Lee Anna, Fan Lawrence Ty
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15(2):CD003281. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub3.
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications following surgery and anaesthesia. Drugs to prevent PONV are only partially effective. An alternative approach is to stimulate the P6 acupoint on the wrist. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004.
To determine the efficacy and safety of P6 acupoint stimulation in preventing PONV.
We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2008), EMBASE (January 1988 to September 2008), ISI Web of Science (January 1965 to September 2008), the National Library of Medicine publication list of acupuncture studies, and reference lists of articles.
All randomized trials of techniques that stimulated the P6 acupoint compared with sham treatment or drug therapy for the prevention of PONV. Interventions used in these trials included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, transcutaneous nerve stimulation, laser stimulation, capsicum plaster, an acu-stimulation device, and acupressure in patients undergoing surgery. Primary outcomes were the risks of nausea and vomiting. Secondary outcomes were the need for rescue antiemetic therapy and adverse effects.
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We collected adverse effect information from the trials. We used a random-effects model and reported relative risk (RR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).
We included 40 trials involving 4858 participants; four trials reported adequate allocation concealment. Twelve trials did not report all outcomes. Compared with sham treatment P6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced: nausea (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.83); vomiting (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83), and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). Heterogeneity among trials was moderate. There was no clear difference in the effectiveness of P6 acupoint stimulation for adults and children; or for invasive and noninvasive acupoint stimulation. There was no evidence of difference between P6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the risk of nausea (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.13), vomiting (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.13). The side effects associated with P6 acupoint stimulation were minor. There was no evidence of publication bias from contour-enhanced funnel plots.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: P6 acupoint stimulation prevented PONV. There was no reliable evidence for differences in risks of postoperative nausea or vomiting after P6 acupoint stimulation compared to antiemetic drugs.
术后恶心呕吐(PONV)是手术和麻醉后常见的并发症。预防 PONV 的药物仅部分有效。另一种方法是刺激手腕上的内关穴(P6)。这是对 2004 年首次发表的 Cochrane 综述的更新。
确定刺激 P6 穴位预防 PONV 的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了 CENTRAL(Cochrane 图书馆,2008 年第 3 期)、MEDLINE(1966 年 1 月至 2008 年 9 月)、EMBASE(1988 年 1 月至 2008 年 9 月)、ISI 科学网(1965 年 1 月至 2008 年 9 月)、美国国立医学图书馆针灸研究出版物列表以及文章的参考文献列表。
所有将刺激 P6 穴位的技术与假治疗或药物治疗预防 PONV 进行比较的随机试验。这些试验中使用的干预措施包括针灸、电针、经皮神经刺激、激光刺激、辣椒膏、穴位刺激装置以及手术患者的指压法。主要结局是恶心和呕吐的风险。次要结局是急救止吐治疗的需求和不良反应。
两位综述作者独立评估试验质量并提取数据。我们从试验中收集不良反应信息。我们使用随机效应模型并报告相对风险(RR)及相关的 95%置信区间(95%CI)。
我们纳入了 40 项试验,涉及 4858 名参与者;4 项试验报告了充分的分配隐藏。12 项试验未报告所有结局。与假治疗相比,刺激 P6 穴位显著降低了:恶心(RR 0.71,95%CI 0.61 至 0.83);呕吐(RR 0.70,95%CI 0.59 至 0.83)以及急救止吐药的需求(RR 0.69,95%CI 0.57 至 0.83)。试验间的异质性为中度。刺激 P6 穴位对成人和儿童的有效性;或对侵入性和非侵入性穴位刺激没有明显差异。没有证据表明刺激 P6 穴位与止吐药在恶心风险(RR 0.82,95%CI 0.60 至 1.13)、呕吐风险(RR 1.01,95%CI 0.77 至 1.31)或急救止吐药需求(RR 0.82,95%CI 0.59 至 1.13)方面存在差异。与刺激 P6 穴位相关的副作用较小。轮廓增强漏斗图没有显示发表偏倚的证据。
刺激 P6 穴位可预防 PONV。与止吐药相比,没有可靠证据表明刺激 P6 穴位后术后恶心或呕吐风险存在差异。