Droperidol vs. prochlorperazine for benign headaches in the emergency department

Droperidol administration among emergency department patients with abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to examine the common usage patterns of droperidol in the relatively unrestricted environment of an urban, academic medical center. We focused specifically on the most common use of droperidol in our department: patients with a chief complaint of abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting.

METHODS

For this retrospective, observational, single-center study, we extracted records of all administrations of droperidol from August 2019 to August 2020. Patients with a chief complaint of abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting, or any combination thereof, were included in data analysis.

RESULTS

Between April 2019 to August 2020, 830 discrete patient visits involving droperidol administration were identified, comprising 706 patients. The average age was 39 years old with a range of 15 to 80. Seven patients (0.08%) were younger than 18, and 35 (4%) were older than 65. Five hundred sixty-five patients (68%) were female. Droperidol doses ranged from 0.625 mg to 5 mg intravenous (IV), with a median dose of 0.625 mg (interquartile range 0.625-1.25 mg), with 590 patients (71%) receiving a dose of 0.625 mg. Only 19 patients (2.3%) had a documented adverse event. Seven had akathisia or restlessness, 7 had anxiety or agitation, 3 had dystonia or stiffness, 1 had fatigue, and 1 had dizziness. For the entire cohort, there were no cardiac dysrhythmias, syncope, seizures, other major adverse events, or fatalities recorded.

CONCLUSION

At one institution, droperidol is being used commonly for the chief complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. The preferred dosing is nearly universally below the 2.5 mg IV dose for which the FDA warning applies. Similar to previous studies, identification of adverse events was rare, and no major adverse outcomes such as dysrhythmia or death were identified.

Retrospective Review of the Efficacy of Droperidol Compared to Prochlorperazine for Headache Management in the Emergency Department

Introduction Headaches are a common presentation to the emergency department, representing approximately 3% of visits. The standard treatment of headaches has consisted of either monotherapy with an antidopaminergic agent or combination therapy with an antidopaminergic agent, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), and diphenhydramine. Although droperidol is an antidopaminergic medication, it previously was not widely used in the treatment of headaches due to safety concerns. Given its pharmacokinetics, droperidol may provide faster relief in migrainous headaches compared to more commonly used antidopaminergic agents. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective chart review to examine the impact of droperidol compared to other standard migraine therapies on pain scores. The study consisted of three treatment arms: droperidol monotherapy, a droperidol bundle (droperidol and ketorolac), and a prochlorperazine bundle (prochlorperazine and ketorolac). Patients who received medications in treatment arms and who had an encounter diagnosis including either "headache" or "migraine" were included. Patients were excluded if under 18 years of age, imprisoned, pregnant, or received potentially migraine-altering medications prior to the first documented pain score. The primary outcome was a mean reduction in pain scores. Secondary outcomes included length of emergency department stay, rates of inpatient admission, need for rescue therapies, and adverse events. Results A total of 361 droperidol orders were reviewed, of which 79 met the inclusion criteria. Of those included, 30 orders were within the droperidol monotherapy arm, 19 were within the droperidol bundle arm, and 30 were within the prochlorperazine bundle arm. There were no significant differences in reduction of pain scores, emergency department length of stay, rates of inpatient admission, rates of rescue therapy, or adverse events between the three treatment arms. Conclusion In this study, we found no statistical difference in migraine treatment efficacy between droperidol monotherapy and droperidol and prochlorperazine-based bundle therapies. Further studies are needed with larger sample sizes and predefined timing between pain score charting and medication administration.

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.

Comparison of efficacy and frequency of akathisia and dystonia between olanzapine, metoclopramide and prochlorperazine in ED headache patients

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and frequency of akathisia and dystonia between the dopamine antagonist headache medications olanzapine, metoclopramide and prochlorperazine.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients presenting to a large urban level one trauma center between 2010 and 2018. Inclusion criteria was age ≥ 18 who presented to the emergency department with a chief complaint of headache who received either olanzapine, metoclopramide or prochlorperazine. The primary outcome was need for rescue medication. Secondary outcomes were receiving medication for either akathisia or dystonia. Logistic regression was used to identify differences between the three cohorts up to 72 h from initial presentation.

RESULTS

There were 5643 patients who met inclusion criteria. Olanzapine was the most commonly used drug (n = 2994, 53%) followed by prochlorperazine (n = 2100, 37%) and metoclopramide (n = 549, 10%). After adjusting for age and gender, there were no differences in risk for receiving rescue therapy or developing akathisia or dystonia.

CONCLUSION

During initial ED visit and up to 72 h after receiving olanzapine, metoclopramide or prochlorperazine, we found no difference in risk for requiring rescue medication or developing akathisia or dystonia.

Patients treated for acute headache with intranasal droperidol spend less time in the emergency department: A retrospective observational study

OBJECTIVE

Headache is a common presenting complaint to the ED. Using time from the first provider to discharge as a surrogate for effectiveness, we aimed to determine if intranasal (IN) droperidol is as beneficial as usual treatment for acute headache in the ED.

METHODS

There were 1213 consecutive presentations of adults with acute headache over a 42-month period. Electronic records for each event were interrogated, 406 events met pre-determined exclusion criteria. Of the remaining 805 eligible patient events, 139 received IN droperidol, whereas 666 were given usual therapy.

RESULTS

There was a 20 min reduction of mean and median ED length of stay (LOS) for the group that got treated with IN droperidol.

CONCLUSIONS

IN droperidol reduced LOS in the ED. There are potential cost savings of this effective treatment via this novel route. A prospective multi-centre study of the use of IN droperidol for the treatment of acute headache in the ED is recommended.

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.

I-FiBH trial: intravenous fluids in benign headaches-a randomised, single-blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Many emergency physicians use an intravenous fluid bolus as part of a 'cocktail' of therapies for patients with headache, but it is unclear if this is beneficial. The objective of this study was to determine if an intravenous fluid bolus helps reduce pain or improve other outcomes in patients who present to the ED with a benign headache.

METHODS

This was a randomised, single-blinded, clinical trial performed on patients aged 10-65 years old with benign headaches who presented to a single ED in Las Vegas, Nevada, from May 2017 to February 2019. All patients received prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine, and they were randomised to also receive either 20 mL/kg up to 1000 mL of normal saline (the fluid bolus group) or 5 mL of normal saline (the control group). The primary outcome was the difference between groups in mean pain reduction 60 min after the initiation of treatment. Secondarily, we compared groups with regards to pain reduction at 30 min, nausea scores, the use of rescue medications and disposition.

RESULTS

We screened 67 patients for enrolment, and 58 consented. Of those, 35 were randomised to the fluid bolus group and 23 to the control group. The mean pain score dropped by 48.3 mm over 60 min in the fluid bolus group, compared with 48.7 mm in the control group. The between groups difference of 0.4 mm (95% CI -16.5 to 17.3) was not statistically significant (p=0.96). Additionally, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for any secondary outcome.

CONCLUSION

Though our study lacked statistical power to detect small but clinically significant differences, ED patients who received an intravenous fluid bolus for their headache had similar improvements in pain and other outcomes compared with those who did not.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03185130.

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.

Treatment of Headache in the Emergency Department: Haloperidol in the Acute Setting (THE-HA Study): A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Headache is a common complaint of emergency department (ED) patients and current treatment varies with significant limitations.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2.5 mg i.v. haloperidol in the treatment of severe benign headache in the ED.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed in the ED of a single high-volume teaching hospital. Convenience sampling identified 287 eligible patients 13 to 55 years old with benign headache. One hundred and eighteen patients were enrolled to receive either 2.5 mg of haloperidol i.v. or placebo. The primary outcome measure was pain reduction at 60 min. Patients were evaluated for adverse events and follow-up was conducted after discharge. QT measurement was performed at baseline and discharge.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients received haloperidol and 60 patients received placebo. Patients in the haloperidol group reported an average 4.77-unit reduction in visual analogue scale score at 60 min compared to a 1.87-unit reduction in the control group. Thirty-four patients (58.6%) in the haloperidol group had complete resolution of their headache. Treatment with rescue ketorolac was required in 78.3% of the control group and 31% of the haloperidol group. Adverse events were uncommon, benign, and easily treated. No patients in the haloperidol group were found to have QT lengthening.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that 2.5 mg i.v. haloperidol is a rapid and effective treatment for acute, severe, benign headache in ED patients aged 18 to 55 years. Further study is warranted to confirm these results in adolescents.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02747511.

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.

Out-of-hospital assessment and treatment of adults with atraumatic headache

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the presentation or management of patients with headache in the out-of-hospital setting. Our primary objective is to describe the out-of-hospital assessment and treatment of adults with benign headache. We also describe meaningful pain reduction stratified by commonly administered medications.

METHODS

This retrospective evaluation was conducted using data from a large national cohort. We included all 911 responses by paramedics for patients 18 and older with headache. We excluded patients with trauma, fever, suspected alcohol/drug use, or who received medications suggestive of an alternate condition. We presented our findings with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 5,977,612 emergency responses, 1.1% (66,235) had a provider-documented primary impression of headache or migraine and 52.5% (34,763) met inclusion criteria. An initial pain score was recorded for 73.5% (25,544) of patients, and 58.5% (14,948) of these patients had multiple pain scores documented. Of the patients with multiple pain scores documented, 53.8% (8037) of patients had an initial pain score >5. Of these, 7.1% (573) were administered any medication. Among patients receiving a single medication, Fentanyl was the most commonly administered (32.1%, 126). As a group, opioids were the most commonly administered class of drugs (38.9%, 153) and were associated with the largest proportion of clinically significant pain reduction (69.3%, 106). Dopamine antagonists were given least frequently (9.9%, 39) but had the second largest proportion of pain reduction (43.6%, 17).

CONCLUSION

Out-of-hospital pain scores were documented infrequently and less than one in five patients with initial pain scores >5 received medication. Additionally, adherence to evidence-based guidelines was infrequent.

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.

A Comparison of Headache Treatment in the Emergency Department: Prochlorperazine Versus Ketamine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Intravenous subdissociative-dose ketamine has been shown to be effective for pain management, but has not been specifically studied for headaches in the emergency department (ED). For this reason, we designed a study to compare standard treatment (prochlorperazine) with ketamine in patients with benign headaches in the ED.

METHODS

This study was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial with a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED with benign headaches. Patients were randomized to receive either prochlorperazine and diphenhydramine or ketamine and ondansetron. Patients' headache severity was measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) at 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes. Nausea, vomiting, anxiety, and the need for rescue medications were also tracked. Patients were contacted at 24 to 48 hours posttreatment to rate their satisfaction and to determine whether they were still experiencing a headache.

RESULTS

There were a total of 54 subjects enrolled. Two patients in the ketamine group and one in the prochlorperazine group withdrew because of adverse effects of the medications. In regard to the primary outcome, at 60 minutes, the prochlorperazine group had a mean improvement in VAS pain scores of 63.5 mm compared with 43.5 mm in the ketamine group, corresponding to a between-groups difference of 20.0 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.8 to 37.2 mm) and a P value of .026. At 45 minutes, the prochlorperazine group had a mean improvement in pain scores of 56.1 mm compared with 38.0 mm in the ketamine group, a difference of 18.1 mm (95% CI 1.0 to 35.2 mm). At 24- to 48-hour follow-up, the mean satisfaction score was 8.3 of 10 for prochlorperazine and 4.9 of 10 for ketamine, a difference of 3.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.6). There was not a statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients who had a headache at follow-up or in other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Prochlorperazine appears to be superior to ketamine for the treatment of benign headaches in the ED.

Update of Inpatient Treatment for Refractory Chronic Daily Headache

Chronic daily headache (CDH) is a group of headache disorders, in which headaches occur daily or near-daily (>15 days per month) and last for more than 3 months. Important CDH subtypes include chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, hemicrania continua, and new daily persistent headache. Other headaches with shorter durations (<4 h/day) are usually not included in CDH. Common comorbidities of CDH are medication overuse headache and various psychiatric disorders, such as depression and anxiety. Indications of inpatient treatment for CDH patients include poor responses to outpatient management, need for detoxification for overuse of specific medications (particularly opioids and barbiturates), and severe psychiatric comorbidities. Inpatient treatment usually involves stopping acute pain, preventing future attacks, and detoxifying medication overuse if present. Multidisciplinary integrated care that includes medical staff from different disciplines (e.g., psychiatry, clinical psychology, and physical therapy) has been recommended. The outcomes of inpatient treatment are satisfactory in terms of decreasing headache intensity or frequency, withdrawal from medication overuse, reducing disability, and improving life quality, although long-term relapse is not uncommon. In conclusion, inpatient treatment may be useful for select patients with refractory CDH and should be incorporated in a holistic headache care program.

Are butyrophenones effective for the treatment of primary headache in the emergency department?

Objectives:

Butyrophenones have been reported to provide effective migraine relief in the emergency department (ED). We conducted a systematic review of the evidence for their use in the ED.

Data source:

We searched theCochrane,Medline,Embase, andCINAHLdatabases.

Study selection:

Included studies were randomized trials of a parenteral butyrophenone (droperidol, haloperidol) versus placebo or a comparator in migraine or benign headache with results available in English. Study quality was determined using the Jadad score. Six articles were included.

Data extraction:

Primary outcomes were subjective or objective headache relief (&gt; 50% improvement in visual analogue scale scores). Secondary outcomes included side effects. We reported pooled odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for subjective or objective headache relief for butyrophenones versus placebo or comparator agents.

Data synthesis:

Three studies reported subjective headache relief with a butyrophenone versus placebo or meperidine in migraine. Two studies reported objective headache relief with droperidol versus prochlorperazine, whereas one study compared droperidol versus olanzapine in benign headache. The pooled OR for subjective headache relief was 8.08 (95% CI 1.54–42.30) for a butyrophenone versus placebo, whereas it was 1.50 (95% CI 0.33–6.77) for droperidol versus meperidine in migraine. The pooled OR for objective headache relief was 2.96 (95% CI 1.36–6.43) for droperidol versus prochlorperazine in benign headache. Rates of side effects were 10 to 45%; akathesia and sedation were the most common.

Conclusions:

Butyrophenones are effective for the relief of migraine or benign headache. However, adverse effects make it difficult to recommend butyrophenones above agents with similar effectiveness and fewer problems.

Migraine and epilepsy: review of the literature

Migraine and epilepsy are disorders that are common, paroxysmal, and chronic. In many ways they are clearly different diseases, yet there are some pathophysiological overlaps, and overlaps in clinical symptomatology, particularly with regard to visual and other sensory disturbances, pain, and alterations of consciousness. Epidemiological studies have revealed that the two diseases are comorbid in a number of individuals. Both are now recognized as originating from electrical disturbances in the brain, although their wider manifestations involve the recruitment of multiple pathogenic mechanisms. An initial excess of neuronal activity in migraine leads to cortical spreading depression and aura, with the subsequent recruitment of the trigeminal nucleus leading to central sensitization and pain. In epilepsy, neuronal overactivity leads to the recruitment of larger populations of neurons firing in a rhythmic manner that constitutes an epileptic seizure. Migraine aura and headaches may act as a trigger for epileptic seizures. Epilepsy is not infrequently accompanied by preictal, ictal, and postictal headaches that often have migrainous features. Genetic links are also apparent between the two disorders, and are particularly evident in the familial hemiplegic migraine syndromes where different mutations can produce either migraine, epilepsy, or both. Also, various medications are found to be effective for both migraine and epilepsy, again pointing to a commonality and overlap between the two disorders.

The place of corticosteroids in migraine attack management: A 65-year systematic review with pooled analysis and critical appraisal

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Headaches recur in up to 87% of migraine patients visiting the emergency department (ED), making ED recidivism a management challenge. We aimed herein to determine the role of corticosteroids in the acute management of migraine in the ED and outpatient care.

METHODS

Advanced search strategies employing PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases inclusive of a relevant gray literature search was employed for Clinical Studies and Systematic Reviews by combining the terms "migraine" and "corticosteroids" spanning all previous years since the production of synthetic corticosteroids ca. 1950 until August 30, 2014. Methods were in accordance with MOOSE guidelines.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (n = 3989, median age 37.5 years, interquartile range or IQR 35-41 years; median male:female ratio 1:4.23, IQR 1:2.1-6.14; 52% ED-based, 56% randomized-controlled) and four systematic reviews were included. International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria were applied in 64%. Nineteen studies (76%) indicated observed outcome differences favoring benefits of corticosteroids, while six (24%) studies indicated non-inferior outcomes for corticosteroids. Median absolute risk reduction was 30% (range 6%-48.2%), and 11% (6%-48.6%) for 24-, and 72-hour headache recurrence, respectively. Parenteral dexamethasone was the most commonly (56%) administered steroid, at a median single dose of 10 mg (range 4-24 mg). All meta-analyses revealed efficacy of adjuvant corticosteroids to various abortive medications-indicating generalizability. Adverse effects were tolerable. Higher disability, status migrainosus, incomplete pain relief, and previous history of headache recurrence predicted outcome favorability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our literature review suggests that with corticosteroid treatment, recurrent headaches become milder than pretreated headaches and later respond to nonsteroidal therapy. Single-dose intravenous dexamethasone is a reasonable option for managing resistant, severe, or prolonged migraine attacks.

Droperidol for the Treatment of Acute Migraine Headaches

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of droperidol for the relief of acute migraine headaches. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search (1946 to August 2014) was performed using the following keywords and associated medical subject headings: droperidol, inapsine, headache, migraine, and migraine disorder.Study Selection and Data Extraction: The search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing droperidol with placebo or an active control in adult patients with acute migraine headaches that were published in English. Primary end points included acute headache improvement after the intervention. Safety end points included the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms, somnolence, and cardiac adverse effects. Data Synthesis: In all, 5 manuscripts are included in this review. Patients presenting to the emergency department with acute headache desire rapid pain relief, which was the primary objective in each of the evaluated studies. Droperidol was better than placebo and at least as effective as comparator drugs such as prochlorperazine, meperidine, or olanzapine using droperidol doses of 2.5 to 5 mg, given either intramuscularly (IM) or intravenously (IV). The most commonly reported adverse effects were extrapyramidal symptoms and sedation. Cardiac adverse effects were not reported in any of the studies; however, only 2 articles described using cardiac monitoring. Conclusions: Parenteral droperidol is an effective option for the treatment of acute migraine. The minimum effective dose is 2.5 mg given IM or IV. Clinicians must be aware of the risk for adverse events, select appropriate patients, perform EKG monitoring for patients at risk of QTc prolongation, and institute treatment if necessary.

Current management of migraine in US emergency departments: An analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey

Background

Published data from 1998 revealed that most patients treated for migraine in an emergency department received opioids. Over the intervening years, a large body of evidence has emerged demonstrating the efficacy and safety of non-opioid alternatives. Expert opinion during these years has cautioned against use of opioids for migraine. Our objectives were to compare current frequency of use of various medications for acute migraine in US emergency departments with use of these same medications in 1998 and to identify factors independently associated with opioid use.

Methods

We analyzed National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 2010, the most current dataset available. The National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey is a public dataset collected and distributed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is a multi-stage probability sample from randomly selected emergency departments across the country, designed to be representative of all US emergency department visits. We included in our analysis all patients with the ICD9 emergency department discharge diagnosis of migraine. We tabulated frequency of use of specific medications in 2010 and compared these results with the 1998 data. Using a logistic regression model, into which all of the following variables were entered, we explored the independent association between any opioid use in 2010 and sex, age, race/ethnicity, geographic region, type of hospital, triage pain score and history of emergency department use within the previous 12 months.

Results

In 2010, there were 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.9, 1.4) million migraine visits to US emergency departments. Including opioid-containing oral analgesic combinations, opioids were administered in 59% of visits (95% confidence interval 51, 67). The most commonly used parenteral agent, hydromorphone, was used in 25% (95% confidence interval 19, 33) of visits in 2010 versus less than 1% (95% confidence interval 0, 3) in 1998. Conversely, use of meperidine had decreased markedly over the same timeframe. In 2010, it was used in just 7% (95% confidence interval 4, 12) of visits compared to 37% (95% confidence interval 29, 45) in 1998. Metoclopramide, the most commonly used anti-dopaminergic, was administered in 17% (95% confidence interval 12, 23) of visits in 2010 and 3% (95% confidence interval 1, 6) of visits in 1998. Use of any triptan was relatively uncommon in 2010 (7% (95% confidence interval 4, 11) of visits) and in 1998 (10% (95% confidence interval 6, 15) of visits). Of the predictor variables listed above, only emergency department use within the previous 12 months was associated with opioid administration (adjusted odds ratio: 2.87 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 7.97)).

Conclusions

In spite of recommendations to the contrary, opioids are still used in more than half of all emergency department visits for migraine. Though use of meperidine has decreased markedly between 1998 and 2010, it has largely been replaced by hydromorphone. Opioid use in migraine visits is independently associated with prior visits to the same emergency department in the previous 12 months.

Medication overuse headache: history, features, prevention and management strategies

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is a daily, or almost daily, headache form that arises from overuse of one or more classes of migraine-abortive or analgesic medication. The main classes of drugs that cause MOH are opioids, butalbital-containing mixed analgesics, triptans, ergotamine tartrate derivatives, simple analgesics (except for plain aspirin), and perhaps non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. MOH can be debilitating and results from biochemical and functional brain changes induced by certain medications taken too frequently. At this time, migraine and other primary headache disorders in which migraine or migraine-like elements occur seem exclusively vulnerable to the development of MOH. Other primary headache disorders are not currently believed to be vulnerable. The treatment of MOH consists of discontinuation of the offending drug(s), acute treatment of the withdrawal symptoms and escalating pain, establishing a preventive treatment when necessary, and the implementation of educational and behavioral programs to prevent recidivism. In most patients, MOH can be treated in the outpatient setting but, for the most difficult cases, including those with opioid or butalbital overuse, or in patients with serious medical or behavioral disturbances, effective treatment requires a multidisciplinary, comprehensive headache program, either day-hospital with infusion or an inpatient hospital setting.

A randomized trial of intravenous ketorolac versus intravenous metoclopramide plus diphenhydramine for tension-type and all nonmigraine, noncluster recurrent headaches

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We compare metoclopramide 20 mg intravenously, combined with diphenhydramine 25 mg intravenously, with ketorolac 30 mg intravenously in adults with tension-type headache and all nonmigraine, noncluster recurrent headaches.

METHODS

In this emergency department (ED)-based randomized, double-blind study, we enrolled adults with nonmigraine, noncluster recurrent headaches. Patients with tension-type headache were a subgroup of special interest. Our primary outcome was a comparison of the improvement in pain score between baseline and 1 hour later, assessed on a 0 to 10 verbal scale. We defined a between-group difference of 2.0 as the minimum clinically significant difference. Secondary endpoints included need for rescue medication in the ED, achieving headache freedom in the ED and sustaining it for 24 hours, and patient's desire to receive the same medication again.

RESULTS

We included 120 patients in the analysis. The metoclopramide/diphenhydramine arm improved by a median of 5 (interquartile range 3, 7) scale units, whereas the ketorolac arm improved by a median of 3 (IQR 2, 6) (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference 0 to 3). Metoclopramide+diphenhydramine was superior to ketorolac for all 3 secondary outcomes: the number needed to treat for not requiring ED rescue medication was 3 (95% CI 2 to 6); for sustained headache freedom, 6 (95% CI 3 to 20); and for wish to receive the same medication again, 7 (95% CI 4 to 65). Tension-type headache subgroup results were similar.

CONCLUSION

For adults who presented to an ED with tension-type headache or with nonmigraine, noncluster recurrent headache, intravenous metoclopramide+diphenhydramine provided more headache relief than intravenous ketorolac.

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.

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 Neurologist's Guide to Acute Migraine Therapy in the Emergency Room

Migraine is a common reason for visits to the emergency room. Attacks that lead patients to come to the emergency room are often more severe, refractory to home rescue medication, and have been going on for longer. All of these features make these attacks more challenging to treat. The purpose of this article is to review available evidence pertinent to the treatment of acute migraine in adults in the emergency department setting in order to provide neurologists with a rational approach to management. Drug classes and agents reviewed include opioids, dopamine receptor antagonists, triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, and sodium valproate.

Treating primary headaches in the ED: can droperidol regain its role?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe the use and efficacy of low-dose (≤2 mg) droperidol for the treatment of primary headaches (ie, migraine, cluster, tension-type headache and trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, and other primary headaches) in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A report was generated from a pharmacy database to identify all adult patients who received low-dose droperidol in the ED over a 7-month period; a subsequent retrospective chart review was conducted. Low-dose droperidol was defined as a cumulative dose of ≤2 mg. Patients who received droperidol for any other reason than the treatment of a headache were excluded. Data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Seventy-three cases in which droperidol was administered for the treatment of a headache were identified over the 7-month period. Most doses (92%) administered were 1.25 mg or less. Fifty-three patients (73%) had complete resolution or significant improvement of headache symptoms as subjectively or objectively (eg, numerical pain scale) documented by the treating physician. Eight patients (11%) had minimal improvement in their headaches symptoms; 12 patients (16%) received no relief after the administration of droperidol. The average time to discharge from the ED was 94.8 ± 67.2 minutes. No cardiac arrhythmias were noted. Other adverse events included 2 cases of extrapyramidal side effects; one patient reported restlessness/anxiousness and the other patient had dystonia.

CONCLUSION

The administration of low-dose (≤2 mg) droperidol may be safe and effective for the treatment of primary headaches in the ED.

Droperidol analgesia for opioid-tolerant patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute and chronic pain syndromes such as migraine headache, fibromyalgia, and sickle cell disease represent a significant portion of emergency department (ED) visits. Certain patients may have tolerance to opioid analgesics and often require large doses and prolonged time in the ED to achieve satisfactory pain mitigation. Droperidol is a unique drug that has been successfully used not only as an analgesic adjuvant for the past 30 years, but also for treatment of nausea/vomiting, psychosis, agitation, sedation, and vertigo.

OBJECTIVES

In this review, we examine the evidence supporting the use of droperidol for analgesia, adverse side effects, and controversial United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning.

DISCUSSION

Droperidol has myriad pharmacologic properties that may explain its efficacy as an analgesic, including: dopamine D2 antagonist, dose-dependent GABA agonist/antagonist, α2 adrenoreceptor agonist, serotonin antagonist, histamine antagonist, muscarinic and nicotinic cholinergic antagonist, anticholinesterase activity, sodium channel blockade similar to lidocaine, and μ opiate receptor potentiation.

CONCLUSION

Droperidol is an important adjuvant for patients who are tolerant to opioid analgesics. The FDA black box warning does not apply to doses below 2.5 mg.

Management of primary headaches in adult Emergency Departments: a literature review, the Parma ED experience and a therapy flow chart proposal

Adults seeking treatment at hospitals' Emergency Departments (EDs) because of headache represent a major health-care issue. To date, there are no special guidelines for management of primary headache in adults seen at EDs and therapeutic approaches are often inconsistent. This review describes the therapeutic strategies that are most frequently used to treat primary headache in adult ED patients and their in situ efficacy, based on literature data, the type of medications studied in randomized clinical trials for the management of adult ED patients, and the recommendations found in the guidelines for symptomatic treatment of migraine. We also report on the experience of the Parma University Hospital ED in the year 2007 for the management of adult patients diagnosed with primary headache. Finally, we propose an algorithm for primary headache management in ED patients, which is based on the literature data and clinical experience, and is suitable for application in Italy.

Treating headache recurrence after emergency department discharge: a randomized controlled trial of naproxen versus sumatriptan

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Multiple parenteral medications are used to treat migraine and other acute primary headaches in the emergency department (ED). Regardless of specific headache diagnosis, no medication eliminates the frequent recurrence of primary headache after ED discharge. It is uncertain which medication primary headache patients should be given on discharge from an ED. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of oral sumatriptan with naproxen for treatment of post-ED recurrent primary headache.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind efficacy trial. We randomized patients to either naproxen 500 mg or sumatriptan 100 mg for headache recurrence after ED discharge. Patients were eligible if they received parenteral therapy for an acute exacerbation of a primary headache in the ED. Patients who met established criteria for migraine without aura were designated a priori as a homogenous subgroup of interest. We followed all patients by telephone 48 hours after ED discharge. The primary endpoint was the between-group difference in change in pain intensity during the 2-hour period after ingestion of either 500 mg naproxen or 100 mg sumatriptan. This difference was measured on a validated 11-point (0 to 10) verbal numeric rating scale (NRS). Satisfaction with the medication and adverse effects were also assessed. Patients who met criteria for migraine without aura were analyzed twice according to a priori design: once as a homogenous subgroup and then again combined with all other primary headaches.

RESULTS

Of 410 patients randomized, 383 (93%) had outcome data available for analysis. Two hundred eighty (73%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 68% to 77%) reported headache post-ED discharge and 196 (51%; 95% CI 44% to 58%), including 88 with migraine, took the investigational medication provided to them. The naproxen group improved by a mean of 4.3 NRS points, whereas the sumatriptan group improved by 4.1 points (95% CI for difference of 0.2 points: -0.7 to 1.1 points). Findings were virtually identical among the migraine subset (4.3 versus 4.2 NRS points; 95% CI for difference of 0.1 points: -1.3 to 1.5 points). Seventy-one percent (95% CI 62% to 80%) of naproxen patients and 75% (95% CI 66% to 84%) of sumatriptan patients would want to take the same medication the next time. Adverse effect profiles were also comparable.

CONCLUSION

In this trial, nearly three quarters of patients reported headache recurrence within 48 hours of ED discharge. Naproxen 500 mg and sumatriptan 100 mg taken orally relieve post-ED recurrent primary headache and migraine comparably. Clinicians should be guided by medication costs, contraindications, and a patient's previous experience with the medication.

Pitfalls in the management of headache in the emergency department

Headache is the fifth most common primary complaint of patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) in the United States. The emergency physician (EP) plays a unique role in the management of these patients, one that differs from that of the primary care physician, the neurologist, and other specialists. Diagnostic nomenclature used in the ED is necessarily less specific, as care is more appropriately focused on the relief of symptoms and the identification of life-threatening causes. By seeking a limited number of specific critical features on history and physical examination, the EP can minimize the risk of overlooking one of these dangerous causes of headache. When certain features are present, empirical therapies and diagnostic testing should be initiated in the ED. The most frequently encountered pitfalls in the management of patients with headache in emergency medicine practice, and those with the greatest likelihood to adversely affect patient outcomes, are discussed.

Standardizing emergency department-based migraine research: an analysis of commonly used clinical trial outcome measures

OBJECTIVES

Although many high-quality migraine clinical trials have been performed in the emergency department (ED) setting, almost as many different primary outcome measures have been used, making data aggregation and meta-analysis difficult. The authors assessed commonly used migraine trial outcomes in two ways. First, the authors examined the association of each commonly used outcome versus the following patient-centered variable: the research subject's wish, when asked 24 hours after investigational medication administration, to receive the same medication the next time they presented to an ED with migraine ("would take again"). This variable was chosen as the criterion standard because it provides a simple, dichotomous, clinically sensible outcome, which allows migraineurs to factor important intangibles of efficacy and adverse effects of treatment into an overall assessment of care. The second part of the analysis assessed how sensitive to true efficacy each outcome measure was by calculating sample size requirements based on results observed in previously conducted clinical trials.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data previously collected in four ED-based migraine randomized trials performed between 2003 and 2007. In each of these trials, subjects were asked 24 hours after administration of an investigational medication whether or not they would want to receive the same medication the next time they came to the ED with a migraine. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for sex and medication received, were calculated as measures of association between the most commonly used outcome measures and "would take again." The sensitivity of each outcome measure to treatment efficacy was determined by calculating the sample size that would be required to detect a statistically significant result using estimates of that outcome obtained in two clinical trials.

RESULTS

Data from 378 subjects were used for this analysis. Adjusted ORs for association of "would take again" and other commonly used primary headache outcomes are as follows: achieving a pain-free state by 2 hours, OR = 3.1 (95% CI = 1.8 to 5.4); sustained pain-free status, OR = 4.5 (95% CI = 1.9 to 11.0); and no need for rescue medication, OR = 3.7 (95% CI = 2.1 to 6.6). An improvement on a standardized 11-point pain scale of > or =33% had an adjusted OR = 5.2 (95% CI = 2.2 to 12.4). The best performing alternate outcome, > or =33% improvement, correctly classified 288 subjects and misclassified 77 subjects when compared to "would take again." At least 33% improvement and pain-free by 2 hours required the smallest sample sizes, while sustained pain-free and "would take again" required many more subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

"Would take again" was associated with all migraine outcome measures we examined. No individual outcome was more closely associated with "would take again" than any other. Even the best-performing alternate outcome misclassified more than 20% of subjects. However, sample sizes based on "would take again" tended to be larger than other outcome measures. On the basis of these findings and this outcome measure's inherent patient-centered focus, "would take again," included as a secondary outcome in all ED migraine trials, is proposed.

DISCONTINUATION OF DROPERIDOL FOR THE CONTROL OF ACUTELY AGITATED OUT-OF-HOSPITAL PATIENTS

OBJECTIVE

To identify the effects of the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for sedation of agitated out-of-hospital patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review conducted January 1, 2001, through December 5, 2002, of patients with an out-of-hospital diagnosis of agitation who received either droperidol or midazolam prior to arrival in the emergency department (ED). The need for continuous cardiac or pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, critical care ED management, intensive care unit admission, and mortality was reviewed.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients received droperidol or midazolam for acute agitation in the out-of-hospital setting. Forty-one patients received droperidol in 2001 (D2001); three patients received midazolam in 2001 (M2001). No patients received droperidol in 2002, and 27 patients received midazolam (M2002). Comparing the D2001 and M2002 groups, the need for continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in the ED [14/41 (34.1%) versus 18/27 (66.7%)], intubations [4/41 (9.8%) versus 10/27 (37.0%)], critical emergency medical services transports [5/41 (12.2%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], critical ED care cases [6/41 (14.6%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], and intensive care unit admissions [6/13 (46.2%) versus 14/15 (93.3%)] were increased in the M2002 group. No difference was found in the frequencies of ED cardiac monitoring, hospital admission, complications, or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for out-of-hospital agitated patients, the authors have observed an increased frequency of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, ED critical care management, and intensive care unit admission in patients requiring chemical sedation for control of agitation in the out-of-hospital setting.

Diagnosis and management of the primary headache disorders in the emergency department setting

Headache continues to be a frequent cause of emergency department (ED) use, accounting for 2% of all visits. Most of these headaches prove to be benign but painful exacerbations of chronic headache disorders, such as migraine, tension-type, and cluster. The goal of ED management is to provide rapid and quick relief of benign headache, without causing undue side effects, and to recognize headaches with malignant course. Although these headaches have distinct epidemiologies and clinical phenotypes, there is overlapping response to therapy; nonsteroidals, triptans, dihydroergotamine, and the antiemetic dopamine antagonists may play a therapeutic role for each of these acute headaches. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria and management strategies for the primary headache disorders.

Olanzapine versus droperidol for the treatment of primary headache in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine if there is a difference in pain relief or frequency and severity of side effects in emergency department (ED) patients with primary headache treated with either intramuscular (IM) olanzapine or IM droperidol.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized nonblinded clinical trial of adult ED patients undergoing treatment for suspected primary headache. Consenting patients were randomized to receive either droperidol 5 mg IM or olanzapine 10 mg IM. Prior to receiving treatment, patients were asked to complete a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) describing their pain and a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) describing their pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients also completed a 100-mm VAS describing their level of nausea. Pain and nausea measurements were repeated 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Patients also completed the Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Descriptive statistics were used as appropriate. Pain relief was compared both in terms of the decrease in VAS scores and in the proportion of patients who reported moderate or severe pain whose report later changed to mild or no pain.

RESULTS

One-hundred patients were enrolled; 13 were withdrawn before administration of the study medication, 8 in the droperidol group and 5 in the olanzapine group, leaving 87 patients for analysis. Forty-two patients received droperidol and 45 received olanzapine. In the droperidol group, 35/40 (87.5%) patients who had reported moderate or severe pain at baseline reported mild or no pain at 60 minutes. In the olanzapine group, 38/44 (86.4%) reported this change (p = 0.89). The mean percent change from baseline VAS pain score at 60 minutes was -37% (95% CI = -84% to 11%) for droperidol and -37% (95% CI = -64% to 10%) for olanzapine (p = 0.30). The mean percent change from baseline for the VAS nausea score was -59% (95% CI = -70% to -47%) for droperidol and -64% (95% CI = -77% to -51%) for olanzapine (p = 0.83). There was no difference in any report of akathisia by the BAS between the groups (p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Both olanzapine and droperidol are effective treatments for primary headaches in the ED. No significant differences were found between the medications in terms of pain relief, antiemetic effect, or akathisia. Olanzapine may be used to treat primary headache and it is an effective alternative to droperidol.

The effect of IM droperidol on driving performance

OBJECTIVES

Droperidol (DROP) is used in the emergency department (ED) for several indications, but its effect on psychomotor performance is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of DROP, 2.5 mg intramuscular (IM), on driving performance.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blinded, two-period, placebo-controlled crossover trial that utilized a standard driver-training program with computerized scoring. We solicited 20 paid volunteers who were pre-screened with a 12-lead EKG to evaluate QT length. For the first driving simulation, subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 2.5 mg of DROP IM or an equal volume of normal saline (NS). At least 72 hours later, the same subjects participated in a second driving simulation. For the second driving simulation, the assignment of DROP, 2.5 mg IM, or normal saline was reversed: (If a subject received DROP, 2.5 mg IM, in the first simulation, the subject received normal saline in the second simulation; conversely, if a subject received normal saline in the first simulation, the subject received DROP, 2.5 mg IM, in the second simulation). Thirty minutes later, participants drove the 20-minute simulation and received an average score based on the errors made in 4 categories: accelerating, braking, steering, and signaling. Post-testing, participants evaluated their degree of drowsiness and driving impairment using a visual analog scale and compared their perception of impairment to that caused by alcohol ingestion. Data were analyzed using analysis-of-variance, Pearson chi-square and Fischer's exact test with alpha set at p = 0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty subjects (11 males and 9 females) completed the protocol. The mean age was 30 years with a range of 20 to 46 years, and the mean weight was 80 kg. The mean driving experience was 12 years. Participants who received DROP felt significantly drowsier (38.6 mm +/- 9.0) than those receiving NS (13.2 mm +/- 9.0), the mean difference was 25.4 mm p = .009. Subjects receiving DROP were also more likely to feel that their driving would be impaired as rated on the VAS (DROP: 34.6 +/- 5.2; NS: 3.2 +/- 5.2; p = .0005), and DROP subjects reported impairment equivalent to 1-4 drinks more frequently than those receiving placebo (61% vs. 16.7%, p < .001). These subjective feelings of impairment were confirmed by their driving performance on the simulator. The mean driving score, using the driving simulator, was 68.8% with DROP vs. 73.6% with NS; p = .013.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects receiving modest doses of IM DROP report increased perceptions of drowsiness, driving impairment, and intoxication; these perceptions are confirmed on objective testing.