Efficacy of esketamine in reducing nausea and vomiting after anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Ling Tang; Shuangquan Qu; Zhen Du; Yi Zhu; Lei Wu; Jing Wang

doi:10.1080/07853890.2025.2604409

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 41454547

Efficacy of esketamine in reducing nausea and vomiting after anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Ling Tang·Shuangquan Qu·Zhen Du·Yi Zhu·Lei Wu·Jing Wang

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are significant perioperative challenges. This study evaluated the efficacy of perioperative esketamine in preventing PONV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to August 2025 for randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of perioperative esketamine on PONV. The primary outcome was PONV incidence. Secondary outcomes included time to first flatus, postoperative pain degree, anxiety scores, agitation, anesthesia recovery time, and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay duration. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 and STATA 15.0 software. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to assess result stability and explore potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirty-eight randomized trials (3,425 patients) were included. Esketamine reduced the risk of nausea (RR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.53-0.90) and vomiting (RR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-0.98), shortened time to first flatus (SMD=-0.81, 95% CI: -1.48 to -0.15), and decreased rescue analgesic needs within 2 days (SMD=0.32, 95% CI: 0.2-0.5). However, it prolonged anesthesia recovery time (SMD=0.97, 95% CI: 0.28-1.67) and PACU stay (SMD=0.76, 95% CI: 0.27-1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative esketamine may reduce PONV and aid gastrointestinal recovery, but its potential to delay anesthesia recovery and PACU discharge requires consideration. Further studies are needed to clarify its risk-benefit profile. DATE OF FIRST SUBMISSION TO PROSPERO: 10 March 2024. DATE OF THE START OF STUDY SCREENING AGAINST ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: 21 March 2024.

Explore related subjects

Humans Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Ketamine Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Antiemetics Postoperative Pain Anesthesia Anesthesia Recovery Period esketamine gastrointestinal dysfunction nausea and vomit Journal Article Systematic Review Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Ling Tang, Shuangquan Qu, Zhen Du, Yi Zhu, Lei Wu, Jing Wang. 2025-12-26. Efficacy of esketamine in reducing nausea and vomiting after anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2025.2604409

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Anesthesia Recovery Period subject Antiemetics subject Esketamine subject Humans subject Journal Article subject Journal Article; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't resource Ketamine subject Meta-Analysis subject Systematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Esketamine vs. sufentanil for quality of recovery after outpatient gynecological surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative administration of esketamine has been reported to improve early quality of recovery (QoR). However, data on its effects in outpatient surgery are limited. This study aimed to assess the impact of esketamine on QoR in patients undergoing outpatient gynecological procedures. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, double-blind, randomized clinical trial, patients aged 18-65 years scheduled for outpatient gynecological surgery under sedation were allocated to receive esketamine (0.2 mg/kg) or sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg) combined with propofol (1.5-3 mg/kg). The primary outcome was quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 1. Secondary outcomes included quality of recovery on POD2, sedation success rate, length of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, injection pain, postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, patient and clinician satisfaction, sleep quality, and anxiety and depression. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were randomized, with 63 assigned to the esketamine group and 63 to the sufentanil group. Of these, 125 patients were included in the final analysis (62 in the esketamine group and 63 in the sufentanil group), as one patient lacked follow-up data. The mean (SD) QoR-15 score on POD1 was 137.9 (14.5) in the esketamine group and 137.8 (10.7) in the sufentanil group, with no significant difference between groups (absolute difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -4.2 to 4.6; p = 0.93). For secondary outcomes, the esketamine group had a longer PACU stay (median, 28.0 vs. 23.0 min; p < 0.001), a lower incidence of severe injection pain (22.6% vs. 50.8%; p = 0.002), a higher proportion of patients with pain scores ≥ 4 at 30 min postoperatively (30.6% vs. 6.3%; p = 0.001), and higher fatigue scores (median, 3.0 vs. 2.0; p = 0.01). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing sedation for outpatient gynecological procedures, esketamine did not significantly improve quality of recovery on POD1 compared to sufentanil. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500098466.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Impact of oliceridine versus sufentanil on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing thyroid surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following thyroid surgery, often exacerbated by opioid use. Oliceridine, a novel G protein-biased μ-opioid receptor agonist, may reduce opioid-related adverse events. This study aimed to compare the impact of oliceridine versus sufentanil on the incidence and severity of PONV in patients undergoing thyroid surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial conducted between May 2025 and February 2026, 232 patients scheduled for thyroid surgery were randomly assigned to receive either oliceridine or sufentanil for intraoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first 48 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included PONV severity, need for rescue anti-emetics, postoperative pain scores, recovery quality, and other adverse events. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV within 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the oliceridine group [13/107 (12%)] compared with the sufentanil group [31/110 (28%)] (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.72, p = 0.006). Postoperative pain scores, rescue analgesia requirements, and Quality of Recovery-15 scores were comparable between the two groups (p > 0.05). Besides, exploratory unadjusted analyses revealed fewer rescue anti-emetics: O group 8/107 (8%) vs S group 25/110 (23%) (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64, p = 0.002); and less abdominal distension: O group 4/107 (4%) vs S group 19/110 (17%) (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.06-0.57, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: For young ASA I-II patients undergoing thyroid surgery, oliceridine yields adequate postoperative analgesia and lower PONV rates versus sufentanil. Additional trials involving high-intensity surgical procedures are needed to confirm consistent equivalence.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparison of opioid-free versus opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing short-duration surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults who undergo short-duration surgery are vulnerable to opioid-related complications. It is uncertain whether an opioid-free total intravenous anaesthesia (OFA) can reduce these events. We aimed to determine whether OFA reduces the incidence of major postoperative adverse events compared with standard opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia (OBA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted in China. From May to August 2025, 400 patients aged ≥60 years undergoing elective, short-duration surgery (anticipated duration of less than 90 min) were randomized 1:1 to receive either OFA (n = 200) or OBA (n = 200). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative hypoxemia, delirium, or nausea and vomiting (PONV) within 48 h. RESULTS: A total of 400 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [7.0] years; 125 [31.3%] women). The primary composite outcome occurred in 50 patients (25.0%) in the OFA group and 87 patients (43.5%) in the OBA group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.62; p < .001). Among the OFA group had a lower incidence of hypoxemia (15.0% vs 32.0%) and PONV (8.0% vs 16.0%). Intraoperative hemodynamic stability was greater in the OFA group. However, the OFA group had a higher incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (10.0% vs 3.0%; p = .005) and longer extubation times (mean, 9.5 vs 7.2 min; p < .001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that OFA is a viable alternative to opioid-based anesthesia for improving postoperative outcomes by reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and PONV in this population, while warranting careful management of its associated side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500102550.

Humans↗