Search

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. 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. 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. 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. • The indications for which droperidol is commonly used are abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. • Droperidol is commonly being used at doses well below the dose for which the FDA black box warning applies. • Side effects of IV droperidol at commonly used doses are both rare and minor. • No major side effects, including no deaths, associated with droperidol were noted in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a poorly understood phenomenon experienced by amputees. The pain is typically classified as neuropathic, and there is no established first-line therapy. Droperidol is an antipsychotic with a wide array of pharmacologic activity including gamma-aminobutyric acid-A channel modulation, μ opiate receptor potentiation, dopamine-2-receptor blockade, and alpha-2-receptor agonism. Due to this broad therapeutic activity, droperidol is used for many off-label indications. Case Report: Our patient was a 25-year-old male with a history of lower limb amputation who presented for evaluation and management of an acute exacerbation of PLP. On arrival, the patient was in 10/10 pain (numeric pain rating scale) described as cramping and burning. He had been previously successfully managed with subdissociative ketamine. However, during a recent exacerbation he experienced an emergence reaction to ketamine. Literature guiding pharmacotherapy in the management of PLP is sparse and of low quality. Based on the prior emergence reaction to subdissociative ketamine we explored other pharmacotherapy options. Droperidol has a wide array of pharmacologic activity and is used off label for the management of some pain syndromes. Therefore, we administered an intravenous dose of droperidol 5 milligrams. Approximately 15 minutes after receiving droperidol the patient’s pain was visibly improved, and 30 minutes later he rated his pain at 3/10. Conclusion: The success in treating this patient provides encouragement for future research and bolsters confidence that droperidol could be another tool in the management of complex pain syndromes.

The fourth Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Guidelines for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐4) is on the topic of the emergency department (ED) management of nonopioid use disorders and focuses on alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), alcohol use disorder (AUD), and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome (CHS). The SAEM GRACE‐4 Writing Team, composed of emergency physicians and experts in addiction medicine and patients with lived experience, applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding six priority questions for adult ED patients with AWS, AUD, and CHS. The SAEM GRACE‐4 Writing Team reached the following recommendations: (1) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with moderate to severe AWS who are being admitted to hospital, we suggest using phenobarbital in addition to benzodiazepines compared to using benzodiazepines alone [low to very low certainty of evidence]; (2) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD who desire alcohol cessation, we suggest a prescription for one anticraving medication [very low certainty of evidence]; (2a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest naltrexone (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking [low certainty of evidence]; (2b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD and contraindications to naltrexone, we suggest acamprosate (compared to no prescription) to prevent return to heavy drinking and/or to reduce heavy drinking [low certainty of evidence]; (2c) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) with AUD, we suggest gabapentin (compared to no prescription) for the management of AUD to reduce heavy drinking days and improve alcohol withdrawal symptoms [very low certainty of evidence]; (3a) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS we suggest the use of haloperidol or droperidol (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [very low certainty of evidence]; and (3b) in adult ED patients (over the age of 18) presenting to the ED with CHS, we also suggest offering the use of topical capsaicin (in addition to usual care/serotonin antagonists, e.g., ondansetron) to help with symptom management [very low certainty of evidence]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adults with cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) are increasingly presenting to the emergency department (ED), and this systematic review will evaluate the direct evidence on the effectiveness of capsaicin and dopamine antagonists in its clinical management. Methods: A bibliographic search was conducted to address the following population–intervention–control–outcome (PICO) question: (P) adults >18 years old with a diagnosis of acute CHS presenting to the ED; (I) dopamine antagonists (e.g., haloperidol, droperidol) and topical capsaicin; (C) usual care or no active comparator; and (O) symptoms improvement/resolution in ED, ED length of stay, admission rate, ED recidivism, need for rescue medication, and adverse events. This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA reporting recommendations. Results: From 53 potentially relevant articles, seven articles were included: five observational studies and two randomized controlled trials, including a total of 492 patients. Five of these studies evaluated the efficacy of capsaicin cream (n = 386), and two examined dopamine antagonists (haloperidol, droperidol; n = 106). There was mixed evidence for the efficacy of capsaicin for reducing nausea and emesis. Both studies evaluating dopamine antagonists detected clinical benefit to usual care or no active comparator. Conclusions: There is limited direct evidence on the efficacy of dopamine antagonists or capsaicin for treating CHS in the ED. Current evidence is mixed for capsaicin and potentially beneficial for dopamine antagonists. Because of the small number of studies, small number of participants, lack of standardization of treatment administration, and risk of bias of the included studies, methodologically rigorous trials on both types of intervention are needed to directly inform ED management of CHS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastroparesis is a syndrome of delayed gastric emptying without obstruction. There are high rates of Emergency Department (ED) visits due to gastroparesis, and this chronic disease is difficult to treat which often leads to hospital admissions. This study aimed to evaluate the impact droperidol administration has on opioid therapy, symptom relief, co-administration of antiemetic and prokinetic medications, disposition, cost, and length of stay (LOS) of patients presenting to the ED. A total of 431 patients were identified and 233 met the inclusion criteria. Droperidol administration reduced the number of patients requiring opioid therapy (108/233 [46%] vs 139/233 [60%], P -value 0.0040), reduced patient-reported pain scales by 4 points, and reduced antiemetic therapy requirement (140/233 [60%] vs 169/233 [73%], P -value 0.0045). No differences were found in terms of ED LOS (Median 6 h [IQR 4–8] vs 5 h [IQR 4–9], P -value 0.3638), hospital LOS (Median 6 h [IQR 4–30 vs 7 h [IQR 4–40], P-value 0.8888), hospital admission rates (67/233 [29%] vs 71/233 [31%], P -value 0.6101), ED cost to the facility (Median $1462 [IQR $1114 - $1986] vs $1481 [IQR $1034 - $2235], P-value 0.0943), or hospital cost (Median $4412 [IQR $2359 - $9826] vs $4672 [IQR $2075 - $9911], P-value 0.3136). In patients with gastroparesis presenting to the ED, droperidol reduced opioid use, improved pain control, and decreased antiemetic use without any differences in MME per dose, length of stay, hospital admission rate, or cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Perioperative shivering is common and can occur as a result of hypothermia or changes in the threshold of thermoregulation. Droperidol usage for anesthesia is currently limited to its sedative and antiemetic effects. We investigated the effects of high and low doses of droperidol on the shivering threshold in rabbits. Methods: Forty-two male Japanese white rabbits were anesthetized with isoflurane and randomly assigned to the control, high-dose, or low-dose group. Rabbits in the high-dose group received a 5 mg/kg droperidol bolus followed by continuous infusion at 5 mg/kg/h, those in the low-dose group received a 0.5 mg/kg droperidol bolus, and those in the control group received the same volume of saline as the high-dose group. Body temperature was reduced at a rate of 2–3 °C/h, and the shivering threshold was defined as the subject's core temperature (°C) at the onset of shivering. Results: The shivering thresholds in the control, high-dose, and low-dose groups were 38.1 °C ± 1.1 °C, 36.7 °C ± 1.2 °C, and 36.9 °C ± 1.0 °C, respectively. The shivering thresholds were significantly lower in the high-dose and low-dose groups than in the control group (P < 0.01). The thresholds were comparable between the high-dose and low-dose groups. Conclusions: Droperidol in high and low doses effectively reduced the shivering threshold in rabbits. Droperidol has been used in low doses as an antiemetic. Low doses of droperidol can reduce the incidence of shivering perioperatively and during the induction of therapeutic hypothermia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite advances in antiemetics and protocolized postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) management, it remains one of the most common postoperative adverse events. In patients who developed PONV despite antiemetic prophylaxis, giving a rescue treatment from the same class of medication is known to be of limited efficacy. Given the widespread use of 5-HT3 antagonists as PONV prophylaxis, another class of effective intravenous rescue antiemetic is in dire need, especially when prophylaxis fails, and rescue medication is utilized. Dopamine antagonists were widely used for the treatment of PONV but have fallen out of favor due to some of their side effect profiles. Amisulpride was first designed as an antipsychotic medication but was found to have antiemetic properties. Here we will review the historical perspective on the use of dopamine receptor antagonist antiemetics, as well as the evidence on the efficacy and safety of amisulpride. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite advances in antiemetics and protocolized postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) management, it remains one of the most common postoperative adverse events. In patients who developed PONV despite antiemetic prophylaxis, giving a rescue treatment from the same class of medication is known to be of limited efficacy. Given the widespread use of 5-HT3 antagonists as PONV prophylaxis, another class of effective intravenous rescue antiemetic is in dire need, especially when prophylaxis fails, and rescue medication is utilized. Dopamine antagonists were widely used for the treatment of PONV but have fallen out of favor due to some of their side effect profiles. Amisulpride was first designed as an antipsychotic medication but was found to have antiemetic properties. Here we will review the historical perspective on the use of dopamine receptor antagonist antiemetics, as well as the evidence on the efficacy and safety of amisulpride.

Objective: A randomised single‐blind trial was undertaken in an adult ED population, comparing the effectiveness of droperidol 2.5 mg IV with ondansetron 8 mg IV for the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Methods: Patients were randomly allocated to receive droperidol (n = 60) or ondansetron (n = 60). Patients rated their nausea severity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) immediately before and 30 min after drug administration. The primary outcome was of symptom improvement, defined by a VAS change ≥−8 mm 30 min post‐treatment. Mean VAS change and percentage experiencing desired effect were secondary outcomes compared. Results: Of 120 study patients, 60 (50%) received droperidol or ondansetron. Symptom improvement occurred in 93% (56 of 60) and 87% (52 of 60), respectively (P = 0.362). Mean VAS change was −38 mm and −29 mm, respectively (P = 0.031). Percentage of patients indicating desired effect was 85% and 63%, respectively (P = 0.006). Additional antiemetics were required for 16% and 37% of subjects, respectively (P = 0.006). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of symptom improvement between droperidol and ondansetron. Secondary outcomes which favour droperidol warrant further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has been identified as a big (very frequently encountered) little (not linked to life-threatening outcomes) problem. Traditional drugs (dexamethasone, droperidol or similar drugs, serotonin receptor antagonists) each have significant but limited effect, leading to an increasing use of combination therapies. High-risk patients, often identified through use of risk scoring systems, remain with a significant residual risk despite combining up to three traditional drugs. A recent correspondence in this Journal proposes the use of up to five anti-emetic drugs to further minimise the risk. This disruptive strategy was supported by favourable initial results, absence of side-effects and lower acquisition costs of the added new drugs (aprepitant and palonosetron) because of their recent loss of patent protection. These results are provocative and hypothesis generating, but need confirmation and do not warrant immediate changes in clinical practice. The next steps will also necessitate wider implementation of protocols protecting patients from PONV and a search for additional drugs and techniques aimed at treating established PONV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Abstract Purpose To observe the effect of different antiemetic drugs for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam general anesthesia. Methods One hundred ninety-two patients were selected for gynaecological day surgery and randomly divided into three groups: droperidol group (DD group), tropisetron group (DT group) and control group (DC group). Flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg and dexamethasone 5 mg were given intravenously before induction of anesthesia, and 2 min later droperidol 1 mg was given intravenously to the DD group, tropisetron 5 mg to the DT group and saline (5 ml) to the DC group. Induction of anesthesia: remimazolam 6 mg/kg/h was continuously infused until sleep, mivacurium 0.2 mg/kg and alfentanil 20ug/kg were slowly pushed, 3 min later intubation was performed to control breathing. Maintenance of anesthesia: 40ug/kg/h of alfentanil, 1 mg/kg/h of remimazolam continuous infusion. After awakening and extubation, the patient was transferred to the PACU. PONV were recorded in the PACU and an electronic questionnaire was pushed 24 h after surgery. Results The incidence of PONV within the PACU was significantly lower in the DD (14.5%)and DT(26.7%) groups than in the DC(50%) group (p 0.05). Conclusions Droperidol or tropisetron combined with dexamethasone is superior to dexamethasone alone for the prevention of PONV in the PACU after remimazolam combined with alfentanil anesthesia, with no significant difference in the incidence of PONV in 24 h after surgery.

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To observe the effect of different antiemetic drugs for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam general anesthesia. Methods: One hundred ninety-two patients were selected for gynaecological day surgery and randomly divided into three groups: droperidol group (DD group), tropisetron group (DT group) and control group (DC group). Flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg and dexamethasone 5 mg were given intravenously before induction of anesthesia, and 2 min later droperidol 1 mg was given intravenously to the DD group, tropisetron 5 mg to the DT group and saline (5 ml) to the DC group. Induction of anesthesia: remimazolam 6 mg/kg/h was continuously infused until sleep, mivacurium 0.2 mg/kg and alfentanil 20ug/kg were slowly pushed, 3 min later intubation was performed to control breathing. Maintenance of anesthesia: 40ug/kg/h of alfentanil, 1 mg/kg/h of remimazolam continuous infusion. After awakening and extubation, the patient was transferred to the PACU. PONV were recorded in the PACU and an electronic questionnaire was pushed 24 h after surgery. Results: The incidence of PONV within the PACU was significantly lower in the DD (14.5%)and DT(26.7%) groups than in the DC(50%) group (p < 0.01), there was no significantly difference between the DT and DD groups. There were no significant difference in the incidence of PONV in 24 h after surgery between the three groups(DD:DT:DC = 44.5%:45.1%:63.8%,p > 0.05). Conclusions: Droperidol or tropisetron combined with dexamethasone is superior to dexamethasone alone for the prevention of PONV in the PACU after remimazolam combined with alfentanil anesthesia, with no significant difference in the incidence of PONV in 24 h after surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study sought to assess the cardiorespiratory safety of parenteral olanzapine and benzodiazepine combination treatment compared to parenteral droperidol or haloperidol and benzodiazepine combination treatment., Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective chart review conducted in adult emergency department patients who received intramuscular (IM) or intravenous (IV) droperidol, haloperidol, or olanzapine within one hour of IM or IV benzodiazepine. Patients were stratified into groups based on whether they received either olanzapine in combination with a benzodiazepine (n = 48) or droperidol or haloperidol in combination with a benzodiazepine (n = 48)., Results: Patients in each group had a decrease in their systolic blood pressure (SBP) after IM/IV olanzapine and IM/IV droperidol or haloperidol when used in combination with an IM/IV benzodiazepine ((Olanzapine + benzodiazepine (mmHg), median (IQR): Pre-SBP: 132 (117-151) vs. Post-SBP: 117 (99-131), p < 0.01) (Droperidol or haloperidol + benzodiazepine (mmHg), median (IQR): Pre-SBP: 138 (122-149) vs. Post-SBP: 106 (98-127), p < 0.01)). Both groups had similar percent SBP decreases post-combination treatment (Olanzapine + benzodiazepine (15.6 %) vs. Droperidol or haloperidol + benzodiazepine (15.2 %); p = 0.55). We did not observe any statistically significant between group differences for hypotension (Olanzapine + benzodiazepine: 1/48, 2.1 % vs. Droperidol or haloperidol + benzodiazepine: 3/48, 6.3 %; p = 0.62)), escalation in oxygen requirements (Olanzapine + benzodiazepine: 7/48, 14.6 %) vs. Droperidol or haloperidol + benzodiazepine: 5/48, 10.4 %; p = 0.76)), or intubation due to cardiorespiratory depression (Olanzapine + benzodiazepine: 0/0, 0 % vs. Droperidol or haloperidol + benzodiazepine: 0/0, 0 %; p = 1.00))., Conclusion: This study found decreases in SBP after administering parenteral olanzapine and parenteral droperidol or haloperidol in combination with a parenteral benzodiazepine. The percent change in SBP and the frequency of hypotensive episodes post-combination treatment were not different between groups. There were also no differences between groups in need of increased oxygen requirements post-combination treatment or need for intubation due to cardiorespiratory depression. This study suggests parenteral olanzapine in combination with a parenteral benzodiazepine may have comparable cardiorespiratory safety versus parenteral droperidol or haloperidol in combination with a parenteral benzodiazepine when treating agitation in the adult ED., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We recently managed a case of clomiphene (Clomid)-induced acute mania that was resolved following empiric treatment with olanzapine and discontinuation of clomiphene. Based on our experience with this case, we advise physicians to consider clomiphene-associated phenomena with acute psychiatric presentations shortly after use of clomiphene. Discontinuing clomiphene, engaging in close serial clinical observation of mental status, empirically managing psychiatric symptoms, subsequently avoiding clomiphene, and following up clinically are indicated., Case Report The patient was a 37-year-old man with no prior medical history who presented with acute onset of psychomotor agitation, pressured speech, and psychosis. On day 1, the patient [...]

Pain is a common complaint precipitating emergency department (ED) visit, occurring in more than half of patient encounters. While opioids are effective for acute pain management in the Emergency Department (ED), the associated adverse effects, including respiratory and central nervous system depression, nausea, vomiting, and constipation, and physical manifestations of use, including tolerance, dependence and misuse leading to overdose and death, accentuate the need for non-opioid alternatives and/or multi-modal pain control. This review will provide examples of non-opioid pain management strategies and multimodal regimens for treatment of acute pain in the ED. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the combination of intramuscular (IM) droperidol/midazolam to haloperidol/lorazepam regarding time to sedation in patients with acute undifferentiated agitation in the emergency department (ED).Methods: This was a prospective, unblinded observational study in the ED of a university teaching hospital. Subjects with acute undifferentiated agitation refractory to verbal de-escalation were assigned to receive a combination of either haloperidol 5 mg/lorazepam 2 mg or droperidol 5 mg/midazolam 5 mg IM. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients adequately sedated at 10 min defined as ED Sedation Assessment Tool (SAT) score of 0 or less. Secondary outcomes included change in ED SAT score at 5, 15, 30, and 60 min, the need for oxygen supplementation, and the need for airway intervention.Results: A total of 86 patients were enrolled in the study, with 43 patients receiving droperidol/midazolam and 43 patients receiving haloperidol/lorazepam. Ten minutes after receiving medication, 51.2% of patients in the droperidol/midazolam group were adequately sedated compared to 7% of patients in the haloperidol/lorazepam group (OR: 14; 95% CI: 3.7, 52.1). Median time to adequate sedation was 10 min for the droperidol/midazolam group and 30 min for the haloperidol/lorazepam group. Eleven patients (25.6%) in the droperidol/midazolam group received oxygen supplementation compared to four patients (9.3%) in the haloperidol/lorazepam group. No study patients experienced extrapyramidal symptoms or required endotracheal intubation.Conclusion: Intramuscular droperidol/midazolam was superior to intramuscular haloperidol/lorazepam in achieving adequate sedation at 10 min. Patients in the droperidol/midazolam arm may be more likely to receive oxygen supplementation than those in the haloperidol/lorazepam arm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Droperidol is a butyrophenone that has recently been reintroduced after a United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) black box warning in 2001. Evidence demonstrates utility in a variety of clinical conditions.Objective: This paper provides evidence-based updates concerning the use of droperidol for the emergency clinician.Discussion: Droperidol received a black box warning by the US FDA in 2001 due to concerns for QT prolongation and torsades de pointes; however, reevaluation of the available data suggests droperidol is a safe and efficacious medication. It can be used in the emergency department (ED) setting for many conditions, including acute agitation, headaches, vertigo, nausea, and vomiting. Extensive literature supports that the QT-prolonging effects are transient and that the risk of torsades de pointes is rare with doses utilized in the ED. An electrocardiogram does not need to be routinely obtained before droperidol use but should be considered in patients at high risk for QT prolongation.Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that droperidol is a safe and effective medication for treating nausea and vomiting, headache, vertigo, and agitation in the ED setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundAlthough first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) have long been used in the emergency department (ED) to treat acute agitation, little is known about how these medications are used in modern clinical practice. In particular, little work has been published about whether ED clinicians administer FGAs with adjunctive medications in accordance with expert guidelines or the prescribing practices of FGAs over time.Objectives1) To provide a comparison of the frequency with which FGAs are administered with adjunctive benzodiazepines or anticholinergic medications. 2) To analyze the prescribing trends for FGAs over time, particularly in the years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black-box warning for droperidol.MethodsThis is a structured review of a retrospective cohort of patients receiving haloperidol or droperidol in two EDs over a 7-year period.ResultsHaloperidol or droperidol was administered on 2833 patient visits during the study period, with haloperidol being administered most often. Adjunctive medications are administered less than half of the time. The use of droperidol has remained relatively static, whereas the use of haloperidol has increased.ConclusionsFirst-generation antipsychotics are still widely utilized in the ED. When administered, these medications are used with adjunctive medications that may decrease side effects less than half of the time. Droperidol use has remained unchanged in the years after the FDA black-box warning, whereas use of haloperidol has continued to rise.