Vomiting, PostoperativePhase 3NCT04613726
The Effect of Intravenous Granisetron and Ondansetron in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section
A Phase 3 study testing ondansetron, Granisetron and Saline in people with Vomiting, Postoperative and Postoperative Complications, run by Ataturk University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This study compared the effects of prophylactic intravenous (IV) infusion of ondansetron and granisetron before the spinal anesthesia on hemodynamic parameters in patients undergoing elective cesarean section. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 45 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Vomiting, Postoperative, Postoperative Complications, Hypotension
- What is being tested?
- ondansetron, Granisetron and Saline
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 120 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 3 Dec 2018to 1 Jan 2020
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 45 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- aged between 18-45 years
- uncomplicated term pregnancy
- ASA (American society of anesthesiologist) I or II
- undergoing elective cesarean section with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia
Who cannot join
- psychiatric diseases
- preeclampsia
- pregnancy-induced hypertension
- chronic hypertension
- diabetes
- multiple pregnancies
Show all 9Show fewer
- fetal anomaly
- allergy to study drugs
- receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Intravenous Granisetron Provides Less Ephedrine Requirement Than Ondansetron in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section With Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomised Placebo-controlled Trial
This study compared the effects of prophylactic intravenous (IV) infusion of ondansetron and granisetron before the spinal anesthesia on hemodynamic parameters in patients undergoing elective cesarean section.
Read the detailed description
A total of 120 parturients who agreed to participate in the study with uncomplicated term pregnancy, aged between 18-45 years, American society of anesthesiologist I or II undergoing elective cesarean section with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) were included. Participants with complicated pregnancy such as diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension or chronic hypertension, fetal anomaly, a history of allergy to study drugs, psychiatric diseases, coagulation abnormalities and mul¬tiple pregnancies were excluded from the study. Also, patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were excluded.
A day before surgery, detailed anamnesis was obtained from the patients and a general systemic examination was performed. Also, patients were informed about the study protocol and written informed consent was obtained. The patients were informed that they should be fasting for 8 hours before surgery. On the day of operation, peripheral intravenous (IV) access was provided using a 16-gauge/18-gauge cannula.
After all patients received 500 ml of Ringer Lactate as preload, they were transferred to the operating room. None of the patients received premedication. Before the anesthesia procedure; patients' age, weight, height, ASA physical status, baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded. The study medications were prepared by an anesthesia resident who was not involved in the study. Three groups (n=40, for each group) were formed by randomization using a computer-generated table of random numbers. The anesthesiologist in charge, and the patient and investigators were blinded to the group allocation.
Five minutes before the CSEA procedure, Group I received IV 8 mg ondansetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, Group II received IV 3 mg granisetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, and Group III received IV 10 ml normal saline. Subsequently, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) in the sitting position was performed in all patients. Following skin sterilization and local anesthetic infiltration (2% lidocaine), 18 gauge Tuohy needle (Set for CSEA, Braun®, Melsungen, Germany) was advanced through the midline L2-3 or L3-4 intervertebral spaces with loss of resistance technique. A 27-gauge pencil point needle was inserted intrathecally, using the needle-through-needle technique. After free cerebrospinal fluid flow was observed, 1.8 ml 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine (9 mg) and 15 µg fentanyl was administered over 30 seconds. Then, the spinal needle was removed and epidural catheter was advanced 3 to 5 cm into the epidural space. The catheter was secured in place after it was checked with negative pressure. At the end of the anesthesia procedure, patients were placed in the supine position for operation and the operating table was tilted 20° to the left. Sensory block level was evaluated via pinprick test and when the sensory block reached at the upper level of T6 dermatome, surgery was initiated. If sensory block were not observed within the first 20 min following the spinal injection, spinal anesthesia was considered as failed. In this instance, additional 5 ml solution of 2% lidocaine was injected via the epidural catheter until a T6 level of the sensory block was provided and these patients were excluded from the study. Motor block level was evaluated with Modified Bromage scale (scale 0 = The patient is able to move hip, knee, ankle, and toes.; scale 1 = The patient is able to the full flexion of foot and knee, she is unable to hip flexion; scale 2 = The patient is able to the full flexion of foot, she is unable to knee and hip flexion; scale 3 = Total motor block is available). General anaesthesia protocol was planned in case of three unsuccessful attempts to reach to intrathecal space. Oxygen was delivered during surgery. Intravenous ephedrine (6 mg) was planned to treat hypotension (a 30% decrease in systolic blood pressure compared to preoperative values) and intra¬venous atropine (1 mg) was planned in case of bradycardia (the heart rate < 45 beats/minute) during surgery. In case of nausea and vomiting, intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) was administered. Following drug administration to the intrathecal space, intraoperative hemodynamic changes were recorded every 2 min for 20 min and then every five minutes until the end of the operation by an anesthetist who was blinded to the group allocation. The operation time (the time from the beginning of the surgical incision until the end of surgery), anesthetic complications such as pruritus and nausea-vomiting and the number of patients requiring epidural medication, ephedrine and atropine during surgery were recorded. Neonatal Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min after delivery and umbilical artery blood gas values were recorded.
After operation, patients were evaluated in the recovery room for 120 min. Visual analogue scale (VAS, 0 cm= no pain, 10 cm= worst pain) scores for pain severity, anesthesia-related side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting and headache), sensory block time (from the spinal injection to the recovery of T10 dermatome), and the time requiring supplemental analgesics was recorded by an independent observer blinded to the group assignment at 30 min and 1st and 2nd hours post-operatively. In the case of VAS > 3 in a patient, 10 ml solution of 0.1% bupivacaine was given via the epidural catheter. Patients were transferred to the ward, following the motor block had regressed to the T10 level.
The primary end point of the study was the ephedrine requirement during surgery. The minimum sample size required for this study was calculated using the Russ Lenth's Power and sample size calculation application. Thirty-five patients in each group were needed to demonstrate a mean difference in the requirement of 10 mg ephedrine among groups with a power of 90% and alpha 5%. However, a sample size was determined as 40 in each group, considering potential dropouts.
Data were expressed as mean values ± standard deviation (SD) or number and percentage values. Comparisons were performed using the ANOVA test. The percentage values were compared using chi-square, P<0.05 was considered significant statistically.
- Being tested
- ondansetron, Granisetron, Saline
- Keywords
- cesarean section, granisetron, ondansetron, spinal anesthesia, blood pressure, pre-treatment
- Medical subject headings
- Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting, Postoperative Complications, Hypotension
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
ondansetronDrug
group consisted of receiving IV 8 mg ondansetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline
GranisetronDrug
Another comparator group consisted of receivingIV 3 mg granisetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline
SalineDrug
Control group consisted of patients receiving IV 10 ml normal saline
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| IV 10 ml normal saline | Placebo comparator | Control group consisted of patients receiving IV 10 ml normal saline. Receives: Drug: Saline |
| IV 8 mg ondansetron in 10 ml of normal saline | Active comparator | This group consisted of receiving IV 8 mg ondansetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, Receives: Drug: ondansetron |
| IV 3 mg granisetron in 10 ml of normal saline | Active comparator | This group consisted of receiving IV 3 mg granisetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline. Receives: Drug: Granisetron |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
ephedrine requirement
The change in ephedrine requirement during surgery (mg).
Measured: Every two minutes during surgery.
Secondary outcomes (4)
atropine requirement
The change in atropine requirement during surgery (mg).
Measured: every two minutes during surgery
analgesic requirement
The change in analgesic requirement during surgery and postoperative 24 hours(mg)
Measured: every five minutes during surgery and postoperative 24 hours
blood pressure values
The change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure values (mmHg).
Measured: every two minutes during surgery
heart rate values
The change in heart rate values (bpm).
Measured: every two minutes during surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Nov 2020
- Study start3 Dec 2018
- Primary completion12 Dec 2019
- Study completion1 Jan 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Vomiting, PostoperativeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Ataturk UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Comparator / control treatment Control group consisted of patients receiving IV 10 ml normal saline. A comparator group consisted of receiving IV 8 mg ondansetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, Another comparator group consisted of receivingIV 3 mg granisetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline.
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Ataturk University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mehmet AKSOY, Ataturk University
- Investigators
- Mehmet AKSOY, Assoc.Prof., Principal investigator, Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04613726
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- B.30.2.ATA.0.01.00/166
- Status last verified
- Nov 2020
- First submitted
- 23 Oct 2020
- Last updated
- 3 Nov 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Nov 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Intravenous Granisetron Provides Less Ephedrine Requirement Than Ondansetron in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section With Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomised Placebo-controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04613726
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- B.30.2.ATA.0.01.00/166
- Keywords
- cesarean section, granisetron, ondansetron, spinal anesthesia, blood pressure, pre-treatment
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 120 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Ataturk UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 3 Dec 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 12 Dec 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jan 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Nov 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study compared the effects of prophylactic intravenous (IV) infusion of ondansetron and granisetron before the spinal anesthesia on hemodynamic parameters in patients undergoing elective cesarean section.
Detailed description
A total of 120 parturients who agreed to participate in the study with uncomplicated term pregnancy, aged between 18-45 years, American society of anesthesiologist I or II undergoing elective cesarean section with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) were included. Participants with complicated pregnancy such as diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension or chronic hypertension, fetal anomaly, a history of allergy to study drugs, psychiatric diseases, coagulation abnormalities and mul¬tiple pregnancies were excluded from the study. Also, patients receiving selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were excluded.
A day before surgery, detailed anamnesis was obtained from the patients and a general systemic examination was performed. Also, patients were informed about the study protocol and written informed consent was obtained. The patients were informed that they should be fasting for 8 hours before surgery. On the day of operation, peripheral intravenous (IV) access was provided using a 16-gauge/18-gauge cannula.
After all patients received 500 ml of Ringer Lactate as preload, they were transferred to the operating room. None of the patients received premedication. Before the anesthesia procedure; patients' age, weight, height, ASA physical status, baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded. The study medications were prepared by an anesthesia resident who was not involved in the study. Three groups (n=40, for each group) were formed by randomization using a computer-generated table of random numbers. The anesthesiologist in charge, and the patient and investigators were blinded to the group allocation.
Five minutes before the CSEA procedure, Group I received IV 8 mg ondansetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, Group II received IV 3 mg granisetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, and Group III received IV 10 ml normal saline. Subsequently, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) in the sitting position was performed in all patients. Following skin sterilization and local anesthetic infiltration (2% lidocaine), 18 gauge Tuohy needle (Set for CSEA, Braun®, Melsungen, Germany) was advanced through the midline L2-3 or L3-4 intervertebral spaces with loss of resistance technique. A 27-gauge pencil point needle was inserted intrathecally, using the needle-through-needle technique. After free cerebrospinal fluid flow was observed, 1.8 ml 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine (9 mg) and 15 µg fentanyl was administered over 30 seconds. Then, the spinal needle was removed and epidural catheter was advanced 3 to 5 cm into the epidural space. The catheter was secured in place after it was checked with negative pressure. At the end of the anesthesia procedure, patients were placed in the supine position for operation and the operating table was tilted 20° to the left. Sensory block level was evaluated via pinprick test and when the sensory block reached at the upper level of T6 dermatome, surgery was initiated. If sensory block were not observed within the first 20 min following the spinal injection, spinal anesthesia was considered as failed. In this instance, additional 5 ml solution of 2% lidocaine was injected via the epidural catheter until a T6 level of the sensory block was provided and these patients were excluded from the study. Motor block level was evaluated with Modified Bromage scale (scale 0 = The patient is able to move hip, knee, ankle, and toes.; scale 1 = The patient is able to the full flexion of foot and knee, she is unable to hip flexion; scale 2 = The patient is able to the full flexion of foot, she is unable to knee and hip flexion; scale 3 = Total motor block is available). General anaesthesia protocol was planned in case of three unsuccessful attempts to reach to intrathecal space. Oxygen was delivered during surgery. Intravenous ephedrine (6 mg) was planned to treat hypotension (a 30% decrease in systolic blood pressure compared to preoperative values) and intra¬venous atropine (1 mg) was planned in case of bradycardia (the heart rate < 45 beats/minute) during surgery. In case of nausea and vomiting, intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) was administered. Following drug administration to the intrathecal space, intraoperative hemodynamic changes were recorded every 2 min for 20 min and then every five minutes until the end of the operation by an anesthetist who was blinded to the group allocation. The operation time (the time from the beginning of the surgical incision until the end of surgery), anesthetic complications such as pruritus and nausea-vomiting and the number of patients requiring epidural medication, ephedrine and atropine during surgery were recorded. Neonatal Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min after delivery and umbilical artery blood gas values were recorded.
After operation, patients were evaluated in the recovery room for 120 min. Visual analogue scale (VAS, 0 cm= no pain, 10 cm= worst pain) scores for pain severity, anesthesia-related side effects (e.g., nausea, vomiting and headache), sensory block time (from the spinal injection to the recovery of T10 dermatome), and the time requiring supplemental analgesics was recorded by an independent observer blinded to the group assignment at 30 min and 1st and 2nd hours post-operatively. In the case of VAS > 3 in a patient, 10 ml solution of 0.1% bupivacaine was given via the epidural catheter. Patients were transferred to the ward, following the motor block had regressed to the T10 level.
The primary end point of the study was the ephedrine requirement during surgery. The minimum sample size required for this study was calculated using the Russ Lenth's Power and sample size calculation application. Thirty-five patients in each group were needed to demonstrate a mean difference in the requirement of 10 mg ephedrine among groups with a power of 90% and alpha 5%. However, a sample size was determined as 40 in each group, considering potential dropouts.
Data were expressed as mean values ± standard deviation (SD) or number and percentage values. Comparisons were performed using the ANOVA test. The percentage values were compared using chi-square, P<0.05 was considered significant statistically.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Comparator / control treatment Control group consisted of patients receiving IV 10 ml normal saline. A comparator group consisted of receiving IV 8 mg ondansetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, Another comparator group consisted of receivingIV 3 mg granisetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| IV 10 ml normal saline | Placebo comparator | Drug: SalineControl group consisted of patients receiving IV 10 ml normal saline. |
| IV 8 mg ondansetron in 10 ml of normal saline | Active comparator | Drug: ondansetronThis group consisted of receiving IV 8 mg ondansetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline, |
| IV 3 mg granisetron in 10 ml of normal saline | Active comparator | Drug: GranisetronThis group consisted of receiving IV 3 mg granisetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 45 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- aged between 18-45 years
- uncomplicated term pregnancy
- ASA (American society of anesthesiologist) I or II
- undergoing elective cesarean section with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- psychiatric diseases
- preeclampsia
- pregnancy-induced hypertension
- chronic hypertension
- diabetes
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ondansetrongroup consisted of receiving IV 8 mg ondansetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline | Drug | IV 8 mg ondansetron in 10 ml of normal saline |
| GranisetronAnother comparator group consisted of receivingIV 3 mg granisetron diluted in 10 ml of normal saline | Drug | IV 3 mg granisetron in 10 ml of normal saline |
| SalineControl group consisted of patients receiving IV 10 ml normal saline | Drug | IV 10 ml normal saline |
Primary outcome
ephedrine requirement
Time frame: Every two minutes during surgery.
The change in ephedrine requirement during surgery (mg).
4 secondary outcomes
atropine requirement
Time frame: every two minutes during surgery
analgesic requirement
Time frame: every five minutes during surgery and postoperative 24 hours
blood pressure values
Time frame: every two minutes during surgery
heart rate values
Time frame: every two minutes during surgery
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Nov 2020.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Vomiting, Postoperative
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Preoperative Gastric Volume and PONV in Pediatric Appendectomy Cases
Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Not yet recruiting
Amisulpride Injection for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgery
PONV
Not yet recruiting
Binaural Beats and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Active, not recruiting
Advancing Strategies to Optimize the PerIopeRativE Management of PostOperative Nausea and Vomiting (ASPIRE-PONV) Trial
Postoperative Nausea, Postoperative Vomiting
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Effects of Different Anesthetic Sedatives on PONV in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Cholelithiasis, Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Mehmet AKSOY, Assoc.Prof. principal investigator
Faculty of Medicine, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing ondansetron, Granisetron and Saline in people with Vomiting, Postoperative and Postoperative Complications, run by Ataturk University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Nov 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
ephedrine requirement (time frame: Every two minutes during surgery.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Nov 2020.