[Four cases of extrapyramidal reactions to epidural droperidol administration]

Continuous epidural administration of droperidol at 2.5 mg x day(-1) or less was performed in 837 patients after surgery. In 4 of these patients, an extrapyramidal reaction occurred. Patient 1 was a 10-year-old girl who developed the symptom 29 hours after the start of administration, with a total dose of 3.0 mg. Patient 2 was a 16-year-old girl in whom the symptom occurred 24 hours after the start, with a total of 5.3 mg. Patient 3 was a 22-year-old female with the symptom occurring 26 hours after the start, with a total of 5.2 mg. Patient 4 was a 74-year-old female in whom the symptom occurred 24 hours after the start, with a total of 1.3 mg. With respect to the age distribution, the total of 837 patients consisted of 16 patients aged 10 to 19 years, 85 patients aged 20 to 29 years, 91 patients aged 30 to 39 years, 90 patients aged 40 to 49 years, 77 patients aged 50 to 59 years, 148 patients aged 60 to 69 years, 240 patients aged 70 to 79 years, 97 patients aged 80 to 89 years, and 9 patients aged 90 to 99 years. Extrapyramidal reactions related to epidural administration may readily develop at younger ages.

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.

Effect of Low-dose Droperidol on the QT Interval during and after General Anesthesia

Background

Since the effects of antiemetic doses of droperidol on the QT interval have not been previously studied, the authors designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the intraoperative and postoperative effects of small-dose droperidol (0.625 and 1.25 mg intravenous) on the QT interval when used for antiemetic prophylaxis during general anesthesia.

Methods

One hundred twenty outpatients undergoing otolaryngologic procedures with a standardized general anesthetic technique were enrolled in this study. After anesthetic induction and before the surgical incision, 60 patients were given either saline or 0.625 or 1.25 mg intravenous droperidol in a total volume of 2 ml. A standard electrocardiographic lead II was recorded immediately before and every minute after the injection of the study medication during a 10-min observation period. The QTc (QT interval corrected for heart rate) was evaluated from the recorded electrocardiographic strips. In 60 additional patients, a 12-lead electrocardiogram was obtained before and at specific intervals up to 2 h after surgery to assess the effects of droperidol and general anesthesia on the QTc. Any abnormal heartbeats or arrhythmias during the operation or the subsequent 2-h monitoring interval were also noted.

Results

Intravenous droperidol, 0.625 and 1.25 mg, prolonged the QT interval by an average of 15 +/- 40 and 22 +/- 41 ms, respectively, at 3-6 min after administration during general anesthesia, but these changes did not differ significantly from that seen with saline (12 +/- 35 ms) (all values mean +/- SD). There were no statistically significant differences among the three study groups in the number of patients with greater than 10% prolongation in QTc (vs. baseline). Although general anesthesia was associated with a 14- to 16-ms prolongation of the QTc interval in the early postoperative period, there was no evidence of droperidol-induced QTc prolongation after surgery. Finally, there were no ectopic heartbeats observed on any of the electrocardiographic rhythm strips or 12-lead recordings during the perioperative period.

Conclusion

Use of a small dose of droperidol (0.625-1.25 mg intravenous) for antiemetic prophylaxis during general anesthesia was not associated with a statistically significant increase in the QTc interval compared with saline. More importantly, there was no evidence of any droperidol-induced QTc prolongation immediately after surgery.

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.

Droperidol and dolasetron alone or in combination for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after vitrectomy

PURPOSE

Droperidol and the new serotonin-3 antagonists are effective drugs for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The aim of this trial was to evaluate whether dolasetron could be a substitute for droperidol, because the Food and Drug Administration has required a Black Box warning on the droperidol package insert.

DESIGN

Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Inpatients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery (standard 3-port pars plana vitrectomy for proliferative diabetic vitreoretinopathy, complicated retinal detachment, or macular disease, such as macular pucker, macular hole, or choroidal neovascularization).

INTERVENTION

Two hundred forty patients (3x80) receiving droperidol (10 microg. kg(-1)), dolasetron (12.5 mg), or the combination of both drugs administered 5 to 10 minutes before the end of surgery.

CONTROL

Eighty patients received saline placebos as controls.

METHODS

Standardized general anesthesia was performed, including benzodiazepine premedication, propofol, atracurium or vecuronium, desflurane in N(2)O/O(2), and a continuous infusion of remifentanil. Postoperative analgesia and antiemetic rescue medication were standardized. Episodes of vomiting, retching, nausea, and the need for additional antiemetics were recorded for 24 hours.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Severity of PONV (rated by a standardized scoring algorithm) was analyzed as the main end point of the study using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Data of 304 patients could be analyzed. Mean severity scores in the placebo, dolasetron, droperidol, and combination groups were 1.21, 0.76, 0.47, and 0.30. Incidences of PONV of any severity were 56%, 40%, 28%, and 18%, respectively. The reduction of the incidence of PONV and its severity was statistically significant in the droperidol group and in the combination group relative to the placebo. Dolasetron alone failed to reduce the incidence of PONV. The combination of dolasetron and droperidol showed an additive antiemetic efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose droperidol (10 microg. kg(-1)) but not dolasetron (12.5 mg) reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting after vitreoretinal surgery. Dolasetron (12.5 mg) is not an equivalent substitute for droperidol.

Effects of droperidol dosage on postoperative emetic symptoms following pediatric strabismus surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the frequency of postoperative emetic symptoms and side effects in pediatric strabismus surgery using four doses of droperidol.

DESIGN

Randomized, blinded study.

SETTING

University eye institute.

PATIENTS

82 ASA physical status I and II pediatric patients, aged 1 to 16 years, undergoing outpatient strabismus surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were assigned to one of four doses of droperidol (10, 20, 40, or 80 microg.kg(-1)) (Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). All patients received the same anesthetic management, with droperidol administered intravenously immediately after induction of anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Postoperatively, patients were evaluated for emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, and/or vomiting) and side effects (postoperative sedation or extrapyramidal symptoms). There was a dose-dependent reduction of emetic symptoms seen with increasing droperidol dose. Predischarge emetic symptoms were 50%, 15%, 15%, and 5% in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (p < 0.009). Peak emetic symptoms were observed after discharge: 75%, 40%, 35%, and 15% in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (p < 0.003). Convalescence times, including awakening, extubation, recovery, and hospitalization, were unaffected by increasing droperidol dose. Sedation was similar in all groups and no patient exhibited any side effects. However, when patients exhibited emetic symptoms, discharge time increased from 207 +/- 57 minutes to 283 +/- 128 minutes (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic administration of droperidol 80 microg.kg(-1) is most effective in reducing postoperative emetic symptoms without increasing time to discharge. In those patients with emetic symptoms who also received prophylactic droperidol, time to discharge was significantly delayed.

A dose ranging study of dexamethasone for preventing patient-controlled analgesia-related nausea and vomiting: a comparison of droperidol with saline

We designed this study to determine the minimum dose of dexamethasone for preventing nausea and vomiting associated with the use of morphine by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Two hundred forty female patients were randomly assigned to receive dexamethasone 2, 4, 8, or 12 mg IV immediately before induction of anesthesia. Droperidol (0.1 mg/mL with morphine 1 mg/mL in PCA pump) and saline were used as controls. The complete response (no postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for rescue antiemetic for a 24-h postoperative period) rates for dexamethasone 8 mg (72.2%) and 12 mg (78.9%) were significantly more than for saline (42.9%) (P < 0.05). Patients who received dexamethasone 12 or 8 mg also reported higher patient satisfaction than those who received saline (P < 0.05). These results were as effective as adding droperidol 0.1 mg/mL to the morphine PCA without causing drowsiness, restlessness, or arrhythmias. Smaller doses of dexamethasone (4 or 2 mg) were not effective for this propose. The results suggest that dexamethasone 8 mg IV is the minimum effective dose for the reduction of PCA morphine-related nausea and vomiting.

IMPLICATIONS

Morphine administration by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is often associated nausea and vomiting. In this double-blind study, the minimum effective dose of dexamethasone for reducing this complication was 8 mg. This was as effective as adding droperidol 0.1 mg/mL to the morphine PCA without causing drowsiness, restlessness or arrhythmias.

[Injection anesthesia administered in the mid-anesthesia period after ether induction in laboratory rats]

Our experience with anaesthetic combination of butyrophenone derivative droperidol (D, 0.8 mg/kg b.w.) + alpha-2-agonist xylazine (X, 5 mg/kg b.w.) + ketamine (X, 35 mg/kg b.w.), in 28 rats (12 female, 8 + 8 male) is described. Anaesthesia protocol started with ether inhalation (5 ml/l air) in a glass bell. When the effect of anaesthesia was evident, droperidol and xylazine with ketamine were administered in an intramuscular injection. At the same time as anaesthetics, atropine (0.05 mg/kg b.w.) was injected subcutaneously. Average time of induction of ether anaesthesia was 45 +/- 30 s. and duration of the surgical stage was 64 +/- 16 s. Average time of recurrence of the position reflex was 120 min. D + X + K anaesthetic combination is safe, cost effective, and it induces good analgesia and myorelaxation. Anaesthetic effect is possible to prolong with half dose of ketamine with half dose of droperidol or xylazine in 30 to 40 min. interval and the next prolongation is possible in 20 min. interval. The presented combination of anaesthetic was used for the soft tissue surgery (laparotomy, thoracotomy, and cannulation of large vessels--a. carotis, v. jugularis), both in experiments and clinical praxis.

[Patient-controlled analgesia with tramadol and tramadol/droperidol mixture after abdominal hysterectomy: a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and side effects of tramadol and the mixture of tramadol and droperidol for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

METHODS

Sixty female patients, aged 18 - 65, scheduled for elective abdominal total hysterectomy with inhalational general anesthesia (induced with fentanyl and propofol, maintained with O(2)-N(2)O and enflurane or isoflurane supplemented by intermittent iv fentanyl and vercuronium for muscle relaxation) were allocated into 2 groups of 30 patients in a random and double blind manner: group 1 (20 mg tramadol) and group 2 (20 mg tramadol plus 0.1 mg droperidol), both with a lockout time of 10 minutes. The VAS, analgesic doses, and side effects were observed 4, 8, 12, 20, 28, and 36 hours after operation respectively.

RESULTS

Adequate analgesia was achieved with tramadol or the mixture of tramadol and droperidol. The nausea rates and vomiting rates at any time point in the group 2 were all significantly lower than those in the group 1 (all P < 0.05). Ten patients in the group 1 needed treatment of metoclopramide, and none of patients in the group 2 needed antiemetic (P < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in VAS, sedation score or vital signs (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Providing a similar quality of analgesia with less nausea and vomiting as well as little need for sedative, the combination of tramadol and droperidol is superior to tramadol alone for post-operative PCA.

Prospective evaluation of droperidol on sphincter of Oddi motility

BACKGROUND

Droperidol increasingly is used as an effective adjunct for conscious sedation during endoscopic procedures. Given the concern for the effects of narcotics and benzodiazepines on sphincter of Oddi motility, and the potential difficulty in sedating patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry, droperidol could be an ideal agent in this setting.

METHODS

Over a 43-month period, consecutive patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry were studied prospectively. Sphincter of Oddi manometry was performed under general anesthesia in all but 10 patients. Standard retrograde pull-through techniques were used to examine the biliary and/or pancreatic sphincter, depending on the indication for sphincter of Oddi manometry. After the initial two pull-throughs, 5 mg of droperidol were given intravenously and measurements were repeated 5 minutes later.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were studied (42 women [76%], 13 men; mean age 43 years). The basal biliary sphincter pressures measured in 35 patients before and after droperidol were, respectively, 56 mm Hg and 48 mm Hg (p = 0.02); the basal pancreatic sphincter pressures measured in 22 patients before and after droperidol were, respectively, 92 mm Hg and 67 mm Hg (p = 0.29). By using a definition for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction of a basal pressure greater than 40 mm Hg, droperidol would have resulted in a change in diagnosis in 5 patients undergoing biliary manometry (one misclassified as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, 4 misclassified as normal), and 6 patients undergoing pancreatic sphincter manometry (5 misclassified as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, one misclassified as normal) (total 19% of procedures). No complication was associated with droperidol use.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol alters basal sphincter pressures, which in some patients was clinically significant and would have resulted in misclassification. Although safe and well tolerated, droperidol appears to have subtle but clinically significant effects on the sphincter of Oddi.

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.

RETRACTED: Reduction of emetic symptoms during cesarean delivery with antiemetics: propofol at subhypnotic dose versus traditional antiemetics

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol (at a subhypnotic dose), droperidol, and metoclopramide in reducing emetic symptoms during cesarean delivery.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

100 ASA physical status I and II parturients undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received placebo (saline) followed by placebo (Intralipid(R)), placebo (saline) followed by propofol at a subhypnotic dose (1.0 mg/kg/hr), droperidol 1.25 mg followed by placebo (Intralipid(R)), or metoclopramide 10 mg followed by placebo (Intralipid(R)) intravenously (IV) immediately after clamping of the umbilical cord.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

The percentage of patients who were emesis-free, which was defined as experiencing no nausea, retching, or vomiting, in the intraoperative, postdelivery period was 80% with propofol, 80% with droperidol, and 78% with metoclopramide (p < 0.05), compared with placebo (40%). Severity of nausea was less inpatients who received propofol than in those who received placebo (p < 0.05), and there were no differences seen among the droperidol, metoclopramide, and placebo groups. No clinically serious adverse events as a result of the study drugs were observed in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of propofol at a subhypnotic dose (1.0 mg/kg/hr), droperidol 1.25 mg, and metoclopramide 10 mg is comparable in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery. Moreover, propofol at a subhypnotic dose is effective in the prevention of severe nausea.

A review of the safety and efficacy of droperidol for the rapid sedation of severely agitated and violent patients

BACKGROUND

Droperidol had become a standard treatment for sedating severely agitated or violent patients in both psychiatric and medical emergency departments. However, several recent articles have suggested that droperidol may have a quinidine-like effect similar to that of thioridazine in inducing dysrhythmia.

METHOD

In view of the recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) position regarding the use of thioridazine, the authors reviewed the literature regarding droperidol and dysrhythmia in a MEDLINE search for the years 1960-2002 using the search terms droperidol, dysrhythmia, QTc interval, and sudden death as well as their own experience in using droperidol in a busy psychiatric emergency department. This review was done before the FDA's very recent and peremptory warning about droperidol.

RESULTS

The authors report that, in treating approximately 12,000 patients over the past decade, they have never experienced a clinically significant adverse dysrhythmic event using droperidol to sedate severely agitated or violent patients.

CONCLUSION

The authors conclude that, in clinical practice, droperidol is an extremely effective and safe method for treating severely agitated or violent patients. While in theory droperidol may prolong the QT interval to an extent similar to thioridazine, in clinical use there is no pattern of sudden deaths analogous to those that provoked the FDA warning about thioridazine.

Intravenous droperidol causes a reduction in the bispectral index in propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia

We investigated the effect of IV droperidol on the bispectral index (BIS) in conscious and propofol-sedated patients during spinal anesthesia. Thirty minutes after the induction of spinal anesthesia, 20 patients were given 2 mg of droperidol IV without administration of other sedatives (conscious group). Another group of patients were sedated with a propofol infusion to maintain BIS at 60 +/- 5 and were administered IV saline (placebo group; n = 20), droperidol 1 mg (dro-1 group; n = 20), or droperidol 2 mg (dro-2 group; n = 20) in a randomized order and in a double-blinded fashion. Although BIS remained the same in the conscious and placebo groups, it significantly decreased after administration of droperidol in the dro-1 and dro-2 groups. The decrease in BIS was significantly larger in the dro-2 group than in the dro-1 group. These results suggest that an antiemetic dose of droperidol enhances the hypnotic effect of propofol in a dose-dependent manner during spinal anesthesia.

IMPLICATIONS

An antiemetic dose of IV droperidol causes a decrease in the bispectral index in patients sedated with propofol during spinal anesthesia. We conclude that droperidol may enhance the hypnotic effect of propofol.

The addition of droperidol or clonidine to epidural tramadol shortens onset time and increases duration of postoperative analgesia

PURPOSE

To compare tramadol alone and the combinations of either tramadol-clonidine or tramadol-droperidol with regard to analgesic and adverse effects.

METHODS

After Ethic's Committee approval and patient informed consent were obtained, epidural catheters were inserted preoperatively at the L(3-4) interspace in 90 ASA physical status I-II adult patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Anesthesia was standardized. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Group I (T) patients received tramadol 75 mg, Group II (TD) patients received tramadol 75 mg plus droperidol 2.5 mg, and Group III (TC) patients received tramadol 75 mg plus clonidine 150 microg in a total volume of 10 mL administered as a single epidural injection in the postanesthesia care unit. The onset time of analgesia and duration of analgesia, visual analogue pain scores, sedation, nausea scores, vital signs and side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Duration of analgesia was similar in both the TD and TC groups, and significantly longer than in the T group (P < 0.001). Group TC patients displayed a significant increase in sedation scores and decrease in blood pressure and heart rate when compared with other groups (P < 0.001). No adverse effects were observed in Group TD, while nausea scores were high in both the T and TC groups (P < 0.001). Pain score, respiration rate, and SpO(2) values were similar in all study groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that epidural tramadol in combination with droperidol or clonidine prolongs the duration of analgesia; however, droperidol appears to be a better alternative when adverse effects and antiemetic properties are taken into consideration.

Ginkgo biloba extract EGb 761 attenuates myocardial stunning in the pig heart

Myocardial stunning, a transient contractile dysfunction that appears following a brief period of ischemia, is at least partly due to the production of oxygen-derived free radicals. The objective of the present study was to determine whether the Ginkgo biloba extract EGb761, which has antioxidant properties in vitro, can attenuate myocardial stunning in vivo. Forty-seven anesthetized open-chest farm pigs underwent 10 min of occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), followed by 3 hours of reperfusion. They were pretreated with either physiological saline, 100 mg or 300 mg of EGb 761 (Protocol I) or 3 mg or 9 mg of ginkgolide B (GkB) (Protocol II). Contractile function was assessed by sonomicrometry. Both doses of EGb 761 significantly improved recovery of contractile function in the reperfused myocardium with segment shortening averaging 23 +/- 5 % of baseline values at 3 hours post-reflow in controls versus 81 +/- 10 % and 57 +/- 12 % in the EGb100 and EGb300 groups, respectively (p < 0.05 vs control in both cases). In contrast, neither dose of GkB improved functional recovery during reperfusion. ESR experiments revealed that EGb761 resulted in a 59 % decrease in myocardial spin-adduct release during reperfusion (p < 0.05 versus control and GkB groups). A significant 28 % decrease (p < 0.05 vs control group) was also obtained in GkB-treated animals. These results indicate that EGb 761 can attenuate myocardial stunning following a brief ischemic insult in the in situ pig heart by an effect that involves a decrease in the formation of free radicals. As the effect of EGb 761 on functional recovery cannot be explained by the presence of GkB, the beneficial action of the extract on myocardial stunning likely involves complementary effects of both its non-ginkgolide and ginkgolide constituents.

Comparison of anti-emetic effects of ondansetron and low-dose droperidol in pediatric strabismus surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Strabismus surgery is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. A dose of 150 microg/kg(-1) of ondansetron has been found to be effective in reducing nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients. However, droperidol (20 to 75 microg/kg(-1)) has shown variable success with various side effects. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 25 microg/kg(-1) of droperidol and compare it with that of 150 microg/kg(-1) of ondansetron in pediatric strabismus surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After institutional approval and parental informed consent, 120 children aged 1 to 15 years were prospectively randomized into one of three groups. Group 1 received normal 'saline (placebo), group 2 received 25 microg/kg(-1) of droperidol, and group 3 received 150 microg/kg(-1) of ondansetron after induction of anesthesia. Children were assessed postoperatively for the incidence and severity of vomiting, recovery from anesthesia, and analgesic requirement for 24 hours.

RESULTS

There was a significant (P < .05) reduction in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the ondansetron (37.5%) and droperidol (30%) groups compared with the placebo (62.5%) group. The vomiting was also significantly less severe in these groups.

CONCLUSION

Doses of 25 microg/kg(-1) of droperidol and 150 microg/kg(-1) of ondansetron administered at induction of anesthesia are equally effective in reducing the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia in ambulatory surgery: prophylactic nalbuphine versus nalbuphine plus droperidol

Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) is a safe, effective, and efficient anesthetic for ambulatory surgery. Unfortunately, it has a frequent incidence of pruritus and a substantial incidence of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine is effective in treating or preventing pruritus after intrathecal or epidural morphine but may or may not have a beneficial effect on nausea and vomiting. Droperidol has demonstrated antiemetic efficacy with neuraxial opiates. In this study, we examined the prophylactic use of nalbuphine alone compared with nalbuphine with droperidol after SAB(MLF). One-hundred-twenty-four patients having outpatient knee arthroscopy under SAB(MLF) with 20 mg of lidocaine 0.5% and 20 micro g of fentanyl were randomized to receive IV at the end of surgery either 4 mg of nalbuphine (Group N) or droperidol 0.625 mg plus nalbuphine 4 mg (Group ND). The incidences of early (before discharge) and late onset nausea were, respectively, 18% versus 5% and 32% versus 13%. The postoperative incidences of pruritus were 61% versus 40%, whereas 19% of patients in Group N compared with 2% of patients in Group ND requested treatment for this. Group ND had lower pain scores and had a longer delay until first use of analgesic. There were no differences in average times to discharge. The only side effect of the medications was an increased drowsiness in Group ND. In conclusion, as prophylactic medication for use in conjunction with SAB(MLF), the addition of droperidol 0.625 mg to nalbuphine 4 mg was superior to nalbuphine alone. The combination provided for reduced postoperative nausea, pruritus, and pain-benefits that persisted after discharge home. The combination also avoided isolated cases of extreme delay in discharge.

IMPLICATIONS

Droperidol in combination with nalbuphine enhances analgesia and is more effective than nalbuphine alone in preventing pruritus, nausea, and vomiting after minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia.