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
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↗
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↗
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↗
PubMed1985

Droperidol prevents and treats nausea and vomiting after enflurane anaesthesia.

One hundred and twelve women undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery under enflurane anaesthesia were given, in a double-blind random fashion, 2.5 mg of droperidol i.m. before anaesthesia, or 1.25 mg of droperidol or a saline placebo i.v. at the end of anaesthesia in an attempt to prevent post-operative vomiting. The administration of droperidol 1.25 mg (for those receiving initially 1.25 mg of droperidol) or saline (for those receiving initially 2.5 mg of droperidol or saline) was repeated i.m. during the 24 post-operative hours in a blind manner if the patient complained of nausea, retched or vomited. Significantly fewer patients (P less than 0.05) given i.m. or i.v. droperidol had emetic symptoms than patients given saline. Furthermore, 51% of the patients given saline needed additional doses of saline, whereas only 27% of the patients given i.m. and 36% of the patients given i.v. droperidol required a second dose (P less than 0.05 between groups). More of the patients given saline (23%) than those given droperidol (8% to 9%), as a blind drug (P less than 0.05), needed to be given additional droperidol as a known anti-emetic because of the failure of the blind drug to prevent or treat symptoms. It is concluded that droperidol given either as a single dose of 2.5 mg i.m. or in repeated doses of 1.25 mg i.v. is effective in the prevention and treatment of post-operative nausea and vomiting after enflurane anaesthesia.

Adult↗
PubMed1985

Mechanism of the effect of droperidol to induce catecholamine efflux from the adrenal medulla.

The study was undertaken to determine whether droperidol had an effect to induce catecholamine efflux from the adrenal medulla as a mechanism for the possible pressor effect of droperidol in patients with pheochromocytoma and, if so, to ascertain the site of action of this compound. The efflux of catecholamines from perfused dog adrenals was increased from control level, 0.15 micrograms/min, to 0.66 micrograms/min by the administration of droperidol 6.6 microM. This effect of droperidol was not dependent on extracellular Ca++, in contrast to acetylcholine. The concomitant secretion of catecholamines and dopamine-beta-hydroxylase was observed in response to acetylcholine and caffeine. However, droperidol-, histamine-, and reserpine-induced catecholamine efflux was not accompanied by dopamine-beta-hydroxylase release. In additional studies, chromaffin granules were isolated with a Millipore filter technique from the bovine adrenal medulla and were incubated for 10 min in an isotonic medium to examine the direct effects of droperidol. Droperidol did not enhance the efflux of catecholamines from the granules in contrast to histamine. The uptake of 14C-norepinephrine into the granules was inhibited by droperidol in a manner comparable to reserpine. The results suggest that droperidol induces catecholamine efflux from adrenal medullary cells and the efflux probably is caused by a nonexocytotic mechanism. A contributing mechanism was an inhibition of catecholamine uptake into chromaffin granules, resulting in an increased diffusion of catecholamines out of the cell.

Acetylcholine↗
PubMed1995

Antiemetic efficacy of a droperidol-morphine combination in patient-controlled analgesia.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness and side effects of adding low-dose droperidol to morphine delivered via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, clinical study. SETTING: University-affiliated women's hospital. PATIENTS: 60 healthy women, 18 to 60 years of age, who underwent total abdominal hysterectomy with a standardized anesthetic regime. INTERVENTIONS: After surgery, the control group (n = 20) had access via PCA to two cartridges, each containing morphine 1 mg/ml and saline 1 ml. The two treated groups (n = 20 each) had access via PCA to either droperidol 0.5 mg or droperidol 1 mg added to two cartridges containing morphine 1 mg/ml. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preoperative data, including each patient's history of nausea and vomiting with and without previous anesthesia, motion sickness, smoking, and alcohol intake, and date of her last menstrual period, were obtained. All patients received a standardized anesthetic with droperidol 0.5 mg given at closure of the peritoneum. Among those patients who received droperidol added to morphine for their postoperative analgesic regimen, fewer required rescue antiemetic medication (p < 0.05, test of trend in proportions), and they had a lower incidence of vomiting (p < 0.05, test of trend in proportions), as well as a decrease in the number of times a rescue antiemetic was needed during the 24-hour postoperative period (linear trend, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: An intermittent intake of low-dose droperidol with morphine given via a PCA delivery system in two treatment groups gave evidence for a dose-response relation between the amount of droperidol added and the proportion of patients needing a rescue antiemetic. The same result applied to the proportion of patients having an emetic episode and the number of times a rescue antiemetic had to be administered. There was no evidence that the low dose of droperidol added to morphine delivered via a PCA device increased unwanted side effects.

Adolescent↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
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↗