Antiemetic efficacy of a droperidol-morphine combination in patient-controlled analgesia. Droperidol vs. haloperidol in the initial management of acutely agitated patients. The antiemetic effectiveness of droperidol during morphine patient-controlled analgesia. A comparison of the effects of droperidol and the combination of droperidol and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized, double-blinded comparison of ondansetron, droperidol, and placebo for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after supratentorial craniotomy. A small dose of droperidol decreases postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults but cannot improve an already excellent patient satisfaction. Intravenous droperidol decreases nausea and vomiting after alfentanil anesthesia without increasing recovery time. A comparison of ranitidine, droperidol or placebo in the prevention of nausea and vomiting after hysterectomy. Comparison of droperidol 0.01 mg/kg and 0.005 mg/kg as a premedication in the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the outpatient for laparoscopy.
To evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness and side effects of adding low-dose droperidol to morphine delivered via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device.
                Randomized, double-blind, clinical study.
                University-affiliated women's hospital.
                60 healthy women, 18 to 60 years of age, who underwent total abdominal hysterectomy with a standardized anesthetic regime.
                After surgery, the control group (n = 20) had access via PCA to two cartridges, each containing morphine 1 mg/ml and saline 1 ml. The two treated groups (n = 20 each) had access via PCA to either droperidol 0.5 mg or droperidol 1 mg added to two cartridges containing morphine 1 mg/ml.
                Preoperative data, including each patient's history of nausea and vomiting with and without previous anesthesia, motion sickness, smoking, and alcohol intake, and date of her last menstrual period, were obtained. All patients received a standardized anesthetic with droperidol 0.5 mg given at closure of the peritoneum. Among those patients who received droperidol added to morphine for their postoperative analgesic regimen, fewer required rescue antiemetic medication (p < 0.05, test of trend in proportions), and they had a lower incidence of vomiting (p < 0.05, test of trend in proportions), as well as a decrease in the number of times a rescue antiemetic was needed during the 24-hour postoperative period (linear trend, p = 0.013).
                An intermittent intake of low-dose droperidol with morphine given via a PCA delivery system in two treatment groups gave evidence for a dose-response relation between the amount of droperidol added and the proportion of patients needing a rescue antiemetic. The same result applied to the proportion of patients having an emetic episode and the number of times a rescue antiemetic had to be administered. There was no evidence that the low dose of droperidol added to morphine delivered via a PCA device increased unwanted side effects. In a double-blind clinical study, 27 acutely agitated patients were treated with an intramuscular injection of 5 mg of droperidol or 5 mg of haloperidol from identical appearing vials. At 30 minutes following treatment, 81% of the patients treated with haloperidol but only 36% treated with droperidol required a second injection (p less than .05). Thus, droperidol, a safe butyrophenone neuroleptic, appears to be a drug of choice for rapid and reliable control of acute agitation. This prospective, double-blind study examined the antiemetic effectiveness of the addition of droperidol to a morphine solution for use in patient-controlled analgesia in a group of 50 patients undergoing elective lumbar laminectomy. The addition of 20 mg droperidol to 120 mg morphine in 60 ml saline given by a Baxter 'Infusor' patient-controlled analgesia device reduced the incidence of vomiting as compared to the addition of sodium chloride from 42.8% to 12.5% (p = 0.028) and of nausea from 71.4% to 29.2% (p = 0.005). The proportion of patients requiring rescue antiemetic therapy was reduced from 47.6% to 16.7% (p = 0.025) and the time interval to the first use of rescue antiemetic agent was significantly prolonged (p = 0.029). The use of droperidol was associated with an increased degree of sedation during the first 12 h after operation. To compare the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of the combination of ondansetron and droperidol with that of droperidol alone in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
                Randomized, double-blind controlled trial. University affiliated teaching hospital after induction of standardized general anesthesia.
                64 ASA physical status I or II patients aged 18 to 80 years, undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
                Following induction of general anesthesia, patients received either droperidol 1.25 mg intravenously (IV; n = 30; Group D) or the combination of droperidol 1.25 mg IV and ondansetron 4 mg IV (n = 34; Group D+O).
                Number and severity of nausea episodes, number of emetic episodes, total analgesic consumption, and rescue antiemetic administration were assessed at 1, 3, and 24 hours after admission to the recovery room. Data were analyzed using Fisher's Exact test and unpaired Student's t-test; a p-value <0.05 was considered significant.
                The proportions of patients who experienced nausea (70% and 53% for D and D+O groups, respectively) and vomiting (30% and 19% for D and D+O groups, respectively) were similar in the two groups. The frequency of moderate and severe nausea (requiring administration of antiemetic) was less in group D + O (7%) compared with group D (19%; p < 0.05).
                Patients who received the combination of droperidol and ondansetron experienced less severe nausea compared with patients who received droperidol alone.
                Copyright 2002 by Elsevier Science Inc. Nausea or vomiting occurs frequently after craniotomy. Because of the need for frequent postoperative neurological assessment, an effective antiemetic with minimal sedative side effects is needed. Therefore, we compared ondansetron to droperidol in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. A total of 60 adults requiring elective supratentorial craniotomy received standardized IV anesthesia with 4 mg of ondansetron, 0.625 mg of droperidol, or placebo at skin closure. The incidence of postoperative nausea, emesis, pain and sedation scores, and rescue antiemetic use were recorded at 0, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 h. All groups were demographically similar. Differences existed for cumulative 8, 12, and 24 h incidences of nausea (24 h, P = 0.03) and emesis (24 h, P = 0.04). Within 4 h, when maximal effect could be expected from treatment, 20% of the ondansetron group, 25% of the droperidol group and 50% of the placebo group received rescue antiemetic (P = 0.12). No differences in pain (P = 0.82) or sedation (P = 0.74) scores were detected. Both ondansetron and droperidol prevent nausea; however, only droperidol reduces emesis after supratentorial craniotomy. The dose of droperidol used was not more sedating than ondansetron. Sustained reduction in nausea and emesis over 24 h indicates a preemptive benefit of prophylactic antiemetic in this surgical population. Implications: Nausea and vomiting after brain surgery are particularly troubling, because effective treatment may cause sedation, making postoperative neurological assessment difficult. Our study shows that both ondansetron and droperidol are effective in reducing nausea, and that droperidol is particularly effective in reducing vomiting. Neither drug caused more sedation than placebo. We evaluated whether or not 1) a routine prophylaxis with 20 microg x kg(-1) body weight of droperidol would efficiently prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after elective surgery in adults and 2) an efficient prophylaxis would improve patient satisfaction.
                With approval of the local ethics committe and after having obtained informed written consent, 1334 patients in a randomised, single-blinded fashion either received droperidol (group 1, n=665) or saline intravenously (group 2, n=669) 20 min before the end of a standard O2/N2O/fentanyl/isoflurane anaesthesia of at least 30 min duration. End points: incidence of PONV during the first 24 h; individual episodes of nausea or vomiting, overall patient satisfaction with the procedure.
                Compared to saline, intravenous injection of droperidol substantially and significantly reduced the incidence of PONV from 30% to 20% (P<0.0001). Women suffered three times more frequently from PONV (10.5% vs. 30%, P<0.0001). Droperidol significantly reduced the incidence of PONV from 35.4% to 24.4% in women (relative risk reduction: 31%, P=0.0002), but not in men (13.1% vs. 8.2%, relative risk reduction: 37%, P=0.159)--without impact on overall patient satisfaction (98.8% vs. 97.1%, P=0.439). Distribution of surgical procedures, sex, age, height, weight and anaesthetic duration were not different between groups. To prevent one woman from suffering PONV, nine had to be treated prophylactically at an individual drug cost (German prices) of about Euro0.80 per woman.
                Routine PONV prophylaxis with 20 microg x kg(-1) body weight of droperidol is cost-efficient and appropriate in women but not in men. The frequency rate of nausea and vomiting after an alfentanil-based anesthetic is high, with reported frequencies of 38% to 68%. This study was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of low-dose and moderate-dose droperidol in decreasing the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting and to evaluate whether droperidol has any effect on slowing recovery after a standard alfentanil-based anesthetic. Sixty normal adults who were scheduled to undergo short surgical procedures requiring general anesthesia were assigned randomly in a double-blind manner to one of three groups of 20: (1) control--normal saline; (2) droperidol 10 micrograms/kg; or (3) droperidol 20 micrograms/kg. A standard alfentanil-based anesthetic was used, and the study drug was given immediately after induction of anesthesia. In the post-anesthesia recovery room, all patients were evaluated according to the Aldrete score, noting the time to achieve a score of 10. Presence or absence and severity of nausea and vomiting were noted. To assess psychomotor recovery, a Trieger dot test was performed by every patient preoperatively, at the time of an Aldrete score of 10, and upon discharge from the recovery room. There was no statistical difference between the groups in age, sex, type of procedure, weight, total dose of alfentanil, or duration of anesthetic. The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly less (p less than 0.05) for the 20 micrograms/kg group (5%) than for the 10 micrograms/kg group (25%) or the control group (40%). A dose-response relationship was evident for the antiemetic effect of droperidol. An analog scale for severity of nausea and vomiting also demonstrated a dose response effect.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) The effect of ranitidine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was assessed when compared with droperidol and with placebo.
                Three groups of sixty patients were studied in a double-blind randomized manner. The first group received ranitidine tablets 300 mg on the night before and on the following morning, one hour before induction of anaesthesia. Thirty minutes before surgery ended they were given isotonic saline 0.3 ml iv. The second group had placebo in place of ranitidine while before the operation ended, droperidol 0.75 mg (0.3 ml) was injected. The third group received placebos rather than the study drugs. The immediate two-hour postoperative recovery room period and that on the ward were evaluated until the next morning. PONV information was gathered from complaints by the patients and from direct questioning by the nursing staff. Droperidol 0.75 mg iv served as the "rescue drug."
                Less PONV occurred in patients who received anti-emetics than those given placebo: recovery room, P = 0.0109; ward, P = 0.007. Droperidol better suppressed PONV in the recovery room (P = 0.005) with no statistical significance seen between ranitidine and placebo. On the ward, both anti-emetics were more effective than placebo (ranitidine, P = 0.01; droperidol, P = 0.003). "Rescue drug" requirements throughout the study periods were not statistically significant.
                Although both anti-emetics were associated with a smaller incidence of PONV than was placebo, droperidol was superior to ranitidine in preventing sickness during the immediate postoperative period. The need for the "rescue drug" was similar in all groups. Patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopy and general anesthesia have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. It is essential that anesthesia techniques accommodate the special needs of these outpatients. Droperidol is an effective antiemetic but larger doses above 1-1.25 mg may cause unwanted side effects which may prolong recovery and discharge. The current trend is to decrease the dose of droperidol to prevent side effects while still retaining the antiemetic properties. This experimental study compares droperidol 0.010 mg/kg and 0.005 mg/kg as a premedication for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in 32 female outpatients undergoing laparoscopy and general anesthesia. The patients were randomized into two groups. Group I received droperidol 0.010 mg/kg and Group II received 0.005 mg/kg as a preoperative antiemetic in double-blind fashion. Both groups received the same anesthetic for induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The patients were observed in the postanesthesia room for the incidence of nausea and vomiting. They were transported to the outpatient department and were also observed for nausea and vomiting. The t-test was used to show that there were no significant differences between groups in population characteristics. Chi-square analysis was used to determine statistical significance in the incidence of nausea or vomiting between the two groups. Analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of nausea or vomiting in the postanesthesia room or the outpatient department, although there was a significant clinical difference between the groups especially in the incidence of nausea in the outpatient department.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
This is an important, and surprisingly under-researched, area. To date, use of droperidol for emergency situations has been justified by experience rather than evidence from well conducted and reported randomised trials, but, as world reserves diminish, droperidol will no longer be a treatment option.