Acta anaesthesiologica Sinica · 2000
Failure of prevention against postoperative vomiting by ondansetron or prochlorperazine in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee T H, Lin C R, Lee T C, Buerkle H, Hsu T Y, Mao C C, Yang L C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ondansetron has been approved for the treatment and prevention of postoperative emesis. Since it is presumably considered to possess potent antiemetic effect with fewer side effects, the administration of ondansetron to inhibit emesis in patients following gynecological laparoscopic surgery might be recommendable. Hence, we examined the effects of intravenous ondansetron at dosage of 4 and 8 mg in comparison with intravenous prochlorperazine at 5 mg and placebo.
METHODS: A total of 120 patients were allocated randomly into 3 groups. Group 1 patients who served as control were given NaCl 0.9% 4 mL (placebo) intravenously (i.v.); patients in group 2 and group 3 were given ondansetron 4 mg ondansetron 8 mg i.v. respectively; patients in group 4 were given prochlorperazine 5 mg i.v. Premedication was omitted.
RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis adjusted for prognostic factors revealed no significant difference between 5 mg prochlorperazine group and 4 mg or 8 mg ondansetron group as compared over the 24 h study period.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that i.v. 4 or 8 mg ondansetron and 5 mg prochlorperazine were not effective in prevention of postoperative emesis in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy. Since the cost of ondansetron is high, its routine use for prevention against postoperative nausea and vomiting is not be recommended clinically because of its uncertain benefit.
METHODS: A total of 120 patients were allocated randomly into 3 groups. Group 1 patients who served as control were given NaCl 0.9% 4 mL (placebo) intravenously (i.v.); patients in group 2 and group 3 were given ondansetron 4 mg ondansetron 8 mg i.v. respectively; patients in group 4 were given prochlorperazine 5 mg i.v. Premedication was omitted.
RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis adjusted for prognostic factors revealed no significant difference between 5 mg prochlorperazine group and 4 mg or 8 mg ondansetron group as compared over the 24 h study period.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that i.v. 4 or 8 mg ondansetron and 5 mg prochlorperazine were not effective in prevention of postoperative emesis in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy. Since the cost of ondansetron is high, its routine use for prevention against postoperative nausea and vomiting is not be recommended clinically because of its uncertain benefit.