Droperidol, QT prolongation, and sudden death: what is the evidence?

Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Medications for the Management of Acute Disturbance (Agitation and Other Escalating Behaviors): A Systematic Review of Prospective Interventional Studies

Acute disturbance is a broad term referring to escalating behaviors secondary to a change in mental state, such as agitation, aggression, and violence. Available management options include de-escalation techniques and rapid tranquilization, mostly via parenteral formulations of medication. While the intramuscular route has been extensively studied in a range of clinical settings, the same cannot be said for intravenous (IV); this is despite potential benefits, including rapid absorption and complete bioavailability. This systematic review analyzed existing evidence for effectiveness and safety of IV medication for management of acute disturbances. It followed a preregistered protocol (PROSPERO identification CRD42020216456) and is reported following the guidelines set by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched for eligible interventional studies up until May 30th, 2023. Data analysis was limited to narrative synthesis since primary outcome measures varied significantly. Results showed mixed but positive results for the effectiveness of IV dexmedetomidine, lorazepam, droperidol, and olanzapine. Evidence was more limited for IV haloperidol, ketamine, midazolam, chlorpromazine, and valproate. There was no eligible data on the use of IV clonazepam, clonidine, diazepam, diphenhydramine, propranolol, ziprasidone, fluphenazine, carbamazepine, or promethazine. Most studies reported favorable adverse event profiles, though they are unlikely to have been sufficiently powered to pick up rare serious events. In most cases, evidence was of low or mixed quality, accentuating the need for further standardized, large-scale, multi-arm randomized controlled trials with homogeneous outcome measures. Overall, this review suggests that IV medications may offer an effective alternative parenteral route of administration in acute disturbance, particularly in general hospital settings.

A Lethal Combination of Delirium and Overcrowding in the Emergency Department

Delirium is a common public health concern that significantly impacts older patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED). This condition is linked to adverse outcomes such as reduced long-term functionality, higher mortality rates, extended hospital stays, and increased medical costs. The identification of risk factors is crucial for the early recognition and management of delirium in ED patients. Aging, cognitive decline, polypharmacy, and sensory impairment are some of the most common general risk factors described in the literature. Although validated delirium assessment tools already exist, they are not practical for the fast-paced ED environment because of their extended evaluation period or specialized training request. Moreover, clear guidance is needed to select the most suitable tool for detecting delirium, balancing between the accuracy and the swiftness required in an overcrowded, high-stress, and understaffed healthcare setting. This narrative review aims to analyze the updated literature on delirium risk factors in older ED patients and focuses on the methods for better screening, managing, and treating this condition in the ED.

A Study of Cardiac Outcomes After Droperidol Administration in an Inpatient Psychiatric Cohort

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

Droperidol is an antipsychotic medication used in psychiatric emergencies to manage acute behavioral disturbance. Droperidol use carries a risk of prolonged QT interval on the electrocardiogram and associated cardiac arrhythmias including torsades de pointes and ventricular fibrillation. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of droperidol in adults admitted to the psychiatric inpatient unit of a large Australian hospital.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

In this retrospective cohort study, psychiatric inpatients admitted between October 22, 2018, and March 1, 2021, who received at least 1 dose of intramuscular droperidol were consecutively included. Outcomes of interest were death, cardiac arrhythmias, and QT prolongation. QT prolongation was identified using the QT-interval nomogram.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

This study included 263 patients without exclusion. No deaths or cases of cardiac arrhythmia were recorded within 24 hours of droperidol administration. Electrocardiogram data were available for 41.1% of patients (n = 108) within 7 days of droperidol administration. Two cases of QT prolongation were identified using the QT-interval nomogram, but these patients were also prescribed other medications that may have contributed to QT prolongation.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes the first known large retrospective study of safety outcomes including QT prolongation after droperidol administration in a psychiatric inpatient setting. Our findings corroborate mounting evidence supporting the clinical safety of droperidol use in psychiatric settings. Nonetheless, we note that significant barriers remain with regard to timely electrocardiogram monitoring after droperidol use.

Droperidol Use in the Emergency Department: A Clinical Review

BACKGROUND

Droperidol is a butyrophenone, with antiemetic, sedative, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties. Although droperidol was once widely used in both emergency and perioperative settings, use of the medication declined rapidly after a 2001 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) boxed warning called the medication's safety into question.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this clinical review was to provide evidence-based answers to questions about droperidol's safety and to examine its efficacy in its various clinical indications.

DISCUSSION

Droperidol is an effective sedative, anxiolytic, analgesic, and antiemetic medication. As a sedative, when compared with haloperidol, droperidol has faster onset, as well as greater efficacy, in patients experiencing acute psychosis, with no increase in adverse events. As an antiemetic, droperidol has been found to have equal or greater efficacy in reducing nausea and vomiting than ondansetron and metoclopramide, with similar adverse effects and the added effect of reducing the need for rescue analgesia in these patients. As an analgesic, droperidol is effective for migraines and has opioid-sparing effects when used to treat abdominal pain. Droperidol is a particularly useful adjunct in patients who are opioid-tolerant, whose pain is often difficulty to manage adequately.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol seems to be effective and safe, despite the boxed warning issued by the FDA. Droperidol is a powerful antiemetic, sedative, anxiolytic, antimigraine, and adjuvant to opioid analgesia and does not require routine screening with electrocardiography when used in low doses in otherwise healthy patients before administration in the emergency department.

A systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of droperidol for pediatric agitation in acute care settings

OBJECTIVE

Agitation in children in acute care settings poses significant patient and staff safety concerns. While behavioral approaches are central to reducing agitation and oral medications are preferred, parenteral medications are used when necessary to promote safety. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of an ultra-short-acting parenteral medication, droperidol, for the management of acute, severe agitation in children in acute care settings.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case series/reports examined the effectiveness and safety of parenteral droperidol for management of acute agitation in patients ≤21 years old in acute care settings. Effectiveness outcomes included time to sedation and need for a subsequent dose of medication. Safety outcomes were adverse effects such as QTc prolongation, hypotension, respiratory depression, and dystonic reactions.

RESULTS

A total of 431 unique articles were identified. Six articles met inclusion criteria: two in the prehospital setting, one in the emergency department, and three in the inpatient hospital setting. The articles included a prospective observational study, three retrospective observational studies, and two case reports. The largest study reported a median time to sedation of 14 min (interquartile range 10-20 min); other studies reported a time to sedation of 15 min or less. Across studies, 8%-22% of patients required a second dose of medication for ongoing agitation. The most frequent adverse effects were dystonic reactions and transient hypotension. One patient had QTc prolongation and another developed respiratory depression, but both had significant comorbidities that may have contributed. The risk of bias in included studies ranged from moderate to critical.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing data on droperidol for management of acute agitation in children suggest that droperidol is both effective and safe for acute, severe agitation in children. Data are limited by study designs that may introduce bias.

Psychopharmacology of agitation in acute psychotic and manic episodes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide updated guidance for the medication treatment of acute agitation in the setting of psychosis or mania on inpatient psychiatric units.

RECENT FINDINGS

This topic presented challenges: studies are sparse, tend to be under-powered, and are difficult to compare. Though there have been few recent studies, there have been several recent meta-analyses, Cochrane reviews, and published guidelines that sift through the primarily older evidence as well as more recent trials. The reviewers often do not agree on what seems to have the best evidence for efficacy and safety.

SUMMARY

We conclude that the best approach is to summarize in some detail the evidence for each possible treatment and the interpretations published recently on each of those treatments, and then present recommendations for medication management in tiered rankings, based on the authors' qualitative review of the data and opinions. For oral treatment, the first-tier options are (alphabetically) haloperidol with lorazepam, lorazepam alone, and olanzapine. The second tier includes haloperidol with promethazine, loxapine inhaler, and risperidone alone. Tier 3 includes asenapine and quetiapine. For intramuscular treatment, the first-tier includes haloperidol plus promethazine, and olanzapine alone, and the second-tier includes haloperidol with lorazepam, and lorazepam alone.

Prospective real-time evaluation of the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol among emergency department patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol in a population of undifferentiated, stable, and non-agitated patients receiving droperidol in the emergency department.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥12 years of age who received low-dose droperidol (≤ 2.5 mg) for indications other than acute behavioral disturbances. QTc intervals were monitored in real-time during pre-specified observation periods in the ED. Primary outcome was variation of QTc interval after droperidol administration, defined as the maximum delta (change) of QTc interval. Other outcomes included proportion of patients with a QTc ≥ 500 ms after droperidol, delta ≥ +60 ms, and incidence of clinical adverse events. Patients were monitored up to 30 min after IV bolus and up to 46 min after infusion.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients were included (mean age 42.1 years, 66.2% females). The median dose of droperidol was 1.875 mg (range 0.625 mg, 2.5 mg) and 94.1% received droperidol for headache management. Most patients received droperidol as a 2-min bolus (n = 41, 60.3%). The mean maximum delta of QTc interval after droperidol across all 68 patients was +29.9 ms (SD 15). A total of 12 patients (17.6%) experienced a QTc interval ≥ 500 ms during the observation period after droperidol, and 3 patients (4.4%) had a delta QTc ≥ +60 ms. There were no serious arrhythmias, such as TdP, or deaths among the 68 participants in this study (0/68). However, 13.2% (n = 9) had at least one non-serious adverse event including restlessness and/or anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The QTc interval slightly increased after droperidol administration, but these prolongations were brief, mostly below 500 msec and did not lead to serious arrhythmias. The yield of continuous cardiac monitoring in patients receiving low doses of droperidol is likely low.

A Prospective Study of Intramuscular Droperidol or Olanzapine for Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department: A Natural Experiment Owing to Drug Shortages

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intramuscular medications are commonly used to treat agitation in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study is to compare intramuscular droperidol and olanzapine for treating agitation.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of ED patients receiving intramuscular droperidol or olanzapine for acute agitation. The treating physician determined the medication and dose; however, over time drug shortages made either olanzapine (July to September 2019) or droperidol (November 2019 to March 2020) unavailable, creating a natural experiment. The primary outcome was time to adequate sedation, assessed by the Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS), defined as time to AMSS score less than or equal to 0.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1,257 patients (median age 42 years; 73% men); 538 received droperidol (median dose 5 mg) and 719 received olanzapine (median dose 10 mg). The majority of patients (1,086; 86%) had agitation owing to alcohol intoxication. Time to adequate sedation was 16 minutes (interquartile range 10 to 30 minutes) for droperidol and 17.5 minutes (interquartile range 10 to 30 minutes) for olanzapine (absolute difference -0.7 minutes; 95% confidence interval -2.1 to 0.5 minutes). Adjusted Cox proportional hazard model analysis revealed no difference between groups in time to sedation (hazard ratio for adequate sedation for droperidol compared with olanzapine 1.12; 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.25). Patients receiving olanzapine were more likely to receive additional medications for sedation (droperidol 17%; olanzapine 24%; absolute difference -8% [95% confidence interval -12% to -3%]). We observed no difference between drugs regarding adverse effects except for extrapyramidal adverse effects, which were more common with droperidol (n=6; 1%) than olanzapine (n=1; 0.1%).

CONCLUSION

We found no difference in time to adequate sedation between intramuscular droperidol and olanzapine.

PONV management in patients with QTc prolongation on the EKG

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a commonly encountered problem in surgical practice. It delays discharge from the post-anesthesia care unit, requires additional resources to treat, and may increase the morbidity in some patients. Many effective drugs are available to treat or prevent PONV, however many of these drugs have the potential to prolong the QTc on the electrocardiogram (EKG) and increase the risk of serious ventricular arrhythmias, in particular, torsade de pointes. The QTc prolongation may be a manifestation of a genetic mutation resulting in abnormal myocyte repolarization or it may be acquired and associated with the use of various medications, electrolyte disorders, and physiological conditions. Patients predisposed to QTc prolongation presenting for surgery constitute a challenging group, since many drugs commonly used for PONV management will put them at risk for perioperative serious arrhythmias. This is an important topic, and our mini-review is an attempt to highlight the problem, summarize the existing experience, and generate recommendations for safe management of PONV for patients, who are at increased risk of QTc prolongation and arrhythmias. Focused prospective studies will help to find definitive answers to the discussed problems and challenges and develop specific guidelines for clinical application.

Reintegrating droperidol into emergency medicine practice

Purpose

After a long period of low utilization, droperidol has become easier to obtain in the US market. This comprehensive review discusses the safety, indications, clinical efficacy, and dosing of droperidol for use in the emergency department (ED) setting.

Summary

In 2001 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a boxed warning in the labeling of droperidol after reports of QT interval prolongation associated with droperidol use. Since that time, it has been difficult to access droperidol in the United States; as a result, many practicing clinicians lack experience in its clinical use. Multiple studies have been conducted to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of droperidol use in ED patients. Results consistently show the safety of droperidol and its clinical efficacy when used as an analgesic, antiemetic, and sedative. Now that droperidol is more widely available for use in the US market, pharmacists and prescribers need to reliably translate safety and efficacy data compiled since 2001 to help ensure appropriate and effective use of the medication.

Conclusion

Droperidol is an effective and safe option for the treatment of acute agitation, migraine, nausea, and pain for patients in the ED setting. Healthcare professionals can adopt droperidol for use in clinical practice, and they should become familiar with how to dose and monitor droperidol for safe and effective use.

The Incidence of QT Prolongation and Torsades des Pointes in Patients Receiving Droperidol in an Urban Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Droperidol carries a boxed warning from the United States Food and Drug Administration for QT prolongation and torsades des pointes (TdP). After a six-year hiatus, droperidol again became widely available in the US in early 2019. With its return, clinicians must again make decisions regarding the boxed warning. Thus, the objective of this study was to report the incidence of QT prolongation or TdP in patients receiving droperidol in the ED.

METHODS

Patients receiving droperidol at an urban Level I trauma center from 1997-2001 were identified via electronic health record query. All patients were reviewed for cardiac arrest. We reviewed electrocardiogram (ECG) data for both critically-ill and noncritical patients and recorded Bazett's corrected QT intervals (QTc). ECGs from critically-ill patients undergoing resuscitation were further risk-stratified using the QT nomogram.

RESULTS

Of noncritical patients, 15,374 received 18,020 doses of droperidol; 2,431 had an ECG. In patients with ECGs before and after droperidol, the mean QTc was 424.3 milliseconds (ms) (95% confidence interval [CI], 419.7-428.9) before and 427.6 ms (95% CI, 424.3-430.9), after droperidol (n = 170). Regarding critically-ill patients, 1,172 received droperidol and 396 had an ECG. In the critically-ill group with ECGs before and after droperidol mean QTc was 435.7 ms (95% CI, 426.7-444.7) before and 435.8 ms (95% CI, 427.5-444.1) after droperidol (n = 114). Of 337 ECGs suitable for plotting on the QT nomogram, 13 (3.8%) were above the "at-risk" line; 3/136 (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.05-6.3%) in the before group, and 10/202 (4.9%; 95% CI, 2.4%-8.9%) in the after group. A single case of TdP occurred in a patient with multiple risk factors that did not reoccur after a droperidol rechallenge. Thus, the incidence of TdP was 1/16,546 (0.006%; 95% CI, 0.00015 - 0.03367%).

CONCLUSION

We found the incidence of QTc prolongation and TdP in ED patients receiving droperidol to be extremely rare. Our data suggest the FDA "black box warning" is overstated, and that close ECG monitoring is useful only in high-risk patients.

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

OBJECTIVE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol appeared to be safe and effective for pre-hospital sedation of acute behavioural disturbance in elderly patients.

Comparison of the Effects of Propofol and Sevoflurane on QT Interval in Pediatrics Undergoing Cochlear Implantation: A Randomized Clinical Trial Study

Background

Children with sensorineural hearing loss are at risk of cardiac electrophysiologic abnormalities. Inhalational Sevoflurane induction in these children can cause QT prolongation.

Objectives

In order to evaluate the safety of inhalational induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane in children with sensorineural hearing loss, who are candidates for cochlear implant, its electrophysiologic effects was compared with intravenous induction of anesthesia with propofol.

Methods

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 61 children aged between one and eighteen years old, who were candidates for cochlear implantation, were randomly allocated to groups receiving anesthesia with sevoflurane (n = 32) or propofol (n = 29) for induction of anesthesia. Two 12-leads ECG were taken from all of patients before and after induction and QTc, Tp-e interval, and JTc were measured and compared.

Results

Two cases, who had pre-induction QTc longer than 500 ms were excluded from the study. Patients had similar age (102.58 ± 87 versus 101.46 ± 67 months, P = 0.95) and gender (males: 48.3% versus 56.3%, P = 0.53) distribution. The researchers observed significant post induction difference in QTc values between these groups (propofol 422.5 ± 40, sevoflurane 445.0 ± 29, P = 0.016). There was no significant difference in the percent QTc and Tp-e changes in propofol and sevoflurane groups. Greater percentage of patients with increased Tp-e interval (> 100 ms) in the sevoflurane group than the propofol group was also seen. There was no significant long QTc difference (QTc > 500 ms or more than 60 ms increase from baseline) after induction of anesthesia in the sevoflurane group compared to the propofol group (15.6% versus 13.8%, P = 0.84).

Conclusions

After electrophysiological evaluations in children with sensorineural hearing loss, in patients whose pre-induction QTc is not longer than 500 ms, propofol seems safer than inhalational sevoflurane for induction of anesthesia.

Parenteral Antipsychotic Choice and Its Association With Emergency Department Length of Stay for Acute Agitation Secondary to Alcohol Intoxication

BACKGROUND

Acute agitation secondary to alcohol intoxication frequently requires parenteral sedatives for patient and caregiver safety. Antipsychotics play a prominent role; however, no consensus exists regarding the ideal agent. One important consideration when evaluating the choice of antipsychotic is its association with emergency department (ED) length of stay (LOS).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the median ED LOS for patients receiving a single parenteral dose of an antipsychotic for acute agitation secondary to alcohol intoxication in an urban Level I trauma center.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of patients receiving a single parenteral dose of droperidol, haloperidol, or olanzapine who were acutely intoxicated on alcohol from 2011 to 2016. Patients needing psychiatric assessment in our ED are discharged to a geographically separate department; thus, ED LOS is minimally impacted by waits for psychiatric assessment. Data were abstracted from the electronic medical record and are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

A total of 40,601 patients were identified and screened; 24,319 patients were intoxicated but received no sedation. Of those remaining 4,495 received multiple drugs and/or benzodiazepines leaving 11,787 for analysis. Median age was 42 years, 76% were male, and 5% of patients were admitted. Mean breath ethanol concentration was 227 mg/dL. Antipsychotics administered were as follows: droperidol (n = 3,790), haloperidol (n = 1,449), and olanzapine (n = 6,548). Median ED LOS was shortest for droperidol (499 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 493-506 minutes), which was significantly shorter than both haloperidol (524 minutes, 95% CI = 515-537 minutes) and olanzapine (533 minutes, 95% CI = 528-539 minutes). No cases of sudden cardiac death occurred.

CONCLUSION

Droperidol, when given as monotherapy for sedation of acute agitation secondary to alcohol intoxication, was associated with significantly shorter ED LOS than either parenteral haloperidol or parenteral olanzapine. No difference in ED LOS was observed between haloperidol and olanzapine.

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.

Recent advances and anaesthetic considerations in corneal transplantation

Significant surgical advances have been made recently in corneal transplantation. Penetrating keratoplasty was the dominant method from 1905, until selective lamellar keratoplasty emerged as the preferred technique over the last 20 years. Advanced techniques such as corneal limbal stem cell transplant and keratoprosthesis are also available. The major surgical complications of corneal transplantation are extrusion of ocular content and expulsive choroidal haemorrhage. It is essential for an ophthalmic anaesthetist to have a good understanding of these new surgical procedures so as to provide optimal surgical conditions. This article aims to inform anaesthetists about the recent surgical advances in corneal transplantation and explore the anaesthetic considerations of these new techniques. General anaesthesia remains suitable for a wide range of these procedures especially in repeat surgery, difficult, or prolonged procedures. Regional ophthalmic blocks are ideal for endothelial keratoplasty but can be used in penetrating keratoplasty based on individual risk-benefit assessment, and as a supplement to general anaesthesia. Topical anaesthesia provides an alternative when general anaesthesia and ophthalmic regional blocks are less desirable but overall its use is limited.

Sudden cardiac death and antipsychotics. Part 1: Risk factors and mechanisms

Mortality from causes other than suicide is higher than expected in schizophrenia. Cardiovascular causes are most common, accounting for the majority of the 5% of sudden and unexpected deaths. Most cases have no clear explanation on post-mortem examination (‘sudden unexplained deaths’) and are thought to result from fatal arrhythmias. Prospective studies show that people with prolongation of the QT interval beyond 500 ms are at increased risk of serious arrhythmias such as ventricular tachycardia and torsade de pointes. In about 1 in 10 cases, the torsade is fatal. Most antipsychotics prolong the QTc interval in overdose but some prolong it even at therapeutic doses. Droperidol, sertindole and ziprasidone extend the QT interval by an average of 15–35 ms; quetiapine, haloperidol and olanzapine by 5 ms, to 15 ms. There is only an approximate relationship between QT prolongation and risk of sudden death, and the risk related to antipsychotics is thought to increase in people with pre-existing cardiac disease, those taking multiple QT-acting drugs and those taking antipsychotics at high dose for long periods. There is little evidence of an association with route of administration. More data are required to clarify to what extent people with mental health difficulties who die suddenly have pre-existing cardiac disease.

Evidence-based review and appraisal of the use of droperidol in the emergency department

Droperidol is a short-acting, potent dopamine D2 antagonist that can pass through the blood–brain barrier. A black box warning was issued for droperidol by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2001 because of a risk of development of torsades de pointes induced by QT prolongation. Many experts feel that the incidence of arrhythmia is overestimated, and low-dose droperidol is almost always used by anesthesiologists for postoperative nausea and vomiting. In this review, we used evidence-based analysis to appraise high-quality studies with a low risk of bias published after 2001 on the use of droperidol in the emergency department (ED). Droperidol appears not only efficacious but also safe to treat patients with nausea/vomiting, acute psychosis, and migraine in the ED. For these conditions, droperidol may be an option for shared decision-making.

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Chemical agents for the sedation of agitated patients in the ED: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Chemical agents commonly used to sedate agitated patients in the emergency department include benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, or a combination of the 2 classes. Our objective was to determine if a class or combination therapy is (1) more effective, as measured by the proportion sedated at 15-20 minutes and the need for repeat sedation, and (2) safer, as measured by the proportion of reported adverse events.

METHODS

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies comparing 2 or more chemical agents for sedation of agitated patients in the emergency department were carried out in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Meta-analyses for pairwise comparisons of drug class (benzodiazepine, antipsychotic, or combination) were carried out for each outcome: proportion sedated, need for repeat sedation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 1135 patients were included. At 15-20 minutes, the proportion of patients sedated was greater with combination therapy than benzodiazepines alone (risk ratio [RR] = 1.31, P < .0001). Antipsychotics and combination agents required significantly less repeat sedations than benzodiazepines alone (RR = 0.49, P < .0001 and RR = 0.64, P = .002). There was significant heterogeneity in adverse event data, with respiratory system adverse events (desaturation, and need for airway and ventilatory support) being the most commonly reported. Benzodiazepines were associated with a higher incidence of adverse events than antipsychotics or combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy sedated a greater proportion of patients at 15-20 minutes than benzodiazepines alone. Antipsychotics and combination therapy were more effective, requiring less repeat doses for sedation than benzodiazepines. The risk of any adverse event was higher with benzodiazepines.

Droperidol v. haloperidol for sedation of aggressive behaviour in acute mental health: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Agitation and aggression are significant problems in acute psychiatric units. There is little consensus on which drug is most effective and safest for sedation of these patients.

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness and safety of haloperidol v. droperidol for patients with agitation and aggression.

METHOD

In a masked, randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12611000565943) intramuscular droperidol (10 mg) was compared with intramuscular haloperidol (10 mg) for adult patients with acute behavioural disturbance in a psychiatric intensive care unit. The primary outcome was time to sedation within 120 min. Secondary outcomes were use of additional sedation, adverse events and staff injuries.

RESULTS

From 584 patients, 110 were randomised to haloperidol and 118 to droperidol. Effective sedation occurred in 210 (92%) patients within 120 min. There was no significant difference in median time to sedation: 20 min (interquartile range 15-30, range 10-75) for haloperidol v. 25 min (IQR 15-30, range 10-115) for droperidol (P = 0.89). Additional sedation was used more often with haloperidol (13% v. 5%, P = 0.06), but adverse effects were less common with haloperidol (1% v. 5%, P = 0.12). There were 8 staff injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Both haloperidol and droperidol were effective for sedation of patients with acute behavioural disturbance.

High dose droperidol and QT prolongation: analysis of continuous 12-lead recordings

AIMS

To investigate the QT interval after high dose droperidol using continuous 12-lead Holter recordings.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of patients given droperidol with a continuous Holter recording. Patients were recruited from the DORM II study which included patients with aggression presenting to the emergency department. Patients initially received 10 mg droperidol as part of a standardized sedation protocol. An additional 10 mg dose was given after 15 min if required and further doses at the clinical toxicologist's discretion. Continuous 12-lead Holter recordings were obtained for 2-24 h utilizing high resolution digital recordings with automated QT interval measurement. Electrocardiograms were extracted hourly from Holter recordings. The QT interval was plotted against heart rate (HR) on the QT nomogram to determine if it was abnormal. QTc F (Fridericia's HR correction) was calculated and >500 ms was defined as abnormal.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients had Holter recordings after 10-40 mg droperidol and 316 QT-HR pairs were included. There were 32 abnormal QT measurements in four patients, three given 10 mg and one 20 mg. In three of the four patients QTc F >500 ms but only in one taking methadone was the timing of QTc F >500 ms consistent with droperidol dosing. Of the three other patients, one took amphetamines, one still had QT prolongation 24 h after droperidol and one took a lamotrigine overdose. No patient given >30 mg had a prolonged QT. There were no arrhythmias.

CONCLUSION

QT prolongation was observed with high dose droperidol. However, there was little evidence supporting droperidol being the cause and QT prolongation was more likely due to pre-existing conditions or other drugs.

Droperidol for treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2010, on droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients. Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal illness and can be very unpleasant and distressing. There are several different types of antiemetic treatments that can be used to control these symptoms. Droperidol is an antipsychotic drug and has been used and studied as an antiemetic in the management of postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE (1950-), EMBASE (1980-), CINAHL (1981-) and AMED (1985-), using relevant search terms and synonyms. The basic search strategy was ("droperidol" OR "butyrophenone") AND ("nausea" OR "vomiting"), modified for each database. We updated the search on 2 December 2009. We performed updated searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and AMED 2009 to 2013 on 19 November 2013 and of CINAHL on 20 November 2013. We also searched trial registers (metaRegister of controlled trials (www.controlled-trials.com/mrct), clinicaltrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/)) on 22 November 2013, using the keyword "droperidol".

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of droperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We judged the potential relevance of studies based on their titles and abstracts, and obtained studies that we anticipated might meet the inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently reviewed the abstracts for the initial review and four review authors reviewed the abstracts for the update to assess suitability for inclusion. We discussed discrepancies to achieve consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2010 search strategy identified 1664 abstracts (and 827 duplicates) of which we obtained 23 studies in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.The updated searches carried out in November 2013 identified 304 abstracts (261 excluding duplicates) of which we obtained 18 references in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, we identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria, therefore there were no included studies in this review.We found no registered trials of droperidol for the management of nausea or vomiting in palliative care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since first publication of this review, no new studies were found. There is insufficient evidence to advise on the use of droperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Studies of antiemetics in palliative care settings are needed to identify which agents are most effective, with minimum side effects.

Does methamphetamine use increase violent behaviour? Evidence from a prospective longitudinal study

AIMS

To determine whether violent behaviour increases during periods of methamphetamine use and whether this is due to methamphetamine-induced psychotic symptoms.

DESIGN

A fixed-effects (within-subject) analysis of four non-contiguous 1-month observation periods from a longitudinal prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Sydney and Brisbane, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 278 participants aged 16 years or older who met DSM-IV criteria for methamphetamine dependence on entry to the study but who did not meet DSM-IV criteria for life-time schizophrenia or mania.

MEASUREMENTS

Violent behaviour was defined as severe hostility in the past month on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (corresponding to assault/damage to property). Days of methamphetamine and other substance use in the past month were assessed using the Opiate Treatment Index. Positive psychotic symptoms in the past month were identified using the BPRS.

FINDINGS

There was a dose-related increase in violent behaviour when an individual was using methamphetamine compared with when they were not after adjusting for other substance use and socio-demographics [cf. no use in the past month: 1-15 days of use odds ratio (OR) = 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) =1.6-4.9; 16+ days of use OR = 9.5, 95% CI = 4.8-19.1]. The odds of violent behaviour were further increased by psychotic symptoms (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.1-3.6), which accounted for 22-30% of violent behaviour related to methamphetamine use. Heavy alcohol consumption also increased the risk of violent behaviour (OR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.4-7.0) and accounted for 12-18% of the violence risk related to methamphetamine use.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a dose-related increase in violent behaviour during periods of methamphetamine use that is largely independent of the violence risk associated with psychotic symptoms.

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 i.m. in 289 cases (92%), and droperidol was given i.m. in 132 cases (61%); in all other cases, the medication was given i.v.. 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.

Drugs to be avoided in patients with long QT syndrome: Focus on the anaesthesiological management

Long QT syndrome incidence is increasing in general population. A careful pre-, peri- and post-operative management is needed for patients with this syndrome because of the risk of Torsades de Pointes and malignant arrhythmias. The available data regarding prevention of lethal Torsades de Pointes during anesthesia in patients with long QT syndrome is scant and conflicting: only case reports and small case series with different outcomes have been published. Actually, there are no definitive guidelines on pre-, peri- and post-operative anesthetic management of congenital long QT syndrome. Our review focuses on anesthetic recommendations for patients diagnosed with congenital long QT syndrome furnishing some key points for preoperative optimization, intraoperative anesthetic agents and postoperative care plan, which could be the best for patients with c-long QT syndrome who undergo surgery.

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 2: neuroleptics, antihistamines, and others

OBJECTIVES

This second portion of a 3-part series examines the relative effectiveness of headache treatment with neuroleptics, antihistamines, serotonin antagonists, valproate, and other drugs (octreotide, lidocaine, nitrous oxide, propofol, and bupivacaine) in the setting of an emergency department, urgent care center, or headache clinic.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched using the terms "migraine" AND "emergency" AND "therapy" OR "treatment." Reports were from emergency department and urgent care settings and involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinics were only included if medications were delivered by a parenteral route.

RESULTS

Prochlorperazine, promethazine, and metoclopramide, when used alone, were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also have more side effects (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Meperidine was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking droperidol and prochlorperazine was equivalent to sumatriptan.

CONCLUSIONS

Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti-migraine medications in the emergent setting, and the effectiveness of each is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in producing migraine pain relief. Dopamine antagonists, in general, appear to be equivalent for migraine pain relief to the migraine-"specific" medications sumatriptan and dihydroergotamine, although there are fewer studies involving the last two. Lack of comparisons to placebo and the frequent use of combination medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one other.

Use of haloperidol in PCP-intoxicated individuals

CONTEXT

Emergency medical workers often experience violence while performing their job functions. Phencyclidine (PCP)-intoxicated patients are often violent and difficult to control physically. A chemical restraint is frequently needed to assist in protecting both patients and staff from agitated persons.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated haloperidol as a chemical restraint in PCP-intoxicated patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of all PCP-positive patients who received haloperidol for behavioral control from April 2008 to April 2011 at a single large (944 bed), urban, tertiary-care hospital. All patients receiving haloperidol and having a toxicology screen positive for PCP were identified using an electronic medical record. Identified cases were then manually reviewed by investigators for adverse events.

RESULTS

Subjects included 59 adult patients who were acutely agitated requiring chemical restraint or sedation with haloperidol, and who tested positive for PCP. There were 20 females and 39 males, ranging in age from 19 to 54 years. Patients received haloperidol via the PO, IM, or IV routes in doses ranging from 1 to 10 mg. There were two adverse events (mild hypoxia and mild hypotension) found during chart review; neither were serious nor required change in patient disposition.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, haloperidol does not seem to cause harm when used in the management of PCP-intoxicated patients. Caution must always be exercised in the use of chemical restraint; further prospective study is warranted.

News Flash: Old Mother Hubbard Reports the Cupboard is Bare… Time for the FDA to Let Droperidol Out of the (Black) Box

A quick way for a clinical pharmacist to eliminate himself or herself from “employee of the month” consideration is to mention the term medication shortage. Even with training geared toward maximizing resources, the cumulative disappearance of a plethora of medications for the treatment of nausea, vomiting, and/or primary headaches is almost too much for emergency medicine physicians to manage. With prochlorperazine, metoclopramide, promethazine, and ondansetron in increasingly short supply, it is time for the Food and Drug Administration to revisit droperidol's black box warning driven by Q Tc interval prolongation, given its questionable validity, and restore droperidol's place in the armamentarium of emergency medicine physicians.

A continuing black hole? The FDA boxed warning: an appeal to improve its clinical utility

The boxed warning is increasingly utilized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a clinical warning to prescribers of dangerous adverse drug reactions. As these warnings have expanded, we feel the utility and application of boxed warnings are becoming more nebulous. The use of drugs following issuance of a boxed warning has been variable. Droperidol sales decreased 10-fold in the year following the warning, yet there has been essentially no change in the methadone usage over a similar time period after its boxed warning. Including more information, such as estimation of incidence for the adverse drug reaction, would be more clinically useful to the prescriber. Reasonable standards using supplemental databases outside of the FDA (such as national poison center data) could be helpful in developing an integrated and balanced approach to boxed warnings.

Vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis

Diseases that cause vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastroenteritis are major problems for populations worldwide. Patients, particularly infants, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, may present at any point in a wide spectrum of disease states, underscoring the need for the clinician to treat these ailments aggressively. Several promising new treatment modalities, from oral rehydration solutions to antiemetic therapies, have been introduced over the past decade. Future directions include the use of probiotic agents and better tolerated rehydration solutions. Gastrointestinal disease will continue to be a focus worldwide in the search for better ways to cure illnesses associated with vomiting and diarrhea.

Droperidol for treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal illness and can be very unpleasant and distressing. There are several different types of antiemetic treatments which can be used to control these symptoms. Droperidol is an antipsychotic drug and has been used and studied as an antiemetic in the management of post-operative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events (both minor and serious) associated with the use of droperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. The basic search strategy was ("droperidol" OR "butyrophenone") AND ("nausea" OR "vomiting"), modified for each database. The search was updated on 2 December 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of droperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, for adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We judged the potential relevance of studies based on their titles and abstracts, and obtained studies which we anticipated might meet the inclusion criteria. We both read these to assess suitability for inclusion. Discrepancies were discussed to achieve consensus.

MAIN RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1664 abstracts (and 827 duplicates) of which 23 studies were obtained in full as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria. On review of the full papers, no studies were identified which met the inclusion criteria, therefore, there were no included studies in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to advise on the use of droperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Studies of antiemetics in palliative care settings are needed to identify which agents are most effective with a minimum of side effects.

Inside the black box: current policies and concerns with the United States Food and Drug Administration's highest drug safety warning system

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the United States Food and Drug Administration use of the black-box warning system to promote drug safety and to examine the droperidol black-box warning as a case study.

RECENT FINDINGS

Scientific studies report that there is no basis to issue a black-box warning for perioperative administration of droperidol for postoperative nausea and vomiting on the basis of the potential of adverse cardiac events (prolongation of the QT interval and/or development of torsades de pointes).

SUMMARY

Rather than relying on well conducted clinical investigations, the Food and Drug Administration subjectively issued a black-box warning to droperidol, which effectively removed droperidol from clinical practice for the indication of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Newer data suggest that the incidence of prolongation of the QT interval and the occurrence of torsades de pointes is similar to more expensive alternative medications used to treat postoperative nausea and vomiting.