Prospective real-time evaluation of the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol among emergency department patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the QTc interval variation after low-dose droperidol in a population of undifferentiated, stable, and non-agitated patients receiving droperidol in the emergency department.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study of patients aged ≥12 years of age who received low-dose droperidol (≤ 2.5 mg) for indications other than acute behavioral disturbances. QTc intervals were monitored in real-time during pre-specified observation periods in the ED. Primary outcome was variation of QTc interval after droperidol administration, defined as the maximum delta (change) of QTc interval. Other outcomes included proportion of patients with a QTc ≥ 500 ms after droperidol, delta ≥ +60 ms, and incidence of clinical adverse events. Patients were monitored up to 30 min after IV bolus and up to 46 min after infusion.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients were included (mean age 42.1 years, 66.2% females). The median dose of droperidol was 1.875 mg (range 0.625 mg, 2.5 mg) and 94.1% received droperidol for headache management. Most patients received droperidol as a 2-min bolus (n = 41, 60.3%). The mean maximum delta of QTc interval after droperidol across all 68 patients was +29.9 ms (SD 15). A total of 12 patients (17.6%) experienced a QTc interval ≥ 500 ms during the observation period after droperidol, and 3 patients (4.4%) had a delta QTc ≥ +60 ms. There were no serious arrhythmias, such as TdP, or deaths among the 68 participants in this study (0/68). However, 13.2% (n = 9) had at least one non-serious adverse event including restlessness and/or anxiety.

CONCLUSION

The QTc interval slightly increased after droperidol administration, but these prolongations were brief, mostly below 500 msec and did not lead to serious arrhythmias. The yield of continuous cardiac monitoring in patients receiving low doses of droperidol is likely low.

The agitated older adult in the emergency department: a narrative review of common causes and management strategies

Agitation and aggression are common in older emergency department (ED) patients, can impede the expedient diagnosis of potentially life-threatening conditions, and can adversely impact ED functioning and efficiency. Agitation and aggression in older adults may be due to multiple causes, but chief among them are primary psychiatric disorders, substance use, hyperactive delirium, and symptoms of dementia. Understanding the etiology of agitation in an older adult is critical to proper management. Effective non-pharmacologic modalities are available for the management of mild to moderate agitation and aggression in patients with dementia. Pharmacologic management is indicated for agitation related to a psychiatric condition, severe agitation where a patient is at risk to harm self or others, and to facilitate time-sensitive diagnostic imaging, procedures, and treatment. Emergency physicians have several pharmacologic agents at their disposal, including opioid and non-opioid analgesics, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, ketamine, and combination agents. Emergency physicians should be familiar with geriatric-specific dosing, contraindications, and common adverse effects of these agents. This review article discusses the common causes and non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management of agitation in older adults, with a specific focus on dementia, delirium, and pain.

The Incidence of QT Prolongation and Torsades des Pointes in Patients Receiving Droperidol in an Urban Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Droperidol carries a boxed warning from the United States Food and Drug Administration for QT prolongation and torsades des pointes (TdP). After a six-year hiatus, droperidol again became widely available in the US in early 2019. With its return, clinicians must again make decisions regarding the boxed warning. Thus, the objective of this study was to report the incidence of QT prolongation or TdP in patients receiving droperidol in the ED.

METHODS

Patients receiving droperidol at an urban Level I trauma center from 1997-2001 were identified via electronic health record query. All patients were reviewed for cardiac arrest. We reviewed electrocardiogram (ECG) data for both critically-ill and noncritical patients and recorded Bazett's corrected QT intervals (QTc). ECGs from critically-ill patients undergoing resuscitation were further risk-stratified using the QT nomogram.

RESULTS

Of noncritical patients, 15,374 received 18,020 doses of droperidol; 2,431 had an ECG. In patients with ECGs before and after droperidol, the mean QTc was 424.3 milliseconds (ms) (95% confidence interval [CI], 419.7-428.9) before and 427.6 ms (95% CI, 424.3-430.9), after droperidol (n = 170). Regarding critically-ill patients, 1,172 received droperidol and 396 had an ECG. In the critically-ill group with ECGs before and after droperidol mean QTc was 435.7 ms (95% CI, 426.7-444.7) before and 435.8 ms (95% CI, 427.5-444.1) after droperidol (n = 114). Of 337 ECGs suitable for plotting on the QT nomogram, 13 (3.8%) were above the "at-risk" line; 3/136 (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.05-6.3%) in the before group, and 10/202 (4.9%; 95% CI, 2.4%-8.9%) in the after group. A single case of TdP occurred in a patient with multiple risk factors that did not reoccur after a droperidol rechallenge. Thus, the incidence of TdP was 1/16,546 (0.006%; 95% CI, 0.00015 - 0.03367%).

CONCLUSION

We found the incidence of QTc prolongation and TdP in ED patients receiving droperidol to be extremely rare. Our data suggest the FDA "black box warning" is overstated, and that close ECG monitoring is useful only in high-risk patients.

The Use, Safety, and Efficacy of Olanzapine in a Level I Pediatric Trauma Center Emergency Department Over a 10-Year Period

OBJECTIVES

Olanzapine is a second-generation antipsychotic increasingly used in emergency medicine for many indications. Literature on its use in children is sparse. Our objectives were to describe the use, safety, and efficacy of olanzapine in pediatric emergency patients.

METHODS

A structured chart review was performed of patients 18 years old or younger receiving olanzapine from 2007 to 2016 in the emergency department of a pediatric level I trauma center.

RESULTS

A total of 285 children received olanzapine. Mean age was 16.4 years (range, 9-18 years); 121 were male (42.8%). Primary indications for olanzapine included agitation (n = 166, 58.3%), headache (n = 58, 20.4%), nausea/vomiting/abdominal pain (n = 37, 12.5%), unspecified pain (n = 20, 7%), and other (n = 4, 1.4%). Route of olanzapine administration was intramuscular (n = 160, 56%; median dose, 10 mg; range, 2.5-20), intravenous (n = 101, 36%; median dose, 5 mg; range, 1.25-5), and oral (n = 24, 8%; median dose, 10 mg; range, 5-10). For agitated patients, 28 (17%) received another sedative within 1 hour. For headache patients, 5 (8.6%) received another analgesic. For gastrointestinal complaints, 5 patients (13.5%) received another analgesic/antiemetic. Adverse respiratory events were hypoxia (pulse oximetry reading, in percentage, <92%; n = 7, 2.4%), supplemental oxygen placement (n = 9, 3.2%), and intubation (n = 2, 0.7%). No patient died or had a dysrhythmia. One patient experienced dystonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine seems safe when used for a variety of conditions in pediatric emergency patients. It may be effective for acute agitation, primary headache, and gastrointestinal complaints.

Rescue Sedation When Treating Acute Agitation in the Emergency Department With Intramuscular Antipsychotics

BACKGROUND

Rapid treatment of agitation in the emergency department (ED) is critical to avoid injury to patients and providers. Treatment with intramuscular antipsychotics is often utilized, but there is a paucity of comparative effectiveness evidence available.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness of droperidol, olanzapine, and haloperidol for treating agitation in the ED.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients who received intramuscular medication to treat agitation. Patients were classified based on the initial antipsychotic they received. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of additional sedation administered (rescue medication) within 1 h. Secondary outcomes included rescue sedation for the entire encounter and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 15,918 patients included (median age 37 years, 75% male). Rescue rates at 1 h were: 547/4947 for droperidol (11%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 10-12%), 988/8825 olanzapine (11%, 95% CI 10-12%), and 390/2146 for haloperidol (18%, 95% CI 17-20%). Rescue rates for the entire ED encounter were: 832/4947 for droperidol (17%, 95% CI 16-18%), 1665/8825 for olanzapine (19%, 95% CI 18-20%), and 560/2146 for haloperidol (26%, 95% CI 24-28%). Adverse events were uncommon: intubation (49, 0.3%), akathisia (7, 0.04%), dystonia (5, 0.03%), respiratory arrest (1, 0.006%), and torsades de pointes (0), with no significant differences between drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Olanzapine and droperidol lead to lower rates of rescue sedation at 1 h and overall, compared with haloperidol. There were no significant differences in major adverse events.

An open-label randomized trial of intramuscular olanzapine versus oral clonidine for symptomatic treatment of opioid withdrawal in the emergency department

Background: Patients with opioid withdrawal often present to the Emergency Department (ED), but many EDs do not have the infrastructure in place to initiate treatment with opioid agonists (methadone or buprenorphine). Therefore, ED management often entails symptomatic control. The purpose of this study was to compare olanzapine to clonidine for the treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms. Methods: This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing 10 mg of IM olanzapine to 0.3 mg of oral clonidine for symptoms of opioid withdrawal. Adult (18 years and older) ED patients reporting a history of opioid use and symptoms consistent with withdrawal were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had already received treatment during the ED encounter, were pregnant, incarcerated, or unable to provide consent. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive olanzapine or clonidine for their initial treatment. A baseline Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (COWS) score was calculated. After 30 min, the patient could receive any additional treatment at the ED physician's discretion. The primary outcome was need for additional medication (rescue) within 1 h of study medication administration. Secondary outcomes included change in COWS score and adverse reactions. Results: We enrolled 63 patients (33 olanzapine, 30 clonidine). Demographic characteristics were similar for both groups (median age 45, range 21-67, 54% male) as well as baseline COWS score (median score 11). The median time since last opiate use was 48 h for both groups (range 4-116). Rescue was given within 1 h for olanzapine for 9 (27%) patients and for clonidine in 19 (63%) patients (difference 36%, 95% CI 13-59%). Decrease in COWS score at 1 h was 8.3 for olanzapine and 5.1 for clonidine (difference 3.2, 95% CI 0.3-6). Adverse events were uncommon: akathisia (1, olanzapine), hypotension (2, clonidine), respiratory depression (0). Conclusions: Treatment of opioid withdrawal symptoms with 10 mg of IM olanzapine results in a lower incidence of rescue medication administration and improved symptoms (COWS score) compared to 0.3 mg of oral clonidine.

Droperidol v. haloperidol for sedation of aggressive behaviour in acute mental health: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Agitation and aggression are significant problems in acute psychiatric units. There is little consensus on which drug is most effective and safest for sedation of these patients.

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness and safety of haloperidol v. droperidol for patients with agitation and aggression.

METHOD

In a masked, randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12611000565943) intramuscular droperidol (10 mg) was compared with intramuscular haloperidol (10 mg) for adult patients with acute behavioural disturbance in a psychiatric intensive care unit. The primary outcome was time to sedation within 120 min. Secondary outcomes were use of additional sedation, adverse events and staff injuries.

RESULTS

From 584 patients, 110 were randomised to haloperidol and 118 to droperidol. Effective sedation occurred in 210 (92%) patients within 120 min. There was no significant difference in median time to sedation: 20 min (interquartile range 15-30, range 10-75) for haloperidol v. 25 min (IQR 15-30, range 10-115) for droperidol (P = 0.89). Additional sedation was used more often with haloperidol (13% v. 5%, P = 0.06), but adverse effects were less common with haloperidol (1% v. 5%, P = 0.12). There were 8 staff injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Both haloperidol and droperidol were effective for sedation of patients with acute behavioural disturbance.

High dose droperidol and QT prolongation: analysis of continuous 12-lead recordings

AIMS

To investigate the QT interval after high dose droperidol using continuous 12-lead Holter recordings.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of patients given droperidol with a continuous Holter recording. Patients were recruited from the DORM II study which included patients with aggression presenting to the emergency department. Patients initially received 10 mg droperidol as part of a standardized sedation protocol. An additional 10 mg dose was given after 15 min if required and further doses at the clinical toxicologist's discretion. Continuous 12-lead Holter recordings were obtained for 2-24 h utilizing high resolution digital recordings with automated QT interval measurement. Electrocardiograms were extracted hourly from Holter recordings. The QT interval was plotted against heart rate (HR) on the QT nomogram to determine if it was abnormal. QTc F (Fridericia's HR correction) was calculated and >500 ms was defined as abnormal.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients had Holter recordings after 10-40 mg droperidol and 316 QT-HR pairs were included. There were 32 abnormal QT measurements in four patients, three given 10 mg and one 20 mg. In three of the four patients QTc F >500 ms but only in one taking methadone was the timing of QTc F >500 ms consistent with droperidol dosing. Of the three other patients, one took amphetamines, one still had QT prolongation 24 h after droperidol and one took a lamotrigine overdose. No patient given >30 mg had a prolonged QT. There were no arrhythmias.

CONCLUSION

QT prolongation was observed with high dose droperidol. However, there was little evidence supporting droperidol being the cause and QT prolongation was more likely due to pre-existing conditions or other drugs.

Droperidol use in pediatric emergency department patients

INTRODUCTION

Droperidol is a controversial drug with multiple clinical applications. This report examines the use of droperidol in pediatric emergency department (ED) patients.

METHODS

An observational structured chart review was conducted of patients 21 years or younger receiving droperidol as part of their ED treatment.

RESULTS

Over a 32-month period, 79 ED records were identified for review. Patients' ages ranged from 15 to 21 years with a mean age of 19.4 (T0.2) years. Indications for droperidol included agitation, 68 (86%); nausea/vomiting, 7 (9%); headache, 2 (3%); and other pain, 2 (3%). Droperidol was the initial therapy in 63 patients (80%) and the rescue medication in 16 (20%). In nonagitated patients, droperidol was 100% effective in controlling patient's symptoms, whereas in agitated patients, droperidol alone was 86.6% effective as a single agent. Within the agitated patients, 35 (51.5%) were positive for drugs, 15 (22.1%) were positive for drugs and alcohol, and 12 (17.6%) were positive for alcohol alone. All patients were placed on continuous cardiac monitoring immediately after administration of the drug and for the duration of their active ED visit. No cardiac arrhythmias were noted. Thirty-eight patients (48%) were discharged from the ED, 35 (44%) were transferred to the psychiatric crisis unit for evaluation, 5 (6%) were admitted, and in 1 patient with biliary colic, the disposition was not recorded. No admissions were for droperidol-associated complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol is a safe and effective medication in the adolescent and young adult population.

Olanzapine versus droperidol for the treatment of primary headache in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine if there is a difference in pain relief or frequency and severity of side effects in emergency department (ED) patients with primary headache treated with either intramuscular (IM) olanzapine or IM droperidol.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized nonblinded clinical trial of adult ED patients undergoing treatment for suspected primary headache. Consenting patients were randomized to receive either droperidol 5 mg IM or olanzapine 10 mg IM. Prior to receiving treatment, patients were asked to complete a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) describing their pain and a 4-point verbal rating scale (VRS) describing their pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Patients also completed a 100-mm VAS describing their level of nausea. Pain and nausea measurements were repeated 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Patients also completed the Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS) 30 and 60 minutes after medication administration. Descriptive statistics were used as appropriate. Pain relief was compared both in terms of the decrease in VAS scores and in the proportion of patients who reported moderate or severe pain whose report later changed to mild or no pain.

RESULTS

One-hundred patients were enrolled; 13 were withdrawn before administration of the study medication, 8 in the droperidol group and 5 in the olanzapine group, leaving 87 patients for analysis. Forty-two patients received droperidol and 45 received olanzapine. In the droperidol group, 35/40 (87.5%) patients who had reported moderate or severe pain at baseline reported mild or no pain at 60 minutes. In the olanzapine group, 38/44 (86.4%) reported this change (p = 0.89). The mean percent change from baseline VAS pain score at 60 minutes was -37% (95% CI = -84% to 11%) for droperidol and -37% (95% CI = -64% to 10%) for olanzapine (p = 0.30). The mean percent change from baseline for the VAS nausea score was -59% (95% CI = -70% to -47%) for droperidol and -64% (95% CI = -77% to -51%) for olanzapine (p = 0.83). There was no difference in any report of akathisia by the BAS between the groups (p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Both olanzapine and droperidol are effective treatments for primary headaches in the ED. No significant differences were found between the medications in terms of pain relief, antiemetic effect, or akathisia. Olanzapine may be used to treat primary headache and it is an effective alternative to droperidol.

The use of intramuscular benzodiazepines and antipsychotic agents in the treatment of acute agitation or violence in the emergency department

The management of an agitated, abusive or violent patient is a common and challenging problem in Emergency Medicine. Priorities include measures to ensure the safety of the patient and the emergency staff, including provision of physical restraint of the patient and evaluation for correctable medical causes of such behavior. Medications used in the treatment of such patients include benzodiazepines and antipsychotic agents. The newer atypical antipsychotic agents seem to provide a safe and effective treatment for such patients. The atypical antipsychotic agents may have fewer short-term side effects than older typical antipsychotic agents, such as haloperidol and droperidol. Currently available atypical antipsychotic medications for the treatment of acute agitation include ziprasidone and olanzapine, which can be administered in an intramuscular formulation, and risperidone, which is available in a rapidly dissolvable tablet and liquid formulation.

Pharmacological management of acute agitation

Acute agitation occurs in a variety of medical and psychiatric conditions, and when severe can result in behavioural dyscontrol. Rapid tranquillisation is the assertive use of medication to calm severely agitated patients quickly, decrease dangerous behaviour and allow treatment of the underlying condition. Intramuscular injections of typical antipsychotics and benzodiazepines, given alone or in combination, have been the treatment of choice over the past few decades. Haloperidol and lorazepam are the most widely used agents for acute agitation, are effective in a wide diagnostic arena and can be used in medically compromised patients. Haloperidol can cause significant extrapyramidal symptoms, and has rarely been associated with cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death. Lorazepam can cause ataxia, sedation and has additive effects with other CNS depressant drugs.Recently, two fast-acting preparations of atypical antipsychotics, intramuscular ziprasidone and intramuscular olanzapine, have been developed for treatment of acute agitation. Intramuscular ziprasidone has shown significant calming effects emerging 30 minutes after administration for acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia and other nonspecific psychotic conditions. Intramuscular ziprasidone is well tolerated and has gained widespread use in psychiatric emergency services since its introduction in 2002. In comparison with other atypical antipsychotics, ziprasidone has a relatively greater propensity to increase the corrected QT (QTc) interval and, therefore, should not be used in patients with known QTc interval-associated conditions. Intramuscular olanzapine has shown faster onset of action, greater efficacy and fewer adverse effects than haloperidol or lorazepam in the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar mania and dementia. Intramuscular olanzapine has been shown to have distinct calming versus nonspecific sedative effects. The recent reports of adverse events (including eight fatalities) associated with intramuscular olanzapine underscores the need to follow strict prescribing guidelines and avoid simultaneous use with other CNS depressants. Both intramuscular ziprasidone and intramuscular olanzapine have shown ease of transition to same-agent oral therapy once the episode of acute agitation has diminished. No randomised, controlled studies have examined either agent in patients with severe agitation, drug-induced states or significant medical comorbidity. Current clinical experience and one naturalistic study with intramuscular ziprasidone suggest that it is efficacious and can be safely used in such populations. These intramuscular atypical antipsychotics may represent a historical advance in the treatment of acute agitation.

Chemical restraints for the agitated, violent, or psychotic pediatric patient in the emergency department: controversies and recommendations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chemical restraint in the pediatric patient is an evolving clinical practice. Although a rare occurrence, chemically restraining a child may be necessary for the child's safety, healthcare worker's safety, and to expedite the medical evaluation. The purpose of this manuscript to review the definition and indications for chemical restraints, specific classes of drugs used for chemical restraints, and the legal implications associated with chemical restraints.

RECENT FINDINGS

Three classes of drugs will be reviewed: benzodiazepines, neuroleptics, and atypical antipsychotics, including side effects, dosages, and routes of administration. There are controversies surrounding some of these drugs. Very few recent studies have focused this topic on the pediatric patient. A recently published practice parameter will be reviewed that addresses the prevention and management of aggressive behavior in children and adolescents. In addition, specific studies looking at different drugs, particularly the newer atypical antipsychotics, will be reviewed. Literature discussing the controversies regarding droperidol usage in the emergency department will also be highlighted.

SUMMARY

The differential diagnosis for the agitated, violent, or psychotic patient is extensive and must be taken into consideration when deciding to use chemical restraints. When the decision is made to use chemical restraints, healthcare workers should be aware of the pharmacologic options as well as the complications associated with the agents.