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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Savant, Kiran, Khandeparker, Rakshit Vijay Sinai, Berwal, Vikas, Khandeparker, Purva Vijay, Jain, Hunny
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