In Switzerland, approximately 32,000 patients are hospitalized annually due to adverse drug reactions (ADRs), representing 2.3% of all hospitalizations. During the perioperative period, the administration of a variety of drugs from different classes over a relatively short period of time increases the risk of ADR. Here, we describe the case of a 32-year-old woman who was administered droperidol to treat nausea in the recovery room after a myomectomy and who subsequently became comatose. Correctable metabolic, respiratory, and cerebrovascular disorders were ruled out. Six hours after the event, she was extubated without residual effects. We discuss potential ADR for droperidol.

UNASSIGNED: Previously, we reported that antiemetics (droperidol and/or dexamethasone) could significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic gynecological surgery (LGS). We retrospectively investigated anesthesia practice during the era earlier than the above-mentioned report to identify factors affecting PONV.
UNASSIGNED: We investigated 1,221 patients who underwent LGS at Juntendo University Hospital between 2007 and 2009. Effects of nine covariates likely to affect PONV on the actual incidence of PONV were examined with the multivariate logistic regression analysis.
UNASSIGNED: The actual incidence of PONV developing until nine hours after the transfer to the ward was 47.3% (577/1,221) in the total cohort. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that longer duration of anesthesia (in hours) was associated with the increased incidence of PONV (odds ratio [OR], 1.170; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.000-1.360; p = 0.0467), the use of the reversal agent neostigmine co-administrated with atropine was associated with the lower incidence of PONV (OR, 0.746; 95% CI, 0.585-0.950; p = 0.0177), and no use of PCA and the use of fentanyl PCA without droperidol were associated with the higher incidence of PONV, compared with the use of fentanyl PCA with droperidol (OR, 1.810; 95% CI, 1.250-2.640; p = 0.0019; and OR, 2.500; 95% CI, 1.880-3.310; p < 0.0001; respectively).
UNASSIGNED: Longer duration of anesthesia was associated with the increased incidence of PONV. Addition of droperidol to the PCA infusate and the use of reversal agent neostigmine co-administrated with atropine were associated with the reduced incidence of PONV.

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].

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.

暂无摘要。

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.

There are limited real-world data regarding the use of droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA). This study aimed to evaluate the antiemetic benefits and sedation effects of droperidol in morphine-based IV-PCA.
Patients who underwent major surgery and used morphine-based IV-PCA at a medical center from January 2020 to November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome was the rate of any postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) within 72 h after surgery. Propensity score matching was used to match patients with and without the addition of droperidol to IV-PCA infusate in a 1:1 ratio. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
After matching, 1,104 subjects were included for analysis. The addition of droperidol to IV-PCA reduced the risk of PONV (aOR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.67, p < 0.0001). The antiemetic effect of droperidol was significant within 36 h after surgery and attenuated thereafter. Droperidol was significantly associated with a lower risk of antiemetic uses (aOR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.41-0.80, p = 0.0011). The rate of unintentional sedation was comparable between the patients with (9.1%) and without (7.8%; p = 0.4481) the addition of droperidol. Postoperative opioid consumption and numeric rating scale acute pain scores were similar between groups.
The addition of droperidol to IV-PCA reduced the risk of PONV without increasing opiate consumption or influencing the level of sedation. However, additional prophylactic therapies are needed to prevent late-onset PONV.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.