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

22 Citations (Scopus)

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

Fingerprint

Granisetron
Emetics
Ondansetron
Antiemetics
Laparoscopy
Nausea
Vomiting
Patient Satisfaction
Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
General Anesthetics
Drug Costs
Incidence
Double-Blind Method
Postoperative Period
Inpatients
Outpatients
Placebos
Demography
Prospective Studies
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

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. / 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.

In: Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 102, No. 5, 05.2006, p. 1387-1393.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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. / 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. In: Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2006 ; Vol. 102, No. 5. pp. 1387-1393.
@article{7f754befb1f14e17bb481cf946840b1a,
title = "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",
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.",
author = "White, {Paul F.} and Jun Tang and Hamza, {Mohamed A.} and Babatunde Ogunnaike and Monica Lo and Wender, {Ronald H.} and Robert Naruse and Alexander Sloninsky and Robert Kariger and Scott Cunneen and Ted Khalili",
year = "2006",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1213/01.ane.0000208967.94601.cd",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "102",
pages = "1387--1393",
journal = "Anesthesia and Analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The use of oral granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery

T2 - The effect on emetic symptoms and quality of recovery

AU - White, Paul F.

AU - Tang, Jun

AU - Hamza, Mohamed A.

AU - Ogunnaike, Babatunde

AU - Lo, Monica

AU - Wender, Ronald H.

AU - Naruse, Robert

AU - Sloninsky, Alexander

AU - Kariger, Robert

AU - Cunneen, Scott

AU - Khalili, Ted

PY - 2006/5

Y1 - 2006/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646189692&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646189692&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1213/01.ane.0000208967.94601.cd

DO - 10.1213/01.ane.0000208967.94601.cd

M3 - Article

C2 - 16632815

AN - SCOPUS:33646189692

VL - 102

SP - 1387

EP - 1393

JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

IS - 5

ER -