-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2010Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal illness and can be very unpleasant and distressing. There are several different types of antiemetic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal illness and can be very unpleasant and distressing. There are several different types of antiemetic treatments which can be used to control these symptoms. Droperidol is an antipsychotic drug and has been used and studied as an antiemetic in the management of post-operative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. The basic search strategy was ("droperidol" OR "butyrophenone") AND ("nausea" OR "vomiting"), modified for each database. The search was updated on 2 December 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of droperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, for adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We judged the potential relevance of studies based on their titles and abstracts, and obtained studies which we anticipated might meet the inclusion criteria. We both read these to assess suitability for inclusion. Discrepancies were discussed to achieve consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
The search strategy identified 1664 abstracts (and 827 duplicates) of which 23 studies were obtained in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, no studies were identified which met the inclusion criteria, therefore, there were no included studies in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to advise on the use of droperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Studies of antiemetics in palliative care settings are needed to identify which agents are most effective with a minimum of side effects.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Humans; Nausea; Palliative Care; Terminal Care; Vomiting
PubMed: 20927752
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006938.pub2 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Dec 2010despite the introduction of newer antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), perphenazine is recommended in current guidelines, as the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
despite the introduction of newer antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), perphenazine is recommended in current guidelines, as the concept of multimodal management of PONV in high-risk patients requires more than two drugs to be combined. The aim of this quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of perphenazine in the prophylaxis of PONV in adults and children.
METHODS
randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of perphenazine in the prevention of PONV in comparison with any other drug or placebo were systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Dichotomous data on the efficacy and adverse effects were combined and relative risks (RRs) as well as corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS
eleven trials published between 1965 and 1999 including a total of 2081 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were further analysed. In children, perphenazine 0.07 mg kg was effective in preventing vomiting (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.54), whereas in adults, a dose of about 5 mg was effective for the prevention of PONV (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.67). When compared with established newer drugs, for example, ondansetron, dexamethasone or droperidol, no significant differences were observed in the pooled analysis with limited data. Reporting of adverse events was poor. Transient sedation was reported in three eligible trials (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.40-2.05).
CONCLUSION
there is evidence that perphenazine is effective in the prevention of PONV in children and adults without serious adverse effects compared with placebo.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Child; Humans; Perphenazine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors
PubMed: 20739894
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32833b7969 -
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Nov 2006To determine which antipsychotic is associated with the greatest efficacy and safety when used for the pharmacotherapeutic management of delirium in medically or... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine which antipsychotic is associated with the greatest efficacy and safety when used for the pharmacotherapeutic management of delirium in medically or surgically ill patients.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Current Contents, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Biological Abstracts, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases (all to July 2006) were searched for trials evaluating the pharmacologic treatment of delirium in medically or surgically ill patients. The key terms used included delirium, agitation, or acute confusion, and antipsychotics, phenothiazine, butyrophenone, perphenazine, fluphenazine, clozapine, trifluorophenazine, loxapine, thioridazine, pimozide, molindone, haloperidol, methotrimeprazine, chlorpromazine, prochlorperazine, droperidol, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, amisulpride, or olanzapine.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing the clinical effects of antipsychotic therapy with placebo or comparing 2 antipsychotic treatments in an acute care setting were selected. Studies involving dementia-associated delirium, Alzheimer's disease-associated delirium, emergency department-associated acute agitation, acute brain trauma-associated agitation, or agitation secondary to underlying psychiatric afflictions such as depression or schizophrenia were excluded. All studies were evaluated independently by the 3 authors using a validated evaluation tool. Outcomes related to both efficacy and safety were collected. Four prospective trials were included in this systematic review.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Antipsychotic agents, either atypical or typical, were effective compared with baseline for the treatment of delirium in medically or surgically ill patients without underlying cognitive disorders. Oral haloperidol was associated with more frequent extrapyramidal side effects, but overall, all agents were well tolerated. Interpretation of the published evidence is limited by the small sample sizes, varied patient populations, and comparative agents of the studies reviewed.
CONCLUSIONS
The comparative studies evaluated here suggest that antipsychotic drugs are efficacious, when compared with baseline, and safe for the treatment of delirium. Haloperidol remains the most studied agent. Recommendation of one antipsychotic over another as a first-line pharmacologic intervention in the treatment of hospital-associated delirium is limited by the quality and quantity of data available. Better designed and larger studies evaluating the addition of antipsychotic agents to nonpharmacologic treatments are needed to measure the true effect of pharmacologic treatment.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Delirium; Haloperidol; Hospital Departments; Hospitalization; Humans; Surgery Department, Hospital
PubMed: 17047137
DOI: 10.1345/aph.1H241 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2006Postoperative vomiting (POV) remains one of the commonest causes of significant morbidity after tonsillectomy in children. A variety of prophylactic anti-emetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Postoperative vomiting (POV) remains one of the commonest causes of significant morbidity after tonsillectomy in children. A variety of prophylactic anti-emetic interventions have been reported, but there has only been a limited systematic review in this patient group. A systematic search was performed by using Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of prophylactic anti-emetic interventions in children undergoing tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy. The outcome of interest was POV in the first 24 h. Summary estimates of the effect of each prophylactic anti-emetic strategy were derived using fixed effect meta-analysis. Where appropriate, dose-response effects were estimated using logistic regression and 22 articles were identified. Good evidence was found for the prophylactic anti-emetic effect of dexamethasone [odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% CI 0.16-0.33], and the serotinergic antagonists ondansetron (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.29-0.46), granisetron (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.06-0.19), tropisetron (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.35) and dolasetron (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.1-0.59). Metoclopramide was also found to be efficacious (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.77). There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that dimenhydrinate, perphenazine or droperidol, in the doses studied, are efficacious, nor were gastric aspiration or acupuncture. In conclusion, dexamethasone and the anti-serotinergic agents appear to be the most effective agents for the prophylaxis for POV in children undergoing tonsillectomy.
Topics: Antiemetics; Child; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin Antagonists; Tonsillectomy
PubMed: 17005507
DOI: 10.1093/bja/ael256 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2006Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.
Topics: Antiemetics; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16856030
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004125.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2004People suffering from acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
People suffering from acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone neuroleptic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of droperidol compared to other treatments for controlling disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms for people with suspected acute psychotic illnesses.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (September 2003). References of all identified studies were searched for further trial citations and authors of trials were contacted. Twenty-one other databases were also searched as part of a broader project and this composite database was searched for this review. This was supplemented by hand searching reference lists and contacting both the pharmacological industry and relevant authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The review included randomised controlled trials comparing droperidol to any other treatment for people 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
Relevant studies were selected for inclusion, their quality was assessed and data extracted. Data were excluded when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes, standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Where possible, weighted number needed to treat or harm statistics (NNT, NNH), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified only two relevant trials. One additional study focused on outcomes at 30 days rather than at a few hours. One small (n = 41) randomised trial compared intravenous (iv) droperidol (10 mg) with iv placebo and found that people allocated to droperidol were significantly less likely to need additional injections of another drug, haloperidol, in the first few minutes (n = 41, RR 0.37 CI 0.2 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 1 to 10) compared to those given placebo. By 90 minutes this difference was still evident but not statistically significant (RR 0.46 CI 0.2 to 1.2). When 5 mg intramuscular (im) droperidol was compared with 5 mg im haloperidol, those given droperidol were also less likely to need additional injections by 30 minutes, than those given haloperidol, but this result was not statistically significant (n = 27, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 1.01). One person out of the 16 given haloperidol experienced a mild dystonic reaction (muscle spasms or abnormal contractions), while none of the 11 people allocated to droperidol were reported to have experienced adverse effects.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS
This is an important, and surprisingly under-researched, area. To date, use of droperidol for emergency situations has been justified by experience rather than evidence from well conducted and reported randomised trials, but, as world reserves diminish, droperidol will no longer be a treatment option.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antipsychotic Agents; Droperidol; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 15495037
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002830.pub2 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Apr 2004The aim of this quantitative systematic review is to compare the efficacy and side effects of combining one of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT) with droperidol or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists combined with droperidol for PONV prophylaxis is similar to their combination with dexamethasone. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
The aim of this quantitative systematic review is to compare the efficacy and side effects of combining one of the 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (5-HT) with droperidol or dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials that compared the antiemetic efficacy of combining one of the 5-HT with droperidol or dexamethasone vs 5-HT alone. Relevant endpoints were prevention of early (0 to 6 hr), and overall (0 to 24 hr) PONV, and side effects. The articles that could meet the inclusion criteria were scored for inclusion and methodological validity using the three-item, five-point, Oxford-scale. Relative risk and numbers needed-to-treat with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each combination vs 5-HT alone. The two combinations were then indirectly compared. A random effects model was used.
RESULTS
We considered 41 trials for analysis but subsequently excluded eight. Thirty-three trials with data from 3,447 patients were analyzed. Except for early nausea with the 5-HT plus droperidol, both combinations were significantly more effective than 5-HT in preventing early and overall PONV. There was no difference in antiemetic efficacy between the two combinations. The incidence of commonly reported side effects was also similar in the two combination groups.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that there is no statistically significant difference in antiemetic efficacy or side effects profile when one of the 5-HT is combined with either droperidol or dexamethasone and that both combination regimens are significantly more effective than 5-HT alone.
Topics: Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Droperidol; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists; Serotonin Antagonists; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 15064259
DOI: 10.1007/BF03018234 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Jun 2001Numerous drugs have been used to prevent or to treat opioid-induced pruritus in the surgical setting. Their relative efficacy is not well understood. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Numerous drugs have been used to prevent or to treat opioid-induced pruritus in the surgical setting. Their relative efficacy is not well understood.
METHODS
The methods employed involved the systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, bibliographies, without language restriction, up to June 2000) for full reports of randomized comparisons of any intervention which is thought to be anti-pruritic (active) compared with placebo or no treatment (control) in surgical (including labour) patients receiving opioids. The number of patients who had no pruritus were analysed using relative risk and number-needed-to-treat with 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
Twenty-two trials (1477 patients) were analysed. Two trials (66 patients), both with low-dose propofol, were on treatment of established pruritus; propofol had no anti-pruritic effect compared with Intralipid. In prophylaxis trials, the average incidence of pruritus with control was 59% (range, 10% to 100%). Most mu-receptor antagonists were efficacious: intravenous naloxone 0.25-2.4 microg kg-1 h-1, relative risk 2.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.54), number-needed-to-treat to prevent pruritus compared with control 3.5; oral naltrexone 9 mg, relative risk 2.80 (1.35-5.80), number-needed-to-treat 1.7; naltrexone 6 mg was less effective and 3 mg did not work; different intravenous and epidural nalbuphine regimens, relative risk 1.71 (1.12-2.62), number-needed-to-treat 4.2. Intravenous nalmefene 0.5 or 1 mg was not anti-pruritic. Intravenous (but not epidural) droperidol 2.5 mg was efficacious, relative risk, 1.71 (1.28-2.29), number-needed-to-treat 4.9. There was a lack of evidence for any anti-pruritic efficacy with prophylactic propofol, epidural or intrathecal epinephrine, epidural clonidine, epidural prednisone, intravenous ondansetron, or intramuscular hydroxyzine.
CONCLUSION
Naloxone, naltrexone, nalbuphine and droperidol are efficacious in the prevention of opioid-induced pruritus; minimal effective doses remain unknown. There is a lack of valid data on the efficacy of interventions for the treatment of established pruritus.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Naloxone; Narcotic Antagonists; Pruritus
PubMed: 11412287
DOI: 10.1046/j.0265-0215.2000.00826.x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2001People with acute psychotic illnesses, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
People with acute psychotic illnesses, especially when associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone neuroleptic, is used for this purpose in several countries.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effects of droperidol when compared to other treatments for controlling disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms for people with suspected acute psychotic illnesses.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2000), The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (May 2000), EMBASE (1980-2000), MEDLINE (1966-2000), PASCAL (1973-2000) and PsycLIT (1970-2000) were methodically searched. Twenty-one other databases were also searched as part of a broader project and this composite database was searched for this review. This was supplemented by hand searching reference lists, contacting industry and relevant authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing droperidol to any treatment, for people with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, manic phase of bipolar disorder or brief psychotic episode.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Studies were reliably selected, quality assessed and data extracted. Data were excluded where more than 50% of participants were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes, standard estimations of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Where possible, weighted number needed to treat or harm statistics (NNT, NNH), and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), were also calculated.
MAIN RESULTS
Only two clearly relevant randomised trials with usable data were identified. One additional study was included but focused on outcomes at 30 days rather than a few hours. One small (n=41) randomised trial compared droperidol (10mg IV) with placebo IV and found that people allocated to droperidol were significantly less likely to need additional haloperidol injections in the first few minutes (n=41, RR 0.37 CI 0.2 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 1 to 10) than those given placebo. By 90 minutes this difference was still evident but not statistically significant (RR 0.46 CI 0.2 to 1.2). When 5mg IM droperidol was compared to 5mg IM haloperidol people given droperidol were again less likely to need additional injections by 30 minutes, than those given haloperidol, but this result did not quite reach conventional levels of statistical significance (n=27, RR 0.45 CI 0.2 to 1.01). One person out of 16 given haloperidol experienced a mild dystonic reaction, and none of the 11 people allocated to droperidol were reported to have experienced adverse effects.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
This is an important and surprisingly under-researched area. Use of droperidol for the emergency situation is currently justified on experience rather than evidence from well conducted and reported randomised trials.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antipsychotic Agents; Droperidol; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 11406047
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002830 -
Yakugaku Zasshi : Journal of the... Feb 2001Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with morphine therapy develops in more than 60% of patients after surgery, markedly reducing patient QOL. The prophylactic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with morphine therapy develops in more than 60% of patients after surgery, markedly reducing patient QOL. The prophylactic effect of several antiemetics has already been studied, but evaluations, and even those using the same drug, are not uniform. The present research involved a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on prophylactic drug therapy for PONV in patients receiving morphine for the treatment of postoperative pain. The efficacy of the prophylactic administration of the drugs was examined. As a result, meta-analysis of five drugs was possible and the evidence of efficacy was shown for three drugs ranked in order of an increasing odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI): dexamethasone (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.15-0.35, p < 0.00001), droperidol (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.00001), and metoclopramide (OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.75, p < 0.001). These results suggest that the three drugs are effective in prophylactic treatment for PONV. Of them, dexamethasone used as a prophylactic drug for PONV provided the best results. Dexamethasone was shown to reduce the incidence of PONV from 66-80% to 16-50% with a dose of 1.25 to 10 mg and to be suitable as a first drug of choice.
Topics: Antiemetics; Dexamethasone; Droperidol; Humans; Metoclopramide; Morphine; Ondansetron; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 11218733
DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.121.179