9 4 2 0 5
论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
- 3.3 Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)
- 3.4 Clin Epidemiol
- 2.5 Cancer Manag Res
- 2.9 Infect Drug Resist
- 3.5 Clin Interv Aging
- 4.7 Drug Des Dev Ther
- 2.7 Int J Chronic Obstr
- 6.6 Int J Nanomed
- 2.5 Int J Women's Health
- 2.5 Neuropsych Dis Treat
- 2.7 OncoTargets Ther
- 2.0 Patient Prefer Adher
- 2.3 Ther Clin Risk Manag
- 2.5 J Pain Res
- 2.8 Diabet Metab Synd Ob
- 2.8 Psychol Res Behav Ma
- 3.0 Nat Sci Sleep
- 1.8 Pharmgenomics Pers Med
- 2.7 Risk Manag Healthc Policy
- 4.2 J Inflamm Res
- 2.1 Int J Gen Med
- 4.2 J Hepatocell Carcinoma
- 3.7 J Asthma Allergy
- 1.9 Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol
- 2.7 J Multidiscip Healthc
已发表论文
雷莫司琼 (Ramosetron) 与昂丹司琼 (ondansetron) 对全身麻醉手术后的恶心呕吐的疗效和安全性： 对随机临床试验一项综合分析
Authors Gao CJ, Li B, Xu LF, Lv FB, Cao GM, Wang HX, Wang F, Wu GH
Published Date April 2015 Volume 2015:9 Pages 2343—2350
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S80407
Received 6 January 2015, Accepted 13 March 2015, Published 23 April 2015
Background: Postoperative 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.
Methods: PubMed 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).
Results: A 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).
Conclusion: Our 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).
Keywords: ramosetron, ondansetron, postoperative nausea and vomiting, general anesthesia, meta-analysis
Methods: PubMed 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).
Results: A 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).
Conclusion: Our 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).
Keywords: ramosetron, ondansetron, postoperative nausea and vomiting, general anesthesia, meta-analysis
