White Paul F, Tang Jun, Hamza Mohamed A, Ogunnaike Babatunde, Lo Monica, Wender Ronald H, Naruse Robert, Sloninsky Alexander, Kariger Robert, Cunneen Scott, Khalili Ted
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas75390-9068, USA.
Anesth Analg. 2006 May;102(5):1387-93. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000208967.94601.cd.
Based on comparative studies in patients receiving emetogenic chemotherapy, it has been suggested that granisetron would be more effective than ondansetron for the prevention of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV). However, there have been no direct comparisons of these two popular 5-HT3 antagonists with respect to PDNV and quality of recovery. We designed this randomized, double-blind study to compare the antiemetic efficacy of oral granisetron (1 mg) to a standard IV dose of ondansetron (4 mg) when administered for antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in a laparoscopic surgical population. A total of 220 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this prospective study at two major medical centers. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two prophylactic treatment groups: the control (ondansetron) group received an oral placebo 1 h before surgery and ondansetron, 4 mg IV, at the end of the surgery, and the granisetron group received granisetron, 1 mg per os, 1 h before surgery, and normal saline, 2 mL IV, at the end of the surgery. The early recovery profiles, requirement for rescue antiemetics, incidence of PDNV, and the side effects were recorded over the 48 h study period. In addition, nausea scores were assessed using an 11-point verbal rating scale at specific intervals in the postoperative period. The quality of recovery and patient satisfaction scores were recorded at 48 h after surgery. The demographic characteristics were similar in the two prophylaxis treatment groups, as well as the recovery times to patient orientation, oral intake, and hospital discharge. The incidences of PDNV, requirements for rescue antiemetics, and quality of recovery did not differ between the two study groups. The antiemetic drug acquisition costs to achieve comparable patient satisfaction with ondansetron and granisetron were US 25.65 dollars and 47.05 dollars, respectively. Therefore, ondansetron (4 mg IV) was more cost-effective than granisetron (1 mg per os) for routine antiemetic prophylaxis as part of a multimodal regimen in patients undergoing either outpatient or inpatient laparoscopic surgery.
基于对接受致吐性化疗患者的比较研究,有人提出格拉司琼在预防出院后恶心和呕吐(PDNV)方面比昂丹司琼更有效。然而,关于PDNV和恢复质量,尚未对这两种常用的5-HT3拮抗剂进行直接比较。我们设计了这项随机双盲研究,以比较口服格拉司琼(1毫克)与标准静脉注射剂量昂丹司琼(4毫克)在作为多模式方案一部分用于腹腔镜手术人群的止吐预防时的止吐效果。在两个主要医疗中心,共有220例接受标准化全身麻醉技术的腹腔镜手术患者参与了这项前瞻性研究。患者被随机分配到两个预防性治疗组之一:对照组(昂丹司琼组)在手术前1小时口服安慰剂,并在手术结束时静脉注射4毫克昂丹司琼;格拉司琼组在手术前1小时口服1毫克格拉司琼,并在手术结束时静脉注射2毫升生理盐水。在48小时的研究期间记录早期恢复情况、急救止吐药的使用需求、PDNV的发生率和副作用。此外,在术后特定时间间隔使用11点言语评定量表评估恶心评分。在术后48小时记录恢复质量和患者满意度评分。两个预防性治疗组的人口统计学特征相似,患者定向、口服摄入和出院的恢复时间也相似。两个研究组之间PDNV的发生率、急救止吐药的使用需求和恢复质量没有差异。实现与昂丹司琼和格拉司琼相当的患者满意度的止吐药物购置成本分别为25.65美元和47.05美元。因此,在接受门诊或住院腹腔镜手术的患者中,作为多模式方案的一部分进行常规止吐预防时,昂丹司琼(静脉注射4毫克)比格拉司琼(口服1毫克)更具成本效益。