-
Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical... 2020To examine the impact of adding droperidol to fentanyl-based intravenous patient- controlled analgesia (IVPCA) on the discontinuation of IVPCA use due to postoperative...
PURPOSE
To examine the impact of adding droperidol to fentanyl-based intravenous patient- controlled analgesia (IVPCA) on the discontinuation of IVPCA use due to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).
METHODS
Patients who underwent surgeries other than abdominal surgeries and used IVPCA between April 2014 and March 2018 were selected. Patients using IVPCA with fentanyl alone were compared to patients using droperidol added to IVPCA. Patients were allocated to one of two groups depending on the drug used for IVPCA: 1) control group, fentanyl alone; 2) droperidol group, droperidol with fentanyl. The primary endpoint was the discontinuation of IVPCA due to PONV. Secondary endpoints included PONV within 48 hours after surgery, the number of antiemetics used, pain score, and adverse effects. Propensity score matching was used to control the differences in clinical features among patients.
RESULTS
Among the 793 patients initially enrolled in this study, 145 were excluded via propensity score matching; 364 of the remaining patients received IVPCA supplemented with droperidol. Propensity score matching showed that discontinuation of IVPCA due to PONV was significantly decreased in the droperidol group compared to the control group (P = 0.01). Further, compared with the control group, the droperidol group had reduced nausea up to 24 hours after surgery (P < 0.01), and the number of vomiting episodes and use of antiemetics decreased within 12 hours after surgery (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of droperidol to IVPCA is associated with a decrease in PONV, as well as the improved continuation of pain treatment with fentanyl-based IVPCA, similar to IVPCA with morphine. However, it is necessary to monitor the side effects of this treatment.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Cohort Studies; Droperidol; Female; Fentanyl; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 32569560
DOI: 10.18433/jpps30902 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.
Topics: Acute Disease; Aggression; Antipsychotic Agents; Benzodiazepines; Droperidol; Haloperidol; Humans; Midazolam; Olanzapine; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27976370
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002830.pub3 -
Prehospital Emergency Care 2014Since the 2001 "black box" warning on droperidol, its use in the prehospital setting has decreased substantially in favor of haloperidol. There are no studies comparing... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Since the 2001 "black box" warning on droperidol, its use in the prehospital setting has decreased substantially in favor of haloperidol. There are no studies comparing the prehospital use of either drug. The goal of this study was to compare QTc prolongation, adverse events, and effectiveness of droperidol and haloperidol among a cohort of agitated patients in the prehospital setting.
METHODS
In this institutional review board-approved before and after study, we collected data on 532 patients receiving haloperidol (n = 314) or droperidol (n = 218) between 2007 and 2010. We reviewed emergency department (ED) electrocardiograms when available (haloperidol, n = 78, 25%; droperidol, n = 178, 76%) for QTc length (in milliseconds), medical records for clinically relevant adverse events (defined a priori as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg, seizure, administration of anti-dysrhythmic medications, cardioversion or defibrillation, bag-valve-mask ventilation, intubation, cardiopulmonary arrest, and prehospital or in-hospital death). We also compared effectiveness of the medications, using administration of additional sedating medications within 30 minutes of ED arrival as a proxy for effectiveness.
RESULTS
The mean haloperidol dose was 7.9 mg (median 10 mg, range 4-20 mg). The mean droperidol dose was 2.9 mg (median 2.5 mg, range 1.25-10 mg.) Haloperidol was given i.m. in 289 cases (92%), and droperidol was given i.m. in 132 cases (61%); in all other cases, the medication was given i.v.. There was no statistically significant difference in median QTc after medication administration (haloperidol 447 ms, 95% CI: 440-454 ms; droperidol 454 ms, 95% CI: 450-457). There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events in the droperidol group as compared to the haloperidol group. One patient in the droperidol group with a history of congenital heart disease suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest and was resuscitated with neurologically intact survival. There was no significant difference in the use of additional sedating medications within 30 minutes of ED arrival after receiving droperidol (2.9%, 95% CI: -2.5-8.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
In this cohort of agitated patients treated with haloperidol or droperidol in the prehospital setting, there was no significant difference found in QTc prolongation, adverse events, or need for repeat sedation between haloperidol and droperidol.
Topics: Adult; Allied Health Personnel; Antipsychotic Agents; Cohort Studies; Colorado; Confidence Intervals; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Droperidol; Drug Administration Schedule; Electrocardiography; Emergency Medical Services; Female; Haloperidol; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Intravenous; Long QT Syndrome; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Safety; Psychomotor Agitation; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24460451
DOI: 10.3109/10903127.2013.864353 -
The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology... 2023As a result of recent legislative changes allowing for increased access to marijuana products, there have been increasing rates of cannabis abuse among adolescents and...
OBJECTIVE
As a result of recent legislative changes allowing for increased access to marijuana products, there have been increasing rates of cannabis abuse among adolescents and subsequent diagnoses of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). Most available literature on this syndrome exists within the adult population and describes benzodiazepines, haloperidol, and topical capsaicin as potentially efficacious in the management of CHS. The objectives of this study were to identify antiemetics and compare their efficacy and safety in the management of pediatric CHS.
METHODS
A retrospective review of Penn State Children's Hospital electronic health record was performed to identify patients 18 years or younger who had an emergency department or inpatient encounter, a cannabis hyperemesis-related diagnosis code, and met diagnostic criteria for CHS. Antiemetic efficacy was determined using subjective patient perception of nausea and objective documentation of vomiting. Benzodiazepines, haloperidol, and topical capsaicin were classified as nontraditional antiemetics, whereas all other antiemetics were classified as traditional.
RESULTS
Nontraditional antiemetic medications appeared to be more effective in resolving patient symptoms compared with traditional antiemetics. Analysis of all ordered antiemetics demonstrated a gap in partial or full symptom resolution between nontraditional and traditional agents. Reported adverse effects were minimal.
CONCLUSIONS
Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome is an underrecognized and underdiagnosed condition characterized by cyclic vomiting related to chronic cannabis use. Abstinence from cannabis remains the most effective approach to mitigating morbidity associated with CHS. Medications such as lorazepam or droperidol may have benefit in managing toxidrome symptoms. Traditional antiemetic prescribing remains a key barrier to effective management of pediatric CHS.
PubMed: 37303765
DOI: 10.5863/1551-6776-28.3.222 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting is a common and distressing presenting complaint in emergency departments (ED). The aetiology of nausea and vomiting in EDs is diverse and drugs are commonly prescribed. There is currently no consensus as to the optimum drug treatment of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
OBJECTIVES
To provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of antiemetic medications in the management of nausea and vomiting in the adult ED setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (January 1966 to August 2014), EMBASE (OvidSP) (January 1980 to August 2014) and ISI Web of Science (January 1955 to August 2014). We also searched relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any drug in the treatment of nausea and vomiting in the treatment of adults in the ED. Study eligibility was not restricted by language or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted authors of studies to obtain missing information if required.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight trials, involving 952 participants, of which 64% were women. Included trials were generally of adequate quality, with six trials at low risk of bias, and two trials at high risk of bias. Three trials with 518 participants compared five different drugs with placebo; all reported the primary outcome as mean change in visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 to 100) for nausea severity from baseline to 30 minutes. Trials did not routinely report other primary outcomes of the change in nausea VAS at 60 minutes or number of vomiting episodes. Differences in mean VAS change from baseline to 30 minutes between placebo and the drugs evaluated were: metoclopramide (three trials, 301 participants; mean difference (MD) -5.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.33 to 0.80), ondansetron (two trials, 250 participants; MD -4.32, 95% CI -11.20 to 2.56), prochlorperazine (one trial, 50 participants; MD -1.80, 95% CI -14.40 to 10.80), promethazine (one trial, 82 participants; MD -8.47, 95% CI -19.79 to 2.85) and droperidol (one trial, 48 participants; MD -15.8, 95% CI -26.98 to -4.62). The only statistically significant change in baseline VAS to 30 minutes was for droperidol, in a single trial of 48 participants. No other drug was statistically significantly superior to placebo. Other included trials evaluated a drug compared to "active controls" (alternative antiemetic). There was no convincing evidence of superiority of any particular drug compared to active control. All trials included in this review reported adverse events, but they were variably reported precluding meaningful pooling of results. Adverse events were generally mild, there were no reported serious adverse events. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low, mainly because there were not enough data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In an ED population, there is no definite evidence to support the superiority of any one drug over any other drug, or the superiority of any drug over placebo. Participants receiving placebo often reported clinically significant improvement in nausea, implying general supportive treatment such as intravenous fluids may be sufficient for the majority of people. If a drug is considered necessary, choice of drug may be dictated by other considerations such as a person's preference, adverse-effect profile and cost. The review was limited by the paucity of clinical trials in this setting. Future research should include the use of placebo and consider focusing on specific diagnostic groups and controlling for factors such as intravenous fluid administered.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Emergency Service, Hospital; Female; Humans; Male; Metoclopramide; Nausea; Ondansetron; Prochlorperazine; Promethazine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Analog Scale; Vomiting
PubMed: 26411330
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010106.pub2 -
Anesthesiology Apr 2018Although midbrain dopaminergic pathways are known to contribute to arousal and emergence from anesthesia, few reports exist regarding the anesthetic effects of dopamine...
BACKGROUND
Although midbrain dopaminergic pathways are known to contribute to arousal and emergence from anesthesia, few reports exist regarding the anesthetic effects of dopamine D2 receptor antagonism in humans. This study examined the effect of the D2 receptor antagonist droperidol on sevoflurane anesthesia by examining α and slow wave electroencephalogram oscillations.
METHODS
Forty-five patients, age 20 to 60 yr, were enrolled. Frontal electroencephalograms were continuously collected for offline analysis via Bispectral Index monitoring. After induction of anesthesia, end-tidal sevoflurane concentration was deliberately maintained at 1%, and intravenous droperidol (0.05 mg/kg bolus) was administered. Electroencephalogram changes were examined in power spectrum and bicoherence, before and 10 min after droperidol injection, then compared using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test and/or paired t test.
RESULTS
Droperidol significantly augmented the α-bicoherence peak induced by sevoflurane from 30.3% (24.2%, 42.4%) to 50.8% (41.7%, 55.2%) (median [25th, 75th percentiles]; P < 0.0001), Hodges-Lehman median difference, 15.8% (11.3 to 21.4%) (95% CI). The frequency of the α-bicoherence peak was simultaneously shifted to the lower frequency; from 11.5 (11.0, 13.0) to 10.5 (10.0, 11.0) Hz (median [25th, 75th percentiles], P < 0.0001). Averaged bicoherence in the δ-θ area increased conspicuously from 17.2% (15.6 to 18.7%) to 25.1% (23.0 to 27.3%) (mean [95% CI]; P < 0.0001), difference, 8.0% (6.0 to 9.9%).
CONCLUSIONS
Droperidol augments both α and δ-θ bicoherences while shifting the α-bicoherence peaks to lower frequencies, and enhances the effect of sevoflurane anesthesia on the electroencephalogram via γ-aminobutyric acid-mediated oscillatory network regulation.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Adult; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Brain Waves; Dopamine D2 Receptor Antagonists; Droperidol; Drug Synergism; Electrocardiography; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Sevoflurane; Young Adult
PubMed: 29251645
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002046 -
Journal of Pain Research 2019Acute abdominal pain (AAP) comprises up to 10% of all emergency department (ED) visits. Current pain management practice is moving toward multi-modal analgesia regimens... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute abdominal pain (AAP) comprises up to 10% of all emergency department (ED) visits. Current pain management practice is moving toward multi-modal analgesia regimens that decrease opioid use.
OBJECTIVE
This project sought to determine whether, in patients with AAP (population), does administration of butyrophenone antipsychotics (intervention) compared to placebo, usual care, or opiates alone (comparisons) improve analgesia or decrease opiate consumption (outcomes)?
METHODS
A structured search was performed in Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Directory of Open Access Journals, Embase, IEEE-Xplorer, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Magiran, PubMed, Scientific Information Database, Scopus, TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM, and Web of Science. Clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry), relevant bibliographies, and conference proceedings were also searched. Searches were not limited by date, language, or publication status. Studies eligible for inclusion were prospective randomized clinical trials enrolling patients (age ≥18 years) with AAP treated in acute care environments (ED, intensive care unit, postoperative). The butyrophenone must have been administered either intravenously or intra-muscularly. Comparison groups included placebo, opiate only, corticosteroids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or acetaminophen.
RESULTS
We identified 7,217 references. Six studies met inclusion criteria. One study assessed ED patients with AAP associated with gastroparesis, whereas five studies assessed patients with postoperative AAP: abdominal hysterectomy (n=4), sleeve gastrectomy (n=1). Three of four studies found improvements in pain intensity with butyrophenone use. Three of five studies reported no change in postoperative opiate consumption, while two reported a decrease. One ED study reported no change in patient satisfaction, while one postoperative study reported improved satisfaction scores. Both extrapyramidal side effects (n=3) and sedation (n=3) were reported as unchanged.
CONCLUSION
Based on available evidence, we cannot draw a conclusion on the efficacy or benefit of neuroleptanalgesia in the management of patients with AAP. However, preliminary data suggest that it may improve analgesia and decrease opiate consumption.
PubMed: 30881092
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S187798 -
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 -
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