Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Droperidol”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Randomized clinical trial comparing intravenous midazolam and droperidol for sedation of the acutely agitated patient in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare intravenous midazolam and droperidol for the onset of sedation of acutely agitated patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial set in the ED of a university teaching hospital. Subjects were adults, acutely agitated because of mental illness, intoxication, or both, who received midazolam or droperidol, 5 mg intravenously, every 5 minutes until sedated. We analyzed time to sedation using survival analysis, median times to sedation, and proportions sedated at 5 and 10 minutes. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients received midazolam; 79 patients, droperidol. Survival analysis showed no difference in time to sedation (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 1.23), P=.42. Median time to sedation was 6.5 minutes for midazolam (median dose 5 mg) and 8 minutes for droperidol (median dose 10 mg), P=.075 (effect size 1.5 minutes; 95% CI 0 to 4 minutes). At 5 minutes, 33 of 74 (44.6%) patients from the midazolam group were adequately sedated compared with 13 of 79 (16.5%) patients from the droperidol group, a difference of 28.1% (95% CI 12.9% to 43.4%; P<.001). By 10 minutes, 41 of 74 (55.4%) from the midazolam group were sedated compared to 42 of 79 (53.2%) from droperidol, a difference of 2.2% (95% CI -14.9% to 19.3%; P=.91). Eleven adverse events occurred in the midazolam group and 10 in the droperidol group. Three patients required active airway management (3 patients with assisted ventilation and 1 patient intubated); all received midazolam. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in onset of adequate sedation of agitated patients using midazolam or droperidol. Patients sedated with midazolam may have an increased need for active airway management.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

The effectiveness of rescue antiemetics after failure of prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol: a preliminary report.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of treating established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) with an antiemetic acting at a different receptor with that of treating PONV with the antiemetic used for prophylaxis. DESIGN: Analysis of data collected in a previously published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Outpatient surgical procedures from 50 institutions in North America. PATIENTS: Patients (N = 2061) undergoing outpatient surgical procedures planned to last no more than 2 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 1.25, droperidol 0.625 mg, or placebo. In the postoperative anesthesia care unit, patients who developed PONV received rescue antiemetics at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist. The following antiemetics were used for rescue: ondansetron 4 mg, droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg, metoclopramide 10 mg, promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg, and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg. MEASUREMENTS: The complete response rate (no nausea, no emesis, and no need for further rescue) after administration of the rescue antiemetic in patients with established PONV was calculated. The complete response rate after administration of each of the different rescue antiemetics was compared with that after administration of the same antiemetic used for PONV prophylaxis. MAIN RESULTS: In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron 4 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher (P = .02) after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (78%) than after rescue with ondansetron 4 mg (46%). In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol 0.625 and 1.25 mg, the complete response rate was significantly higher after rescue with promethazine 6.25 to 25 mg (77%; P = .02) and dimenhydrinate 25 to 50 mg (78%; P = .04) than after rescue with droperidol 0.625 to 1.25 mg (56%). CONCLUSION: In patients who failed prophylaxis with ondansetron or droperidol, promethazine was significantly more effective than the agent used for prophylaxis for the treatment of PONV. In patients who failed prophylaxis with droperidol, dimenhydrinate was also more effective than droperidol for the treatment of established PONV in the postoperative anesthesia care unit.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Droperidol suppresses spontaneous electrical activity in neurons cultured from ventral midbrain. Implications for neuroleptanesthesia.

Droperidol is used in anesthesia as an antiemetic and as a component in neuroleptanalgesia. Its mechanism of action is thought to involve dopamine receptor blockade in the brain. The electrophysiological consequences associated with this action however, have not been elucidated. In this study we demonstrate a dose-dependent electrophysiological response to droperidol in central nervous system (CNS) neurons that express dopamine receptors that is absent in CNS neurons that do not express dopamine receptors. Primary dissociated cell (PDC) cultures were prepared from embryonal tissue dissected from ventral mesencephalon (VM) and spinal cord (SC). VM neurons were used to investigate the electrophysiological action of droperidol, a dopamine receptor antagonist, since these cultures contain neurons having dopamine receptors on their surface. SC neurons were used as a control as they do not express dopamine receptors. Some dopamine receptors are on dopaminergic neurons and therefore are called autoreceptors, while others are on nondopaminergic neurons, such as GABA producing (GABAergic) neurons. All neurons in both PDC cultures were spontaneously active. The percentage of neurons which spontaneously generated action potentials was reduced in a dose-dependent manner by droperidol (1 nM-10 microM) only in PDC cultures of VM. Exposure to droperidol had no effect on neurons from PDC cultures of SC which lack dopamine receptors. Our results suggest that droperidol modulates the electrophysiological properties of VM neurons with dopamine receptors possibly through facilitation of inhibitory interneurons. The reduced activity of VM neurons might contribute to the antiemetic and/or anesthetic activity of droperidol, since the concentrations of droperidol used in this study are at clinically relevant concentrations.

Action Potentials↗
PubMed1995

The effect of droperidol on objective markers of patient cooperation and vital signs during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective investigation.

We investigated the effect of droperidol on objective markers of cooperation and vital signs in 140 patients undergoing elective diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Procedure duration and the total doses of midazolam and meperidine required during the procedure were evaluated as objective markers of patient cooperation. The droperidol group comprised 66 patients and the placebo group 74 patients. Patient and procedure characteristics were similar for both groups. Droperidol produced a 10% reduction in procedure duration. Linear multiple regression modeling revealed droperidol to be a significant predictor of procedure duration (p = .036). Droperidol significantly reduced midazolam and meperidine requirements (p < .01). Nonetheless, four patients in the droperidol group received naloxone to reverse prolonged, excessive drowsiness. Droperidol produced a significant reduction in procedure-associated increase in pulse rate but did not exacerbate procedure-associated reduction in mean arterial pressure. Droperidol favorably influences markers of patient cooperation during elective, diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy. However, the clinical significance of these changes is unclear.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed2006

Antipruritic and antiemetic effect of epidural droperidol: comparative study between single and continuous epidural injection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to investigate whether single epidural droperidol or continuous epidural droperidol inhibit pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting induced by postoperative continuous epidural fentanyl administration, and to identify the optimal method of administering epidural droperidol. METHODS: 120 ASA I-II patients undergoing subtotal gastrectomy with general anaesthesia combined with epidural anaesthesia were randomly allocated into three groups: control (no droperidol), single injection (droperidol 2.5 mg) and continuous group (droperidol 2.5 mg 2 day(-1)). Postoperatively the frequency and severity of pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting in all groups were compared during 48 h. RESULTS: The frequency and severity of pruritus was significantly lower in both single injection and continuous groups than control group after epidural fentanyl administration (P < 0.05). The frequency and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in single injection group than control group after epidural fentanyl administration (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Epidural continuous droperidol is effective for reducing pruritus, and single epidural droperidol injection is effective for reducing pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting induced by postoperative continuous epidural fentanyl analgesia.

Aged↗
PubMed1997

Comparison of tropisetron, droperidol, and saline in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic surgery.

This study was performed to compare the efficacy of tropisetron, droperidol, and saline in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and to compare the possible adverse effects of these drugs in gynecologic incontinence surgery. Using a randomized, double-blind study design, we studied 150 women undergoing gynecologic incontinence surgery with standardized general anesthesia. At the end of surgery, the patients received either tropisetron 5 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg, or 0.9% saline intravenously (i.v.). As a rescue antiemetic, the patients received metoclopramide 10 mg i.v.. The episodes of nausea, retching, and vomiting; the need for rescue treatment; and the type and severity of adverse events were recorded at four occasions during the 48-h observation period. Pain, anxiety, drowsiness, and general satisfaction were also evaluated on a linear numerical scale of 0-10. Complete response (no PONV within the 48-h observation period) occurred similarly in the study groups (tropisetron 25%, droperidol 22%, and placebo 18%). Tropisetron and droperidol had no effect on the incidence of nausea and retching. However, the incidence of vomiting was significantly less in the tropisetron group than in the placebo group (tropisetron 19%, droperidol 45%, and placebo 57%). The number of emetic episodes (retching and/or vomiting) per patient within 48 h was significantly decreased under tropisetron when compared with placebo (tropisetron 2.5 +/- 3.4, droperidol 4.2 +/- 6.1, placebo 5.9 +/- 7.1). With regard to adverse events, the patients in the droperidol group had significantly more anxiety than the placebo group (2-6 h postoperatively), more drowsiness than the tropisetron and placebo groups (0-2 h postoperatively), and more dissatisfaction than the tropisetron (0-6 h postoperatively) and placebo groups (2-6 h postoperatively). We conclude that tropisetron given 5 mg i.v. during anesthesia in gynecologic incontinence surgery effectively prevents vomiting but not nausea and retching, while 1.25 mg i.v. droperidol fails to prevent any of these emetic symptoms and results in adverse events.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed2000

A randomized, double-blinded comparison of ondansetron, droperidol, and placebo for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after supratentorial craniotomy.

UNLABELLED: Nausea or vomiting occurs frequently after craniotomy. Because of the need for frequent postoperative neurological assessment, an effective antiemetic with minimal sedative side effects is needed. Therefore, we compared ondansetron to droperidol in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. A total of 60 adults requiring elective supratentorial craniotomy received standardized IV anesthesia with 4 mg of ondansetron, 0.625 mg of droperidol, or placebo at skin closure. The incidence of postoperative nausea, emesis, pain and sedation scores, and rescue antiemetic use were recorded at 0, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h. All groups were demographically similar. Differences existed for cumulative 8, 12, and 24 h incidences of nausea (24 h, P = 0.03) and emesis (24 h, P = 0.04). Within 4 h, when maximal effect could be expected from treatment, 20% of the ondansetron group, 25% of the droperidol group and 50% of the placebo group received rescue antiemetic (P = 0.12). No differences in pain (P = 0.82) or sedation (P = 0.74) scores were detected. Both ondansetron and droperidol prevent nausea; however, only droperidol reduces emesis after supratentorial craniotomy. The dose of droperidol used was not more sedating than ondansetron. Sustained reduction in nausea and emesis over 24 h indicates a preemptive benefit of prophylactic antiemetic in this surgical population. IMPLICATIONS: Nausea and vomiting after brain surgery are particularly troubling, because effective treatment may cause sedation, making postoperative neurological assessment difficult. Our study shows that both ondansetron and droperidol are effective in reducing nausea, and that droperidol is particularly effective in reducing vomiting. Neither drug caused more sedation than placebo.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Incidence of emesis and postanesthetic recovery after strabismus surgery in children: a comparison of droperidol and lidocaine.

The authors sought to compare the antiemetic and sedative postanesthetic effects of droperidol versus lidocaine given intravenously. One hundred and fifty children, ASA physical status I or II, ages 2-15 yr, were studied. Each child was randomly assigned to receive either droperidol, 0.075 mg/kg; lidocaine, 1.5 mg/kg; or a combination of lidocaine, 1.5 mg/kg, and a reduced dose of droperidol, 0.025 mg/kg, immediately after induction of anesthesia, which was with thiopental, atropine, and succinylcholine. Anesthesia was maintained with halothane and nitrous oxide. The incidence of postanesthetic vomiting was 22% in the droperidol-alone group, which was significantly less than the lidocaine-alone group (50%). The incidence of vomiting in the combination group (30%) was not significantly different from either the droperidol- or lidocaine-alone groups. The time in the recovery room was significantly shorter for patients given lidocaine alone than those given droperidol alone or the combination. However, the mean time intervals from completion of surgery to recovery of full alertness and to discharge from the hospital did not differ significantly among the three groups. In summary, the authors found that intravenous droperidol is significantly more effective than lidocaine in reducing the incidence of vomiting in unpremedicated children after strabismus surgery. Furthermore, droperidol did not delay either the time to recovery of full alertness or the time to discharge from hospital compared to lidocaine.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Differential block of fast and slow inactivating tetrodotoxin-sensitive sodium channels by droperidol in spinal dorsal horn neurons.

BACKGROUND: Dorsal horn neurons of the spinal cord participate in neuronal pain transmission. During spinal and epidural anesthesia, dorsal horn neurons are exposed to local anesthetics and opioids. Droperidol is usually given with opioids to avoid nausea and vomiting. A recently developed method of "entire soma isolation" has made it possible to study directly the action of droperidol on different components of Na+ current in dorsal horn neurons. METHODS: Using a combination of the whole-cell patch-clamp recording from spinal cord slices and the entire soma isolation method, we studied the direct action of droperidol on two types of Na+ currents in dorsal horn neurons of young rats. RESULTS: The tetrodotoxin-sensitive Na+ current in isolated somata consisted of a fast inactivating (tauF, 0.5-2 ms; 80-90% of the total amplitude) and a slow inactivating (tauS, 6-20 ms; 10-20% of the total amplitude) component. Droperidol, at concentrations relevant for spinal and epidural anesthesia, selectively and reversibly suppressed the fast component with a half-maximum inhibiting concentration (IC50) of 8.3 microm. The slow inactivating component was much less sensitive to droperidol; the estimated IC50 value was 809 microm. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol selectively blocks fast Na+ channels, the fast and slow components of the Na+ current in dorsal horn neurons are carried through pharmacologically distinct types of Na+ channels, and the effects of droperidol differ from those of local anesthetics and tetrodotoxin, which equipotently suppress both components. Droperidol may be suggested as a pharmacologic tool for separation of different types of inactivating tetrodotoxin-sensitive Na+ channel.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed2005

Effect of low-dose droperidol on the QT interval during and after general anesthesia: a placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Since the effects of antiemetic doses of droperidol on the QT interval have not been previously studied, the authors designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the intraoperative and postoperative effects of small-dose droperidol (0.625 and 1.25 mg intravenous) on the QT interval when used for antiemetic prophylaxis during general anesthesia. METHODS: One hundred twenty outpatients undergoing otolaryngologic procedures with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this study. After anesthetic induction and before the surgical incision, 60 patients were given either saline or 0.625 or 1.25 mg intravenous droperidol in a total volume of 2 ml. A standard electrocardiographic lead II was recorded immediately before and every minute after the injection of the study medication during a 10-min observation period. The QTc (QT interval corrected for heart rate) was evaluated from the recorded electrocardiographic strips. In 60 additional patients, a 12-lead electrocardiogram was obtained before and at specific intervals up to 2 h after surgery to assess the effects of droperidol and general anesthesia on the QTc. Any abnormal heartbeats or arrhythmias during the operation or the subsequent 2-h monitoring interval were also noted. RESULTS: Intravenous droperidol, 0.625 and 1.25 mg, prolonged the QT interval by an average of 15 +/- 40 and 22 +/- 41 ms, respectively, at 3-6 min after administration during general anesthesia, but these changes did not differ significantly from that seen with saline (12 +/- 35 ms) (all values mean +/- SD). There were no statistically significant differences among the three study groups in the number of patients with greater than 10% prolongation in QTc (vs. baseline). Although general anesthesia was associated with a 14- to 16-ms prolongation of the QTc interval in the early postoperative period, there was no evidence of droperidol-induced QTc prolongation after surgery. Finally, there were no ectopic heartbeats observed on any of the electrocardiographic rhythm strips or 12-lead recordings during the perioperative period. CONCLUSION: Use of a small dose of droperidol (0.625-1.25 mg intravenous) for antiemetic prophylaxis during general anesthesia was not associated with a statistically significant increase in the QTc interval compared with saline. More importantly, there was no evidence of any droperidol-induced QTc prolongation immediately after surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed1985

Effect of a small dose of droperidol on nausea, vomiting and recovery after outpatient enflurane anaesthesia.

Young, healthy outpatients (100) undergoing restorative dentistry and/or oral surgery under enfluranenitrous oxide-oxygen anaesthesia were given 0.014 mg/kg of droperidol or a saline placebo i.v. in a double-blind random fashion 5 min after induction of anaesthesia to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. Overall, less patients given droperidol were nauseated (18%) or vomited (7%) in comparison with patients given saline (27% and 11%, respectively). During the first postoperative hour, 4% of patients given droperidol were nauseated and 2% vomited, whereas 16% of patients given saline were nauseated and 6% vomited. Four patients given saline were not discharged from the clinic 1 h after anaesthesia owing to prolonged nausea and vomiting. The time elapsed until the patients were oriented as to time and place after cessation of enflurane and nitrous oxide administration was similar in both groups (mean +/- s.d., 13.5 +/- 4.7 min). Thirty minutes after anaesthesia, the ability to walk on a straight line was significantly (P less than 0.001) worse in patients given droperidol as compared to patients given saline. After 60 min, only one patient given droperidol and four patients who received saline and vomited took side steps or were unable to walk. Psychomotor performance was significantly (P less than 0.05) better in a perceptual speed test both 30 and 60 min after anaesthesia in patients receiving saline as compared to those given droperidol. It is concluded that although droperidol is a less effective antiemetic after outpatient than after inpatient enflurane anaesthesia, small doses of droperidol may be used for outpatients prone to vomiting to prevent delayed discharge from the clinic due to prolonged vomiting.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Intravenous droperidol causes a reduction in the bispectral index in propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia.

UNLABELLED: We investigated the effect of IV droperidol on the bispectral index (BIS) in conscious and propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia. Thirty minutes after the induction of spinal anesthesia, 20 patients were given 2 mg of droperidol IV without administration of other sedatives (conscious group). Another group of patients were sedated with a propofol infusion to maintain BIS at 60 +/- 5 and were administered IV saline (placebo group; n = 20), droperidol 1 mg (dro-1 group; n = 20), or droperidol 2 mg (dro-2 group; n = 20) in a randomized order and in a double-blinded fashion. Although BIS remained the same in the conscious and placebo groups, it significantly decreased after administration of droperidol in the dro-1 and dro-2 groups. The decrease in BIS was significantly larger in the dro-2 group than in the dro-1 group. These results suggest that an antiemetic dose of droperidol enhances the hypnotic effect of propofol in a dose-dependent manner during spinal anesthesia. IMPLICATIONS: An antiemetic dose of IV droperidol causes a decrease in the bispectral index in patients sedated with propofol during spinal anesthesia. We conclude that droperidol may enhance the hypnotic effect of propofol.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Augmented activity of adenosine triphosphate-sensitive K+ channels induced by droperidol in the rat aorta.

Droperidol produces the inhibition of K+ channels in cardiac myocytes. However, the effects of droperidol on K+ channels have not been studied in blood vessels. Therefore, we designed the present study to determine whether droperidol modulates the activity of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-sensitive K+ channels in vascular smooth muscle cells. Rat aortic rings without endothelium were suspended or used for isometric force and membrane potential recordings, respectively. Vasorelaxation and hyperpolarization induced by levcromakalim (10(-8) to 10(-5) M or 10(-5) M, respectively) were completely abolished by the ATP-sensitive K+ channel antagonist glibenclamide (10(-5) M). Droperidol (10(-7) M) and an alpha-adrenergic receptor antagonist phentolamine (3 x 10(-9) M) caused a similar vasodilator effect (approximately 20% of vasorelaxation compared with maximal vasorelaxation induced by papaverine [3 x 10(-4) M]), whereas glibenclamide did not alter vasorelaxation induced by droperidol. Droperidol (3 x 10(-8) M to 10(-7) M) augmented vasorelaxation and hyperpolarization produced by levcromakalim, whereas phentolamine (3 x 10(-9) M) did not alter this vasorelaxation. Glibenclamide (10(-5) M) abolished the vasodilating and hyperpolarizing effects of levcromakalim in the aorta treated with droperidol (10(-7) M). These results suggest that droperidol augments vasodilator activity via ATP-sensitive K+ channels. However, it is unlikely that this augmentation is mediated by the inhibition of alpha-adrenergic receptors in vascular smooth muscles.

Adenosine Triphosphate↗
PubMed2002

Adding droperidol to morphine patient-controlled analgesia: effect on nausea and vomiting.

This prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was performed to evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness and side effects of adding droperidol to morphine delivered via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device in 94 women undergoing transabdominal hysterectomy with a standardized anesthetic regimen. They were randomly allocated to receive postoperative PCA as either bolus doses of morphine I mg or a combination of morphine 1 mg and 0.0625 mg droperidol with a lockout interval of 5 minutes and no continuous infusion. The incidence of nausea 6-18 hours postoperatively and 18-24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the morphine and droperidol group than in the morphine only group and its severity 2-6 hours, 6-18 hours, and 18-24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower. The number needed to treat to prevent nausea comparing the morphine only group at 6-18 and at 18-24 hours postoperatively were 4 and 4 (95% CI 2-27 and 2-11, respectively). The amount of morphine used 6-18 hours postoperatively in the droperidol group was lower than in the morphine only group. Although the incidence of vomiting and the amount of rescue antiemetics were lower in the morphine and droperidol group, the difference was not statistically significant. Postoperative pain scores were not different between the groups. No patients were oversedated. A series of extrapyramidal reactions were observed in one patient in the morphine and droperidol group. The drug and consumable item cost was not different between the groups. We conclude that droperidol added to morphine in PCA reduces nausea. The appropriate dose of droperidol should be further investigated to reduce the incidence of vomiting.

Adult↗
PubMed1988

Conditioned tolerance to haloperidol- and droperidol-induced catalepsy.

The possible mechanisms of conditioned tolerance to the cataleptogenic effects of haloperidol and droperidol were studied in order to discriminate between "classical" and "conditioned" tolerance. Rats were conditioned by repeated administration (19-27 times) of haloperidol (1.5 mg/kg i.p.) or droperidol (1.5 mg/kg i.p.), respectively, in the presence of a sum of defined environmental (auditory, olfactory and tactile) stimuli. The animals were compared with pseudoconditioned rats, which underwent the same number of drug injections and exposures to the environmental stimuli, but neither were associated. In part of the experiments, one further group of rats was repeatedly treated with only solvent in the presence of the environmental stimuli. Rats conditioned with haloperidol or droperidol showed tolerance to the cataleptogenic effect of a test dose of haloperidol (1.5 mg/kg i.p.) or droperidol (1.5 mg/kg i.p.), respectively, when they were tested in presence of the defined conditioning stimuli. The rats conditioned with droperidol showed significantly less catalepsy than the pseudoconditioned animals 30 min after droperidol administration, whereas in rats conditioned with haloperidol, the catalepsy was less pronounced no sooner than 120 min after haloperidol administration. This was a manifestation of conditioned tolerance. In rats pseudoconditioned with droperidol, the catalepsy was similar to that produced by the drug in drug-naive rats, suggesting no classical tolerance due to repeated administration of the neuroleptic drug. The dopamine turnover in striatum or nucleus accumbens after administration of 1.5 mg/kg of haloperidol i.p. was not altered in rats conditioned with haloperidol when compared with pseudoconditioned animals.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

3,4-Dihydroxyphenylacetic Acid↗
PubMed1992

Ineffectiveness of acupuncture and droperidol in preventing vomiting following strabismus repair in children.

The antiemetic effects and side-effects of P6 acupuncture and droperidol pre-treatment were evaluated in a randomized, patient- and observer-blinded study. Ninety unpremedicated children of ASA physical status I or II undergoing outpatient strabismus repair, and aged over one year, were studied. All patients received intravenous thiopentone 5 mg.kg-1, atropine 0.02 mg.kg-1 and succinylcholine 1.5 mg.kg-1, and the trachea was intubated. Patients then received either intravenous droperidol 0.075 mg.kg-1, droperidol plus five minutes' P6 acupuncture, or acupuncture alone. Anaesthesia was maintained with nitrous oxide 66% and halothane 1.5-2.0% in oxygen with spontaneous ventilation. There was no difference in the incidence of vomiting in the droperidol group (17% before discharge from hospital and 41% up to 48 hours after discharge), combined treatment group (17% and 34% respectively) and acupuncture group (27% and 45% respectively). Corresponding figures for the incidence of vomiting before discharge were 17%, 17% and 27% respectively; these values were also not different. The incidence of restlessness was significantly greater in children receiving droperidol (63%) or both treatments (67%) than in those receiving acupuncture alone (30%; P = 0.007). P6 acupuncture and droperidol are equally ineffective in preventing vomiting within 48 hours of paediatric strabismus repair. Droperidol is associated with increased incidence of postoperative restlessness.

Acupuncture Therapy↗
PubMed2000

Additive anti-emetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron with droperidol in out-patient gynecological laparoscopy.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol, alone and in combination, administered for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing general anesthesia for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy. METHODS: Following Institutional Ethics Board approval and patient consent, 160 female out- patients scheduled for laparoscopy were randomly allotted in a double-blind fashion to receive: i) saline (placebo), ii) 4 mg ondansetron, iii) 1.25 mg droperidol, or iv) 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol combination intravenously on induction. Following a standardized general anesthesia, patients were interviewed and assessed for PONV at various times. RESULTS: During the first 24 hr after surgery, the incidence of PONV in the placebo group was 71%. This was reduced to 61% with droperidol alone (P = 0.334), to 46% with ondansetron alone (P = 0.027), and to 23% with the combination group (P<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between combination and droperidol (P<0.001) and between combination and ondansetron (P = 0.036). There were fewer requests for rescue medication from the combination group (7.7%) than from the ondansetron and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the combination of 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol is more efficacious as a prophylactic anti-emetic than either agent alone during the 24 hr post-surgery. This additive effect may be due to the different mechanisms of action of ondansetron and droperidol.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2000

Efficacy, dose-response, and adverse effects of droperidol for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

PURPOSE: To estimate the efficacy and harm produced by droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, hand-searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to May 1999) for randomised comparisons of droperidol with placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (up to six hours postoperatively), and late PONV (24 hr), and adverse effects. Combined data were analysed using relative risk and NNT. RESULTS: In 76 trials, 5,351 patients received 24 different regimens of droperidol. The average incidence of early and late PONV in controls was 34% and 51%, respectively. Droperidol was more efficacious than placebo in preventing PONV. In adults, the anti-nausea effect was short-lived, and there was no dose-responsiveness; with 0.25 to 0.30 mg the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent early nausea was 5. For both early and late anti-vomiting efficacy there was dose-responsiveness; best efficacy was with 1.5 mg to 2.5 mg (NNT, 7). In children, there was dose-responsiveness; best efficacy was with 75 microg x kg(-1) (NNT to prevent early and late vomiting, 4). Two children had extrapyramidal symptoms with droperidol (NNT in children, 91; in any patient, 408). There was dose-responsiveness for sedation and drowsiness (with 2.5 mg the NNT was 7.8). Droperidol prevented postoperative headache (NNT, -25). CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol is anti-emetic in the surgical setting. The effect on nausea is short-lived but more pronounced than the effect on vomiting. Sedation and drowsiness are dose-dependent, extrapyramidal symptoms are rare, and there is a protective effect against headache.

Adult↗