Majid Vatankhah, Saeed Kashani, Mohsen Sarafikhah, Bibi Mona Razavi, Mehrdad Sayadinia, Mehrdad Malekshoar,
Volume 83, Issue 2 (May 2025)
Abstract
Background: Aspiration pneumonia is a significant and potentially preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill ICU patients. Prophylactic pharmacological interventions, particularly antiemetics like metoclopramide (a prokinetic agent) and ondansetron (a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist), are commonly employed to reduce gastric aspiration and subsequent pneumonia. Despite their widespread use, comparative efficacy data remains limited. This randomized controlled trial was specifically designed to rigorously compare the effectiveness of these two distinct antiemetic strategies in preventing aspiration pneumonia among high-risk, mechanically ventilated patients, aiming to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical practice.
Methods: This double-blind randomized clinical trial involved 116 individuals admitted to the ICU at Shahid Mohammadi Hospital, Bandar Abbas from March 2024 to March 2025. Subjects were randomly assigned to metoclopramide or ondansetron groups. Enrollment criteria consisted of patients between 17 and 70 years old in the ICU requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation. Monitoring continued for 72 hours, with evaluation utilizing the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS), chest X-ray (CXR) results, and physical assessments. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 21 employing descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, percentage, frequency) and inferential tests with significance set at P<0.05.
Results: Chi-square analysis indicated no statistically significant gender difference between groups (P=0.947). Mean age was 30.6±10.5 years for metoclopramide recipients and 32.9±6.12 years for ondansetron recipients. Further analysis revealed no significant differences in age or BMI between cohorts. No significant difference emerged between metoclopramide and ondansetron groups regarding aspiration pneumonia occurrence, with similar incidence rates in both arms. Multiple logistic regression demonstrated that statistically, no variables influenced aspiration pneumonia development.
Conclusion: The results of this randomized trial clearly demonstrate no statistically significant difference in efficacy between metoclopramide and ondansetron for preventing aspiration pneumonia in intubated ICU patients. Both agents showed comparable effectiveness in our study population, suggesting that either drug represents a clinically acceptable prophylactic option. This finding provides clinicians with valuable therapeutic flexibility based on individual patient characteristics, drug availability, and cost considerations. However, further multicenter studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to confirm these findings across diverse patient populations and settings.
Bibi Mona Razavi, Tayyebeh Zarei, Seyed Mohammad Sadegh Ahmadi Rashti , Mehrdad Sayadinia,
Volume 83, Issue 3 (June 2025)
Abstract
Background: The use of mesh is considered one of the most effective methods and is considered the method of choice in hernia repair. However, the debate about the choice of mesh type still persists. Therefore, in the present study, the results of using ultra-light Prolene mesh with standard Prolene mesh in hernia repair surgery were compared.
Methods: The present study is a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial that was conducted at Shahid Mohammadi Hospital in Bandar Abbas. Demographic information including age, sex, height, and weight were recorded in a checklist. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. Each group used Prolene mesh in the first group and ultra-light Prolene mesh in the second group for repair. Hernia repair was performed by the surgeon using the Lebakhstein method.
Results: 119 patients were included in the study. 70 patients (57.4%) had direct hernia and 52 patients (42.6%) had indirect hernia. The mean age of the Prolene group was 43.8±7.49 and the ultra-light Prolene group was 44.32±8.91 years (P=.713). The mean BMI in the Prolene group was 29.94±3.43 and in the ultra-light Parwan group was 29.66±3.76 (P=.673). Wound infection was not observed in either group. Chronic pain was 14.5 in the Prolene group and 10.3 in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.490). Administrative retention was 6.3 in the Prolene group and 8.5 in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.738). The recurrence rate 3 months after surgery was 0 in the Prolene group and 1 case (1.7%) in the ultra-light Prolene group (P=.487). The recurrence rate 12 months after surgery was 2 cases (3.2%) in the Prolene group and 3 cases (5.2%) in the ultralight Prolene group (P=. 672). The time to complete recovery was 6.94±1.63 days in the Prolene group and 6.68±1.64 days in the ultralight Prolene group (P=. 368). There was no significant difference in pain intensity at 2, 6, and 24 hours after surgery between the two study groups.
Conclusion: Both Prolene and ultralight Prolene mesh have relatively similar efficacy in inguinal hernia repair. Although the advantages of ultralight Prolene mesh, such as pain intensity, chronic pain, and faster onset of motion, were slightly different in the ultralight Prolene group, the recurrence rate was slightly higher in the ultralight Prolene group.
