Droperidol use in pediatric emergency department patients

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.

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.

Psychopharmacology of Treating Explosive Behavior

Explosive and aggressive behavior in children can pose safety risks, disturb family functioning, and lead to significant impairments. Pharmacologic management should be based on the first-line treatment of the primary psychiatric diagnoses of the patient and initiated in combination with appropriate psychosocial interventions. Review of the literature suggests that risperidone has the most supporting evidence in the treatment of explosive behavior. Stimulants have been shown to be helpful in the treatment of explosive behavior in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Medication treatment can be associated with significant side effects and therefore the risks and benefits of medication management must be weighed carefully.

Psychotropic medication use for paediatric mental health patients in an emergency department

OBJECTIVE

There is paucity of evidence for psychotropic medication use in children and adolescents presenting with mental health (MH) problems to the ED. We set out to describe paediatric psychotropic medication use in the ED.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective electronic medical record review of ED patients with MH discharge codes at a tertiary paediatric ED in 2018. We assessed the epidemiology and management of patients who received a psychotropic medication. We calculated the odds ratios (ORs with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of key demographic factors of medicated versus non-medicated MH patients.

RESULTS

During 2018 there were 1695 MH-related presentations to the ED. Of these, 280 presentations resulted in the patient receiving a psychotropic medication (16.5%). Medicated children with MH illness were more likely to be male (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.16-1.96), have a more acute triage category (OR 3.37, 95% CI 2.28-4.98), have an ED length of stay greater than 12 h (OR 3.96, 95% CI 2.56-6.13) and present after hours (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16-1.96). Most had a diagnosis of acute behavioural disturbance or suicidal ideation. A variety of treatment regimens were used but children primarily received a single oral agent (diazepam or olanzapine). Parenteral medications were given in 8.6%. No adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

A minority of children with MH presentations to the ED were medicated. It will require multicentre research to determine the most effective and safe acute psychotropic agents for oral and parenteral use in children in the ED.

The Use, Safety, and Efficacy of Olanzapine in a Level I Pediatric Trauma Center Emergency Department Over a 10-Year Period

OBJECTIVES

Olanzapine is a second-generation antipsychotic increasingly used in emergency medicine for many indications. Literature on its use in children is sparse. Our objectives were to describe the use, safety, and efficacy of olanzapine in pediatric emergency patients.

METHODS

A structured chart review was performed of patients 18 years old or younger receiving olanzapine from 2007 to 2016 in the emergency department of a pediatric level I trauma center.

RESULTS

A total of 285 children received olanzapine. Mean age was 16.4 years (range, 9-18 years); 121 were male (42.8%). Primary indications for olanzapine included agitation (n = 166, 58.3%), headache (n = 58, 20.4%), nausea/vomiting/abdominal pain (n = 37, 12.5%), unspecified pain (n = 20, 7%), and other (n = 4, 1.4%). Route of olanzapine administration was intramuscular (n = 160, 56%; median dose, 10 mg; range, 2.5-20), intravenous (n = 101, 36%; median dose, 5 mg; range, 1.25-5), and oral (n = 24, 8%; median dose, 10 mg; range, 5-10). For agitated patients, 28 (17%) received another sedative within 1 hour. For headache patients, 5 (8.6%) received another analgesic. For gastrointestinal complaints, 5 patients (13.5%) received another analgesic/antiemetic. Adverse respiratory events were hypoxia (pulse oximetry reading, in percentage, <92%; n = 7, 2.4%), supplemental oxygen placement (n = 9, 3.2%), and intubation (n = 2, 0.7%). No patient died or had a dysrhythmia. One patient experienced dystonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine seems safe when used for a variety of conditions in pediatric emergency patients. It may be effective for acute agitation, primary headache, and gastrointestinal complaints.

Risk Factors for Sedation-related Events During Acute Agitation Management in the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to describe the incidence, nature, and risk factors for adverse events (AEs) among patients who received parenteral sedation for acute agitation in an emergency department (ED) setting.

METHODS

We undertook a prospective observational study and a clinical trial of parenteral sedation for the management of acute agitation. We included agitated adult patients who required parenteral sedation from 2014 to 2017 in 12 Australian EDs, excluding those with incomplete information or aged under 18 years. The primary outcome was the number of patients who experienced at least one AE. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 904 patients were included in the analyses (62.3% male; median age = 34 years, range = 18 to 95 years). Of these, 144 (15.9%) patients experienced at least one AE. The most common AEs were oxygen desaturation (7.4%), airway obstruction (3.6%), bradycardia (1.9%), hypotension (1.7%), and prolonged QTc interval (1.3%). No deaths or serious AEs were reported. The following factors had an increased adjusted odds ratio (OR) for experiencing an AE: age 65 years and older (OR = 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2 to 7.2), more than one type of parenteral sedation administered within 60 minutes (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.4 to 3.1), and alcohol intoxication (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.2 to 2.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation-related AEs are common, especially respiratory events. Elderly patients, sedation with multiple sedatives within 60 minutes, and alcohol intoxication increased the risk.

The pharmacokinetics of intranasal droperidol in volunteers characterised via population modelling

Background

Droperidol is used parenterally to treat nausea and vomiting, migraine and acute behavioural disturbance. Intranasal use is not reported for droperidol. Intranasal drug administration reduces need for intravenous line placement and risk of needle-stick.

Objective

To model population pharmacokinetics of intranasal droperidol.

Method

Single doses of intranasal and intravenous droperidol (0.02 mg/kg) were studied in an open-label crossover-trial in seven volunteers with a 1-week washout period. Blood samples collected over 10-h were analysed by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometer. Droperidol plasma concentrations following intravenous and intranasal administration were subjected to non-compartmental analysis and population pharmacokinetic modelling using S-ADAPT. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted for various potential intranasal dosage regimens.

Results

The droperidol concentration-time profiles following intravenous and intranasal administration were best described by a model with two equilibrating disposition compartments and linear elimination. The apparent elimination clearance for intranasal dosing was 87.9 L/h and apparent central volume of distribution 18.2 L. Monte Carlo simulations of 5 mg droperidol (corresponding to the maximum volume that can be practically administered intranasal at a time) given intranasally at 0 and 5 min or 0 and 10 min indicated peak concentrations would reach those seen at 25 min after single intravenous administration of 1.5 mg. No adverse clinical effects or QT interval prolongation were observed.

Conclusion

Given the reduced bioavailability of intranasal droperidol, Monte Carlo simulations suggested that it could potentially be used at a higher dose (2.5-5 mg) than currently used intravenously in clinical trials assessing the effectiveness in treatment of nausea, vomiting and migraine.

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.

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.

Child Psychiatric Emergencies: Updates on Trends, Clinical Care, and Practice Challenges

Over the past 15 years, the number of pediatric patients presenting to the emergency room in psychiatric crisis has nearly doubled. Suicidality and aggression are among the most common presenting problems, making it important for providers to have up-to-date knowledge about the assessment and management of these frequently encountered clinical issues. Psychometrically sound suicide risk assessment tools are available for use in the emergency room setting, which can be administered efficiently with minimal provider training. Rates of off-label medication use in the pediatric population continue to increase and are often used in the management of acute agitation in the pediatric population. The current literature will be reviewed and summarized for application in emergent treatment settings. Overall, evidence to inform best practice is limited, leading to opportunities for innovation in health care delivery, the development of new research aims, and discussion of challenging clinical dilemmas.

A Large Retrospective Cohort of Patients Receiving Intravenous Olanzapine in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic with similar pharmacologic properties to droperidol. Due to the current droperidol shortage, the authors' clinical practice has been to substitute olanzapine for droperidol in many situations. At this time, olanzapine is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for oral and intramuscular (IM) use only, but due to its increased utility, intravenous (IV) olanzapine was recently approved for use in the study emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to review the use and safety of IV olanzapine in the ED patient population.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients receiving IV olanzapine between January 1, 2014, and July 1, 2014, was conducted. Data were collected via an electronic medical record review. The study was deemed exempt from informed consent by our institutional review board.

RESULTS

A total of 713 patients received IV olanzapine during the study period. The median age was 38 years (range = 18 to 85 years), and 313 patients were male (43.9%). Primary indications for IV olanzapine administration included acute agitation (n = 245, 34.4%), abdominal pain (n = 165, 23.1%), headache (n = 121, 17.0%), nausea and vomiting (n = 107, 15.0%), pain (other; n = 60, 8.4%), and unknown (n = 15, 2.1%). IV dosing varied: 1.25 mg (n = 20, 2.8%), 2.5 mg (n = 185, 25.9%), 5 mg (n = 507, 71.1%), and 10 mg (n = 1, 0.1%). Forty-nine patients required a second dose of olanzapine (22 IV, 26 IM, one oral). The maximum total dose of olanzapine was 20 mg. Ninety-eight patients required a total of 146 doses of additional sedatives during their ED course. Other sedative medications included ketamine (n = 17, 2.4%), haloperidol (n = 48, 6.7%), and benzodiazepines (n = 81, 11.4%). Hypoxia was noted in 74 patients (10.4%). Major respiratory complications, including airway stimulation or repositioning maneuvers and intubation, occurred in 15 patients (2.1%). After consensus review, one intubation was classified as "likely related" to olanzapine administration, and two were classified as "possibly related" to olanzapine. Akathisia likely occurred in four patients (0.6%), and no allergic reactions were identified. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) were performed in 322 patients. A total of 251 patients had an ECG performed before olanzapine administration (median QTc = 404 ms), and 88 patients had an ECG performed after olanzapine administration (median QTc = 415 ms). Acute alcohol and drug intoxication was common, 118 (16.5%) patients were positive for ethanol, and seven of 23 drug screens were positive for sympathomimetics. Thirty-four of 284 admissions (4.5%) were to intermediate or intensive care unit beds. No patients died while in the ED and no cases of sudden cardiac death were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective review, IV olanzapine appears to be a safe in the management of a variety of ED indications. Hypoxia was common, but serious airway compromise was rare.

Droperidol transiently prolongs the QT interval in children undergoing single ventricle palliation

Historically, droperidol was commonly used for postoperative sedation of critically ill children. A FDA black box warning regarding its arrhythmogenic potential greatly reduced its use. We hypothesized that administration of neuroleptic dose droperidol during volatile anesthesia would transiently prolong the corrected QT interval (QTc) in patients undergoing single ventricle palliation. As part of a prospective study in children undergoing stage 2 or 3 single ventricle palliation, we recorded electrocardiograms preoperatively, after induction of volatile anesthesia, immediately after completion of 30 min intravenous infusion of 75 mcg/kg droperidol, and shortly after arrival in the cardiac intensive care unit. Mean absolute QT intervals and heart rate data were analyzed in a blinded fashion and the longest QT interval was determined. QT intervals were corrected for heart rate (QTc) with the Bazett and Friderici formulae. Any perioperative arrhythmias were recorded. Complete data were available for 62 patients. Volatile anesthesia was associated with significant prolongation of the QTc interval. Administration of droperidol after cardiopulmonary bypass was associated with further significant QTc prolongation. All QTc changes were transient and the postoperative QTc, while still prolonged relative to baseline, was significantly shorter than the QTc immediately postdroperidol. No episodes of Torsades de Pointes (TdP) or ventricular arrhythmias were observed. The administration of a neuroleptic dose of droperidol during volatile anesthesia in patients undergoing single ventricle palliation was associated with a significant prolongation of QTc, which was transient and did not result in TdP or other ventricular arrhythmias in our study population.

Emergency medical services for children: the New Jersey model

Identification of specific facilities within a community for the emergency department (ED) treatment of children is a traditional component of Emergency Medical Services for Children systems. In such models, these Emergency Departments Approved for Pediatrics are the preferred EDs to receive patients from Emergency Medical Services providers. This article examines an alternative model developed in New Jersey in which every ED in the state is required by regulation to meet the standards of a traditional Emergency Departments Approved for Pediatrics. The New Jersey model leads to more accessible care and more rapid stabilization of children regardless of their mode of delivery to the ED.