Comparison of efficacy and safety between palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing non-laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
{"title":"Comparison of efficacy and safety between palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing non-laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.","authors":"Babu Lal, Ragavi Alagarsamy, Jitendra Kumar, Anshul J Rai, Vineeta Yadav, Rajnish Joshi, Md Yunus","doi":"10.4103/ija.ija_1017_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and distressing complication in all types of surgeries involving general anaesthesia. To establish evidence for best clinical practices, this meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in patients undergoing non-laparoscopic surgeries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at postoperative time points, namely T1 (0-2 hours), T2 (0-6 hours), T3 (12-24 hours), T4 (24-48 hours), and T5 (24-72 hours), as well as safety (number of incidence of adverse effects). A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety groups was performed using a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included. Pooled risk ratio (RR) revealed that patients receiving palonosetron were significantly less likely to develop nausea [0-2 h, RR = 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.34), <i>P</i> = 0.317, I<sup>2</sup> = 15.3%], [0-6 h, RR = 0.76 (95% CI: 0.44, 1.29), <i>P</i> = 0.137, I<sup>2</sup> = 45.7%], [12-24 h, RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.16, 0.96), <i>P</i> = 0.088, I<sup>2</sup> = 54.2%], [24-48 h, RR = 0.44 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.96), <i>P</i> = 0.598, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], [24-72 h, RR 0.22 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.57), <i>P</i> = 0.119, I<sup>2</sup> = 53.0%] and vomiting [0-2 h, RR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.29, 1.23), <i>P</i> = 0.868, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], [0-6 h, RR = 1.42 (95% CI: 0.74, 2.72), <i>P</i> = 0.790, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], [12-24 h, RR = 0.14 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.51), <i>P</i> = 0.749, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%], [24-48 h, RR = 0.24 (95%CI: 0.09, 0.62), <i>P</i> = 0.561, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], [24-72 h, RR = 0.11 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.58), <i>P</i> = 0.859, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%]. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable [headache: RR = 0.82 (95%CI: 0.65, 1.04), <i>P</i> = 0.940, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], [drowsiness: RR = 0.96 (95%CI: 0.54, 1.71), <i>P</i> = 0.870, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], [constipation: RR=1.20 (95%CI: 0.52, 2.79), <i>P</i> = 0.650, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%], [dizziness: RR = 0.60 (95%CI: 0.44, 0.83), <i>P</i> = 0.644, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Palonosetron and ondansetron exhibited comparable efficacy in the early hours (0-6 h). Palonosetron showed superior efficacy beyond 6 hours, providing sustained PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing various surgeries, excluding laparoscopic procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":13339,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"69 1","pages":"108-122"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11878355/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_1017_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and distressing complication in all types of surgeries involving general anaesthesia. To establish evidence for best clinical practices, this meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in patients undergoing non-laparoscopic surgeries.
Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at postoperative time points, namely T1 (0-2 hours), T2 (0-6 hours), T3 (12-24 hours), T4 (24-48 hours), and T5 (24-72 hours), as well as safety (number of incidence of adverse effects). A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety groups was performed using a random-effects model.
Results: Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included. Pooled risk ratio (RR) revealed that patients receiving palonosetron were significantly less likely to develop nausea [0-2 h, RR = 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.34), P = 0.317, I2 = 15.3%], [0-6 h, RR = 0.76 (95% CI: 0.44, 1.29), P = 0.137, I2 = 45.7%], [12-24 h, RR = 0.39 (95%CI: 0.16, 0.96), P = 0.088, I2 = 54.2%], [24-48 h, RR = 0.44 (95% CI: 0.20, 0.96), P = 0.598, I2 = 0%], [24-72 h, RR 0.22 (95% CI: 0.08, 0.57), P = 0.119, I2 = 53.0%] and vomiting [0-2 h, RR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.29, 1.23), P = 0.868, I2 = 0%], [0-6 h, RR = 1.42 (95% CI: 0.74, 2.72), P = 0.790, I2 = 0%], [12-24 h, RR = 0.14 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.51), P = 0.749, I2 = 0.0%], [24-48 h, RR = 0.24 (95%CI: 0.09, 0.62), P = 0.561, I2 = 0%], [24-72 h, RR = 0.11 (95% CI: 0.02, 0.58), P = 0.859, I2 = 0%]. The safety profiles of palonosetron and ondansetron were comparable [headache: RR = 0.82 (95%CI: 0.65, 1.04), P = 0.940, I2 = 0%], [drowsiness: RR = 0.96 (95%CI: 0.54, 1.71), P = 0.870, I2 = 0%], [constipation: RR=1.20 (95%CI: 0.52, 2.79), P = 0.650, I2 = 0%], [dizziness: RR = 0.60 (95%CI: 0.44, 0.83), P = 0.644, I2 = 0%].
Conclusion: Palonosetron and ondansetron exhibited comparable efficacy in the early hours (0-6 h). Palonosetron showed superior efficacy beyond 6 hours, providing sustained PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing various surgeries, excluding laparoscopic procedures.