-
Journal of Anesthesia Dec 2023Perioperative shivering is common and can occur as a result of hypothermia or changes in the threshold of thermoregulation. Droperidol usage for anesthesia is currently...
PURPOSE
Perioperative shivering is common and can occur as a result of hypothermia or changes in the threshold of thermoregulation. Droperidol usage for anesthesia is currently limited to its sedative and antiemetic effects. We investigated the effects of high and low doses of droperidol on the shivering threshold in rabbits.
METHODS
Forty-two male Japanese white rabbits were anesthetized with isoflurane and randomly assigned to the control, high-dose, or low-dose group. Rabbits in the high-dose group received a 5 mg/kg droperidol bolus followed by continuous infusion at 5 mg/kg/h, those in the low-dose group received a 0.5 mg/kg droperidol bolus, and those in the control group received the same volume of saline as the high-dose group. Body temperature was reduced at a rate of 2-3 °C/h, and the shivering threshold was defined as the subject's core temperature (°C) at the onset of shivering.
RESULTS
The shivering thresholds in the control, high-dose, and low-dose groups were 38.1 °C ± 1.1 °C, 36.7 °C ± 1.2 °C, and 36.9 °C ± 1.0 °C, respectively. The shivering thresholds were significantly lower in the high-dose and low-dose groups than in the control group (P < 0.01). The thresholds were comparable between the high-dose and low-dose groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Droperidol in high and low doses effectively reduced the shivering threshold in rabbits. Droperidol has been used in low doses as an antiemetic. Low doses of droperidol can reduce the incidence of shivering perioperatively and during the induction of therapeutic hypothermia.
Topics: Animals; Rabbits; Male; Shivering; Droperidol; Body Temperature; Isoflurane; Hypothermia
PubMed: 37566231
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-023-03240-1 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Dec 2023Acute agitation accounts for up to 2.6% of visits to the emergency department (ED). To date, a standard of care for the management of acute agitation has not been...
BACKGROUND
Acute agitation accounts for up to 2.6% of visits to the emergency department (ED). To date, a standard of care for the management of acute agitation has not been established. Few studies have evaluated antipsychotic and benzodiazepine combinations.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of combination therapy for acute agitation with intramuscular (IM) droperidol and midazolam (D+M) compared with IM haloperidol and lorazepam (H+L) in patients in the ED.
METHODS
This was a single-center, retrospective medical record review of patients presenting to a large, academic ED with acute agitation from July 2020 through October 2021. The primary outcome was percentage of patients requiring additional agitation medication within 60 minutes of combination administration. Secondary outcomes included average time to repeat dose administration and average number of repeat doses required before ED discharge.
RESULTS
A total of 306 patients were included for analysis: 102 in the D+M group and 204 in the H+L group. Repeat dose within 60 minutes occurred in 7 (6.9%) and 28 (13.8%) patients in the D+M and H+L groups, respectively ( = 0.065). A total of 28.4% of D+M patients and 30.9% of H+L patients required any repeat dose during their ED visit. Time to repeat dose was 12 and 24 minutes in the D+M and H+L, respectively ( = 0.22). The adverse event rate was 2.9% in each group.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
IM D+M resulted in a lower rate of repeat doses of acute agitation medication compared with IM H+L, though this was not statistically significant. Both therapies were safe, and the adverse event rate was low.
Topics: Humans; Haloperidol; Midazolam; Lorazepam; Droperidol; Retrospective Studies; Psychomotor Agitation; Injections, Intramuscular; Antipsychotic Agents; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 36999520
DOI: 10.1177/10600280231163192 -
Pediatrics Jul 2023Pediatric mental health emergency department (ED) visits are rising in the United States, with more visits involving medication for acute agitation. Timely, standardized...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Pediatric mental health emergency department (ED) visits are rising in the United States, with more visits involving medication for acute agitation. Timely, standardized implementation of behavioral strategies and medications may reduce the need for physical restraint. Our objective was to standardize agitation management in a pediatric ED and reduce time in physical restraints.
METHODS
A multidisciplinary team conducted a quality improvement initiative from September 2020 to August 2021, followed by a 6-month maintenance period. A barrier assessment revealed that agitation triggers were inadequately recognized, few activities were offered during long ED visits, staff lacked confidence in verbal deescalation techniques, medication choices were inconsistent, and medications were slow to take effect. Sequential interventions included development of an agitation care pathway and order set, optimization of child life and psychiatry workflows, implementation of personalized deescalation plans, and adding droperidol to the formulary. Measures include standardization of medication choice for severe agitation and time in physical restraints.
RESULTS
During the intervention and maintenance periods, there were 129 ED visits with medication given for severe agitation and 10 ED visits with physical restraint use. Among ED visits with medication given for severe agitation, standardized medication choice (olanzapine or droperidol) increased from 8% to 88%. Mean minutes in physical restraints decreased from 173 to 71.
CONCLUSIONS
Implementing an agitation care pathway standardized and improved care for a vulnerable and high-priority population. Future studies are needed to translate interventions to community ED settings and to evaluate optimal management strategies for pediatric acute agitation.
Topics: Humans; Child; United States; Droperidol; Quality Improvement; Psychomotor Agitation; Emergency Service, Hospital; Restraint, Physical
PubMed: 37317809
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2022-059586 -
Emergency Medicine Australasia : EMA Aug 2023A randomised single-blind trial was undertaken in an adult ED population, comparing the effectiveness of droperidol 2.5 mg IV with ondansetron 8 mg IV for the... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
A randomised single-blind trial was undertaken in an adult ED population, comparing the effectiveness of droperidol 2.5 mg IV with ondansetron 8 mg IV for the treatment of nausea and vomiting.
METHODS
Patients were randomly allocated to receive droperidol (n = 60) or ondansetron (n = 60). Patients rated their nausea severity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) immediately before and 30 min after drug administration. The primary outcome was of symptom improvement, defined by a VAS change ≥-8 mm 30 min post-treatment. Mean VAS change and percentage experiencing desired effect were secondary outcomes compared.
RESULTS
Of 120 study patients, 60 (50%) received droperidol or ondansetron. Symptom improvement occurred in 93% (56 of 60) and 87% (52 of 60), respectively (P = 0.362). Mean VAS change was -38 mm and -29 mm, respectively (P = 0.031). Percentage of patients indicating desired effect was 85% and 63%, respectively (P = 0.006). Additional antiemetics were required for 16% and 37% of subjects, respectively (P = 0.006).
CONCLUSION
There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of symptom improvement between droperidol and ondansetron. Secondary outcomes which favour droperidol warrant further exploration.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Droperidol; Ondansetron; Single-Blind Method; Postoperative Complications; Double-Blind Method; Nausea; Antiemetics; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 36755492
DOI: 10.1111/1742-6723.14174 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Sep 2023In the fall of 2021, granisetron was approved for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management in Japan. However, the comparative efficacy of droperidol and...
BACKGROUND
In the fall of 2021, granisetron was approved for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management in Japan. However, the comparative efficacy of droperidol and granisetron in the field of orthognathic surgery has not been determined.
PURPOSE
We compare the efficacy of droperidol and granisetron for PONV prophylaxis following orthognathic surgery.
STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE
We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at a single institution from September 2020 to December 2022. Patients who had undergone Le Fort I osteotomy with sagittal split ramus osteotomy or isolated sagittal split ramus osteotomy were included. Patients were divided into three groups; the isolated droperidol (D), isolated granisetron (G), and droperidol with granisetron (DG) groups. General anesthesia was performed using total intravenous anesthesia for all patients; however, droperidol and granisetron were administered at the anesthesiologist's discretion.
PREDICTOR VARIABLE
PONV prophylactic therapy included isolated droperidol, isolated granisetron, and droperidol with granisetron administration.
OUTCOME VARIABLES
Postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) were determined through medical examination within 48 hours following surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications due to droperidol and/or granisetron administration.
COVARIATES
Age, sex, body mass index, Apfel's score, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative blood loss, and type of surgery.
ANALYSES
Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction for univariate comparison, and modified Poisson regression for comparison of PON and POV prophylactic efficacy for multivariate analyses. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Our study included 218 participants. There were no significant differences in covariates between groups D (n = 111), G (n = 52), and DG (n = 55). No significant difference in PON incidence was observed between groups. However, POV incidence was significantly lower in group DG than group D (relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.86; P = .03). No significant difference in complication incidence was observed between groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Granisetron was as effective as droperidol for PONV management, while droperidol combined with granisetron was more effective than isolated droperidol for POV management. As compared to the use of each drug separately, their combination was considered safe, with no increase in complication rates.
Topics: Humans; Droperidol; Granisetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Retrospective Studies; Antiemetics; Orthognathic Surgery; Vomiting; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37277099
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2023.05.010 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2023Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has been identified as a big (very frequently encountered) little (not linked to life-threatening outcomes) problem. Traditional...
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has been identified as a big (very frequently encountered) little (not linked to life-threatening outcomes) problem. Traditional drugs (dexamethasone, droperidol or similar drugs, serotonin receptor antagonists) each have significant but limited effect, leading to an increasing use of combination therapies. High-risk patients, often identified through use of risk scoring systems, remain with a significant residual risk despite combining up to three traditional drugs. A recent correspondence in this Journal proposes the use of up to five anti-emetic drugs to further minimise the risk. This disruptive strategy was supported by favourable initial results, absence of side-effects and lower acquisition costs of the added new drugs (aprepitant and palonosetron) because of their recent loss of patent protection. These results are provocative and hypothesis generating, but need confirmation and do not warrant immediate changes in clinical practice. The next steps will also necessitate wider implementation of protocols protecting patients from PONV and a search for additional drugs and techniques aimed at treating established PONV.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Serotonin Antagonists; Risk Factors; Vomiting; Dexamethasone; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 37179157
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2023.04.004 -
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 -
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 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... May 2024The fourth Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-4) is on the topic of the...
Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-4): Alcohol use disorder and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome management in the emergency department.
The fourth Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE-4) is on the topic of the emergency department (ED) management of nonopioid use disorders and focuses on alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), alcohol use disorder (AUD), and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). The SAEM GRACE-4 Writing Team, composed of emergency physicians and experts in addiction medicine and patients with lived experience, applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding six priority questions for adult ED patients with AWS, AUD, and CHS. The SAEM GRACE-4 Writing Team reached the following recommendations: (1) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with moderate to severe AWS who are being admitted to hospital, we suggest using phenobarbital in addition to benzodiazepines compared to using benzodiazepines alone [low to very low certainty of evidence]; (2) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD who desire alcohol cessation, we suggest a prescription for one anticraving medication [very low certainty of evidence]; (2a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest naltrexone (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking [low certainty of evidence]; (2b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD and contraindications to naltrexone, we suggest acamprosate (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking and/or to reduce heavy drinking [low certainty of evidence]; (2c) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest gabapentin (compared to no prescription) for the management of AUD to reduce heavy drinking days and improve alcohol withdrawal symptoms [very low certainty of evidence]; (3a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS we suggest the use of haloperidol or droperidol (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [very low certainty of evidence]; and (3b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS, we also suggest offering the use of topical capsaicin (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [very low certainty of evidence].
Topics: Humans; Emergency Service, Hospital; Alcoholism; Vomiting; Adult; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Cannabinoids; Benzodiazepines; Syndrome; Marijuana Abuse; Male; Female; Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome
PubMed: 38747203
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14911