PONV in Ambulatory surgery: A comparison between Ramosetron and Ondansetron: a prospective, double-blinded, and randomized controlled study

Banerjee, Debasis; Das, Anjan; Majumdar, S. K.; Mandal, Rahul Deb; Dutta, Soumyadip; Mukherjee, Anindya; Chakraborty, Amartya; Chattopadhyay, Sandip

doi:10.4103/1658-354x.125917

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At other time periods, including the 24–48 hours after surgery, ramosetron was no more effective than ondansetron in prevention of POV: 0–2 hours (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11–4.00; P =0.66), 2–6 hours (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.21–1.47; P =0.24), 2–24 hours (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10–1.35; P =0.13), and 24–48 hours (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17–1.51; P =0.22, Figure 3 ). We did not include the study by Banerjee et al 22 in our meta-analysis because these authors did not provide detailed PON and POV outcomes. However, their results showed that preoperative administration of a single intravenous dose of ramosetron 0.3 mg was more effective than a single intravenous dose of ondansetron 4 mg in reducing the incidence of PONV in general in the 18 hours after surgery.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Gao

et al. 2015

DDDT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPostoperative nausea and vomiting is a common side effect of general anesthesia. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting using the most recently published randomized controlled clinical studies.MethodsPubMed and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of ramosetron and ondansetron. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Dichotomous outcomes are presented as the relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsA total of 898 patients from nine selected studies were treated with antiemetics after surgery, including 450 patients who received ondansetron 4 mg and 448 patients who received ramosetron 0.3 mg. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to prevention of postoperative nausea (PON) during different time periods in the 48 hours after surgery. When comparing the efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative vomiting (POV), at various time intervals in the 24 hours after surgery, ramosetron was significantly more efficient than ondansetron: 0–6 hours (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24–0.92; P=0.03), 0–24 hours (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52–1.00; P=0.05), and 6–24 hours (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31–0.84; P=0.008). At other time periods between 24 and 48 hours after surgery, ramosetron did not show better efficacy than ondansetron. When comparing the safety profiles of ramosetron and ondansetron, fewer side effects were recorded in the ramosetron group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.91; P=0.01).ConclusionOur meta-analysis demonstrates that ramosetron was more effective than ondansetron in the prevention of early POV (0–24 hours) with fewer recorded side effects. However, our study did not reveal any statistically significant differences in efficacy between ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PON or late POV (at 24–48 hours).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Gao

et al. 2015

DDDT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ten articles listed below,[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] all with the same corresponding author and published in the Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia from 2014-2018, are being retracted because they have been found to have a number of unattributed sections of content with high rate of similarity from various other articles along with overwhelming evidence of data fabrication. The corresponding author and his institution were contacted and asked to provide the journal with the raw data for these studies but there has been no adequate response within a reasonable timeframe.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%