-
British Journal of Anaesthesia Dec 1971
Topics: Benperidol; Dilatation; Hand; Humans; Preanesthetic Medication; Veins
PubMed: 5156314
DOI: 10.1093/bja/43.12.1202 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2010, on droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2010, on droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. 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 that 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 postoperative 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 METHODS
We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE (1950-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1981-) and AMED (1985-), using relevant search terms and synonyms. The basic search strategy was ("droperidol" OR "butyrophenone") AND ("nausea" OR "vomiting"), modified for each database. We updated the search on 2 December 2009. We performed updated searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and AMED 2009 to 2013 on 19 November 2013 and of CINAHL on 20 November 2013. We also searched trial registers (metaRegister of controlled trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct), clinicaltrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/)) on 22 November 2013, using the keyword "droperidol".
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of droperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in 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 that we anticipated might meet the inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently reviewed the abstracts for the initial review and four review authors reviewed the abstracts for the update to assess suitability for inclusion. We discussed discrepancies to achieve consensus.
MAIN RESULTS
The 2010 search strategy identified 1664 abstracts (and 827 duplicates) of which we obtained 23 studies in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.The updated searches carried out in November 2013 identified 304 abstracts (261 excluding duplicates) of which we obtained 18 references in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria, therefore there were no included studies in this review.We found no registered trials of droperidol for the management of nausea or vomiting in palliative care.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since first publication of this review, no new studies were found. 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 minimum side effects.
Topics: Adult; Antiemetics; Droperidol; Humans; Nausea; Palliative Care; Terminal Care; Vomiting
PubMed: 25429434
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006938.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Drugs 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 METHODS
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: 28715610
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004125.pub3 -
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 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Dec 2022Agitation in children in acute care settings poses significant patient and staff safety concerns. While behavioral approaches are central to reducing agitation and oral... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Agitation in children in acute care settings poses significant patient and staff safety concerns. While behavioral approaches are central to reducing agitation and oral medications are preferred, parenteral medications are used when necessary to promote safety. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of an ultra-short-acting parenteral medication, droperidol, for the management of acute, severe agitation in children in acute care settings.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series/reports examined the effectiveness and safety of parenteral droperidol for management of acute agitation in patients ≤21 years old in acute care settings. Effectiveness outcomes included time to sedation and need for a subsequent dose of medication. Safety outcomes were adverse effects such as QTc prolongation, hypotension, respiratory depression, and dystonic reactions.
RESULTS
A total of 431 unique articles were identified. Six articles met inclusion criteria: two in the prehospital setting, one in the emergency department, and three in the inpatient hospital setting. The articles included a prospective observational study, three retrospective observational studies, and two case reports. The largest study reported a median time to sedation of 14 min (interquartile range 10-20 min); other studies reported a time to sedation of 15 min or less. Across studies, 8%-22% of patients required a second dose of medication for ongoing agitation. The most frequent adverse effects were dystonic reactions and transient hypotension. One patient had QTc prolongation and another developed respiratory depression, but both had significant comorbidities that may have contributed. The risk of bias in included studies ranged from moderate to critical.
CONCLUSIONS
Existing data on droperidol for management of acute agitation in children suggest that droperidol is both effective and safe for acute, severe agitation in children. Data are limited by study designs that may introduce bias.
Topics: Humans; Child; Young Adult; Adult; Droperidol; Retrospective Studies; Emergency Service, Hospital; Prospective Studies; Respiratory Insufficiency; Psychomotor Agitation; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 35490341
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14515 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia May 2012Patients with inherited cardiac channel disorders are at high risk of perioperative lethal arrhythmias. Preoperative control of symptoms and a multidisciplinary approach... (Review)
Review
Patients with inherited cardiac channel disorders are at high risk of perioperative lethal arrhythmias. Preoperative control of symptoms and a multidisciplinary approach are required for a well-planned management. Good haemodynamic monitoring, adequate anaesthesia and analgesia, perioperative maintenance of normocarbia, normothermia, and normovolaemia are important. In congenital long QT syndrome, torsades de pointes should be prevented with magnesium sulphate infusion and avoidance of drugs such as droperidol, succinylcholine, ketamine, and ondansetron. Propofol and epidural anaesthesia represent safe choices, while caution is needed with volatile agents. In Brugada syndrome, β-blockers, α-agonists, and cholinergic drugs should be avoided, while isoproterenol reverses the ECG changes. Propofol, thiopental, and volatiles have been used uneventfully. In congenital sick sinus syndrome, severe bradycardia resistant to atropine may require isoproterenol or epinephrine. Anaesthetics with vagolytic properties are preferable, while propofol and vecuronium should be given with caution due to risk of inducing bradyarrhythmias. Neuraxial anaesthesia should produce the least autonomic imbalance. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy induces ventricular tachyarrhythmias, which should be treated with β-blockers. Generally, β-adrenergic stimulation and catecholamine release should be avoided. Halothane and pancuronium are contraindicated, while large doses of local anaesthetics and epinephrine should be avoided in neuraxial blocks. In catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, β-blocker treatment should be continued perioperatively. Catecholamine release and β-agonists, such as isoproterenol, should be avoided. Propofol and remifentanil are probably safe, while halothane and pancuronium are contraindicated. Regional anaesthesia, without epinephrine, is relatively safe. In suspicious cardiac deaths, postmortem examination and familial screening are recommended.
Topics: Anesthesia; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia; Brugada Syndrome; Humans; Long QT Syndrome; Perioperative Care; Sick Sinus Syndrome; Tachycardia, Ventricular
PubMed: 22499746
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aes105 -
Anesthesiology Sep 2013
Topics: Antiemetics; Droperidol; Female; Humans; Male; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Torsades de Pointes
PubMed: 23962938
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31829f2bad -
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 -
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