Cargando…
Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, a...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4860384/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27162748 http://dx.doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.2.84 |
_version_ | 1782431057966006272 |
---|---|
author | Savant, Kiran Khandeparker, Rakshit Vijay Sinai Berwal, Vikas Khandeparker, Purva Vijay Jain, Hunny |
author_facet | Savant, Kiran Khandeparker, Rakshit Vijay Sinai Berwal, Vikas Khandeparker, Purva Vijay Jain, Hunny |
author_sort | Savant, Kiran |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, and double blind clinical study was carried out with 60 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 individuals each. Approximately two minutes before induction of general anesthesia, each patient received either 4 mg (2 mL) ondansetron or 2 mg (2 mL) granisetron intravenously in a double blind manner. Balanced anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were assessed for episodes of nausea, retching, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic at intervals of 0-2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Incidence of complete response and adverse effects were assessed at 24 hours postoperatively. Data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, unpaired t-test, or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for incidence of PONV or the need for rescue antiemetic. Both study drugs were well tolerated with minimum adverse effects; the most common adverse effect was headache. The overall incidence of complete response in the granisetron group (86.7%) was significantly higher than the ondansetron group (60.0%). CONCLUSION: Granisetron at an intravenous dose of 2 mg was found to be safe, well tolerated, and more effective by increasing the incidence of complete response compared to 4 mg intravenous ondansetron when used for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia. Benefits of granisetron include high receptor specificity and high potency, which make it a valuable alternative to ondansetron. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4860384 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48603842016-05-09 Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study Savant, Kiran Khandeparker, Rakshit Vijay Sinai Berwal, Vikas Khandeparker, Purva Vijay Jain, Hunny J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg Original Article OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, and double blind clinical study was carried out with 60 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 individuals each. Approximately two minutes before induction of general anesthesia, each patient received either 4 mg (2 mL) ondansetron or 2 mg (2 mL) granisetron intravenously in a double blind manner. Balanced anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were assessed for episodes of nausea, retching, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic at intervals of 0-2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Incidence of complete response and adverse effects were assessed at 24 hours postoperatively. Data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, unpaired t-test, or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for incidence of PONV or the need for rescue antiemetic. Both study drugs were well tolerated with minimum adverse effects; the most common adverse effect was headache. The overall incidence of complete response in the granisetron group (86.7%) was significantly higher than the ondansetron group (60.0%). CONCLUSION: Granisetron at an intravenous dose of 2 mg was found to be safe, well tolerated, and more effective by increasing the incidence of complete response compared to 4 mg intravenous ondansetron when used for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia. Benefits of granisetron include high receptor specificity and high potency, which make it a valuable alternative to ondansetron. The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 2016-04 2016-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4860384/ /pubmed/27162748 http://dx.doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.2.84 Text en Copyright © 2016 The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Savant, Kiran Khandeparker, Rakshit Vijay Sinai Berwal, Vikas Khandeparker, Purva Vijay Jain, Hunny Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study |
title | Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study |
title_full | Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study |
title_short | Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study |
title_sort | comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4860384/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27162748 http://dx.doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.2.84 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT savantkiran comparisonofondansetronandgranisetronforantiemeticprophylaxisinmaxillofacialsurgerypatientsreceivinggeneralanesthesiaaprospectiverandomisedanddoubleblindstudy AT khandeparkerrakshitvijaysinai comparisonofondansetronandgranisetronforantiemeticprophylaxisinmaxillofacialsurgerypatientsreceivinggeneralanesthesiaaprospectiverandomisedanddoubleblindstudy AT berwalvikas comparisonofondansetronandgranisetronforantiemeticprophylaxisinmaxillofacialsurgerypatientsreceivinggeneralanesthesiaaprospectiverandomisedanddoubleblindstudy AT khandeparkerpurvavijay comparisonofondansetronandgranisetronforantiemeticprophylaxisinmaxillofacialsurgerypatientsreceivinggeneralanesthesiaaprospectiverandomisedanddoubleblindstudy AT jainhunny comparisonofondansetronandgranisetronforantiemeticprophylaxisinmaxillofacialsurgerypatientsreceivinggeneralanesthesiaaprospectiverandomisedanddoubleblindstudy |