DISCONTINUATION OF DROPERIDOL FOR THE CONTROL OF ACUTELY AGITATED OUT-OF-HOSPITAL PATIENTS

Abstract

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, andmortality 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, and27 patients received midazolam (M2002). Comparing the D2001 andM2002 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%)], andintensive 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, andintensive care unit admission in patients requiring chemical sedation for control of agitation in the out-of-hospital setting.