Droperidol for the treatment of acute peripheral vertigo

Pharmacological Treatment of Acute Unilateral Vestibulopathy: A Review

There have been few investigations on the epidemiology, etiology, and medical management of acute unilateral vestibulopathy (AUV). Short-term pharmaceutical resolutions include vestibular symptomatic suppressants, anti-emetics, and some cause-based therapies. Anticholinergics, phenothiazines, antihistamines, antidopaminergics, benzodiazepines, and calcium channel antagonists are examples of vestibular suppressants. Some of these medications may show their effects through multiple mechanisms. In contrast, N-acetyl-L-leucine, Ginkgo biloba, and betahistine improve central vestibular compensation. Currently, AUV pathophysiology is poorly understood. Diverse hypotheses have previously been identified which have brought about some causal treatments presently used. According to some publications, acute administration of anti-inflammatory medications may have a deleterious impact on both post-lesional functional recovery and endogenous adaptive plasticity processes. Thus, some authors do not recommend the use of corticosteroids in AUV. Antivirals are even more contentious in the context of AUV treatment. Although vascular theories have been presented, no verified investigations employing anti-clotting or vasodilator medications have been conducted. There are no standardized treatment protocols for AUV to date, and the pharmacological treatment of AUV is still questionable. This review addresses the most current developments and controversies in AUV medical treatment.

DISCONTINUATION OF DROPERIDOL FOR THE CONTROL OF ACUTELY AGITATED OUT-OF-HOSPITAL PATIENTS

OBJECTIVE

To identify the effects of the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for sedation of agitated out-of-hospital patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review conducted January 1, 2001, through December 5, 2002, of patients with an out-of-hospital diagnosis of agitation who received either droperidol or midazolam prior to arrival in the emergency department (ED). The need for continuous cardiac or pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, critical care ED management, intensive care unit admission, and mortality was reviewed.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients received droperidol or midazolam for acute agitation in the out-of-hospital setting. Forty-one patients received droperidol in 2001 (D2001); three patients received midazolam in 2001 (M2001). No patients received droperidol in 2002, and 27 patients received midazolam (M2002). Comparing the D2001 and M2002 groups, the need for continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in the ED [14/41 (34.1%) versus 18/27 (66.7%)], intubations [4/41 (9.8%) versus 10/27 (37.0%)], critical emergency medical services transports [5/41 (12.2%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], critical ED care cases [6/41 (14.6%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], and intensive care unit admissions [6/13 (46.2%) versus 14/15 (93.3%)] were increased in the M2002 group. No difference was found in the frequencies of ED cardiac monitoring, hospital admission, complications, or death.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for out-of-hospital agitated patients, the authors have observed an increased frequency of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, ED critical care management, and intensive care unit admission in patients requiring chemical sedation for control of agitation in the out-of-hospital setting.

Vertigo and Motion Sickness. Part II: Pharmacologic Treatment

Vertigo is a sensation of movement when no movement is actually occurring. It is often accompanied by visceral autonomic symptoms including pallor, diaphoresis, nausea, and vomiting. Vertigo is similar to motion sickness in that both may be caused by vestibular stimulation that does not match an internal model of expected environmental stimuli. Indeed, a functioning vestibular system is necessary for the perception of motion sickness. For this reason, many of the same drugs are used to treat both conditions. The investigation of drugs that treat motion sickness helps to discover medications that may treat vertigo caused by disease of the vestibular system. In this article, we discuss the pharmacologic agents that are now available for the treatment of vertigo and those agents that are still under study.

Droperidol in the emergency department: is it safe?

Droperidol is an antipsychotic and antiemetic drug that has been used extensively by emergency physicians, psychiatrists, and anesthesiologists worldwide since 1967. It also has been used effectively for other diverse conditions, such as treatment of headache and vertigo. As of January 2001, Droperidol was no longer available in Europe after its founder, Janssen-Cilag Pharmaceuticals, discontinued its distribution. In December 2001, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a black box warning on the use of Droperidol in response to an association between Droperidol and fatal cardiac dysrhythmias, such as torsade de pointes, resulting from prolongation of the QT interval. In this review we closely examine the pharmacology, indications, use, and complications associated with Droperidol, and speculate on its future use in the Emergency Department.

A randomized clinical trial to assess the efficacy of intramuscular droperidol for the treatment of acute migraine headache

In a recent case series, we reported that intramuscular droperidol appeared to be an effective therapy for the treatment of acute migraine headache. The objective of the study was to further assess the efficacy of intramuscular droperidol for the treatment of acute migraine headache. The study design was a randomized, clinical trial set in a community-based ED. The population was a convenience sample of ED patients who met International Headache Society acute migraine criteria. Exclusions included pregnancy, use of narcotic or phenothiazine medications within 24 hours. For the protocol, patients were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Patients and physicians were blinded as to the treatment provided. Patients recorded their initial pain on a 100mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Patients were randomized to receive either 2.5 mg droperidol intramuscularly; the other group received 1.5 mg/kg meperidine intramuscularly. After 30 minutes patients recorded their pain on the VAS and recorded their preference for the medication on a Likert Scale. Physicians recorded the incidence of any side effects and the need for rescue medication. Statistical analysis consisted of categorical variables that were analyzed by chi-square, continuous interval data by t-tests and ordinal data by Mann-Whitney U test. The primary outcome parameters were mean VAS score change and the percentage of patients who wanted to go home without rescue medication. The study had an 80% power to detect a 26 mm difference in the mean change in VAS between groups. Of the 29 patients who were enrolled, 15 received droperidol. Both groups were similar with respect to age (30.7 +/- 8.9 years droperdol v 32.7 +/- 9.9 years meperidine; P =.59), female sex (73% v 71%; P =.91), mean headache duration (24.7 +/- 28.3 v 18.3 +/- 25.8 hours; P =.55). The droperidol group had a higher mean initial VAS score (88 v 76 mm; P =.03). The 2 groups were similar with regard to outcome, including: mean change in VAS score (47 v 37 mm; P =.33), average Likert score (1.1 v 1.9; P =.85), and the percentage of patients who did not want rescue medication (67% v 57%; P =.61). The incidence of sedation was 6.7 v 14.3%. Akathisia occurred in 13.3% of pts who received droperidol. We found that intramuscular droperidol was similar in efficacy to meperidine with a low incidence of side effects.