The effect of esmolol compared to opioids on postoperative nausea and vomiting, postanesthesia care unit discharge time, and analgesia in noncardiac surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Perioperative esmolol as an opioid alternative has been shown to reduce postoperative nausea vomiting using opioid sparing. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare esmolol and opioids on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), time spent in recovery, and analgesia in noncardiac surgeries. MATERIAL AND METHODS OVID Medline (1980-February 2014), OVID EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing esmolol and opioids on early postoperative recovery and pain intensity during general anesthesia in noncardiac surgeries. The primary outcomes were related to PONV and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge time, whereas secondary outcomes were related to early postoperative pain. RESULTS Eight trials were identified involving 439 patients, 228 of whom received esmolol while 211 received opioids. A random-effects meta-analysis showed that in comparison with opioids, esmolol led to a 69% reduction in the incidence of PONV (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.74, P = 0.008, I2 = 44.1%). An increase in the volatile anesthetic requirement was evident in the esmolol group compared with opioid (MD + 0.67% desflurane equivalent, 95% CI 0.27-1.08, P = 0.001, I2 =23.5%). There was no statistically significant difference between the esmolol and opioid groups in relation to PACU discharge time, early postoperative pain scores, opioid requirement, and cumulative opioid consumption. Significant heterogeneity was noted between studies. No significant adverse effects were noted. CONCLUSION Compared with opioids, perioperative esmolol may reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea vomiting and increase the volatile anesthetic requirement. Esmolol administration may not improve the early postoperaive pain intensity. Nonetheless, these findings are limited by the absence of high-quality RCTs and the heterogeneity among studies. Further, large-scale studies are needed to explore these results.