-
Military Medicine May 1976
Clinical Trial Comparative Study
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Clinical Trials as Topic; Droperidol; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Promethazine; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 818583
DOI: No ID Found -
Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia Y... Nov 2015Droperidol and ondansetron prolong QT interval, a circumstance that has raised some concerns regarding the possibility of inducing torsades de pointes (TdP). However... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Droperidol and ondansetron prolong QT interval, a circumstance that has raised some concerns regarding the possibility of inducing torsades de pointes (TdP). However drug-induced spatial dispersion of ventricular repolarization has been shown to be the principal arrhythmogenic substrate for TdP. The aim of this study is to explore the effects of droperidol and ondansetron on the dispersion of repolarization, measured using the T peak-to-end interval (Tp-e) and Tp-e/QT and Tp-e/RR(1/2) ratios in surgical anesthetized patients.
METHODS
A randomized, double-blind study carried out on sixty-three adult patients without cardiac disease or factors favoring QT prolongation and undergoing non-cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to the droperidol or ondansetron group. Under propofol anesthesia, a 12-lead EKG was obtained, and 1.25mg droperidol or 4mg ondansetron was injected. Five minutes later, a new 12-lead EKG was recorded. EKG analyses were independently performed by two cardiologists blinded to the state of the traces or group allocation. QT, RR and Tp-e intervals were measured by averaging five successive beats in leadII (QT) or V5 (Tp-e). The mean value for each measurement was calculated for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-two patients (19 women) received droperidol, and 31 (22 women) ondansetron. Droperidol and ondansetron prolonged the QTcF interval (Fridericia formula) by 6.8 and 7.2ms (mean values) respectively, but neither droperidol nor ondansetron increased the Tp-e interval or Tp-e/QT and Tp-e/RR(1/2) ratios.
CONCLUSION
At antiemetic doses, neither ondansetron (4mg) nor droperidol (1.25mg) increases the dispersion of ventricular repolarization in healthy adult patients anesthetized with propofol.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Antiemetics; Double-Blind Method; Droperidol; Electrocardiography; Female; Heart Conduction System; Heart Ventricles; Humans; Male; Membrane Potentials; Middle Aged; Neural Conduction; Ondansetron; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 25887095
DOI: 10.1016/j.redar.2015.01.017 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Jul 1997In this study the antiemetic effects of droperidol, ondansetron and their combination were evaluated in 160 ASA Grade I and II children undergoing surgery for... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
In this study the antiemetic effects of droperidol, ondansetron and their combination were evaluated in 160 ASA Grade I and II children undergoing surgery for strabismus, who were randomly assigned to one of four groups: Group D received droperidol 75 micrograms kg-1, group O ondansetron 0.1 mg kg-1, group D+O received both droperidol 75 micrograms kg-1 and ondansetron 0.1 mg kg-1, and group N NaCl as placebo. Emesis within the first 24 h occurred in 95.0% of the children with placebo medication, compared with 32.5% (D), 40.0% (O) and 45.0% (D+O) in the groups with antiemetic prophylaxis. The differences between group N and all other groups were significant (P < 0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups D, O and D+O. It is concluded that droperidol (75 micrograms kg-1) and ondansetron (0.1 mg kg-1) both significantly reduce PONV in children undergoing surgery for strabismus. Neither ondansetron, nor the combination D+O were superior to droperidol alone.
Topics: Adolescent; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Double-Blind Method; Droperidol; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Ondansetron; Postoperative Complications; Strabismus; Time Factors; Vomiting
PubMed: 9253562
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2346.1997.00097.x -
Anesthesia and Analgesia 1977A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of droperidol (5 mg), hydroxyzine HCl (50 mg), diazepam (5 mg), and saline placebo, given concomitantly with... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Comparative Study
A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of droperidol (5 mg), hydroxyzine HCl (50 mg), diazepam (5 mg), and saline placebo, given concomitantly with meperidine (50 or 75 mg) for preoperative medication, was conducted in 280 female patients scheduled for minor gynecologic procedures. Droperidol proved to significantly superior to the other study drugs in alleviating apprehension (83% of patients calm versus 54, 46, and 34% for hydroxyzine, diazepam, and placebo, respectively). Some drowsiness, occurred in 68 percent of the droperidol-treated patients versus 31, 30, and 21 percent of the other 3 groups, respectively. Global evaluations were consistent with these findings. No clinically significant changes were observed in vital signs in any of the study-drug groups. Adverse reactions were unremarkable in all groups. Significantly less nausea occurred with droperidol than with other treatments, and signficantly less vomiting occurred with droperidol or hydroxyzine. Significantly fewer patients in the droperidol group than in the diazepam group required postoperative antiemetics.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Atropine; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diazepam; Double-Blind Method; Droperidol; Female; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Meperidine; Middle Aged; Placebos; Preanesthetic Medication
PubMed: 327854
DOI: 10.1213/00000539-197707000-00007 -
Journal of Pharmaceutical and... Aug 1996A reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatographic method is described for the determination of droperidol concentrations in plasma. Following extraction,...
A reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatographic method is described for the determination of droperidol concentrations in plasma. Following extraction, separation of droperidol and the internal standard flurazepam was achieved with a Spherisorb Nitrile, 5 microns, S5CN 250 mm x 4.6 mm column at 200 nm. The mobile phase was phosphate buffer (0.05 M, pH 2.4), acetonitrile and ethanol (65:20:15, v/v/v). The assay was rapid, sensitive and linear over the range 2-4000 ng ml-1. Precision of the assay expressed as the intra- and inter-day relative standard deviations (%RSD) did not exceed 10%. Flunitrazepam, midazolam and nitrazepam were also resolved with this technique and did not interfere with droperidol or flurazepam. Resolution of all five compounds was complete in less than 6 min. The assay was used to study the pharmacokinetics of high dose droperidol infusions during and after cardiac surgery.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid; Droperidol; Flurazepam; Half-Life; Heart Valve Diseases; Humans; Midazolam; Myocardial Revascularization; Nitrazepam
PubMed: 8877859
DOI: 10.1016/0731-7085(96)01797-9 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Feb 2004To compare the frequency of postoperative emetic symptoms and side effects in pediatric strabismus surgery using four doses of droperidol. (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To compare the frequency of postoperative emetic symptoms and side effects in pediatric strabismus surgery using four doses of droperidol.
DESIGN
Randomized, blinded study.
SETTING
University eye institute.
PATIENTS
82 ASA physical status I and II pediatric patients, aged 1 to 16 years, undergoing outpatient strabismus surgery.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients were assigned to one of four doses of droperidol (10, 20, 40, or 80 microg.kg(-1)) (Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). All patients received the same anesthetic management, with droperidol administered intravenously immediately after induction of anesthesia.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
Postoperatively, patients were evaluated for emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, and/or vomiting) and side effects (postoperative sedation or extrapyramidal symptoms). There was a dose-dependent reduction of emetic symptoms seen with increasing droperidol dose. Predischarge emetic symptoms were 50%, 15%, 15%, and 5% in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (p < 0.009). Peak emetic symptoms were observed after discharge: 75%, 40%, 35%, and 15% in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (p < 0.003). Convalescence times, including awakening, extubation, recovery, and hospitalization, were unaffected by increasing droperidol dose. Sedation was similar in all groups and no patient exhibited any side effects. However, when patients exhibited emetic symptoms, discharge time increased from 207 +/- 57 minutes to 283 +/- 128 minutes (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic administration of droperidol 80 microg.kg(-1) is most effective in reducing postoperative emetic symptoms without increasing time to discharge. In those patients with emetic symptoms who also received prophylactic droperidol, time to discharge was significantly delayed.
Topics: Adolescent; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Antiemetics; Child; Child, Preschool; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Droperidol; Female; Humans; Infant; Length of Stay; Male; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Strabismus
PubMed: 14984857
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2003.05.006 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Jul 2013
Topics: Antiemetics; Droperidol; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 23549119
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32835f9920 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Feb 2008To determine the practice of members of the Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) before and after the...
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To determine the practice of members of the Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) before and after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning on droperidol.
DESIGN
Survey questionnaire.
SETTING
The Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia.
MEASUREMENTS
After institutional review board approval, a survey was posted on the SAMBA Web site from June 1, 2005, until October 30, 2005. Visitors of the Web site were invited to participate in the survey. The survey was designed to elicit information about the management of PONV, particularly the use of droperidol, before and after the FDA black box warning. Participants were also asked about reasons for not using droperidol in their current practice and whether they believed that the black box warning was justified.
MAIN RESULTS
Two hundred ninety-five physicians of 1,179 eligible SAMBA members completed the survey for a 25% response rate. For PONV prophylaxis, the choice of droperidol as a first-line agent decreased from 47% to 5% after the black box warning appeared (P < 0.0001). Similarly, for treatment of established PONV, the choice of droperidol decreased from 38% to 8% during this same period (P < 0.0001). A total of 261 (92%) of responders did not believe that the black box warning was justified.
CONCLUSIONS
Although most surveyed practitioners believed that the FDA black box warning on droperidol is not justified, the use of this cost-effective agent has significantly declined.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesiology; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Drug Labeling; Health Care Surveys; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 18346607
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2007.08.003 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Oct 2001Perioperative hypothermia results largely from core-to-peripheral heat redistribution. Droperidol, which is often used for premedication, promotes vasodilation, and thus... (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
Perioperative hypothermia results largely from core-to-peripheral heat redistribution. Droperidol, which is often used for premedication, promotes vasodilation, and thus may affect redistribution of heat. Accordingly, we tested the hypothesis that preanesthetic droperidol would affect perioperative hypothermia.
METHODS
Twenty-three ASA physical status I patients scheduled for arthroscopic ligament reconstruction were randomly assigned to two groups to receive no premedication or im droperidol 0.1 mg x kg(-1) 30 min before anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and fentanyl. We monitored core (tympanic) and peripheral (palm) temperatures, and skin (fingertip) blood flow for two hours after the induction of anesthesia during surgery.
RESULTS
Before the induction of anesthesia, patients given droperidol were more deeply sedated than those given no premedication. Core temperature, which was similar in both groups before induction, decreased significantly more in the control than in the droperidol patients (0.75 +/- 0.34 degrees C and 0.37 +/- 0.20 degrees C, respectively, at 75 min after induction; P <0.01). Preinduction peripheral temperature and skin blood flow were lower in the control group than in the droperidol group, but the two variables became similar in both groups after induction.
CONCLUSION
The results of the present study confirm our hypothesis that premedication with droperidol affects perioperative hypothermia. Droperidol may prevent core-to-peripheral heat redistribution after the induction of anesthesia.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Adult; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Body Temperature; Droperidol; Female; Fentanyl; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hypothermia; Injections, Intramuscular; Intraoperative Complications; Male; Preoperative Care; Skin Temperature
PubMed: 11606340
DOI: 10.1007/BF03017349 -
Masui. the Japanese Journal of... May 1973
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Droperidol; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Neuroleptanalgesia; Pheochromocytoma
PubMed: 4737994
DOI: No ID Found