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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Prophylactic antiemetics for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: droperidol, metoclopramide, and droperidol plus metoclopramide.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most significant problems in laparoscopic surgery. The antiemetic effects of metoclopramide and droperidol used alone or in combination for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) were assessed in this prospective, double blind, placebo controlled randomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A series of 140 patients, ASA physical status I or II, were included in the study. Patients were randomized to one of the following groups: 1, placebo; 2, metoclopramide 10 mg after the induction of anesthesia and placebo at 12 h postoperatively; 3, droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg at 12 h postoperatively; and 4, droperidol 1.25 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg at 12 h postoperatively. Patients were observed for 24 hours for PONV, pain, need for rescue analgesics, and adverse events. RESULTS: Data were analyzed using the Student's t-test and chi-square test, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. The mean incidence of PONV was 54% with placebo, 42% with metoclopramide, 14% with two doses of droperidol alone, and 11% with a combination of metoclopramide plus droperidol. The patients receiving a combination of metoclopramide and droperidol had a significantly lower rate of PONV than those administered metoclopramide alone (P < 0.05) or placebo (P < 0.001). Those receiving two-dose droperidol alone also had a significantly lower incidence of PONV compared with metoclopramide (P < 0.05) and placebo (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the metoclopramide and placebo groups. Sedation was significantly greater in patients administered droperidol 12 h postoperatively. CONCLUSION: The combination of metoclopramide and droperidol, and two-dose droperidol alone, were found to significantly decrease the incidence of PONV after LC, whereas metoclopramide alone proved inefficient.

Aged↗
PubMed1995

The effects of oral droperidol versus oral metoclopramide versus both oral droperidol and metoclopramide on postoperative vomiting when used as a premedicant for strabismus surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oral droperidol versus oral metoclopramide, or both oral droperidol and metoclopramide, on postoperative vomiting when used as a premedicant for strabismus surgery. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, prospective study. SETTING: Academic children's hospital. PATIENTS: 154 ASA physical status I and II ambulatory patients, ages 1 to 15 years, scheduled for strabismus surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive colored sugar water containing either droperidol 300 mcg/kg orally, metoclopramide 0.15 mg/kg orally, both droperidol 300 mcg/kg and metoclopramide 0.15 mg/kg orally, or no active ingredient (placebo group) as a premedicant. The premedications were given orally 1 to 1.5 hours prior to the operation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were analyzed for the number of episodes of vomiting from the time of their emergence from anesthesia through the first 24 hours postoperatively, including the convalescent period at home. Patients were also analyzed for length of hospital stay. There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding age, premedication time, surgery time, or discharge time. Droperidol and droperidol-metoclopramide were significantly more effective (p < 0.012) than either the metoclopramide group or the placebo group in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting following strabismus surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that oral droperidol 300 mcg/kg and the combination of oral droperidol 300 mcg/kg and metoclopramide 0.15 mg/kg are effective in reducing the frequency of vomiting within the first 24 hours after strabismus surgery. The combination of oral droperidol and oral metoclopramide is highly effective in reducing the frequency of vomiting postoperatively in strabismus ambulatory surgery patients (p = 0.017). This combination seems to represent an inexpensive alternative to the more costly ondansetron.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Low-dose droperidol versus standard-dose droperidol for prevention of postoperative vomiting after pediatric strabismus surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a low dose of droperidol is as effective as a high dose in preventing vomiting after pediatric strabismus surgery. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: Operating room and recovery room at a university medical center. PATIENTS: One hundred children undergoing strabismus procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided randomly into three groups and received either droperidol 75 microgram/kg, droperidol 20 microgram/kg, or saline. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Vomiting was assessed in all groups, as was time to discharge and ability to perform a satisfactory postoperative eye examination. Children who received droperidol vomited less frequently than those who did not (p = 0.0521). There was no difference in the frequency of vomiting between the two groups that received droperidol. CONCLUSION: Droperidol 20 microgram/kg is as effective as droperidol 75 microgram/kg in preventing vomiting after pediatric strabismus surgery. Because higher doses of droperidol may sedate some patients, the lowest effective dose should be used. In this study, however, there was no statistically significant difference with regard to length of recovery room stay.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Inhibition of epidural morphine-induced pruritus by intravenous droperidol. The effect of increasing the doses of morphine and of droperidol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Because the mechanism of inhibition of epidural morphine-induced pruritus by droperidol is not clear, this study was undertaken to determine the effects of larger doses of droperidol or morphine, or both. METHODS: A double-blind study was performed in 210 ASA I or II patients undergoing cesarean delivery, who were randomly assigned to six groups. All patients received epidural anesthesia with 0.5% bupivacaine containing 1:200,000 epinephrine, to which 2 mg (groups 1, 2, and 3) or 4 mg (groups 4, 5, and 6) morphine sulfate was added. Just after delivery, 2.5 mg droperidol was given intravenously to groups 2 and 5, and 5 mg was given to groups 3 and 6. During the postoperative period, the patients were assessed for the occurrence and severity of pruritus (classified as absent, mild, moderate, or severe) or other untoward symptoms. The groups were compared for the incidence of pruritus by the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test. RESULTS: The incidence of pruritus was significantly reduced only when the control group. (no droperidol) was compared with the group that received 2.5 mg droperidol, both when 2 mg and when 4 mg morphine was used. A 5-mg dose of droperidol had no inhibitory effect. There was no difference in the incidence of pruritus between use of 2 mg and 4 mg morphine. Other untoward effects of morphine either could not be observed or occurred with an incidence unaffected by either dose of droperidol. CONCLUSION: Pruritus caused by epidural use of 2 or 4 mg of morphine is inhibited by the intravenous use of 2.5 mg droperidol but not by a larger dose.

Adjuvants, Anesthesia↗
PubMed2002

A comparison of the effects of droperidol and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of the combination of ondansetron and droperidol with that of droperidol alone in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind controlled trial. University affiliated teaching hospital after induction of standardized general anesthesia. PATIENTS: 64 ASA physical status I or II patients aged 18 to 80 years, undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. INTERVENTION: Following induction of general anesthesia, patients received either droperidol 1.25 mg intravenously (IV; n = 30; Group D) or the combination of droperidol 1.25 mg IV and ondansetron 4 mg IV (n = 34; Group D+O). MEASUREMENTS: Number and severity of nausea episodes, number of emetic episodes, total analgesic consumption, and rescue antiemetic administration were assessed at 1, 3, and 24 hours after admission to the recovery room. Data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact test and unpaired Student's t-test; a p-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The proportions of patients who experienced nausea (70% and 53% for D and D+O groups, respectively) and vomiting (30% and 19% for D and D+O groups, respectively) were similar in the two groups. The frequency of moderate and severe nausea (requiring administration of antiemetic) was less in group D + O (7%) compared with group D (19%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received the combination of droperidol and ondansetron experienced less severe nausea compared with patients who received droperidol alone.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1977

A controlled clinical trial of oral droperidol and droperidol plus diazepam for premedication in children.

In 87 children aged 2-9 yr, oral droperidol and oral droperidol plus diazepam were compared as premedicants in a controlled double-blind clinical trial. Atropine was given orally to all the patients. Droperidol was well absorbed and produced good sedation, associated with a low incidence of vomiting after operation. Droperidol plus diazepam did not appear to offer any advantage over droperidol alone. Anxiety and extrapyramidal effects were not observed and may have been obviated by the addition of atropine. Droperidol syrup was noted to be more palatable than other oral premedicants in use.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1998

Droperidol-ondansetron combination versus droperidol alone for postoperative control of emesis after total abdominal hysterectomy.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To investigate the hypothesis that the combination of ondansetron and droperidol would be more effective than droperidol alone in reducing nausea and vomiting. DESIGN: Randomized, doubleblind study. SETTING: Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PATIENTS: 160 healthy, ASA physical status I and II, female patients scheduled for total abdominal hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: After induction of anesthesia with propofol, Group 1 received intravenous (i.v.) droperidol 1.25 mg plus i.v. ondansetron 4 mg. Group 2 received i.v. droperidol plus i.v. saline. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The complete response (no emesis, no rescue) for Group 1 was 36 of 80 patients (45%) versus 30 of 80 patients (38%) in Group 2 (p = 0.21). In Group 1, 42 of 80 patients (53%) required rescue antiemetic as compared with 44 of 80 patients (55%) in Group 2 (p = 0.43). There were 72 total rescues in Group 1 versus 73 in Group 2, (p = 0.24). Mean time until first rescue was 578 +/- 429 minutes in Group 1 and 418 +/- 354 minutes in Group 2, (p = 0.03). In Group 1, 81 % (34/42) were rescued for nausea only versus 90% (39/44) of Group 2 (p = 0.16). In Group 1, 21% of patients (17/80) had at least one emetic episode versus 34% (27/80) of Group 2 patients (p = 0.05). There were 31 emetic episodes in Group 1 versus 72 episodes in Group 2. (p = 0.02). Mean time to the first emetic episode was 699 +/- 403 minutes in Group 1 and 616 +/- 376 minutes in Group 2, (p = 0.23). CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomies, the addition of ondansetron to droperidol increases the time until first rescue and reduces the number of emetic episodes, as well as the percentage of patients, having at least one emetic episode.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Prophylactic antiemetics for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a comparison of perphenazine, droperidol plus ondansetron, and droperidol plus metoclopramide.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the prophylactic administration of ondansetron plus droperidol, droperidol plus metoclopramide, and perphenazine to determine effects on postoperative nausea, vomiting, and sedation after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: 212 ASA physical status I and II adults presenting for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of three prophylactic antiemetic drug combinations: ondansetron 4 mg plus droperidol 0.625 mg (Group OD), droperidol 0.625 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg (Group DM), or perphenazine 5 mg (Group P). Study drugs were administered intravenously after induction of general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The groups were similar with respect to gender, age, weight, duration of surgery, numbers of patients receiving intraoperative atropine or ephedrine, number admitted overnight, and time to discharge home. Patients in Group P used lower total doses of opioids than did patients in Group OD. There were no significant differences in postoperative nausea, pain, or sedation scores, in numbers of patients requiring antiemetics (Group OD, 13 of 66; Group DM, 15 of 66; Group P, 14 of 68), or in numbers of patients vomiting, either in hospital or during the first postoperative day. CONCLUSIONS: These three drug regimens are equivalent for antiemetic prophylaxis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Adult↗
PubMed1984

Antiemetic efficacy of high-dose corticosteroids and droperidol in cisplatin-induced emesis: a controlled trial with droperidol and metoclopramide.

The nausea and vomiting associated with cisplatin chemotherapy make care of the patient more difficult for nurses and physicians, can cause severe metabolic and pathologic sequelae, and preclude further courses of chemotherapy. Current reports suggest that the two most efficacious agents for antiemetic prophylaxis are metoclopramide and corticosteroids. These two agents in combination with droperidol have been compared in a randomized controlled prospective fashion. Patients had less nausea and vomiting on the steroidal regimen than the nonsteroidal regimen (P less than 0.05), and the duration of nausea and vomiting was significantly less on the steroidal regimen (P less than 0.05). Patients expressed a preference for the steroidal regimen over the nonsteroidal one and the steroidal regimen retained its antiemetic effectiveness through repeated courses of chemotherapy. The results of the study suggest that corticosteroids and droperidol are superior antiemetic agents for cisplatin-induced nausea and vomiting.

Adrenal Cortex Hormones↗
PubMed1986

[Randomized crossover trial of the antiemetic effects obtained with metoclopramide and droperidol versus those obtained with metoclopramide, droperidol and methylprednisolone in patients receiving cis-platinum chemotherapy].

Twenty-four patients with lung cancer receiving cis-platinum chemotherapy were entered in an antiemetic randomized crossover trial. The effects of high-dose metoclopramide and droperidol (regimen I) were compared with those obtained with a combination of high-dose metoclopramide, droperidol and methylprednisolone (regimen II). Three patients (12.5%) treated with regimen I and 10 (43.5%) treated with regimen II had no vomiting at all (p less than 0.05). Patient preference was significantly in favor of regimen II (p less than 0.05). No Severe side effects were observed. A further trial is necessary to determine the optimal dosage and scheduling of the available agents.

Aged↗
PubMed1997

Comparison of ondansetron and droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery in women. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing laparoscopic surgery are susceptible to postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Ondansetron and droperidol are useful antiemetics. This study was designed to ascertain primarily the relative difference in efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol and secondarily between these drugs and placebo in the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: The prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol was compared in a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 439 female inpatients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery. During induction of standardised general anaesthesia the patients received intravenously either ondansetron 8 mg (n=195), droperidol 1.25 mg (n=193) or placebo (n=51). The occurrence of nausea, vomiting, side-effects and the need for rescue antiemetic medication were recorded for 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with nausea was 48%, 50% and 67% in the ondansetron, droperidol and placebo groups, respectively; with a significant difference when both ondansetron (P=0.02) and droperidol (P=0.04) were compared with placebo. Vomiting occurred in 18%, 26% and 37% of the patients in the three groups, respectively (P=0.05 between ondansetron and droperidol, P=0.004 between ondansetron and placebo, P=0.16 between droperidol and placebo). The proportion of patients given rescue medication was 34%, 28% and 49%, respectively (P=0.23 for ondansetron and droperidol, P=0.07 for ondansetron and placebo, P=0.007 for droperidol and placebo). During early recovery the patients treated with ondansetron were significantly more alert than after droperidol. Serious side-effects were not observed. Headache was significantly more common after ondansetron than after droperidol treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron and droperidol in reducing postoperative nausea associated with laparoscopic surgery in female inpatients was similar, but ondansetron appeared to be slightly more efficient than droperidol in preventing vomiting. Ondansetron and droperidol were both significantly better than placebo in the prophylaxis of PONV.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

A comparison of the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of ondansetron versus droperidol as antiemetics for elective outpatient surgical procedures. S3A-409 and S3A-410 Study Groups.

UNLABELLED: Two identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies enrolled 2061 adult surgical outpatients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) to compare i.v. ondansetron 4 mg with droperidol 0.625 mg and droperidol 1.25 mg for the prevention of PONV. The antiemetic drugs or placebo were administered i.v. 20 min before the induction of anesthesia with a barbiturate compound, followed by maintenance with N2O/isoflurane/enflurane. Nausea, emetic episodes, adverse events, and patient satisfaction were analyzed for the 0 to 2 h and 0 to 24 h postoperative periods. In the 0 to 2 h postoperative period, there was a complete response (no emesis or rescue antiemetic) in 46% of subjects given placebo (P < 0.05 versus antiemetic groups), in 62% given ondansetron, in 63% given droperidol 0.625 mg, and in 69% given droperidol 1.25 mg (P < 0.05 versus ondansetron). In the 0 to 24-h postoperative period, there were no significant differences in complete response between the ondansetron and droperidol 0.625 or 1.25 mg groups; all groups remained superior to placebo. The proportion of patients without nausea during the 0 to 24 h postoperative period was greater in the antiemetic groups compared with the placebo group; however, droperidol 1.25 mg was more effective than ondansetron 4 mg or droperidol 0.625 mg (43% vs 29% or 29%, respectively). Headache incidence was higher in the ondansetron group compared with either droperidol group. Patient satisfaction scores did not differ significantly among antiemetic treatment groups, although all were superior to placebo. In conclusion, all antiemetic treatment regimens were superior to placebo for the prevention of PONV in the immediate postoperative period; however, droperidol 1.25 mg was more efficacious than ondansetron during the early recovery period (0-2 h). There were no significant differences between ondansetron and either droperidol dose for emesis prevention during the 0 to 24 h postoperative period. IMPLICATIONS: More than 2000 patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting were given either placebo, ondansetron 4 mg, or droperidol 0.625 mg or 1.25 mg i.v. before the administration of general anesthesia. After surgery, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, medication side effects, and patient satisfaction were evaluated for 24 h. Droperidol 0.625 or 1.25 mg i.v. compared favorably with ondansetron 4 mg i.v. for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

The antiemetic efficacy of droperidol added to morphine patient-controlled analgesia: a randomized, controlled, multicenter dose-finding study.

The antiemetic dose response of droperidol when it is added to patient-controlled analgesia with morphine is not well known. We randomly allocated adults who received postoperative morphine patient-controlled analgesia (1-mg bolus, 5-min lockout) to one of four regimens: no droperidol (control) or 5, 15, or 50 micro g of droperidol per milligram of morphine. Efficacy and adverse effects were recorded during 24 h and were analyzed with number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm with 95% confidence intervals. Data from 82 controls, 82 patients receiving droperidol 5 micro g, 82 receiving droperidol 15 micro g, and 83 receiving droperidol 50 micro g were analyzed. Average consumption of droperidol per 24 h was 0.2 mg with the 5- micro g regimen, 0.61 mg with the 15- micro g regimen, and 2.04 mg with the 50- micro g regimen. In controls, the incidence of nausea was 48.8%; with droperidol 5 micro g, it was 42.7% (NNT compared with control, 16 [95% confidence interval, 4.7 to -11]); with 15 micro g, it was 32.9% (NNT, 6.3 [3.3-100]); and with 50 micro g, it was 21.7% (NNT, 3.7 [2.4 to 7.6]). In controls, the incidence of vomiting was 24.4%; with droperidol 5 micro g, it was 23.2% (NNT compared with control, 82 [7 to -8.5]); with 15 micro g, it was 22.0% (NNT, 41 [6.5 to -9.6]); and with 50 micro g, it was 12% (NNT, 8.1 [4.2-142]). In controls, the incidence of pruritus was 12.2%; with droperidol 5 micro g, it was 6.1% (NNT compared with control, 16 [6.7 to -37]); and with 15 and 50 micro g, it was 2.4% (NNT, 10 [5.7-52]). In controls, the incidence of sedation was 2.4%; with droperidol 5 micro g, it was 8.5% (number needed to harm (NNH) compared with control, 16 [7.7 to -123]); with 15 micro g, it was 6.1% (NNH, 27 [10 to -40]); and with 50 micro g, it was 18.1% (NNH, 6.4 [4.1-15]). There were no extrapyramidal symptoms and no cardiac adverse events. There was no difference in patient satisfaction. The optimal antiemetic dose of droperidol is 15-50 micro g/mg of morphine. Larger doses may have more antivomiting efficacy but are likely to be unacceptably sedating.

Aged↗