RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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].

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Acute agitation and violent behavior in the emergency department (ED) can lead to significant patient morbidity and contribute to the growing problem of workplace violence against health care providers. To our knowledge, there is no available literature directly comparing intramuscular ketamine to intramuscular droperidol in ED patients presenting with undifferentiated agitation. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness and safety of these agents for acute agitation in the ED. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study conducted at an urban, academic ED. The primary endpoint was time from the first dose of study medication to restraint removal. Safety endpoints included incidence of bradycardia (heart rate < 60 bpm), hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90% or need for respiratory support), and incidence of intubation for ongoing agitation or respiratory failure. RESULTS: An initial 189 patients were screened, of which, 92 met inclusion criteria. The median time from initial drug administration to restraint removal was 49 min (IQR 30, 168) in the ketamine group and 43 min (IQR 30, 80) in the droperidol group (Median difference 6 min; 95% CI [-7, 26]). There was no significant difference in rates of bradycardia (3% vs 3%, 95% CI [-7%, 8%]), hypotension (0% vs 2%, 95% CI [-5%, 2%]), or hypoxia (7% vs 10%, 95% CI [-15%, 9%]) in the ketamine versus droperidol groups respectively. One patient in the ketamine group was intubated for ongoing agitation, and one patient in the droperidol group was intubated for respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: Intramuscular droperidol and intramuscular ketamine were associated with similar times from drug administration to restraint removal in patients presenting to the ED with undifferentiated agitation. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate IM droperidol and IM ketamine head-to-head as first line agents for acute agitation in the ED.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Acute agitation accounts for up to 2.6% of visits to the emergency department (ED). To date, a standard of care for the management of acute agitation has not been established. Few studies have evaluated antipsychotic and benzodiazepine combinations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of combination therapy for acute agitation with intramuscular (IM) droperidol and midazolam (D+M) compared with IM haloperidol and lorazepam (H+L) in patients in the ED. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective medical record review of patients presenting to a large, academic ED with acute agitation from July 2020 through October 2021. The primary outcome was percentage of patients requiring additional agitation medication within 60 minutes of combination administration. Secondary outcomes included average time to repeat dose administration and average number of repeat doses required before ED discharge. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were included for analysis: 102 in the D+M group and 204 in the H+L group. Repeat dose within 60 minutes occurred in 7 (6.9%) and 28 (13.8%) patients in the D+M and H+L groups, respectively (P = 0.065). A total of 28.4% of D+M patients and 30.9% of H+L patients required any repeat dose during their ED visit. Time to repeat dose was 12 and 24 minutes in the D+M and H+L, respectively (P = 0.22). The adverse event rate was 2.9% in each group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: IM D+M resulted in a lower rate of repeat doses of acute agitation medication compared with IM H+L, though this was not statistically significant. Both therapies were safe, and the adverse event rate was low.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)