-
The Journal of Emergency Medicine Jul 2015Droperidol (Inapsine®, Glaxosmithkline, Brent, UK) is a butyrophenone used in emergency medicine practice for a variety of uses. QT prolongation is a well-known adverse... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Droperidol (Inapsine®, Glaxosmithkline, Brent, UK) is a butyrophenone used in emergency medicine practice for a variety of uses. QT prolongation is a well-known adverse effect of this class of medications. Of importance to note, QT prolongation is noted with multiple medication classes, and droperidol increases QT interval in a dose-dependent fashion among susceptible individuals. The primary goal of this literature search was to determine the reported safety issues of droperidol in emergency department management of patients.
METHODS
A MEDLINE literature search was conducted from January 1995 to January 2014 and limited to human studies written in English for articles with keywords of droperidol/Inapsine. Guideline statements and nonsystematic reviews were excluded. Studies identified then underwent a structured review from which results could be evaluated.
RESULTS
There were 542 papers on droperidol screened, and 35 appropriate articles were rigorously reviewed in detail and recommendations given.
CONCLUSION
Droperidol is an effective and safe medication in the treatment of nausea, headache, and agitation. The literature search did not support mandating an electrocardiogram or telemetry monitoring for doses < 2.5 mg given either intramuscularly or intravenously. Intramuscular doses of up to 10 mg of droperidol seem to be as safe and as effective as other medications used for sedation of agitated patients.
Topics: Dopamine D2 Receptor Antagonists; Droperidol; Electrocardiography; Emergency Medicine; Emergency Service, Hospital; Headache; Humans; Nausea; Psychomotor Agitation; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 25837231
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.12.024 -
Journal of Emergency Nursing May 2021After the increasing legalization of cannabis, there has been a rising trend in cannabis consumption, especially among heavy users. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is a... (Review)
Review
After the increasing legalization of cannabis, there has been a rising trend in cannabis consumption, especially among heavy users. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is a syndrome of cyclic vomiting related to chronic cannabis use. The difficulty of diagnosis and treatment of this syndrome has led to a disproportionately high use of health care resources. Although the exact mechanism of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is still unknown, patients typically progress through prodromal, hyperemetic, and recovery phases. Persistent vomiting in a patient who reports relief with hot showers should trigger the consideration of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome as a possible diagnosis. For treatment, antipsychotics such as haloperidol or droperidol have been shown to be more effective than conventional antiemetics for symptom control. Capsaicin should also be considered, given its positive efficacy and low adverse-effect profile. Providers must be aware of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, its diagnosis, and treatment, given the increasing prevalence. Further research is required to elicit the exact mechanism and additional therapies for this syndrome.
Topics: Antiemetics; Cannabinoids; Humans; Marijuana Abuse; Syndrome; Vomiting
PubMed: 33712244
DOI: 10.1016/j.jen.2020.11.006 -
BMC Anesthesiology Oct 2023There are limited real-world data regarding the use of droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA). This study aimed to...
BACKGROUND
There are limited real-world data regarding the use of droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA). This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic benefits and sedation effects of droperidol in morphine-based IV-PCA.
METHODS
Patients who underwent major surgery and used morphine-based IV-PCA at a medical center from January 2020 to November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the rate of any postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) within 72 h after surgery. Propensity score matching was used to match patients with and without the addition of droperidol to IV-PCA infusate in a 1:1 ratio. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
After matching, 1,104 subjects were included for analysis. The addition of droperidol to IV-PCA reduced the risk of PONV (aOR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.67, p < 0.0001). The antiemetic effect of droperidol was significant within 36 h after surgery and attenuated thereafter. Droperidol was significantly associated with a lower risk of antiemetic uses (aOR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.80, p = 0.0011). The rate of unintentional sedation was comparable between the patients with (9.1%) and without (7.8%; p = 0.4481) the addition of droperidol. Postoperative opioid consumption and numeric rating scale acute pain scores were similar between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of droperidol to IV-PCA reduced the risk of PONV without increasing opiate consumption or influencing the level of sedation. However, additional prophylactic therapies are needed to prevent late-onset PONV.
Topics: Humans; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Morphine; Cohort Studies; Retrospective Studies; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Propensity Score; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37898746
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02319-2 -
Annals of Emergency Medicine Mar 2017We aim to determine the most efficacious of 3 common medication regimens for the sedation of acutely agitated emergency department (ED) patients. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
STUDY OBJECTIVE
We aim to determine the most efficacious of 3 common medication regimens for the sedation of acutely agitated emergency department (ED) patients.
METHODS
We undertook a randomized, controlled, double-blind, triple-dummy, clinical trial in 2 metropolitan EDs between October 2014 and August 2015. Patients aged 18 to 65 years and requiring intravenous medication sedation for acute agitation were enrolled and randomized to an intravenous bolus of midazolam 5 mg-droperidol 5 mg, droperidol 10 mg, or olanzapine 10 mg. Two additional doses were administered, if required: midazolam 5 mg, droperidol 5 mg, or olanzapine 5 mg. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 10 minutes.
RESULTS
Three hundred forty-nine patients were randomized to the 3 groups. Baseline characteristics were similar across the groups. Ten minutes after the first dose, significantly more patients in the midazolam-droperidol group were adequately sedated compared with the droperidol and olanzapine groups: differences in proportions 25.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.0% to 38.1%) and 25.4% (95% CI 12.7% to 38.3%), respectively. For times to sedation, the differences in medians between the midazolam-droperidol group and the droperidol and olanzapine groups were 6 (95% CI 3 to 8) and 6 (95% CI 3 to 7) minutes, respectively. Patients in the midazolam-droperidol group required fewer additional doses or alternative drugs to achieve adequate sedation. The 3 groups' adverse event rates and lengths of stay did not differ.
CONCLUSION
Midazolam-droperidol combination therapy is superior, in the doses studied, to either droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy for intravenous sedation of the acutely agitated ED patient.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Benzodiazepines; Conscious Sedation; Double-Blind Method; Droperidol; Drug Therapy, Combination; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Injections, Intravenous; Male; Midazolam; Olanzapine; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 27745766
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.07.033 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Despite advances in antiemetics and protocolized postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) management, it remains one of the most common postoperative adverse events. In... (Review)
Review
Despite advances in antiemetics and protocolized postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) management, it remains one of the most common postoperative adverse events. In patients who developed PONV despite antiemetic prophylaxis, giving a rescue treatment from the same class of medication is known to be of limited efficacy. Given the widespread use of 5-HT3 antagonists as PONV prophylaxis, another class of effective intravenous rescue antiemetic is in dire need, especially when prophylaxis fails, and rescue medication is utilized. Dopamine antagonists were widely used for the treatment of PONV but have fallen out of favor due to some of their side effect profiles. Amisulpride was first designed as an antipsychotic medication but was found to have antiemetic properties. Here we will review the historical perspective on the use of dopamine receptor antagonist antiemetics, as well as the evidence on the efficacy and safety of amisulpride.
PubMed: 38026950
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1274214 -
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy :... Mar 2020Nefopam has been reported to be effective in postoperative pain control with an opioid-sparing effect, but the use of nefopam can lead to nausea and vomiting. To prevent...
INTRODUCTION
Nefopam has been reported to be effective in postoperative pain control with an opioid-sparing effect, but the use of nefopam can lead to nausea and vomiting. To prevent these side effects, droperidol can be mixed with nefopam. In intensive care units, high concentrations of nefopam and droperidol in syringes can be used with a continuous flow.
OBJECTIVES
The first objective of this work was to study the physicochemical stability of a nefopam solution 2.5 mg/mL diluted in NaCl 0.9% in polypropylene syringes immediately after preparation and after 6, 24 and 48 hours at room temperature. The second objective was to study the physicochemical stability of mixtures of nefopam 2.5 mg/mL and droperidol 52 µg/mL diluted in NaCl 0.9% in polypropylene syringes at room temperature over 48 hours.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three syringes for each condition were prepared. For each time of analysis, three samples for each syringe were prepared and analysed by high performance liquid chromatography coupled to photodiode array detection. The method was validated according to the International Conference on Harmonisation Q2(R1). Physical stability was evaluated by visual and subvisual inspection (turbidimetry by UV spectrophotometry). pH values were measured at each time of analysis.
RESULTS
Solutions of nefopam at 2.5 mg/mL and the mixture of nefopam 2.5 mg/mL with droperidol 52 µg/mL, diluted in NaCl 0.9%, without protection from light, retained more than 90% of the initial concentration after 48 hours storage at 20-25°C. No modification in visual or subvisual evaluation and pH values were observed.
CONCLUSION
Nefopam solutions at 2.5 mg/mL and the mixture of nefopam 2.5 mg/mL with droperidol 52 µg/mL diluted in NaCl 0.9% were stable over a period of 48 hours at room temperature. These stability data provide additional knowledge to assist intensive care services in daily practice.
Topics: Chemical Phenomena; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid; Droperidol; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Nefopam; Pharmaceutical Solutions; Polypropylenes; Syringes
PubMed: 32296509
DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2019-001856 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... May 2024Adults with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) are increasingly presenting to the emergency department (ED), and this systematic review will evaluate the direct... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Adults with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) are increasingly presenting to the emergency department (ED), and this systematic review will evaluate the direct evidence on the effectiveness of capsaicin and dopamine antagonists in its clinical management.
METHODS
A bibliographic search was conducted to address the following population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) question: (P) adults >18 years old with a diagnosis of acute CHS presenting to the ED; (I) dopamine antagonists (e.g., haloperidol, droperidol) and topical capsaicin; (C) usual care or no active comparator; and (O) symptoms improvement/resolution in ED, ED length of stay, admission rate, ED recidivism, need for rescue medication, and adverse events. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA reporting recommendations.
RESULTS
From 53 potentially relevant articles, seven articles were included: five observational studies and two randomized controlled trials, including a total of 492 patients. Five of these studies evaluated the efficacy of capsaicin cream (n = 386), and two examined dopamine antagonists (haloperidol, droperidol; n = 106). There was mixed evidence for the efficacy of capsaicin for reducing nausea and emesis. Both studies evaluating dopamine antagonists detected clinical benefit to usual care or no active comparator.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited direct evidence on the efficacy of dopamine antagonists or capsaicin for treating CHS in the ED. Current evidence is mixed for capsaicin and potentially beneficial for dopamine antagonists. Because of the small number of studies, small number of participants, lack of standardization of treatment administration, and risk of bias of the included studies, methodologically rigorous trials on both types of intervention are needed to directly inform ED management of CHS.
Topics: Humans; Vomiting; Emergency Service, Hospital; Capsaicin; Dopamine Antagonists; Administration, Topical; Adult; Antiemetics; Syndrome; Female; Male; Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome
PubMed: 37391387
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14770 -
Cureus Jun 2023Introduction Headaches are a common presentation to the emergency department, representing approximately 3% of visits. The standard treatment of headaches has consisted...
Introduction Headaches are a common presentation to the emergency department, representing approximately 3% of visits. The standard treatment of headaches has consisted of either monotherapy with an antidopaminergic agent or combination therapy with an antidopaminergic agent, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), and diphenhydramine. Although droperidol is an antidopaminergic medication, it previously was not widely used in the treatment of headaches due to safety concerns. Given its pharmacokinetics, droperidol may provide faster relief in migrainous headaches compared to more commonly used antidopaminergic agents. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective chart review to examine the impact of droperidol compared to other standard migraine therapies on pain scores. The study consisted of three treatment arms: droperidol monotherapy, a droperidol bundle (droperidol and ketorolac), and a prochlorperazine bundle (prochlorperazine and ketorolac). Patients who received medications in treatment arms and who had an encounter diagnosis including either "headache" or "migraine" were included. Patients were excluded if under 18 years of age, imprisoned, pregnant, or received potentially migraine-altering medications prior to the first documented pain score. The primary outcome was a mean reduction in pain scores. Secondary outcomes included length of emergency department stay, rates of inpatient admission, need for rescue therapies, and adverse events. Results A total of 361 droperidol orders were reviewed, of which 79 met the inclusion criteria. Of those included, 30 orders were within the droperidol monotherapy arm, 19 were within the droperidol bundle arm, and 30 were within the prochlorperazine bundle arm. There were no significant differences in reduction of pain scores, emergency department length of stay, rates of inpatient admission, rates of rescue therapy, or adverse events between the three treatment arms. Conclusion In this study, we found no statistical difference in migraine treatment efficacy between droperidol monotherapy and droperidol and prochlorperazine-based bundle therapies. Further studies are needed with larger sample sizes and predefined timing between pain score charting and medication administration.
PubMed: 37404431
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39848 -
Clinical Practice and Cases in... May 2023Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a poorly understood phenomenon experienced by amputees. The pain is typically classified as neuropathic, and there is no established...
INTRODUCTION
Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a poorly understood phenomenon experienced by amputees. The pain is typically classified as neuropathic, and there is no established first-line therapy. Droperidol is an antipsychotic with a wide array of pharmacologic activity including gamma-aminobutyric acid-A channel modulation, μ opioid receptor potentiation, dopamine-2-receptor blockade, and alpha-2-receptor agonism. Due to this broad therapeutic activity, droperidol is used for many off-label indications.
CASE REPORT
Our patient was a 25-year-old male with a history of lower limb amputation who presented for evaluation and management of an acute exacerbation of PLP. On arrival, the patient was in 10/10 pain (numeric pain rating scale) described as cramping and burning. He had been previously successfully managed with subdissociative ketamine. However, during a recent exacerbation he experienced an emergence reaction to ketamine. Literature guiding pharmacotherapy in the management of PLP is sparse and of low quality. Based on the prior emergence reaction to subdissociative ketamine we explored other pharmacotherapy options. Droperidol has a wide array of pharmacologic activity and is used off label for the management of some pain syndromes. Therefore, we administered an intravenous dose of droperidol 5 milligrams. Approximately 15 minutes after receiving droperidol the patient's pain was visibly improved, and 30 minutes later he rated his pain at 3/10.
CONCLUSION
The success in treating this patient provides encouragement for future research and bolsters confidence that droperidol could be another tool in the management of complex pain syndromes.
PubMed: 37285490
DOI: 10.5811/cpcem.1405 -
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2019In this review, we evaluate recent literature on use of ER granisetron in clinical practice as compared with current antiemetics and describe its potential uses for... (Review)
Review
In this review, we evaluate recent literature on use of ER granisetron in clinical practice as compared with current antiemetics and describe its potential uses for perioperative PONV prophylaxis and treatment. Recent literature was evaluated on ER granisetron use compared with currently used antiemetic agents ondansetron, droperidol, metoclopramide, promethazine, and dexamethasone with a focus on procedural anti-emesis. Though promising great effect, application of extended release granisetron to clinical use may be limited by it's increased relative cost.
PubMed: 31333369
DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_817_18