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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

[Ondansetron as prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting. A prospective randomized double-blind comparative study with droperidol].

Ondansetron, a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, has recently been shown, in a dose of 8 mg, to be superior to 1.25 mg droperidol in preventing postoperative vomiting. There are indications that a dose of 4 mg of ondansetron may be just as effective in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting as a dose of 8 mg. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and the adverse effects of 4 mg ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared to droperidol in patients undergoing surgery with inhalation anaesthesia supplemented with alfentanil. METHODS. Following institutional approval, 40 ASA physical status I and II women scheduled for minor gynaecological surgery gave informed consent to participate in this randomized, double-blind comparative study. Five minutes before induction of general anaesthesia, 20 patients received a single intravenous (i.v.) dose of 4 mg of ondansetron and the remaining 20 received 1.25 mg droperidol i.v. Anaesthesia was induced with 2.1-4 mg/kg of thiopental and 0.1 mg of alfentanil i.v. and maintained with 65% nitrous oxide and 1.5%-3% enflurane in oxygen. On pain stimuli another 0.2-0.4 mg of alfentanil was given. Total effective antiemetic response was defined as the absence of nausea and vomiting for 24 h postoperatively. The incidence of nausea, vomiting and the number of patients showing total antiemetic response as well as the incidence of adverse effects were compared with the chi 2 test and P < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS. Patients were similar with respect to age, height, body weight and total anaesthetic agents received. Duration of anaesthesia and the time until awakening was not significantly different among groups. Postoperatively 7 out of 20 patients given 4 mg of ondansetron and 3 out of 20 patients with droperidol vomited (n.s.). The incidence of nausea was 11 out of 20 in the ondansetron group, and 4 out of 20 in the droperidol group (P < 0.05). Sixteen patients in the droperidol group and 8 patients in the ondansetron group showed a total effective antiemetic response (P < 0.05). Postoperative sedation and well-being scores did not differ significantly among groups. CONCLUSION. Our results show that for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting 4 mg of Ondansetron was inferior to 1.25 mg of droperidol. The drugs were given intravenously prior to general anaesthesia for minor gynaecological surgery with nitrous oxide and enflurane in oxygen supplemented with small boluses of alfentanil.

Adult↗
PubMed1977

Specific alpha-adrenoceptor blocking effect of droperidol on isolated smooth muscles.

The present study was conducted so as to obtain more insight into the controversies concerning the alpha-adrenoceptor blocking properties of droperidol, a short-acting neuroleptic agent used in neuroleptanalgesia. The effect of droperidol on the vasoconstriction induced by norepinephrine, sympathetic nerve stimulation, histamine and potassium ions was studied on isolated, perfused ear arteries; its effect on norepinephrine-induced contraction was studied on isolated aorta, spleen and vas deferens. In addition, the onset and duration of action of droperidol was studied. Low doses of droperidol inhibit the vasoconstriction induced by norepinephrine and sympathetic nerve stimulation in the ear artery of the rabbit (3.3 X 10(-9) M and 1.3 X 10(-8) M respectively). At similar low doses, droperidol inhibits norepinephrine-induced contractions in the other tissues studied and has a potency comparable to that of phentolamine; its action is rapid in onset and of short duration. High doses of droperidol (10(-6) M) also inhibit the vasoconstriction of the ear artery induced by histamine and by potassium ions. These findings indicate that a low doses, droperidol has specific and competitive alpha-adrenoceptor blocking effects.

Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists↗
PubMed1991

Effects of single and long-term droperidol administration on open-field and stereotyped behavior of rats.

The effects of single and long-term droperidol administration on rat open-field and apomorphine-induced stereotyped behavior were studied. A single dose of droperidol decreased dose dependently not only locomotion and rearing frequencies in the open-field but also the apomorphine effects. Long-term droperidol administration induced significant tolerance to all parameters of activity recorded in the open-field. Unlike other dopamine blockers, droperidol withdrawn from long-term droperidol administration wasn't able to increase rats' open-field parameters significantly. However, like other dopamine blockers, droperidol withdrawn produced an augmented responsiveness to apomorphine-induced stereotyped behavior. These results suggest that the supersensitivity of central dopamine receptors developed after droperidol treatment may have peculiar characteristics.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

Effects of droperidol dosage on postoperative emetic symptoms following pediatric strabismus surgery.

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.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of droperidol as a sedative premedication for EUS.

BACKGROUND: Droperidol is a neuroleptic agent with anti-emetic properties that produces mild sedation, reduced anxiety, and a state of mental detachment and indifference to one's surroundings. Routine premedication with droperidol has been shown to improve sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The purpose of this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was to determine whether premedication with droperidol improves sedation during routine upper endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in a cost-effective manner. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients referred for EUS were randomly assigned to receive either 2.5 mg or 5 mg of droperidol or placebo before the procedure. After EUS, the physician, nurse, and recovered patient scored various parameters of procedural sedation. RESULTS: In the group receiving 5 mg of droperidol there was significantly less gagging at intubation, less retching during the procedure, better patient cooperation, less need for physical restraint, and improved nurses' and physician's impression of sedation. Significantly less meperidine and less midazolam were required for sedation, making medication costs significantly lower in the group receiving 5 mg droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: A 5 mg dose of droperidol given as premedication for routine upper EUS improves sedation during the procedure while significantly decreasing the overall cost of sedation.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed1998

Ondansetron versus droperidol or placebo to prevent nausea and vomiting after otologic surgery.

This study compares the preoperative administration of ondansetron with that of droperidol or saline solution for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in otologic surgery patients. A total of 120 otherwise healthy individuals were randomly assigned to receive either saline solution, ondansetron (4 mg intravenously), or droperidol (25 microg/kg intravenously) before anesthetic induction. Intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit times were recorded along with incidence of nausea, vomiting, pain, nausea and recovery scores, and the administration of rescue antiemetics. Similar assessments were made during the next 24 hours. Demographics were similar, but more males received ondansetron. Anesthetic recovery scores were lower after administration of droperidol than after ondansetron. Incidence of nausea was similar between groups, but severity was greater with placebo and droperidol than with ondansetron. More vomiting occurred with placebo than with ondansetron or droperidol. No intergroup differences in rescue antiemetic administration were noted, however. Twenty-four hours later, more patients receiving placebo had nausea or vomited than patients receiving droperidol or ondansetron. Fewer women in the ondansetron group vomited than in the other two groups. Ondansetron 4 mg intravenously is as effective as droperidol and better than saline solution in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing otologic surgery. No cost advantage as determined by lower use of rescue antiemetics or shorter postanesthesia care unit times was noted after ondansetron therapy.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The efficacy of intravenous droperidol in the prehospital setting.

Droperidol is used for sedating combative patients in the emergency department (ED). We performed a randomized, prospective, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy of droperidol in the management of combative patients in the prehospital setting. Forty-six patients intravenously received the contents of 2-cc vials of saline or droperidol (5 mg). Paramedics used a 5-point scale to quantify agitation levels prior to and 5 and 10 min after administration of the vials. Twenty-three patients received droperidol and 23 received saline. At 5 min, patients in the droperidol group were significantly less agitated than were patients in the saline group. At 10 min, this difference was highly significant. Eleven patients in the saline group (48%) required more sedation after arrival in the ED versus 3 patients (13%) in the droperidol group. We conclude that droperidol is effective in sedating combative patients in the prehospital setting.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Chemical restraint for the agitated patient in the emergency department: lorazepam versus droperidol.

Patients presenting to the emergency department with acute agitation frequently require physical and chemical restraint. To determine the efficacy of lorazepam vs. droperidol, we conducted a prospective, randomized study of violently agitated patients requiring chemical restraint. Patients were randomized to receive either lorazepam or droperidol i.v. A six-point sedation scale was used. Sedation scores were recorded at time 0, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 min. Vital signs were compared at time 0 and at 60 min. Repeat dosages of each drug could be given at 30 min. Toxicology screen, ethanol and creatinine phosphokinase levels were obtained. A total of 202 patients were evaluated. One hundred patients received lorazepam and 102 patients received droperidol. Agitation was attributed to methamphetamine toxicity in 146 patients (72%), cocaine toxicity in 28 (14%), psychiatric illness in 20 (10%), and ethanol withdrawal in 8 (4%). Ethanol intoxication was present in 98 patients (49%). Both drugs had similar sedation profiles at 5 min. Patients receiving droperidol had significantly lower sedation scores at times 10, 15, 30, and 60 than lorazepam. More repeat doses of lorazepam were given (40) than droperidol (8) at 30 min. We conclude that droperidol produces a more rapid and better sedation than lorazepam at the doses used in this study in agitated patients requiring chemical restraint. Lorazepam is more likely to require repeat dosing than droperidol. Methamphetamine toxicity was present in the majority of patients in this study.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Droperidol-supplemented anaesthesia decreases post-operative nausea and vomiting but impairs post-operative mood and well-being.

Post-operative nausea and vomiting is distressing for patients and can cause dissatisfaction and impaired well-being in the post-operative period. This study examined the question whether the reduced incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting inevitably translates into improved clinical status and well-being. In this context high doses of droperidol were investigated. On the one hand, droperidol is known to be a powerful anti-emetic, but on the other hand there is concern about psychological effects, both in the pre- and the post-operative period. In this prospective randomized double-blinded study, droperidol (5-7.5 mg) was compared with midazolam (5-7.5 mg) used to supplement fentanyl-N2O based anaesthesia, with respect to post-operative mood and well-being using a psychological questionnaire (Bf-S-test). Furthermore, the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting was recorded. Out of 160 patients undergoing thyroidectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, data from 150 patients were analysed. The administration of droperidol significantly lowered the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting from 77.8% to 55.1% compared with midazolam (P = 0.0059; chi 2-test). Although post-operative nausea and vomiting is an independent risk factor for post-operative discomfort and bad mood, patients receiving droperidol showed impaired well-being 6 h after surgery. Well-being scores returned to pre-operative base-line values and did not differ between the two groups 24 and 48 h post-operatively. The reduced incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting achieved with high dose droperidol does not equate with increased post-operative well-being. It is an important point at issue to decide whether smaller doses of droperidol that are commonly used for anti-emetic therapy are free of these side effects.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed1999

Combination of granisetron and droperidol for the prevention of vomiting after paediatric strabismus surgery.

This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of granisetron plus droperidol with each antiemetic alone for the prevention of vomiting after paediatric strabismus surgery. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded trial, 120 ASA physical status I children, aged 4-10 years, received granisetron 40 microg.kg- 1, droperidol 50 microg.kg- 1, granisetron 40 microg.kg- 1 plus droperidol 50 microg.kg- 1 (n=40 of each) intravenously after an inhalation induction of anaesthesia. A complete response, defined as no vomiting, no retching and no need for another rescue antiemetic medication, during 0-3 h after anaesthesia was 80% with granisetron, 45% with droperidol and 98% with granisetron plus droperidol, respectively; the corresponding incidence during 3-24 h after anaesthesia was 78%, 38% and 98% (P< 0.05; overall chi-squared test with Yates continuity correction). No clinically important adverse events were observed in any of the groups. In conclusion, a combination of granisetron and droperidol was more effective than granisetron or droperidol as a sole antiemetic for the prevention of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing strabismus repair.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2002

A randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy of intramuscular droperidol for the treatment of acute migraine headache.

In a recent case series, we reported that intramuscular droperidol appeared to be an effective therapy for the treatment of acute migraine headache. The objective of the study was to further assess the efficacy of intramuscular droperidol for the treatment of acute migraine headache. The study design was a randomized, clinical trial set in a community-based ED. The population was a convenience sample of ED patients who met International Headache Society acute migraine criteria. Exclusions included pregnancy, use of narcotic or phenothiazine medications within 24 hours. For the protocol, patients were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Patients and physicians were blinded as to the treatment provided. Patients recorded their initial pain on a 100mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Patients were randomized to receive either 2.5 mg droperidol intramuscularly; the other group received 1.5 mg/kg meperidine intramuscularly. After 30 minutes patients recorded their pain on the VAS and recorded their preference for the medication on a Likert Scale. Physicians recorded the incidence of any side effects and the need for rescue medication. Statistical analysis consisted of categorical variables that were analyzed by chi-square, continuous interval data by t-tests and ordinal data by Mann-Whitney U test. The primary outcome parameters were mean VAS score change and the percentage of patients who wanted to go home without rescue medication. The study had an 80% power to detect a 26 mm difference in the mean change in VAS between groups. Of the 29 patients who were enrolled, 15 received droperidol. Both groups were similar with respect to age (30.7 +/- 8.9 years droperdol v 32.7 +/- 9.9 years meperidine; P =.59), female sex (73% v 71%; P =.91), mean headache duration (24.7 +/- 28.3 v 18.3 +/- 25.8 hours; P =.55). The droperidol group had a higher mean initial VAS score (88 v 76 mm; P =.03). The 2 groups were similar with regard to outcome, including: mean change in VAS score (47 v 37 mm; P =.33), average Likert score (1.1 v 1.9; P =.85), and the percentage of patients who did not want rescue medication (67% v 57%; P =.61). The incidence of sedation was 6.7 v 14.3%. Akathisia occurred in 13.3% of pts who received droperidol. We found that intramuscular droperidol was similar in efficacy to meperidine with a low incidence of side effects.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Patient-controlled analgesia with a mixture of morphine and droperidol.

In a prospective study, 50 women who had undergone uncomplicated abdominal hysterectomy under general anaesthesia were allocated randomly to receive patient-controlled analgesia with either morphine alone or a mixture of morphine and droperidol. Bolus doses of morphine 1 mg and droperidol 0.05 mg were used with a lockout time of 5 min. During the first 24 h after surgery the mean (range) dose of droperidol in the droperidol group was 3.2 (1.9-6.0) mg. Significantly fewer patients in the droperidol group felt nauseated (P < 0.01) and significantly fewer vomited (P < 0.001). In the morphine alone group, 19 patients required additional antiemetic therapy, whereas in the droperidol group only one patient found this necessary (P < 0.001). Extrapyramidal side effects were not observed in any patient. Significantly more patients were of the opinion that PCA had provided excellent analgesia when droperidol had been used (P < 0.01).

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

We have performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study to assess the efficacy of ondansetron, droperidol, or both, in preventing postoperative emesis. We studied 242 patients undergoing biliary or gynaecological surgery under general anaesthesia. Shortly before induction of anaesthesia, patients received: saline i.v. (group I, n = 62); droperidol 2.5 mg i.v. (group 2, n = 60); ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 3, n = 57); or droperidol 2.5 mg with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. (group 4, n = 63). Nausea occurred in 45%, 37%, 32% and 29% (P = 0.234) and vomiting in 23%, 17%, 9% and 5% (P = 0.016) of patients in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, during the first 24 h. Groups 2 and 4 had greater sedation scores than group 1 during the first 3 h (P < 0.01). We conclude that both droperidol and ondansetron showed a significant antiemetic effect, ondansetron was not significantly better than droperidol, and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron was better than droperidol but no better than ondansetron alone.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Study of the prophylactic effect of droperidol, alizapride, propofol and promethazine on spinal morphine-induced pruritus.

BACKGROUND: We have compared the use of alizapride, propofol, droperidol and promethazine for the prevention of spinal morphine-induced pruritus. METHODS: Three hundred ASA I or II women undergoing Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, in which morphine 0.2 mg was added to a local anaesthetic, were assigned randomly to receive i.v., in the operating room, just after delivery of the baby, alizapride 100 mg, propofol 20 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg, promethazine 50 mg or saline 2 ml (control group). In the postoperative period, the women were assessed for pruritus (absent, mild, moderate or severe) or other untoward symptoms by blinded observers. We used 95% confidence limits (95% CI) for the cumulative incidence of moderate and severe pruritus to compare the groups, and the NNT and 95% CI to compare droperidol, propofol and alizapride as for their effectiveness in preventing pruritus. For other untoward effects, the chi(2)-test was used, results being considered significant when P<0.05. RESULTS: The droperidol, propofol and alizapride groups had significantly lower incidences of pruritus compared with the control and promethazine groups, while the incidence of pruritus was similar among the patients assigned to the promethazine and control groups. As for the prevention of moderate and severe pruritus, droperidol had the lowest NNT (3.52; 95% CI: 3.37-3.67), followed by propofol (4.61; 95% CI: 4.45-4.77) and alizapride (5.43; 95% CI: 5.27-5.59). As for untoward effects, droperidol and promethazine increased the incidence of somnolence, which seemed more severe with promethazine. Otherwise, there were no differences between the groups. CONCLUSION: Droperidol, propofol and alizapride, in a decreasing order of effectiveness in the doses used in this study, reduced the incidence of pruritus induced by the use of morphine 0.2 mg intrathecally. On the other hand, promethazine 50 mg was shown to be ineffective.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Intraoperative antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron versus droperidol for cesarean section patients under epidural anesthesia.

The efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol were evaluated for prophylactic treatment of nausea and vomiting in cesarean section patients under epidural anesthesia. Forty-eight ASA physical status I-II parturients requiring nonemergent cesarean section gave their consent and were randomly assigned into one of three treatment groups (n = 16 each) according to a double-blind, placebo-controlled protocol. When the fetal umbilical cord was clamped, patients received intravenously 8 mg of ondansetron or 0.625 mg of droperidol or saline depending on their treatment group. Ninety-four percent of the ondansetron group, 88% of the droperidol group, and 56% of the placebo group were emesis free. Sixty-nine percent of the ondansetron group, 75% of the droperidol group, and 31% of the placebo group were nausea free. This study showed a significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting and a tendency toward less severe emetic symptoms in the ondansetron and the droperidol groups than in the placebo group, but the ondansetron group was not statistically different from the droperidol group. This study is the first to report the antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in cesarean section patients or in patients under epidural anesthesia for abdominal surgery. Both prophylactic ondansetron and droperidol were similarly effective, and significantly better than placebo, in reducing the incidence and severity of intraoperative emetic symptoms in cesarean section patients under epidural anesthesia.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

A comparison of the prophylactic antiemetic effect of ondansetron and droperidol on patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy.

UNLABELLED: We compared ondansetron with droperidol, given prophylactically, in a randomized, prospective, double-blind study of women undergoing outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. One-hundred fifty-eight women received either ondansetron (4 mg) or droperidol (20 micrograms/kg) intravenously during induction of anesthesia. Nausea was measured at three intervals: at admission to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), 1 h after admission to the PACU, and on Postoperative Day 1. The incidence of vomiting was tabulated in the PACU and on Postoperative Day 1. Sedation was assessed 1 h after admission to the PACU. No differences in nausea, sedation, or number of patients vomiting in the PACU were found. More patients in the ondansetron group reported vomiting on Postoperative Day 1 than subjects in the droperidol group (25 vs 11). No difference in opiate use was found among patients who vomited. We conclude that droperidol is equivalent to ondansetron for the prophylactic treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy, and that significant cost savings can be appreciated if droperidol is used. IMPLICATIONS: Either ondansetron or droperidol, frequently used antiemetics, was given to women before they underwent gynecologic laparoscopy. No difference in the number of women experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting or their level of sedation was found. Equivalent effectiveness and significant cost-savings may be obtained by using droperidol prophylactically for laparoscopic surgery.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Comparative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: Postoperative nausea and vomiting are important causes of morbidity after anesthesia and surgery. We performed a meta-analysis of published, randomized, controlled trials to determine the relative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We performed a literature search of English references using both the MEDLINE database and a manual search. Double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials comparing the efficiency of the prophylactic administration of ondansetron, droperidol, and/or metoclopramide therapy during general anesthesia were included. A total of 58 studies were identified, of which 4 were excluded for methodological concerns. For each comparison of drugs, a pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI was calculated using a random effects model. Ondansetron (pooled OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31, 0.61; P < 0.001) and droperidol (pooled OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54, 0.85; P < 0.001) were more effective than metoclopramide in preventing vomiting. Ondansetron was more effective than droperidol in preventing vomiting in children (pooled OR 0.49; P = 0.004), but they were equally effective in adults (pooled OR 0.87; P = 0.45). The overall risk of adverse effects was not different among drug combinations. We conclude that ondansetron and droperidol are more effective than metoclopramide in reducing postoperative vomiting. IMPLICATIONS: We performed a systematic review of published, randomized, controlled trials to determine the relative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron and droperidol were more effective than metoclopramide in reducing postoperative vomiting. The overall risk of adverse effects did not differ.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

The inhibition of epidural morphine-induced pruritus by epidural droperidol.

UNLABELLED: IV droperidol inhibits epidural morphine-induced pruritus, but this effect disappears when the dose is increased from 2.5 to 5.0 mg. This study was performed to determine whether epidural droperidol would have a similar effect. In this double-blinded study, we enrolled 140 patients undergoing Cesarean delivery under epidural anesthesia who were randomly allocated to four groups. Anesthesia consisted of 150 mg of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:200,000 epinephrine, with 2 mg of morphine and 0.0, 1.25, 2.5, or 5.0 mg of droperidol (Groups 1 to 4). During the postoperative period, patients were assessed for pruritus (absent, mild, moderate, or severe) and other untoward symptoms. The chi(2) test was used to compare the incidence of the side effects. For the analysis of pruritus, we used the Mantel-Haenszel test for linear association. Droperidol induced a dose-related reduction in the incidence of pruritus (P < 0.001). This reduction was independent of the incidence of somnolence, which increased with droperidol dose (P < 0.05 when the incidence of somnolence in Groups 1 and 4 was compared). We conclude that droperidol, in doses up to 5 mg epidurally, induces a dose-related reduction in the incidence of pruritus without inducing significant side effects. IMPLICATIONS: Epidural morphine is effective for pain control but yields some side effects, including pruritus, that can be severe. Studying patients undergoing Cesarean delivery, we found a dose-related reduction in the incidence of pruritus using epidural droperidol.

Adult↗