Acute migraine treatment with droperidol: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The treatment of a migraine attack can be difficult when first-line medication is unsuccessful and options for parenteral "rescue" therapy are limited.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, multicenter study was conducted to assess the efficacy and tolerability of droperidol 0.1 mg, 2.75 mg, 5.5 mg, and 8.25 mg for the acute treatment of moderate to severe migraine headache in adults.

RESULTS

A total of 331 patients were enrolled; 305 were treated. Headache response at 2 hours was better (p < 0.002) in the treatment groups receiving droperidol IM at doses of 2.75 mg (87%), 5.5 mg (81%), and 8.25 mg (85%) compared with placebo (57%). The percent of patients achieving a pain-free response at 2 hours after treatment was significantly greater than placebo for the droperidol 2.75-mg, 5.5-mg, and 8.25-mg dose groups. The frequency of headache recurrence (within 24 hours) for patients initially responding by 2 hours was lower in patients treated with droperidol than placebo, but differences failed to reach significance. A significantly greater percentage of patients receiving droperidol 2.75 mg reported the elimination of migraine-associated symptoms (nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia) than those who received placebo. Although most adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity, anxiety, akathisia, and somnolence were rated as severe in 30% of patients who experienced those symptoms. Hypotension was uncommon. No patient had QT prolongation.

A retrospective review of the use and safety of droperidol in a large, high-risk, inner-city emergency department patient population

Droperidol (DROP) is used in the emergency department (ED) for sedation, analgesia, and its antiemetic effect. Its ED safety profile has not yet been reported in patients (pts).

OBJECTIVES

To document the use of DROP in high-risk pts (those with head injury, alcohol or cocaine intoxication, and/or remote or recent seizures), and to determine the number of serious and minor adverse events (AEs)-seizures, hypotension, extrapyramidal side effects (EPSEs)-after DROP.

METHODS

The ED database (EmSTAT) was queried to determine who received intramuscular or intravenous DROP in the ED in 1998; further chart review was done if the patient was considered high risk for or had experienced an AE. Multiple regression analysis using a random-effects model determined the significance of each variable in the occurrence of AEs.

RESULTS

2,468 patients (aged 20 months to 98 years; 112 < or =17 years; 141 > or =66 years) received DROP for agitation (n = 1,357), pain (1,135), anxiety (99), vomiting (173), or other reasons (50). There were 945 pts considered high risk; 933 charts were reviewed (DROP mean dose 4.1 +/- 2.0 mg); of these, 50 patient visits did not meet the criteria for high risk. There were 622 pts with head trauma (401 with alcohol use), including 47 with computed tomography (CT) scans positive for brain injury, 64 with cocaine use, and 197 with recent or remote seizures (137 with alcohol use). Minor AEs such as transient hypotension occurred in 96 pts after DROP (73 with alcohol use); 20 received intravenous fluids, while an additional 28 pts (8 with alcohol use) received rescue medications for EPSEs. Six possible serious AEs occurred in pts with serious comorbidities; 2 cases of respiratory depression, 3 post-DROP seizures, and 1 cardiac arrest (resuscitated) 11 hours after DROP in a cocaine-intoxicated pt (normal QT interval). There was no significant difference among high-risk groups in the occurrence of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of pts who received DROP in the ED did not experience an AE. A few serious AEs were noted following DROP in patients with serious comorbidities; it is not clear that DROP was causative.

Droperidol: should the black box be light gray?

In December 2001, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a "black box" warning to the labeling for droperidol stating that all doses, even those typically used for postoperative nausea and vomiting, were potentially associated with malignant ventricular dysrhythmias, including torsade de pointes. The 19 cases in which droperidol doses less than 10 mg were allegedly associated with such dysrhythmias are reviewed in detail. Confounding issues present in a majority of the cases make it difficult to incriminate droperidol as the likely cause of the reported adverse events.

Acute dystonia by droperidol during intravenous patient-controlled analgesia in young patients

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an important means for postoperative analgesia with parenteral opioid. However, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a major problem with a PCA system. Droperidol is used in PCA to prevent PONV. Extrapyramidal reactions by droperidol are, however, occasionally induced. We describe two cases of severe extrapyramidal hypertonic syndrome with an intravenous administration of droperidol in PCA in young patients, following orthopedic surgery.

[Effect of droperidol and tramadol combination on the hemostasis in rabbits]

The effect of a combined administration of analgesic droperidol and neuroleptic tramadol (tramal) on the plasma coagulation and platelet aggregation was studied on awake rabbits. Both tramadol and droperidol, as well as their combination, enhance the coagulation of plasma proteins and suppress the thrombocyte deaggregation process.

The rise and withdrawal of droperidol

Predicting which patients will experience postoperative nausea and vomiting is difficult. Prophylactic antiemetic administration has been shown to reduce unplanned admission after day case surgery. In published comparative studies of antiemetic efficacy, droperidol has been considered to be the 'gold standard' against which other agents are measured. The recent withdrawal of droperidol due to reports of cardiac arrhythmias and the potential for sudden death has left a vacancy for a safe and effective antiemetic. This article explores the published literature for alternatives to droperidol as a single dose or prophylaxis in patient controlled analgesia devices.

Antiemetic effects of granisetron, droperidol and dexamethasone in otologic surgery

The objective was to assess the antiemetic activity of granisetron, dexamethasone and droperidol in the otologic surgeries. Sixty patients in ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) I and II risk groups who underwent surgery for chronic otitis media were assessed in a double blind and randomized trial. The patients were divided into three equal groups. Single intravenous dose of granisetron (3 mg), granisetron (3 mg) plus dexamethasone (8 mg) and droperidol (1.25 mg) were prophylactically administered to the patients in group 1, group 2 and group 3, respectively, and their antiemetic actions were compared. The antiemetic effects of the drugs were not significantly different between the groups (P>0.05). The antiemetic effects also did not differ significantly in the early and late postoperative periods (P>0.05). In conclusion, the results of prophylactic use or side effects of granisetron, granisetron plus dexamethasone or droperidol are similar in middle ear surgery. Therefore, cost effectivity of the antiemetic prophylaxis should be reconsidered in otologic surgery in the light of the results of this study.

Cyclizine and droperidol have comparable efficacy and side effects during patient-controlled analgesia

BACKGROUND

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common, especially following gynaecological surgery. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is frequently complicated by nausea. We assessed PONV, pain and sedation in patients receiving cyclizine or droperidol during PCA following abdominal hysterectomy in a double-blind trial.

METHODS

Thirty women were randomised to receive either cyclizine 0.7 mg/kg or droperidol 0.04 mg/kg during surgery followed by PCA containing morphine sulphate with cyclizine 2 mg or droperidol 0.05 mg per demand. Blinded observers scored levels of nausea, sedation, anxiety and pain.

RESULTS

Pain scores, PCA usage and supplemental antiemetic requirements were comparable. Nausea and sedation scores were similar in both groups. Two patients in each group developed refractory PONV. Pre-operative anxiety scores were similar and decreased comparably over time. Patients developing refractory emetic sequelae had a higher incidence of previous PONV. Previous PONV also predicted lower PCA medication intake despite similar demand rates, suggesting increased usage during lock-out periods.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic cyclizine and droperidol have similar efficacy during PCA. Neither is associated with perioperative anxiety. A minority of patients have refractory PONV during PCA. Previous PONV may predict less efficient PCA usage.

Rapid tranquillisation: time for a reappraisal of options for parenteral therapy

BACKGROUND

When parenteral treatments are indicated for acutely disturbed behaviour, previous guidelines have recommended droperidol or haloperidol in combination with benzodiazepines. However, there has been recent concern over cardiotoxicity and sudden death associated with some antipsychotic medication and droperidol has now been withdrawn.

AIMS

To ascertain what alternatives can be recommended to replace intramuscular droperidol.

METHOD

Selective review of current guidelines and the literature pertaining to rapid parenteral tranquillisation.

RESULTS

Current guidelines recommend haloperidol as an alternative to droperidol. There is evidence of cardiotoxicity with haloperidol and it has a propensity to cause extrapyramidal side-effects that may exacerbate disturbed behaviour and reduce longer-term compliance. The rapid-acting intramuscular formulations of atypical antipsychotic agents show promise.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended that the mainstay of pharmacological rapid tranquillisation should be parenteral benzodiazepines used with due care.

Evaluation of postural stability after low-dose droperidol in outpatients undergoing gynaecological dilatation and curettage procedure

BACKGROUND

Low-dose droperidol is suggested to be cost-effective in preventing nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery. This clinical study evaluated patient postural stability using a computerized force platform after an i.v. dose of droperidol 0.625 mg in outpatients undergoing gynaecological dilatation and curettage procedures.

METHODS

After institutional approval and informed consent, 120 females were randomly assigned to receive either 0.9% saline (placebo) or droperidol 0.625 mg i.v. before surgery. Anaesthesia was induced with propofol 2-2.5 mg kg-1 and fentanyl 50-100 micrograms, and was maintained with intermittent boluses of propofol 25-50 mg and fentanyl 25-50 micrograms i.v. After operation, the Post-Anaesthesia Discharge Score (PADS), patient self-assessment scores for pain, nausea, drowsiness and dizziness, and extrapyramidal symptoms were recorded. Body sway velocity was measured while the patient was standing on a firm surface with eyes open then closed vs standing on a foam surface with eyes open then closed, at the time of arrival in the operation holding area (baseline), on achieving a PADS of 9 after surgery and on discharge home.

RESULTS

At the time of achieving a PADS of 9, body sway was significantly greater in the droperidol group than in the placebo group (overall 61% vs 33% above baseline). There were no differences between groups with respect to scores for pain, nausea, drowsiness and dizziness. Three patients (5%) in the droperidol group reported nervousness and restlessness postoperatively (not significant).

CONCLUSION

Low-dose droperidol 0.625 mg i.v. for anti-emetic prophylaxis can cause balance disturbances in females after gynaecological dilatation and curettage procedures.

A randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy of intramuscular droperidol for the treatment of acute migraine headache

In a recent case series, we reported that intramuscular droperidol appeared to be an effective therapy for the treatment of acute migraine headache. The objective of the study was to further assess the efficacy of intramuscular droperidol for the treatment of acute migraine headache. The study design was a randomized, clinical trial set in a community-based ED. The population was a convenience sample of ED patients who met International Headache Society acute migraine criteria. Exclusions included pregnancy, use of narcotic or phenothiazine medications within 24 hours. For the protocol, patients were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Patients and physicians were blinded as to the treatment provided. Patients recorded their initial pain on a 100mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Patients were randomized to receive either 2.5 mg droperidol intramuscularly; the other group received 1.5 mg/kg meperidine intramuscularly. After 30 minutes patients recorded their pain on the VAS and recorded their preference for the medication on a Likert Scale. Physicians recorded the incidence of any side effects and the need for rescue medication. Statistical analysis consisted of categorical variables that were analyzed by chi-square, continuous interval data by t-tests and ordinal data by Mann-Whitney U test. The primary outcome parameters were mean VAS score change and the percentage of patients who wanted to go home without rescue medication. The study had an 80% power to detect a 26 mm difference in the mean change in VAS between groups. Of the 29 patients who were enrolled, 15 received droperidol. Both groups were similar with respect to age (30.7 +/- 8.9 years droperdol v 32.7 +/- 9.9 years meperidine; P =.59), female sex (73% v 71%; P =.91), mean headache duration (24.7 +/- 28.3 v 18.3 +/- 25.8 hours; P =.55). The droperidol group had a higher mean initial VAS score (88 v 76 mm; P =.03). The 2 groups were similar with regard to outcome, including: mean change in VAS score (47 v 37 mm; P =.33), average Likert score (1.1 v 1.9; P =.85), and the percentage of patients who did not want rescue medication (67% v 57%; P =.61). The incidence of sedation was 6.7 v 14.3%. Akathisia occurred in 13.3% of pts who received droperidol. We found that intramuscular droperidol was similar in efficacy to meperidine with a low incidence of side effects.

[Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting FollowingGynaecological Laparoscopy]

OBJECTIVE

Compared to other procedures, gynaecological laparoscopies are followed rather frequently by postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, we investigated the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of metoclopramide and droperidol under general anaesthesia with isoflurane (part 1). Given the rather unsatisfying results of this monoprophylaxis we examined the effects of a quintuple prophylaxis in this setting (part 2).

METHODS

Part 1: Following ethical committee approval and written informed consent 120 patients scheduled for elective gynaecological laparoscopy were allocated prospectively, randomly and observer-blinded to the following groups: group P (placebo): 2 ml NaCl 0.9 %, group D: 2.5 mg droperidol, group M: 10 mg metoclopramide. Part 2: Subsequently 50 patients scheduled for elective gynaecological laparoscopy and bearing a minimum risk of 25 % to experience postoperative vomiting were allocated prospectively and blinded to the observers to a quintuple prophylaxis group: group X: 10 mg metoclopramide, 2.5 mg droperidol, 12.5 mg dolasetron, 62.5 mg dimenhydrinate, 8mg dexamethasone. Part 1 and 2: Anaesthesia was induced with fentanyl, etomidate and succinycholine and maintained with isoflurane/N2O, fentanyl and cisatracurium. The antiemetics were applied intravenously 20 min prior to end of surgery.

RESULTS

Within the first 24 h postoperatively vomiting occurred more frequently in group P (44 %) compared to group D (21 %, p = 0.046) and group M (33 %, n. s.). Nausea also occurred more frequently in group P (61 %) compared to group D (24 %, p = 0.003) and group M (48 %, n. s.). Intensity of nausea was reduced both in group D and group M compared to group P (p = 0.03). Likewise the requirements for antiemetics as a rescue medication were reduced in group D (p = 0.02) and group M (p = 0.047) compared to group P. In group X no patient suffered from postoperative vomiting, no patient required a rescue antiemetic.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas droperidol provides a reliable antiemetic effect, the prophylactic effect of metoclopramide is rather uncertain. Therefore, further studies regarding a dose response-relationship for metoclopramide are deemed necessary. Since a monoprophylaxis with droperidol or metoclopramide failed to attain a satisfying PONV-prophylaxis in patients at high risk for PONV, the quintuple antiemetic combination might be an effective and safe solution.