Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 1;2020(7):CD002251. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002251.pub4

Eldaba 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods RCT
Participants 200 women
Inclusion criteria: ASA I/II, aged 18‐30 years, elective CS
Exclusion criteria: patient refusal, contraindication to spinal anaesthesia, known allergy to granisetron, patients receiving serotonin agonists or antagonists, ischaemic heart disease, chronic hypertension or pregnancy‐induced hypertension
Setting: Egypt
Interventions Granisetron versus control
Group 1: 1 mg granisetron diluted in 10 mL normal saline IV administered slowly over 1 min, 5 min prior to spinal anaesthesia
Group 2: 10 mL normal saline IV administered slowly over 1 min, 5 min prior to spinal anaesthesia (placebo)
All women received a crystalloid preload (500 mL Ringer's lactate), standardised positioning, standardised spinal anaesthetic technique and dose, standardised maintenance IVT.
Hypotension was managed with a rapid bolus of 100 mL of Ringer's lactate.
Vasopressors administered if MABP < 70 mmHg: ephedrine 5 mg IV bolus if heart rate was < 90 bpm, phenylephrine 0.1 mg IV bolus if heart rate > 90 bpm.
Bradycardia (if not associated with hypotension) was treated with 0.5 mg atropine.
Outcomes Maternal: incidence of hypotension, heart rate
Neonatal: Apgar scores at 1 min and 5 min
Notes Hypotension was defined as MAP < 70 mmHg.
Bradycardia defined as heart rate < 50 bpm.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Computer‐based randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Assignment in sealed envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes Low risk Double‐blinded. Syringed were prepared by an anaesthetist who was blinded to the study protocol
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes Low risk As above
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes High risk 5 excluded (3 from group 1 and 2 from group 2) due to conversion to GA
No statement with respect to 'intention‐to‐treat'
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Most expected outcomes reported
Other bias Low risk None evident