Droperidol undermining gastroparesis symptoms (DRUGS) in the emergency department.

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.

Antiemetic prophylaxis with droperidol in morphine-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: a propensity score matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Comparative Efficacy of Granisetron and Droperidol After Orthognathic Surgery for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2021, granisetron was approved for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) management in Japan. However, the comparative efficacy of droperidol and granisetron in the field of orthognathic surgery has not been determined. PURPOSE: We compare the efficacy of droperidol and granisetron for PONV prophylaxis following orthognathic surgery. STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery at a single institution from September 2020 to December 2022. Patients who had undergone Le Fort I osteotomy with sagittal split ramus osteotomy or isolated sagittal split ramus osteotomy were included. Patients were divided into three groups; the isolated droperidol (D), isolated granisetron (G), and droperidol with granisetron (DG) groups. General anesthesia was performed using total intravenous anesthesia for all patients; however, droperidol and granisetron were administered at the anesthesiologist's discretion. PREDICTOR VARIABLE: PONV prophylactic therapy included isolated droperidol, isolated granisetron, and droperidol with granisetron administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: Postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) were determined through medical examination within 48 hours following surgery. Secondary outcomes included complications due to droperidol and/or granisetron administration. COVARIATES: Age, sex, body mass index, Apfel's score, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, intraoperative blood loss, and type of surgery. ANALYSES: Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction for univariate comparison, and modified Poisson regression for comparison of PON and POV prophylactic efficacy for multivariate analyses. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Our study included 218 participants. There were no significant differences in covariates between groups D (n = 111), G (n = 52), and DG (n = 55). No significant difference in PON incidence was observed between groups. However, POV incidence was significantly lower in group DG than group D (relative risk, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.86; P = .03). No significant difference in complication incidence was observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Granisetron was as effective as droperidol for PONV management, while droperidol combined with granisetron was more effective than isolated droperidol for POV management. As compared to the use of each drug separately, their combination was considered safe, with no increase in complication rates.

Standardizing and Improving Care for Pediatric Agitation Management in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pediatric mental health emergency department (ED) visits are rising in the United States, with more visits involving medication for acute agitation. Timely, standardized implementation of behavioral strategies and medications may reduce the need for physical restraint. Our objective was to standardize agitation management in a pediatric ED and reduce time in physical restraints. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team conducted a quality improvement initiative from September 2020 to August 2021, followed by a 6-month maintenance period. A barrier assessment revealed that agitation triggers were inadequately recognized, few activities were offered during long ED visits, staff lacked confidence in verbal deescalation techniques, medication choices were inconsistent, and medications were slow to take effect. Sequential interventions included development of an agitation care pathway and order set, optimization of child life and psychiatry workflows, implementation of personalized deescalation plans, and adding droperidol to the formulary. Measures include standardization of medication choice for severe agitation and time in physical restraints. RESULTS: During the intervention and maintenance periods, there were 129 ED visits with medication given for severe agitation and 10 ED visits with physical restraint use. Among ED visits with medication given for severe agitation, standardized medication choice (olanzapine or droperidol) increased from 8% to 88%. Mean minutes in physical restraints decreased from 173 to 71. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an agitation care pathway standardized and improved care for a vulnerable and high-priority population. Future studies are needed to translate interventions to community ED settings and to evaluate optimal management strategies for pediatric acute agitation.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: is the big little problem becoming a smaller little problem?

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.

A Study of Cardiac Outcomes After Droperidol Administration in an Inpatient Psychiatric Cohort.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: Droperidol is an antipsychotic medication used in psychiatric emergencies to manage acute behavioral disturbance. Droperidol use carries a risk of prolonged QT interval on the electrocardiogram and associated cardiac arrhythmias including torsades de pointes and ventricular fibrillation. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of droperidol in adults admitted to the psychiatric inpatient unit of a large Australian hospital. METHODS/PROCEDURES: In this retrospective cohort study, psychiatric inpatients admitted between October 22, 2018, and March 1, 2021, who received at least 1 dose of intramuscular droperidol were consecutively included. Outcomes of interest were death, cardiac arrhythmias, and QT prolongation. QT prolongation was identified using the QT-interval nomogram. FINDINGS/RESULTS: This study included 263 patients without exclusion. No deaths or cases of cardiac arrhythmia were recorded within 24 hours of droperidol administration. Electrocardiogram data were available for 41.1% of patients (n = 108) within 7 days of droperidol administration. Two cases of QT prolongation were identified using the QT-interval nomogram, but these patients were also prescribed other medications that may have contributed to QT prolongation. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes the first known large retrospective study of safety outcomes including QT prolongation after droperidol administration in a psychiatric inpatient setting. Our findings corroborate mounting evidence supporting the clinical safety of droperidol use in psychiatric settings. Nonetheless, we note that significant barriers remain with regard to timely electrocardiogram monitoring after droperidol use.

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

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

Pharmacological Emergency management of Agitation in Children and Young people: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of intraMuscular medication (PEAChY-M).

INTRODUCTION: Acute severe behavioural disturbance (ASBD) is a condition seen with increasing frequency in emergency departments (EDs) in adults and young people. Despite the increasing number of presentations and significant associated risks to patients, families and caregivers, there is limited evidence to guide the most effective pharmacological management in children and adolescents. The aim of this study is to determine whether a single dose of intramuscular olanzapine is more effective than intramuscular droperidol at successfully sedating young people with ASBD requiring intramuscular sedation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a multicentre, open-label, superiority randomised controlled trial. Young people aged between 9 and 17 years and 364 days presenting to an ED with ASBD who are deemed to require medication for behavioural containment will be recruited to the study. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation between a single weight-based dose of intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular droperidol. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve successful sedation at 1-hour post randomisation without the need for additional sedation. Secondary outcomes will include assessing for adverse events, additional medications provided in the ED, further episodes of ASBD, length of stay in the ED and hospital and satisfaction with management.Effectiveness will be determined using an intention-to-treat analysis, with medication efficacy determined as part of the secondary outcomes using a per-protocol analysis. The primary outcome of successful sedation at 1 hour will be presented as a percentage within each treatment group, with comparisons presented as a risk difference with its 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was received from the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/69948/RCHM-2021). This incorporated a waiver of informed consent for the study. The findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001238864.

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

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

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.

Droperidol versus ondansetron for nausea treatment within the emergency department.

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.

Impact of extending prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting for cancer surgical patients in the PACU: a before and after retrospective study

Abstract Backgrounds Procedures for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) prevention are mostly based on identification of the risk factors before administering antiemetic drugs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the extended use of antiemetic on the PONV in the Postanesthetic Care Unit (PACU). Methods Two separate 4-year periods (2007-2010, P1, and (2015-2018, P2) were evaluated. During P1, the protocol consisted of dexamethasone and droperidol for patients with a locally adapted high PONV score, followed by ondansetron for rescue in the PACU. For Period 2, dexamethasone (8 mg) and ondansetron (4 mg) were administered in patients under general or regional anesthesia, or sedation longer than 30 minutes, while droperidol (1.25 mg) in rescue was injected in cases of PONV in the PACU. An Anesthesia Information Management System was used to evaluate the intensity score of PONV (1 to 5), putative compliance, sedation, and perioperative opioid consumption upon arrival in the PACU. Results A total of 27,602 patients were assessed in P1 and 36,100 in P2. The administration of dexamethasone and ondansetron increased several fold (p < 0.0001). The high PONV scores were more improved in P2 than in P1, with scores (3+4+5) for P1 vs. P2, p < 0.0001. Overall, 99.7% of the patients in P2 were asymptomatic at discharge. Morphine consumption decreased from 6.9±1.5 mg in P1 to 3.5 ± 1.5 mg in P2 (p < 0.0001). Discussion The extension of pharmacological prevention of PONV was associated with a decrease in the intensity of severe PONV. However, uncertainty regarding confounding factors should not be ignored. IRB nº 92012/33465

Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynaecological day surgery under remimazolam general anesthesia: a randomized double-blind controlled study.

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.

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.

Prospective study of haloperidol plus lorazepam versus droperidol plus midazolam for the treatment of acute agitation in the emergency department.

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.

Predictive factors of postoperative fentanyl consumption in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, might present difficulties in achieving postoperative analgesia. Prior studies have suggested that patients with IBD undergoing major abdominal surgery require higher doses of perioperative opioids than do patients without IBD. Considering patients with IBD potentially require high-dose opioids, identifying those requiring higher opioid doses will allow clinicians to optimize the perioperative opioid dose and avoid insufficient pain management or complications of opioid overdose. Therefore, we conducted this study to identify predictive factors that might influence postoperative opioid consumption in patients with IBD. METHODS: This single-center, historical cohort study reviewed the medical records of all patients admitted to the IBD center of our institution for surgery and who used intravenous fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) after open abdominal surgery between June 2013 and April 2017. Ultimately, 179 patients were enrolled in the analysis. Variables expected to influence and/or represent pain, analgesia, inflammation, disease condition, and extent of surgery were selected as potential explanatory variables for predicting postoperative opioid consumption. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to examine the effect of independent variables on postoperative fentanyl consumption. RESULTS: Of the nine predictive variables selected using the stepwise-selection method, eight were significant. Intraoperative fentanyl consumption, current smoking, ulcerative colitis, administration of biologics during the month before surgery, and the use of supplementary analgesics had a significant increasing effect on postoperative fentanyl consumption, whereas droperidol concentration in the PCA solution, age, and diabetes mellitus had a significant decreasing effect. Preoperative use of opioids was a non-significant variable. The adjusted coefficient of determination was 0.302. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative fentanyl consumption, current smoking, ulcerative colitis, administration of biologics during the month before surgery, and the use of supplementary analgesics had a significant increasing effect, whereas droperidol concentration in the PCA solution, age, and diabetes mellitus had a significant decreasing effect on postoperative fentanyl consumption. These factors should be considered when adopting postoperative intravenous fentanyl PCA administration for patients with IBD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: UMIN000031198 . Date of registration: February 8, 2018.

Impact of extending prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting for cancer surgical patients in the PACU: a before and after retrospective study.

BACKGROUNDS: Procedures for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) prevention are mostly based on identification of the risk factors before administering antiemetic drugs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the extended use of antiemetic on the PONV in the Postanesthetic Care Unit (PACU). METHODS: Two separate 4-year periods (2007...2010, P1, and (2015...2018, P2) were evaluated. During P1, the protocol consisted of dexamethasone and droperidol for patients with a locally adapted high PONV score, followed by ondansetron for rescue in the PACU. For Period 2, dexamethasone (8 mg) and ondansetron (4 mg) were administered in patients under general or regional anesthesia, or sedation longer than 30 minutes, while droperidol (1.25 mg) in rescue was injected in cases of PONV in the PACU. An Anesthesia Information Management System was used to evaluate the intensity score of PONV (1 to 5), putative compliance, sedation, and perioperative opioid consumption upon arrival in the PACU. RESULTS: A total of 27,602 patients were assessed in P1 and 36,100 in P2. The administration of dexamethasone and ondansetron increased several fold (p < 0.0001). The high PONV scores were more improved in P2 than in P1, with scores (3+4+5) for P1 vs. P2, p < 0.0001. Overall, 99.7% of the patients in P2 were asymptomatic at discharge. Morphine consumption decreased from 6.9..1.5 mg in P1 to 3.5 .. 1.5 mg in P2 (p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: The extension of pharmacological prevention of PONV was associated with a decrease in the intensity of severe PONV. However, uncertainty regarding confounding factors should not be ignored. IRB: n.. 92012/33465.

Rapid tranquilization of the agitated patient in the emergency department: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective tranquilization of the acutely agitated patient is challenging, and head-to-head comparisons of medications are limited. We aimed to identify the most optimal agent(s) for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The protocol for systematic review was registered (PROSPERO; CRD42020212534). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database/CENTRAL from inception to June 2, 2021. We limited studies to randomized controlled trials that enrolled adult ED patients with severe agitation and compared drugs for rapid tranquilization. Predetermined outcomes were: 1) Adequate sedation within 30 min (effectiveness), 2) Immediate, serious adverse event - cardiac arrest, ventricular tachydysrhythmia, endotracheal intubation, laryngospasm, hypoxemia, hypotension (safety), and 3) Time to adequate sedation (effect onset). We extracted data according to PRISMA-NMA and appraised trials using Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We performed Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo method with random-effects model and vague prior distribution to calculate odds ratios with 95% credible intervals for dichotomous outcomes and frequentist NMA to calculate mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for continuous outcomes. We assessed confidence in results using CINeMA. We used surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves to rank agent(s) for each outcome. RESULTS: Eleven studies provided data for effectiveness (1142 patients) and safety (1147 patients). Data was insufficient for effect onset. The NMA found that ketamine (SUCRA = 93.0%) is most likely to have superior effectiveness; droperidol-midazolam (SUCRA = 78.8%) is most likely to be safest. There are concerns with study quality and imprecision. Quality of the point estimates varied for effectiveness but mostly rated "very low" for safety. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that ketamine and droperidol have intermediate effectiveness for rapid tranquilization of the severely agitated patient in the ED. There is insufficient evidence to definitively determine which agent(s) may be safest or fastest-acting. Further, direct-comparison study of ketamine and droperidol is recommended.

Safety and effectiveness of olanzapine and droperidol for chemical restraint for non-consenting adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chemical restraint (CR) is emergency drug management for acute behavioural disturbances in people with mental illness, provided with the aim of rapid calming and de-escalating potentially dangerous situations. AIMS: To describe a systematic review of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting on short-term safety and effectiveness of drugs used for CR, administered to non-consenting adults with mental health conditions, who require emergency management of acute behavioural disturbances. A meta-analysis was conducted of those RCTs with comparable interventions, outcome measures and measurement timeframes. METHOD: Academic databases were searched for RCTs published between 1 January 1996 and 20th April 2020. Relevant RCTs were critically appraised using the 13-item JBI checklist. All RCTs were described, and step-wise filters were applied to identify studies suitable for meta-analysis. For these, forest and funnel plots were constructed, and Q and I2 statistics guided interpretation of pooled findings, tested using MedCalc Version 19.1. RESULTS: Of 23 relevant RCTs, 18 (78.2% total) had excellent methodological quality scores (at least 90%). Eight RCTs were potentially relevant for meta-analysis (six of excellent quality), reporting 20 drug arms in total. Adverse events for 6-36% patients were reported in all 20 drug arms. Four drug arms from two homogenous studies of N = 697 people were meta-analysed. These RCTs tested two antipsychotic drugs (droperidol, olanzapine) delivered intravenously in either 5 mgs or 10 mg doses, with outcomes of time to calm, percentage calm within five or 10 min, and adverse events. There were no significant differences between drug arms for either measure of calm. However, 5 mg olanzapine incurred significantly lower risk of adverse events than 10 mg olanzapine (OR 0.4 (95%CI 0.2-0.8)), although no dose differences were found for droperidol. CONCLUSION: 5 mg intravenous olanzapine is recommended for quick, safe emergency management of people with acute behavioural disturbances associated with mental illness.