IPSIndian Journal of Pharmacology
Home  IPS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online : 7246 
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded500    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 17    

Recommend this journal


Year : 2013  |  Volume : 45  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 24-29

Evaluation of antiemetic effect of intravenous palonosetron versus intravenous ondansetron in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial

1 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Command Hospital (Eastern Command), Alipore, India
2 Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (IPGME&R), Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Avijit Hazra
Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (IPGME&R), Kolkata, West Bengal
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.106430

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), without active intervention, following laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unacceptably high. We evaluated the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) palonosetron in counteracting PONV during the first 24hrs following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, using ondansetron as the comparator drug. Materials and Methods: In a randomized, controlled, single blind, parallel group trial, single pre-induction IV doses of palonosetron (75mcg) or ondansetron (4mg) were administered to adult patients of either sex undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There were 49 subjects per group. The pre-anesthetic regimen, anesthesia procedure and laparoscopic technique were uniform. The primary effectiveness measure was total number of PONV episodes in the 24 hrs period following end of surgery. The frequencies of individual nausea, retching and vomiting episodes, visual analog scale (VAS) score for nausea at 2, 6 and 24hrs, use of rescue antiemetic (metoclopramide), number of complete responders (no PONV or use of rescue in 24 hrs) and adverse events were secondary measures. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in primary outcome. Similarly, the frequencies of nausea, retching and vomiting episodes, when considered individually, did not show significant difference. Nausea score was comparable at all time points. With palonosetron, 14 subjects (28.6%) required rescue medication while 13 (26.5%) did so with ondansetron. The number of complete responders was 14 (28.6%) and 16 (32.7%), respectively. Adverse events were few and mild. QT c prolongation was not encountered. Conclusion: Palonosetron is comparable to ondansetron for PONV prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy when administered as single pre-induction dose.


Print this article     Email this article

Site Map | Home | Contact Us | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice
Online since 20th July '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow