BACKGROUND: Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most distressing and frequent adverse event occurring after general anaesthesia. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of Ondansetron with Granisetron in preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after general anaesthesia. STUDY DESIGN: The study was conducted over a period of 1.5 years in the Department of Anaesthesiology in SRMSIMS, Bareilly on patients undergoing elective surgeries under general anaesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 60 patients of American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) status I and II were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1(n=30) Ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg i.v, Group 2(n=30) Granisetron 10 mcg/kg i.v. Incidence of nausea and vomiting was observed upto 24 hours post operatively after extubation. The efficacy was assessed in terms of number (percentage) of patients with mild nausea not requiring rescue antiemetic, number (percentage) of patients with severe nausea or vomiting requiring rescue antiemetic and number (percentage) of patients with no nausea or vomiting for 24 hours post operatively. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data presented as number and percentages. Analysis done using ANOVA followed by Chi square, Unpaired 't-test'. RESULTS: The number (percentage) of patients with mild nausea not requiring rescue antiemetic in group 1 was 10(33.3%) and in group 2 was 2(6.6%). The number (percentage) of patients with severe nausea or vomiting requiring rescue antiemetic in group 1 was 12(40%) and in group 2 was 5(16.6%).The number (percentage) of patients with no nausea or vomiting in group 1 was 8(26.6%) and in group 2 was 23(76.6%). CONCLUSION: Granisetron is the better drug for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting than Ondansetron.

BACKGROUND Induction of general anaesthesia is the most important phase, which can be achieved by various inhalational and intravenous agents. An ideal inducing agent for general anaesthesia should have haemodynamic stability and minimal respiratory depression, rapid clearance and minimal side effects. Propofol is the most commonly used induction agent, as it has rapid onset and early recovery due to short half-life and rapid elimination from the blood circulation. Propofol is associated with pain [1] during induction, which is sometimes very distressing to patients and it can also cause haemodynamic instability. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of pain on injection, haemodynamic changes following induction and the incidence of PONV using etomidate-lipuro, propofol and coinduction with propofol and etomidate-lipuro. MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a randomised, controlled trial. A total of 90 patients with ASA I and II were randomly allocated into three groups, i.e. Group E, Group P and Group P + E. Group E patients received etomidate 0.3 mg/kg, Group P patients received propofol 2 mg/kg and Group P + E received propofol 1 mg/kg + etomidate 0.2 mg/kg for induction of anaesthesia. The incidence of pain on injection was observed during the infusion of drugs, haemodynamic changes including heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean blood pressure were accessed after induction and after intubation at various time intervals. The incidence of PONV was accessed for 24 hrs. postoperatively. RESULTS Comparing the three groups, it was seen that the incidence of pain on injection was maximum in propofol group followed by etomidate group and was reduced to a highly significant level in etomidate + propofol group (p < 0.0001). The haemodynamic (systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressures, heart rate) changes were minimal in Propofol + Etomidate group. Etomidate group was associated with higher incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.