were excluded because of conversion to general anesthesia after failed spinal anesthesia. The baseline patient characteristics were comparable between the groups. The PONV incidence rates in the P, O, and N groups were 26.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4-35.1), 34.7% (95% CI, 25.1-44.3), and 50.0% (95% CI, 40.0-59.9), respectively (P = .002). The incidence rates of pruritus in the P, O, and N groups were 69.7% (95% CI, 60.5-78.9), 76.5% (95% CI, 67.9-85.1), and 87.0% (95% CI, 80.3-93.7), respectively (P = .013). Pairwise comparisons revealed significantly lower incidences of PONV and pruritus in the P group than in the N group (P < .001 and P = .003, respectively). However, no significant differences were observed between the P and O groups or between the O and N groups. Additionally, the P group required significantly less nalbuphine rescue for pruritus than the N group (P = .004 and P = .005 for the PACU and ward, respectively). PONV rescue, satisfaction scores, and adverse events were not significantly different among the 3 groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Palonosetron effectively prevents intrathecal morphine-induced PONV and pruritus during cesarean delivery. However, the efficacy of palonosetron is not significantly different from that of ondansetron.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007091","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Spinal anesthesia is the preferred anesthetic technique for cesarean deliveries. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pruritus occur in up to 80% and 83% of patients, respectively, after cesarean delivery with intrathecal opioids. Ondansetron is the recommended medication for PONV prophylaxis, but palonosetron, a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, has a higher receptor affinity and a longer half-life. However, studies on palonosetron use in cesarean deliveries are limited. This study aimed to determine whether palonosetron was more effective than ondansetron in preventing intrathecal morphine-induced PONV and pruritus in cesarean deliveries.

Methods: Parturients who underwent cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomized into 3 groups: P (palonosetron 0.075 mg), O (ondansetron 4 mg), and N (normal saline). The study drug was intravenously administered after the umbilical cord was clamped. The primary outcome measures were the 48-hour incidence of PONV and pruritus. The secondary outcome measures were the PONV and pruritus scores at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and ward, rescue medications, satisfaction scores, and adverse events. Ordinal data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Continuous and categorical data were analyzed using a 1-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pearson's χ2 test, respectively. A value of P < .05 was considered significant. Post hoc analysis pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction were also performed.

Results: Overall, 300 parturients were enrolled, and 297 parturients completed the study. One patient in the P group and 2 in the O group were excluded because of conversion to general anesthesia after failed spinal anesthesia. The baseline patient characteristics were comparable between the groups. The PONV incidence rates in the P, O, and N groups were 26.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4-35.1), 34.7% (95% CI, 25.1-44.3), and 50.0% (95% CI, 40.0-59.9), respectively (P = .002). The incidence rates of pruritus in the P, O, and N groups were 69.7% (95% CI, 60.5-78.9), 76.5% (95% CI, 67.9-85.1), and 87.0% (95% CI, 80.3-93.7), respectively (P = .013). Pairwise comparisons revealed significantly lower incidences of PONV and pruritus in the P group than in the N group (P < .001 and P = .003, respectively). However, no significant differences were observed between the P and O groups or between the O and N groups. Additionally, the P group required significantly less nalbuphine rescue for pruritus than the N group (P = .004 and P = .005 for the PACU and ward, respectively). PONV rescue, satisfaction scores, and adverse events were not significantly different among the 3 groups.

Conclusions: Palonosetron effectively prevents intrathecal morphine-induced PONV and pruritus during cesarean delivery. However, the efficacy of palonosetron is not significantly different from that of ondansetron.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
帕洛诺司琼与昂丹司琼治疗使用鞘内吗啡进行剖宫产时的恶心、呕吐和瘙痒的随机对照试验。
背景:脊髓麻醉是剖宫产的首选麻醉技术。使用鞘内阿片类药物进行剖宫产后,分别有高达 80% 和 83% 的患者会出现术后恶心和呕吐 (PONV) 以及瘙痒。昂丹司琼是预防 PONV 的推荐药物,但第二代 5-HT3 受体拮抗剂帕洛诺司琼具有更高的受体亲和力和更长的半衰期。然而,有关帕洛诺司琼在剖宫产中应用的研究十分有限。本研究旨在确定帕洛诺司琼是否比昂丹司琼更有效地预防剖宫产术中鞘内吗啡引起的PONV和瘙痒:在椎管内麻醉下进行剖宫产的产妇被随机分为三组:P组(帕洛诺司琼 0.075 毫克)、O 组(昂丹司琼 4 毫克)和 N 组(生理盐水)。研究药物在夹闭脐带后静脉注射。主要结果指标为 48 小时内 PONV 和瘙痒的发生率。次要结局指标是麻醉后护理病房(PACU)和病房的 PONV 和瘙痒评分、抢救用药、满意度评分和不良事件。序数数据采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验进行分析。连续和分类数据分别采用单因素方差分析、Kruskal-Wallis 检验和 Pearson's χ2 检验进行分析。P<0.05为差异显著。还进行了事后分析配对比较,并进行了 Bonferroni 校正:总共有 300 名产妇参加了研究,297 名产妇完成了研究。P组和O组分别有1名和2名患者因脊髓麻醉失败后转为全身麻醉而被排除在外。两组患者的基线特征相当。P、O 和 N 组的 PONV 发生率分别为 26.3%(95% 置信区间 [CI],17.4-35.1)、34.7%(95% CI,25.1-44.3)和 50.0%(95% CI,40.0-59.9)(P = .002)。P组、O组和N组的瘙痒症发病率分别为69.7%(95% CI,60.5-78.9)、76.5%(95% CI,67.9-85.1)和87.0%(95% CI,80.3-93.7)(P = .013)。配对比较显示,P 组的 PONV 和瘙痒发生率明显低于 N 组(P < .001 和 P = .003)。然而,P 组和 O 组之间以及 O 组和 N 组之间均未观察到明显差异。此外,P 组因瘙痒而需要纳布啡抢救的次数明显少于 N 组(PACU 和病房分别为 P = .004 和 P = .005)。PONV抢救、满意度评分和不良事件在3组间无明显差异:结论:帕洛诺司琼能有效预防剖宫产术中吗啡引起的PONV和瘙痒。然而,帕洛诺司琼的疗效与昂丹司琼并无明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
期刊最新文献
Outcomes Associated with a Patient Blood Management Program in Major Obstetric Hemorrhage: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Airway Evaluation in Patients With Cervical Spondylosis: A Prospective Cohort Study. A Little Blue Butterfly. A Paradigm for Shared Decision-Making in Pediatric Anesthesia Practice for Children with Autism for the Generalist Clinician. Association Between Two Muscle-Related Parameters and Postoperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Tumor Resection Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1