Anti-emetic effect of ondansetron and palonosetron in thyroidectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

59Citations
Citations of this article
56Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background. Palonosetron is a new potent 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 antagonist. Although this drug is thought to be more effective in patients receiving opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), clinical data are lacking. This study compared the effects of i.v. ondansetron and palonosetron administered at the end of surgery in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients receiving i.v. PCA after thyroidectomy. Methods. A total of 100 female non-smoking subjects were randomly assigned into a palonosetron group or an ondansetron group. Ondansetron was given as an 8 mg bolus and 16 mg was added to the i.v. PCA mixture. In the palonosetron group, 0.075 mg was injected as a bolus only. Fentanyl-based PCA was provided for 24 h after operation. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea, requirement for rescue anti-emetics, and adverse effects were evaluated during 02 and 224 h. Results. The incidence of PONV during the 24 h postoperative period was lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group (42 vs 62, P0.045). No differences were observed between the groups during the first 2 h. However, the incidence of nausea and vomiting and nausea severity were significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group during 224 h. The only difference in the use of rescue anti-emetics was at 224 h (10 with palonosetron compared with 28 with ondansetron, P0.02). Conclusions. Palonosetron is more effective than ondansetron for high-risk patients receiving fentanyl-based PCA after thyroidectomy, especially 224 h after surgery. © The Author [2012].

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Moon, Y. E., Joo, J., Kim, J. E., & Lee, Y. (2012). Anti-emetic effect of ondansetron and palonosetron in thyroidectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 108(3), 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer423

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free