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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed1983

Droperidol stability in intravenous admixtures.

The stability and compatibility of droperidol in small-volume i.v. admixtures was assessed. Droperidol was diluted to a nominal concentration of 1 mg/50 ml in 5% dextrose injection, 0.9% sodium chloride injection, and lactated Ringer's injection in type I glass bottles and polyvinyl chloride bags. Triplicate samples of each admixture were stored under continuous illumination at 27 +/- 2 degrees C. Specimens from each sample were tested by spectrophotometric assay at intervals during storage periods of up to 272 hours for admixtures containing 5% dextrose injection and 0.9% sodium chloride injection and up to 168 hours for admixtures containing lactated Ringer's injection. Between 48 and 168 hours of storage, a 7% increase was observed in droperidol concentration in 0.9% sodium chloride admixtures in polyvinyl chloride bags. A 24% decrease in droperidol concentration in lactated Ringer's admixtures in polyvinyl chloride bags between 24 and 168 hours was attributed to sorption of droperidol by the plastic container. In all admixtures except those containing lactated Ringer's injection in polyvinyl chloride bags, droperidol concentrations throughout the storage period were within 10% of initial concentrations. Droperidol is stable in the admixtures studied for 7 to 10 days in glass bottles. In polyvinyl chloride bags, concentrations in admixtures containing 5% dextrose injection and 0.9% sodium chloride injection are stable for seven days, but concentrations decrease significantly in lactated Ringer's admixtures.

Droperidol↗
PubMed1991

Antiemetic prophylaxis with promethazine or droperidol in paediatric outpatient strabismus surgery.

This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the antiemetic efficacy and the side-effects of promethazine pretreatment (0.5 mg.kg-1 IV + 0.5 mg.kg-1 IM) versus droperidol + placebo pretreatment (droperidol, 0.075 mg.kg-1 IV + physiological saline, 0.02 ml.kg-1 IM). One hundred unpremedicated ASA physical status I children ranging from two to ten years, and undergoing outpatient strabismus surgery were studied. All children received inhalational anaesthesia with halothane, nitrous oxide and oxygen. Neither opioids nor muscle relaxants were used. The incidence of vomiting and/or retching and the incidence of side-effects were determined in the post-anaesthesia recovery room (PARR), in the short-stay surgical unit (SSSU), and after discharge from the hospital (including the journey and the stay at home during the first postoperative day). Promethazine and droperidol were equally effective in reducing the incidence of vomiting before discharge to two and eight per cent respectively. On the contrary, the incidence of vomiting after discharge and overall were significantly less with promethazine (ten and ten per cent) than with droperidol pretreatment (54 and 56 per cent) (P less than 0.0001). Promethazine permitted the time to discharge from the hospital to be reduced to an average of three hours, without increasing the incidence of vomiting postdischarge. Promethazine pretreatment is much less expensive than droperidol pretreatment. The incidence of restlessness was significantly less with droperidol (eight per cent) than with promethazine (36 per cent) (P less than 0.001). Promethazine pretreatment demands the use of an analgesic like acetaminophen in order to reduce the incidence of postoperative pain and restlessness.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Ambulatory Surgical Procedures↗
PubMed1988

The effect of preoperative oral droperidol on the incidence of postoperative emesis after paediatric strabismus surgery.

Most children vomit after strabismus surgery. Administration of intravenous droperidol to unpremedicated paediatric patients following induction but prior to eye manipulation markedly reduces the incidence of postoperative emesis. This study tested the hypothesis that even earlier administration of droperidol, orally as a component of an oral premedication, would further reduce the incidence of postoperative emesis in this group of patients. Sixty-five patients were randomized into three premedication groups. One group received the standard oral premedication used for all outpatients at our institution (meperidine 1.5 mg.kg-1, diazepam 0.15 mg.kg-1, atropine 0.02 mg.kg-1). In the other two groups, droperidol in a dose of 50 or 75 micrograms.kg-1 was substituted for the diazepam. Droperidol-treated groups demonstrated a significantly lower incidence of vomiting prior to hospital discharge compared to the groups that received the standard oral premedication (standard--73 per cent, 50 micrograms.kg-1 droperidol--33 per cent, 75 micrograms.kg-1 droperidol--36 per cent) without prolonging hospital stay.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1995

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with granisetron: a randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol.

The effects of granisetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting were investigated in a randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol and placebo in 100 patients undergoing general anaesthesia for major gynaecological surgery. The patients received a single dose of either granisetron (40 micrograms x kg(-1), n = 25), droperidol (1.25 mg, n = 25; 2.5 mg n = 25) or placebo (saline, n = 25)iv over two to five minutes immediately before induction of anaesthesia. The antiemetic effects of these drugs were evaluated during the first three and the next 21 hr after recovery from anaesthesia. During 0-3 hr after anaesthesia, the frequency of nausea and vomiting was 60%, 12%, 16% and 12% after administration of placebo, granisetron, droperiodol 1.25 mg or droperidol 2.5 mg, respectively. The corresponding frequencies during 3-24 hr after anaesthesia were 44%, 8%, 36% and 12%. The efficacy of granisetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting was almost equal to that of droperidol 2.5 mg. The awakening time in the patients who had received droperidol 2.5 was prolonged by approximately three minutes compared with the placebo group (P <0.05), and postoperative drowsiness/sedation was observed in these patients. In conclusion, preoperative prophylactic administration of granisetron is superior to that of droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after anaesthesia.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

A comparison of ranitidine, droperidol or placebo in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after hysterectomy.

PURPOSE: The effect of ranitidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was assessed when compared with droperidol and with placebo. METHODS: Three groups of sixty patients were studied in a double-blind randomized manner. The first group received ranitidine tablets 300 mg on the night before and on the following morning, one hour before induction of anaesthesia. Thirty minutes before surgery ended they were given isotonic saline 0.3 ml iv. The second group had placebo in place of ranitidine while before the operation ended, droperidol 0.75 mg (0.3 ml) was injected. The third group received placebos rather than the study drugs. The immediate two-hour postoperative recovery room period and that on the ward were evaluated until the next morning. PONV information was gathered from complaints by the patients and from direct questioning by the nursing staff. Droperidol 0.75 mg iv served as the "rescue drug." RESULTS: Less PONV occurred in patients who received anti-emetics than those given placebo: recovery room, P = 0.0109; ward, P = 0.007. Droperidol better suppressed PONV in the recovery room (P = 0.005) with no statistical significance seen between ranitidine and placebo. On the ward, both anti-emetics were more effective than placebo (ranitidine, P = 0.01; droperidol, P = 0.003). "Rescue drug" requirements throughout the study periods were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Although both anti-emetics were associated with a smaller incidence of PONV than was placebo, droperidol was superior to ranitidine in preventing sickness during the immediate postoperative period. The need for the "rescue drug" was similar in all groups.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Reduction of post-operative nausea and vomiting with the combination of morphine and droperidol in patient-controlled analgesia.

PURPOSE: To determine whether low doses of droperidol mixed with morphine in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) would extend the duration of prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Healthy women having elective open-abdominal gynaecological surgery consented to this double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Subjects were randomized to receive placebo, or 1 mg droperidol before induction followed by droperidol 0.0 (bolus group), 0.02 (0.02 group), or 0.04 (0.04 group) mg.mg-1 of PCA morphine. Study endpoints included severity of nausea, episodes of vomiting and rescue antiemetic doses, pain, and sedation and were assessed at 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 hr postoperatively. RESULTS: Seventy-one subjects completed the study. The groups were similar in age, weight, surgical time, pain scores, and morphine used. The 0.04 group had lower mean visual analogue scale scores for nausea (P < 0.05 vs all other groups). The incidence of vomiting was lower in all treatment groups (P < 0.05 for all groups vs placebo). The 0.04 group had lower rescue antiemetic requirements than the bolus group (P < 0.03). Mean sedation scores were low in all groups but were increased with PCA droperidol (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol 1 mg before induction of anaesthesia reduces postoperative vomiting. The addition of droperidol 0.04 mg.mg-1 of PCA morphine further reduces (i) severity of nausea and (ii) rescue antiemetic requirements postoperatively. No clinically significant side-effects were attributed to this regimen.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Morphine sparing with droperidol in patient-controlled analgesia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if droperidol has a morphine-sparing effect when coadministered with morphine via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for postoperative pain management. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind clinical study. SETTING: Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan. PATIENTS: One hundred seventy-nine American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1 and 2 female patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: At the end of surgery, patients in the droperidol group received PCA, with the device programmed to deliver a bolus dose of 1 mg morphine and 50 mug droperidol on demand. Patients in the control group received 1 mg morphine on demand. For both groups, PCA lockout was 5 minutes between boluses, with a 4-hour morphine limit of 30 mg. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pain intensity at rest or on movement and relative sedation score were evaluated and recorded at 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours after surgery. Related side effects were also evaluated and recorded on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Morphine use was significantly lower for the droperidol group than the control group during the postoperative 72-hour period (33.9 +/- 9.8 and 54.9 +/- 12.1 mg, respectively), with significantly decreased pain intensity levels for the former relative to the latter at 48 hours (pain intensity on movement: 3.9 +/- 1.2 vs 4.3 +/- 0.9, respectively; P = .049) and 72 hours (pain intensity on movement: 3.0 +/- 1.1 vs 3.6 +/- 0.5, respectively; P = .003; pain intensity at rest: 1.3 +/- 1.0 vs 1.6 +/- 0.7, respectively; P = .033) subsequent to surgery. Control subjects demonstrated a greater frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting than did their droperidol counterparts on postoperative day 1. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of 50 mug droperidol and 1 mg morphine on demand via PCA provides a morphine-sparing effect and reduces the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

A randomized, double-blind study of the use of droperidol for conscious sedation during therapeutic endoscopy in difficult to sedate patients.

BACKGROUND: Droperidol has been used in combination with narcotics and benzodiazepines to achieve conscious sedation. We performed a randomized, double-blind, study of droperidol in patients at risk for difficult sedation scheduled for therapeutic endoscopy. METHODS: Patients with regular ethanol, narcotic, or benzodiazepine usage, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, or a history of difficult sedation were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either droperidol or placebo along with midazolam and meperidine as preprocedure sedation. Time to achieve sedation, interruptions due to undersedation, medication dosages, recovery time, and subjective assessments of sedation were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred one patients were randomized. The droperidol group had significantly fewer procedure interruptions and observer ratings of difficulty with sedation and required significantly less midazolam (23%) and meperidine (16%) than the placebo group. There were no significant differences in time to achieve sedation, incomplete procedures, procedure length, recovery room time, or complications. There were significantly higher observer ratings of the quality of sedation for patients who received droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol is a useful adjunct to conscious sedation in patients who are difficult to sedate. Its use results in significantly fewer interruptions due to poor sedation and improved sedation ratings compared with sedation using midazolam and meperidine alone.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed2003

A comparison of granisetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide in the treatment of established nausea and vomiting after breast surgery: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing breast surgery are at particular risk for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), with an incidence of emesis as high as 50% when no prophylactic antiemetic is used. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of the selective 5-hydroxytryptamine(3) receptor antagonist granisetron with that of the traditional antiemetics droperidol and metoclopramide in the treatment of established PONV after breast surgery. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, patients who had undergone breast surgery and were experiencing PONV during the first 3 hours after anesthesia received either granisetron 40 microg/kg IV, droperidol 20 microg/kg IV, or metoclopramide 0.2 mg/kg IV. Patients were observed for 24 hours after administration of study drug. Emetic episodes were recorded by nursing staff who were blinded to treatment assignment. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled in the study, 25 in each treatment group. Their age ranged from 41 to 65 years. There were no significant between-group differences in patients' demographic or surgical characteristics at study entry. The number of patients who were emesis free (no nausea, retching, or vomiting) was significantly higher in patients who received granisetron (88% [2225]) than in those who received droperidol (64% [1625]; P = 0.047) or metoclopramide (56% [1425]; P = 0.013). In patients who experienced nausea (3, 8, and 9 patients in the granisetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide groups, respectively), the severity of nausea was significantly lower with granisetron compared with droperidol (P = 0.028) and metoclopramide (P = 0.025). No clinically serious adverse events were observed in any group. CONCLUSION: Granisetron was significantly more effective than the traditional antiemetics droperidol and metoclopramide for the treatment of PONV in this population of patients undergoing breast surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Droperidol for acute migraine headache.

The use of intramuscular droperidol to treat acute migraine headache has not been previously reported in the emergency medicine literature. It is a promising therapy for migraine. The authors performed a pilot review of all patients receiving droperidol for migraine in our emergency department (ED) to evaluate its efficacy. We used a retrospective case series, in a suburban ED with an annual patient census of 48,000. All patients with a discharge diagnosis of migraine headache who were treated with i.m. droperidol during a consecutive 5-month period in our ED were identified. All patients received droperidol 2.5 mg intramuscular. As per ED protocol, their clinical progress was closely followed and documented at 30 minutes after drug administration (t30). Demographic and clinical variables were recorded on a standardized, closed-question, data collection instrument. The primary outcome measurement was relief of symptoms at t30 to the point that the patient felt well enough to go home without further ED intervention (symptomatic relief). Thirty-seven patients were treated (84% female), with an ED diagnosis of acute migraine with droperidol during the study period. The mean age was 36 +/- 12 years. Analgesics had been used within 24 hours before ED presentation by 62% of patients. At t30, 30 (81%) patients had symptomatic relief, 2 (5%) felt partial relief but required rescue medication, and 5 (14%) had no relief of symptoms. Drowsiness (14%) and mild akathisia (8%) were the only adverse reactions observed following drug administration. Droperidol 2.5 mg intramuscular may be a safe and effective therapy for the ED management of acute migraine headache. Randomized, controlled trials are warranted to further validate the findings of this preliminary study.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1997

Ondansetron versus droperidol or placebo when given prophylactically for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing middle ear procedures.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the prophylactic administration of ondansetron with droperidol or placebo to determine its effectiveness in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting after middle ear procedures. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Inpatient otolaryngology service at a university medical center. PATIENTS: 120 ASA physical status I and II patients presenting for elective middle ear surgical procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo (Group 1), ondansetron 4 mg intravenously (IV) (Group 2), or droperidol 25 mcg/kg i.v. (Group 3) 10 minutes before induction of general anesthesia using thiopental 5 mg/kg i.v. with fentanyl 2 mcg/kg i.v. and maintenance anesthesia with isoflurane 1% to 2% end-tidal in a 50% air/oxygen mixture. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Total surgical, anesthesia, extubation, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) occupancy times were recorded along with anesthesia recovery scores. The incidence and severity of nausea, vomiting, and pain along with rescue antiemetic administration, also were recorded. Similar assessments were made over the next 24 hours. Intergroup demographic data were similar except that the male to female ratio was higher in the ondansetron group. Stewart scores, reflecting emergence from anesthesia, were higher with ondansetron compared with droperidol. The incidence of nausea was similar between the groups but the severity was less after ondansetron therapy. More patients vomited after placebo than when given either droperidol or ondansetron. No intergroup differences were noted in the use of rescue antiemetics. Twenty-four hours later, more patients who received the placebo drug had nausea or vomited compared with either ondansetron or droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron 4 mg i.v. is as effective as droperidol and better than placebo in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. No cost advantage as determined by lower use of rescue antiemetics or shorter PACU times was noted after the prophylactic administration of ondansetron.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting with combined granisetron and droperidol in women undergoing thyroidectomy.

We have compared the efficacy and safety of combined granisetron and droperidol with each anti-emetic alone for preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy. In a prospective, randomized, double-blind study, 180 women received granisetron 40 micrograms kg-1, droperidol 20 micrograms kg-1, or granisetron 40 micrograms kg-1 plus droperidol 20 micrograms kg-1 (n = 60 of each) intravenously immediately before induction of anaesthesia. A standard general anaesthetic technique and post-operative analgesia were used. A complete response, defined as no post-operative nausea and vomiting and no need for another rescue anti-emetic, during the first 24 h after anaesthesia occurred in 88%, 60% and 98% of patients who had received granisetron, droperidol and granisetron plus droperidol (P < 0.05; overall Fisher's exact probability test). No clinically important adverse events due to the drugs were observed in any of the groups. In summary, prophylactic use of combined granisetron and droperidol is more effective than each drug alone for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing thyroidectomy.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Assessment of ondansetron and droperidol for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting after cholecystectomy and minor gynaecological surgery performed by laparoscopy.

The anti-emetic effects of ondansetron and droperidol were evaluated in 134 ASA Grade I and II female patients, scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and minor gynaecological laparoscopic surgery, who were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 4 mg or droperidol 75 micrograms kg-1 intravenously immediately after induction of anaesthesia. The patients were assessed 1, 6, 12 and 24 h after surgery for intensity of nausea and number of vomiting episodes. In the case of the patients undergoing laparoscopy, vomiting episodes occurred in a similar proportion in patients treated with ondansetron or droperidol, with the probability of the Type I error of 0.05 and the Type error II of 0.1. Although there was no difference between the two groups in emetic episodes following all laparoscopic procedures and gynaecological laparoscopic surgery, there was a significant difference between these parameters after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The patients treated with ondansetron experienced a lower intensity of nausea (P = 0.04) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, less frequent severe nausea (P = 0.02) and episodes of vomiting (P = 0.04) when compared with those in the droperidol group. We conclude, that despite the result the droperidol prophylaxis appears to be an effective alternative to ondansetron in all patients undergoing laparoscopy, the ondansetron prophylaxis is superior to droperidol in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Droperidol and dimenhydrinate alone or in combination for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting after nasal surgery in male patients.

Droperidol and dimenhydrinate are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Droperidol, especially, has been studied extensively, but there are no studies on the combination of both drugs for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting. One hundred and forty male hospitalized patients undergoing nasal surgery were randomized to receive one of four anti-emetic regimes: placebo, dimenhydrinate (1 mg kg-1), droperidol (15 micrograms kg-1), or the combination of both drugs (droperidol 15 micrograms kg-1 + dimenhydrinate 1 mg kg-1) administered after induction of anaesthesia. Patients in the dimenhydrinate-group and the combination-group received a second dose of dimenhydrinate 6 h after the first administration to mitigate the short half-life of the drug. For general anaesthesia a standardized technique, including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2, vecuronium, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil, was used. Post-operative analgesia and anti-emetic rescue medication were standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional anti-emetics were recorded for 24 h. The main endpoint of this study was the number of patients who were completely free of post-operative nausea and vomiting (Fisher's Exact Test). Furthermore, the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting was analysed using a standardized scoring algorithm. The incidence of patients completely free of post-operative nausea and vomiting was 62.9% in the placebo-group, 77.1% in the dimenhydrinate-group (P = 0.21), and 82.9% in the droperidol-group (P = 0.07). This increased to 94.3% in the combination-group (P = 0.0015). In all three treatment groups the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting was reduced significantly compared with placebo treatment (P = 0.0003). The incidence of side effects was similar in the four groups. Dimenhydrinate was ineffective in reducing the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting and droperidol only reduced the severity of post-operative nausea and vomiting. However, the combination of both drugs significantly reduces the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting when compared with placebo treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

A double blind comparison of droperidol and ondansetron for prevention of emesis in children undergoing orthopaedic surgery.

Emesis is common in the postoperative period following epidural opioid and general anaesthesia. Eighty patients ages two to 14 years scheduled for major orthopaedic surgery were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind study to compare the prophylactic effects of ondansetron, droperidol and a placebo for the prevention of postoperative emesis. Each child was assigned at random to one of the four treatment groups: ondansetron 100 micrograms.kg-1, ondansetron 50 micrograms.kg-1, droperidol 60 micrograms.kg-1 and saline control. Drugs were administered intravenously after the induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was supplemented with epidural fentanyl, given as an infusion of 1 microgram.kg-1 and continued for postoperative pain control. The incidence of vomiting in the immediate postoperative period was 25% with ondansetron (100 micrograms.kg-1), 40% with ondansetron (50 micrograms.kg-1) and droperidol and 70% with the control group. In the next 48 h the incidence of emesis increased to 30% for ondansetron (100 micrograms.kg-1), 55% with ondansetron (50 micrograms.kg-1), 65% with droperidol and 85% for the control group. Those patients who had multiple emesis necessitating a second dose of the same drug treatment showed no difference in the incidence of emesis relative to the control group. Ondansetron (50 micrograms.kg-1) and droperidol groups had lower incidence of PONV compared to the control group. The ondansetron (100 micrograms.kg-1) group had a significant decrease in the incidence of emesis. We conclude that the prophylactic administration of ondansetron (100 micrograms.kg-1) is more effective than droperidol and ondansetron (50 micrograms.kg-1) and superior to saline (P < 0.02) for the prevention of emesis before epidural opioid and general anaesthesia.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

[Droperidol and dimenhydrinate alone or in combination for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting].

BACKGROUND: Droperidol and dimenhydrinate are inexpensive antiemetic drugs. Droperidol, especially, has been studied extensively in the past, but there are no studies that used the combination of both drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Thus, the aim of this randomised controlled and double-blinded study was to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy and the side effects of such a combination therapy. METHODS: 240 inpatients undergoing ENT surgery under general anaesthesia were randomised to receive one of four antiemetic regimes: placebo, dimenhydrinate (1 mg x kg-1), droperidol (15 micrograms x kg-1), or the combination of both drugs (droperidol 15 micrograms x kg-1 + dimenhydrinate 1 mg x kg-1) was administered after induction of anaesthesia and repeated 6 hours after the first administration. For general anaesthesia a standardised technique including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, desflurane in N2O/O2, vecuronium, and a continuous infusion of remifentanil was used. Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic rescue medication were standardised. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional antiemetics were recorded for 24 hours. The main goal of the study was to increase the number of patients who were completely free from PONV (chi 2-test with Fisher-Yates' correction). Furthermore, the severity of PONV was analysed using a standardised scoring algorithm. RESULTS: Data of 227 patients could be analysed. The incidence of patients who suffered from PONV was 41.3% (95%-confidence interval: 29-55%) in the placebo-group. Dimenhydrinate alone reduced PONV to 34.5% (95%-CI: 22-48%). This marginal effect and the effect of droperidol (PONV: 26.4% (95%-CI: 15-40%)) could not be proven statistically, since the power of the study was too small. The combination of both drugs decreased PONV to 19.6% (95%-CI: 10-32%) and also reduced the severity of the symptoms to a clinically acceptable level. CONCLUSION: Dimenhydrinate failed to reduce the incidence and severity of PONV. The efficiency of droperidol given alone was within the ranges previously known from metaanalytic data. The combination of both drugs showed a moderate synergistic effect.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Prehospital sedation with intramuscular droperidol: a one-year pilot.

OBJECTIVE: Combative patients pose a threat to themselves and prehospital personnel, and are at risk for sudden death. Droperidol is an antipsychotic and sedative agent that might be effectively utilized by paramedics to assist in the management of uncontrollably violent patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study of patients requiring sedation was conducted in an urban third-service emergency medical services system (55,000 calls per year). Patients were scored by paramedics on a five-point agitation scale with 5 being extremely combative (continuous, vigorous fighting against restraints) and 1 being somnolent (sleeping or sleepy). Eligible (score 4-5) patients received 5 mg of intramuscular droperidol on direct physician order. Data including vital signs and agitation scores were recorded at 5-minute intervals until hospital arrival. Adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients received droperidol (51 patients received 5 mg; two received 2.5 mg) during the study period. The average predrug agitation score was 4.7 (+/- 0.1 SD). The average 5-minute postdrug score was 3.9 (+/- 0.1 SD, 95% CI 3.7-4.1. The average 10-minute postdrug score was 3.3 (+/- 0.1 SD, 95% CI 3.1-3.6). The average hospital arrival score was 2.8 (+/- 0.1 SD, 95% CI 2.5-3.1). One patient became obtunded and required supplemental oxygen; no other patient experienced an adverse event after receiving droperidol. Sedation was ineffective in seven patients, three of whom had head injuries, and one of whom received 2.5 mg of droperidol per physician order. Paramedics sustained no needlestick exposures. CONCLUSION: Intramuscular droperidol contributed to effective and rapid prehospital sedation in this observational series of 53 combative patients.

Aggression↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Discontinuation of droperidol for the control of acutely agitated out-of-hospital patients.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the effects of the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for sedation of agitated out-of-hospital patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective review conducted January 1, 2001, through December 5, 2002, of patients with an out-of-hospital diagnosis of agitation who received either droperidol or midazolam prior to arrival in the emergency department (ED). The need for continuous cardiac or pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, critical care ED management, intensive care unit admission, and mortality was reviewed. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients received droperidol or midazolam for acute agitation in the out-of-hospital setting. Forty-one patients received droperidol in 2001 (D2001); three patients received midazolam in 2001 (M2001). No patients received droperidol in 2002, and 27 patients received midazolam (M2002). Comparing the D2001 and M2002 groups, the need for continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in the ED [14/41 (34.1%) versus 18/27 (66.7%)], intubations [4/41 (9.8%) versus 10/27 (37.0%)], critical emergency medical services transports [5/41 (12.2%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], critical ED care cases [6/41 (14.6%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], and intensive care unit admissions [6/13 (46.2%) versus 14/15 (93.3%)] were increased in the M2002 group. No difference was found in the frequencies of ED cardiac monitoring, hospital admission, complications, or death. CONCLUSIONS: Since the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for out-of-hospital agitated patients, the authors have observed an increased frequency of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, ED critical care management, and intensive care unit admission in patients requiring chemical sedation for control of agitation in the out-of-hospital setting.

Adult↗