Effectiveness Of Droperidol Research Articles

Prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of droperidol in elderly patients for pre-hospital acute behavioural disturbance.

Acute behavioural disturbance in the elderly (≥65 years) is a significant issue for emergency medical services with increasing prevalence of dementia and aging populations. We investigated the pre-hospital safety and effectiveness of droperidol in the elderly with acute behavioural disturbance. This was a pre-hospital prospective observational 1-year study of elderly patients with acute behavioural disturbance. The primary outcome was proportion of adverse events (AEs) (airway intervention, oxygen saturation <90% and/or respiratory rate <12/min, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, sedation assessment tool score of -3 and dystonic reactions). Secondary outcomes included time to sedation, additional sedation, proportion with successful sedation. There were 149 patients (males 78 [52%], median age 78 years; 65-101 years) presenting on 162 occasions. Dementia was the commonest cause (107/164 [65%]) of acute behavioural disturbance. There were six AEs in five patients (5/162 [3%]; 95% confidence interval 1-7). Three had hypotension, one with associated hypoxia (80%); and two had respiratory AEs (respiratory rate, 10/min [no hypoxia] and hypoxia [88%] which required oxygen). Median time to sedation was 19 min (interquartile range 12-29 min). Additional sedation was given in 2/162 patients during ambulance transfer and 16/162 within an hour of hospital arrival; 24/162 (15%) failed to sedate in the ambulance; 16 subsequently settled in ED and 8/24 received additional sedation. Of 162, 123 (76%) patients successfully sedated, without AEs or additional sedation. Of 162, 114 (70%) patients received 5 mg, 46 (29%) received two doses of 5 mg and two patients (1%) received three doses. Droperidol appeared to be safe and effective for pre-hospital sedation of acute behavioural disturbance in elderly patients.

A Prospective Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of Droperidol in Children for Prehospital Acute Behavioral Disturbance

Study objective: Although uncommon, children (<16 years) with acute behavioral disturbance are a significant issue for emergency medical service providers. In this study, we aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of droperidol in children with prehospital acute behavioral disturbance. Methods: This was a prospective observational study over 1 year investigating the use of droperidol (0.1–0.2 mg/kg) for children (< 16 years) with acute behavioral disturbance. Inclusion criteria for acute behavioral disturbance were defined by a sedation assessment tool score of ≥2 determined by the attending paramedic. The primary outcome was the proportion of adverse effects (need for airway intervention, oxygen saturation <90% and/or respiratory rate <12, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, sedation assessment tool score of −3 and dystonic reactions). Secondary outcomes included time to sedation (sedation assessment tool score decreased by 2 or more, or a score of zero), requirement for additional sedation, failure to sedate and proportion of sedation success defined as the number of patients successfully sedated who did not suffer any adverse events or receive additional sedation. Results: There were 96 patients (males 51 [53%], median age 14 years [range 7–15 years]) who presented on 102 occasions over the one year study period. Self-harm and/or harm to others was the commonest (74/105 [70%]) cause of acute behavioral disturbance followed by alcohol (16/105 [15%]). There were 9 adverse events in 8 patients (8/102 [8%]; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 3–13%) Five patients had hypotension, all asymptomatic and only one required treatment; 2 dystonic reactions managed with benztropine and one patient with respiratory depression. Median time to sedation was 14 min (interquartile range (IQR): 10–20 min; range: 3–85 min). There was no requirement for prehospital additional sedation (0/102 [0%]; 95% CI: 0–4%) and additional sedation in the first hour of arrival to hospital was required by 4 patients (4/102 [4%]; 95% CI: 1–10%). Overall successful sedation was achieved in 89 (87%) patients. Conclusions: The use of droperidol in children for acute behavioral disturbance in the prehospital setting is both safe and effective.

Comparison of Droperidol and Haloperidol for Use by Paramedics: Assessment of Safety and Effectiveness

Background. Since the 2001 “black box” warning on droperidol, its use in the prehospital setting has decreased substantially in favor of haloperidol. There are no studies comparing the prehospital use of either drug. The goal of this study was to compare QTc prolongation, adverse events, and effectiveness of droperidol and haloperidol among a cohort of agitated patients in the prehospital setting. Methods. In this institutional review board-approved before and after study, we collected data on 532 patients receiving haloperidol (n = 314) or droperidol (n = 218) between 2007 and 2010. We reviewed emergency department (ED) electrocardiograms when available (haloperidol, n = 78, 25%; droperidol, n = 178, 76%) for QTc length (in milliseconds), medical records for clinically relevant adverse events (defined a priori as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg, seizure, administration of anti-dysrhythmic medications, cardioversion or defibrillation, bag–valve–mask ventilation, intubation, cardiopulmonary arrest, and prehospital or in-hospital death). We also compared effectiveness of the medications, using administration of additional sedating medications within 30 minutes of ED arrival as a proxy for effectiveness. Results. The mean haloperidol dose was 7.9 mg (median 10 mg, range 4–20 mg). The mean droperidol dose was 2.9 mg (median 2.5 mg, range 1.25–10 mg.) Haloperidol was given IM in 289 cases (92%), and droperidol was given IM in 132 cases (61%); in all other cases, the medication was given IV. There was no statistically significant difference in median QTc after medication administration (haloperidol 447 ms, 95% CI: 440–454 ms; droperidol 454 ms, 95% CI: 450–457). There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events in the droperidol group as compared to the haloperidol group. One patient in the droperidol group with a history of congenital heart disease suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest and was resuscitated with neurologically intact survival. There was no significant difference in the use of additional sedating medications within 30 minutes of ED arrival after receiving droperidol (2.9%, 95% CI: −2.5–8.4%). Conclusions. In this cohort of agitated patients treated with haloperidol or droperidol in the prehospital setting, there was no significant difference found in QTc prolongation, adverse events, or need for repeat sedation between haloperidol and droperidol.

Parenteral sedation of elderly patients with acute behavioral disturbance in the ED

PurposesThis study aimed to investigate sedation of elderly patients with acute behavioral disturbance (ABD) in the emergency department (ED), specifically the safety and effectiveness of droperidol. Basic ProceduresThis was a prospective study of elderly patients (>65 years) with ABD requiring parenteral sedation and physical restraint in the ED. Patients were treated with a standardized sedation protocol that included droperidol. Drug administration, time to sedation, additional sedation, and adverse effects were recorded. Effective sedation was defined as a drop in the sedation assessment tool score by 2 or a score of zero or less. Main FindingsThere were 49 patients with median age of 81 years (range, 65-93 years); 33 were males. Thirty patients were given 10 mg droperidol, 15 were given 5 mg droperidol, 2 were given 2.5 mg, and 2 were given midazolam. Median time to sedation for patients receiving 10 mg droperidol was 30 minutes (interquartile range, 18-40 minutes), compared with 21 minutes (interquartile range, 10-55 minutes; P = .55) for patients receiving 5 mg droperidol. Three patients were not sedated within 120 minutes. Eighteen patients required additional sedation—10 of 30 (33%; 95% confidence interval, 18%-53%) given droperidol 10 mg compared with 7 of 15 (47%; 95% confidence interval, 22%-73%) given 5 mg. Fourteen patients required resedation. Adverse effects occurred in 5 patients (hypotension [2], oversedation [2], hypotension/oversedation [1])—2 of 30 given 10 mg droperidol and 3 of 19 not treated according to protocol. Midazolam was given initially or for additional sedation in 2 of 5 adverse effects. No patient had QT prolongation. Principal ConclusionsDroperidol was effective for sedation in most elderly patients with ABD, and adverse effects were uncommon. An initial 5-mg dose appears prudent with the expectation that many will require another dose.

Evaluating the usage of droperidol in acutely agitated persons with brain injury

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intramuscular droperidol to other intramuscularly administered agents used in the management of acutely agitated patients. Twenty-seven inpatients with a history of brain injury were prospectively monitored over a period of 2 months. Data collected for each episode of agitation include: dose, number of doses, time to achieve an adequate response or calming effect, post-episodic functioning, treatment-emergent side effects, and other patient demographics. A retrospective medical records review was also performed on the same cohort, to compare clinical outcomes associated with other intramuscular agents previously used for acute agitation. Time to achieve calming was significantly shorter with intramuscular droperidol (mean = 27.0 minutes) compared to intramuscular haloperidol, lorazepam, or diphenhydramine (group mean = 36.2 minutes, p = 0.02). Of the three comparative agents, the time to achieve calming was the fastest with lorazepam (mean = 35.0 minutes), and slower with diphenhydramine (mean = 42.6 minutes) and haloperidol (mean = 43.0 minutes). Single doses of droperidol controlled agitation more frequently than did single doses of comparative agents, and there was less post-episodic sedation with droperidol following release from seclusion or restraints. Both groups were similar in regard to the incidence of treatment-emergent events. This data represents the first published experience supporting the effectiveness of droperidol in reducing acute agitation in persons with brain injury. Follow-up studies with prospective, double-blind, parallel treatment groups should be performed to validate these preliminary findings.

Effectiveness of Droperidol and Ondansetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Vomiting in Pediatric Patients

Effectiveness of Droperidol and Ondansetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Vomiting in Pediatric Patients