3.8 Article

Randomized Double Blind Comparative Study Comparing Efficacy of Granisetron and Ondansetron for the Prophylactic Control of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Middle Ear Surgery

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s12070-011-0464-7

Keywords

PONV; Ondansetron; Granisetron; Middle ear surgery

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective is to evaluate the prophylactic profile, efficacy of granisetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after middle ear surgery. In a randomized, double blind trial, one hundred patients undergoing middle ear surgery received either granisetron 1 mg or ondansetron 8 mg in equal volume (n = 50 for each) intravenously towards the end of surgery and before reversal of anaesthesia. A standard general anaesthetic technique was employed. Postoperatively, during the first 24 h after anaesthesia, the incidence of PONV, recovery score, time to first feeding, willingness to have the same prophylactic antiemetic drug in future and adverse events were recorded. The incidence of vomiting once (PONV score 2) was significantly less, 4% with granisetron and 22% with ondansetron (P = 0.002) respectively and the incidence of vomiting twice or more times in 30 min interval (PONV score 3) was significantly less, 8% with granisetron as compared to 34% with ondansetron (P = 0.001). The requirement of rescue antiemetic drug was significantly higher in ondansetron group, i.e. 34 vs. 8% in granisetron group (P = 0.001). The incidence of adverse events, recovery score and time to first feeding were comparable among the groups. Willingness to have the same prophylactic antiemetic drug in future was significantly high in patients receiving granisetron. Granisetron is more efficacious and desirable drug than ondansetron for reducing the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing middle ear surgery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available