The use of oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: The effect on emetic symptoms and quality of recovery

Paul F. White, Jun Tang, Mohamed A. Hamza, Babatunde Ogunnaike, Monica Lo, Ronald H. Wender, Robert Naruse, Alexander Sloninsky, Robert Kariger, Scott Cunneen, Ted Khalili

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Scopus citations

Abstract

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 and $47.05, 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1387-1393
Number of pages7
JournalAnesthesia and analgesia
Volume102
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2006

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The use of oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: The effect on emetic symptoms and quality of recovery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this