Randomized Double-blind Trial of Intramuscular Droperidol, Ziprasidone, and Lorazepam for Acute Undifferentiated Agitation in the Emergency Department

Management of the Agitated Patient

The acutely agitated patient should be managed in a step-wise fashion, beginning with non-coercive de-escalation strategies and moving on to pharmacologic interventions and physical restraints as necessary. Face-to-face examination, monitoring, and documentation by the physician are essential. The emergency physician should be familiar with multiple pharmaceutical options, tailored to the individual patient. Use of ketamine, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics should be considered. Patient autonomy, safety, and medical well-being are paramount.

Risk Stratification of QTc Prolongation in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Antipsychotics for the Management of Delirium Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Patients experiencing significant agitation or perceptual disturbances related to delirium in an intensive care setting may benefit from short-term treatment with an antipsychotic medication. Some antipsychotic medications may prolong the QTc interval, which increases the risk of potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. In this targeted review, we describe the evidence regarding the relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation and practical methods for monitoring the QTc interval and mitigating arrhythmia risk.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed and Cochrane Library were performed to identify studies, published before February 2023, investigating the relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation or arrhythmias.

RESULTS

Most antipsychotic medications commonly used for the management of delirium symptoms (eg, intravenous haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine) cause a moderate degree of QTc prolongation. Among other antipsychotics, those most likely to cause QTc prolongation are iloperidone and ziprasidone, while aripiprazole and lurasidone appear to have minimal risk for QTc prolongation. Genetic vulnerabilities, female sex, older age, pre-existing cardiovascular disease, electrolyte abnormalities, and non-psychiatric medications also increase the risk of QTc prolongation. For individuals at risk of QTc prolongation, it is essential to measure the QTc interval accurately and consistently and consider medication adjustments if needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic medications are one of many risk factors for QTc prolongation. When managing agitation related to delirium, it is imperative to assess an individual patient's risk for QTc prolongation and to choose a medication and monitoring strategy commensurate to the risks. In intensive care settings, we recommend regular ECG monitoring, using a linear regression formula to correct for heart rate. If substantial QTc prolongation (eg, QTc > 500 msec) is present, a change in pharmacologic treatment can be considered, though a particular medication may still be warranted if the risks of discontinuation (eg, extreme agitation, removal of invasive monitoring devices) outweigh the risks of arrhythmias.

AIMS

This review aims to summarize the current literature on relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation and to make practical clinical recommendations towards the approach of antipsychotic medication use for the management of delirium-related agitation and perceptual disturbances in intensive care settings.

Comparison of Droperidol and Midazolam Versus Haloperidol and Lorazepam for Acute Agitation Management in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Acute agitation accounts for up to 2.6% of visits to the emergency department (ED). To date, a standard of care for the management of acute agitation has not been established. Few studies have evaluated antipsychotic and benzodiazepine combinations.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of combination therapy for acute agitation with intramuscular (IM) droperidol and midazolam (D+M) compared with IM haloperidol and lorazepam (H+L) in patients in the ED.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective medical record review of patients presenting to a large, academic ED with acute agitation from July 2020 through October 2021. The primary outcome was percentage of patients requiring additional agitation medication within 60 minutes of combination administration. Secondary outcomes included average time to repeat dose administration and average number of repeat doses required before ED discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 306 patients were included for analysis: 102 in the D+M group and 204 in the H+L group. Repeat dose within 60 minutes occurred in 7 (6.9%) and 28 (13.8%) patients in the D+M and H+L groups, respectively (P = 0.065). A total of 28.4% of D+M patients and 30.9% of H+L patients required any repeat dose during their ED visit. Time to repeat dose was 12 and 24 minutes in the D+M and H+L, respectively (P = 0.22). The adverse event rate was 2.9% in each group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

IM D+M resulted in a lower rate of repeat doses of acute agitation medication compared with IM H+L, though this was not statistically significant. Both therapies were safe, and the adverse event rate was low.

Retrospective evaluation of ketamine versus droperidol on time to restraint removal in agitated emergency department patients

PURPOSE

Acute agitation and violent behavior in the emergency department (ED) can lead to significant patient morbidity and contribute to the growing problem of workplace violence against health care providers. To our knowledge, there is no available literature directly comparing intramuscular ketamine to intramuscular droperidol in ED patients presenting with undifferentiated agitation. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness and safety of these agents for acute agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study conducted at an urban, academic ED. The primary endpoint was time from the first dose of study medication to restraint removal. Safety endpoints included incidence of bradycardia (heart rate < 60 bpm), hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90% or need for respiratory support), and incidence of intubation for ongoing agitation or respiratory failure.

RESULTS

An initial 189 patients were screened, of which, 92 met inclusion criteria. The median time from initial drug administration to restraint removal was 49 min (IQR 30, 168) in the ketamine group and 43 min (IQR 30, 80) in the droperidol group (Median difference 6 min; 95% CI [-7, 26]). There was no significant difference in rates of bradycardia (3% vs 3%, 95% CI [-7%, 8%]), hypotension (0% vs 2%, 95% CI [-5%, 2%]), or hypoxia (7% vs 10%, 95% CI [-15%, 9%]) in the ketamine versus droperidol groups respectively. One patient in the ketamine group was intubated for ongoing agitation, and one patient in the droperidol group was intubated for respiratory failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular ketamine were associated with similar times from drug administration to restraint removal in patients presenting to the ED with undifferentiated agitation. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate IM droperidol and IM ketamine head-to-head as first line agents for acute agitation in the ED.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation in older adults in the emergency department

PURPOSE

To examine the safety and effectiveness of benzodiazepines (BZD) as compared to antipsychotics for the management of acute agitation in older adults in the emergency department (ED).

BASIC PROCEDURES

Retrospective observational cohort study of 21 EDs across four states in the US, including adults ≥60 years old who received either BZD or antipsychotics for acute agitation in the ED and subsequently were admitted to the hospital. Safety was measured as presence of adverse events: respiratory depression, cardiovascular effects, extrapyramidal side effects, or a fall during hospitalization. Effectiveness was measured as indicators of treatment failure: need for additional medication, one-to-one observation, or physical restraints following initial medication administration. Proportions and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to assess the association between potential risk factors and for efficacy and safety endpoints.

MAIN FINDINGS

A total of 684 patients were included (63.9% received a BZD and 36.1% an antipsychotic). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups (20.6% vs 14.6%, difference 6.0%, 95% CI -0.2% to 11.8%), but there was a higher intubation rate in the BZD group (2.7% vs 0.4%, difference 2.3%). There were more treatment failures in the antipsychotic group for the composite primary efficacy endpoint (94.3% vs 87.6%, difference 6.7%, 95% CI 2.5% to 10.9%). This appears to have been driven by the need for 1:1 observation; sensitivity analysis excluding 1:1 observation in the composite outcome demonstrated no significant difference with a failure rate of 38.5% in the antipsychotic group and 35.2% in the benzodiazepine group.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

Overall there are high rates of treatment failure among agitated older adults receiving pharmacological treatment for agitation in the emergency department. The optimal selection of pharmacological treatment for agitation in older adults should be made considering patient-specific factors that could increase the risk of adverse effects or treatment failure.

Updates in the Assessment and Management of Agitation

Agitated patients can be dangerous to themselves and others. In fact, severe medical complications and death can occur with severe agitation. Because of this, agitation is considered a medical and psychiatric emergency. Regardless of the treatment setting, identifying the agitated patient early is a necessary skill. The authors review relevant literature regarding the identification and management of agitation and summarize current recommendations for adults, as well as children and adolescents.

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.

Pragmatic clinical trial design in emergency medicine: Study considerations and design types

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) focus on correlation between treatment and outcomes in real-world clinical practice, yet a guide highlighting key study considerations and design types for emergency medicine investigators pursuing this important study type is not available. Investigators conducting emergency department (ED)-based PCTs face multiple decisions within the planning phase to ensure robust and meaningful study findings. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2) tool allows trialists to consider both pragmatic and explanatory components across nine domains, shaping the trial design to the purpose intended by the investigators. Aside from the PRECIS-2 tool domains, ED-based investigators conducting PCTs should also consider randomization techniques, human subjects concerns, and integration of trial components within the electronic health record. The authors additionally highlight the advantages, disadvantages, and rationale for the use of four common randomized study design types to be considered in PCTs: parallel, crossover, factorial, and stepped-wedge. With increasing emphasis on the conduct of PCTs, emergency medicine investigators will benefit from a rigorous approach to clinical trial design.

Acute behavioural disturbance: recognition, assessment and management

Acute behavioural disturbance (ABD) is a clinical emergency which typically affects overweight men in their mid-thirties who chronically misuse illicit stimulants. People with ABD are most likely to be seen in police custody or emergency departments, therefore nurses working in these areas must be able to recognise the signs and symptoms and know how to respond appropriately. Presentation varies, but the signs and symptoms commonly include extreme agitation, hyperthermia, hostility and exceptional strength without fatigue. Further, it is important to recognise that people with ABD are at risk of developing metabolic acidosis, hyperkalaemia, rhabdomyolysis or disseminated intravascular coagulation. This article gives an overview of ABD and describes the main elements of management and treatment.

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.

Medical needs of emergency department patients presenting with acute alcohol and drug intoxication

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Some contend that patients with acute alcohol or illicit substance intoxication should be treated in outpatient detoxification centers rather than in the ED. However, these patients often have underlying acute medical needs. We sought to determine the frequency of medical interventions required by ED patients with alcohol or illicit substance intoxication.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of consecutive ED patients presenting to an urban tertiary care ED with altered mental status due to alcohol or illicit substance use. We performed data collection for patients deemed to be low-risk for complications, as defined by receiving care in an intoxication observation unit. Trained staff observed and recorded all medical interventions, including medications administered, diagnostic testing, procedures performed, and airway interventions. The incidence of agitation was recorded using the Altered Mental Status Scale (AMSS, ordinal scale from -4 to +4, where +4 is most agitated). The data analysis is descriptive.

RESULTS

This analysis included 2685 encounters (1645 unique patients; median age 39; 73% male) from January to May 2019. Average breath alcohol concentration was 0.20 g/dL (range 0.00-0.47). There were 89% encounters with alcohol intoxication, and in 17% encounters the patient was suspected or known to have drug intoxication (either alone or in conjunction with alcohol use). On arrival to the ED, 372 (14%) had agitation (AMSS +1 or higher) and 32 (1%) were profoundly agitated (AMSS +4). In total, 1526 (56%) received at least one intervention that could not be provided by a local detoxification or sobering facility. Of the study population, 955 (36%) received a sedating medication, 903 (34%) required physical restraints for patients or staff safety, 575 (21%) underwent imaging studies, 318 (12%) underwent laboratory testing, 367 (13%) received another intervention (IV access, EKG, splinting, wound care, etc). Additionally, 111 (4%) patients received an airway intervention (19 intubation, 23 nasal airway, 85 supplemental oxygen) and 275 (10%) required repositioning to protect the airway. There were 168 (6%) patients admitted to the hospital.

CONCLUSION

In this population of relatively low-risk ED patients with drug and alcohol intoxication, a substantial proportion of patients received medical interventions.

Which Emergent Medication Should I Give Next? Repeated Use of Emergent Medications to Treat Acute Agitation

Agitation is a common symptom encountered among patients treated in psychiatric emergency settings. While there are many guidelines available for initial management of the acutely agitated patient, there is a notable dearth of guidelines that delineate recommended approaches to the acutely agitated patient in whom an initial medication intervention has failed. This manuscript aims to fill this gap by examining evidence available in the literature and providing clinical algorithms suggested by the authors for sequential medication administration in patients with persistent acute agitation in psychiatric emergency settings. We discuss risk factors for medication-related adverse events and provide options for patients who are able to take oral medications and for patients who require parenteral intervention. We conclude with a discussion of the current need for well-designed studies that examine sequential medication options in patients with persistent acute agitation.