We have located links that may give you full text access.
CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
ENGLISH ABSTRACT
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
[Ondansetron versus droperidol. Postoperative treatment against nausea and vomiting. Comparison of action, adverse effects and acceptance by gynecologic inpatients].
Der Anaesthesist 1994 August
INTRODUCTION: Ondansetron is more effective than a placebo in treating postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but it has not been proved to be superior to established antiemetics for prophylaxis or therapy. We compared ondansetron vs droperidol for the treatment of PONV.
METHODS: Our prospective, randomized double-blind study was performed between 15 October 1992 and July 1993; it included 271 gynaecological ASA I-III inpatients who had been operated on under general anaesthesia with intubation. Patients were excluded if: there was no informed consent; it was an ambulatory or emergency operation; the patient was pregnant or breast feeding; allergies were being treated with antihistamines; drug addiction was present or convulsions or Parkinson's disease; any pre- or intraoperative antiemetic medication had been administered. All patients wishing an antiemetic and/or suffering from at least one emetic episode during the first 24 h postoperatively received either 8 mg ondansetron or 1.25 mg droperidol from identical 4 ml ampoules intravenously. The verbal nausea score (1 = none, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, 4 = severe) was recorded every 30 min for 4 h, then before and 2 h after each antiemetic dose. All emetic episodes and the interval between administration and effect were also noted. Patients were interviewed 36-48 h postoperatively on subjective effects, side-effects and individual acceptance. After oral premedication with diazepam, anaesthesia was induced with thiopental, in a few cases with etomidate or propofol. Relaxation was achieved with pancuronium or atracurium and, when indicated, with succinylcholine. Muscular relaxation was antagonized with neostigmine and glycopyrrolate. Gastric content was aspirated once after intubation. Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide/oxygen, enflurane, halothane or isoflurane and fentanyl up to 0.3 mg. Statistical evaluation was performed by the unpaired Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Categoric variables were examined by the chi 2 test. Significance was defined as P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Of 271 patients, 100 (37%) experienced PONV. The groups were statistically comparable with respect to demographic data, type and duration of operation, emesis record, perioperative uterotonic medication. Twenty patients in the ondansetron group and 27 in the droperidol group received the first antiemetic within 2 h, the other patients up to 17 h after extubation. Nausea scores and emetic episodes were identical before antiemetic medication. The reduction of these parameters after medication was similar. Complete response over 6 h was 60% in the ondansetron and 68% in the droperidol group. In both groups the first medication failed in 4 cases during the initial 2 h. Twenty of the ondansetron and 16 of the droperidol patients needed a second dose; among these 2 and 4, respectively, a third ampoule. No rescue medication was necessary over 24 h and a mean of 1.4 ampoules was administered in both groups. Onset and quality of emetic action were identical in both groups. It was not possible to evaluate 25 interviews due to linguistic or amnestic problems. Multiple side-effects were noted frequently. Injection pain was reported significantly more often in the droperidol, pruritus in the ondansetron group. Ninety-three percent of the ondansetron and 85% of the droperidol patients opted for the same drug for future PONV treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron (8 mg) and droperidol (1.25 mg) proved to be equally effective when used as a postoperative antiemetic. Both drugs showed similar side-effects. Due to differences in methods it was difficult to compare our results to those obtained in other studies.
METHODS: Our prospective, randomized double-blind study was performed between 15 October 1992 and July 1993; it included 271 gynaecological ASA I-III inpatients who had been operated on under general anaesthesia with intubation. Patients were excluded if: there was no informed consent; it was an ambulatory or emergency operation; the patient was pregnant or breast feeding; allergies were being treated with antihistamines; drug addiction was present or convulsions or Parkinson's disease; any pre- or intraoperative antiemetic medication had been administered. All patients wishing an antiemetic and/or suffering from at least one emetic episode during the first 24 h postoperatively received either 8 mg ondansetron or 1.25 mg droperidol from identical 4 ml ampoules intravenously. The verbal nausea score (1 = none, 2 = mild, 3 = moderate, 4 = severe) was recorded every 30 min for 4 h, then before and 2 h after each antiemetic dose. All emetic episodes and the interval between administration and effect were also noted. Patients were interviewed 36-48 h postoperatively on subjective effects, side-effects and individual acceptance. After oral premedication with diazepam, anaesthesia was induced with thiopental, in a few cases with etomidate or propofol. Relaxation was achieved with pancuronium or atracurium and, when indicated, with succinylcholine. Muscular relaxation was antagonized with neostigmine and glycopyrrolate. Gastric content was aspirated once after intubation. Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide/oxygen, enflurane, halothane or isoflurane and fentanyl up to 0.3 mg. Statistical evaluation was performed by the unpaired Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Categoric variables were examined by the chi 2 test. Significance was defined as P < 0.05.
RESULTS: Of 271 patients, 100 (37%) experienced PONV. The groups were statistically comparable with respect to demographic data, type and duration of operation, emesis record, perioperative uterotonic medication. Twenty patients in the ondansetron group and 27 in the droperidol group received the first antiemetic within 2 h, the other patients up to 17 h after extubation. Nausea scores and emetic episodes were identical before antiemetic medication. The reduction of these parameters after medication was similar. Complete response over 6 h was 60% in the ondansetron and 68% in the droperidol group. In both groups the first medication failed in 4 cases during the initial 2 h. Twenty of the ondansetron and 16 of the droperidol patients needed a second dose; among these 2 and 4, respectively, a third ampoule. No rescue medication was necessary over 24 h and a mean of 1.4 ampoules was administered in both groups. Onset and quality of emetic action were identical in both groups. It was not possible to evaluate 25 interviews due to linguistic or amnestic problems. Multiple side-effects were noted frequently. Injection pain was reported significantly more often in the droperidol, pruritus in the ondansetron group. Ninety-three percent of the ondansetron and 85% of the droperidol patients opted for the same drug for future PONV treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron (8 mg) and droperidol (1.25 mg) proved to be equally effective when used as a postoperative antiemetic. Both drugs showed similar side-effects. Due to differences in methods it was difficult to compare our results to those obtained in other studies.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app