Droperidol causes a dose-dependent prolongation of the QT interval

Risk Stratification of QTc Prolongation in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Antipsychotics for the Management of Delirium Symptoms

BACKGROUND

Patients experiencing significant agitation or perceptual disturbances related to delirium in an intensive care setting may benefit from short-term treatment with an antipsychotic medication. Some antipsychotic medications may prolong the QTc interval, which increases the risk of potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. In this targeted review, we describe the evidence regarding the relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation and practical methods for monitoring the QTc interval and mitigating arrhythmia risk.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed and Cochrane Library were performed to identify studies, published before February 2023, investigating the relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation or arrhythmias.

RESULTS

Most antipsychotic medications commonly used for the management of delirium symptoms (eg, intravenous haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine) cause a moderate degree of QTc prolongation. Among other antipsychotics, those most likely to cause QTc prolongation are iloperidone and ziprasidone, while aripiprazole and lurasidone appear to have minimal risk for QTc prolongation. Genetic vulnerabilities, female sex, older age, pre-existing cardiovascular disease, electrolyte abnormalities, and non-psychiatric medications also increase the risk of QTc prolongation. For individuals at risk of QTc prolongation, it is essential to measure the QTc interval accurately and consistently and consider medication adjustments if needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Antipsychotic medications are one of many risk factors for QTc prolongation. When managing agitation related to delirium, it is imperative to assess an individual patient's risk for QTc prolongation and to choose a medication and monitoring strategy commensurate to the risks. In intensive care settings, we recommend regular ECG monitoring, using a linear regression formula to correct for heart rate. If substantial QTc prolongation (eg, QTc > 500 msec) is present, a change in pharmacologic treatment can be considered, though a particular medication may still be warranted if the risks of discontinuation (eg, extreme agitation, removal of invasive monitoring devices) outweigh the risks of arrhythmias.

AIMS

This review aims to summarize the current literature on relationships between antipsychotic medications and QTc prolongation and to make practical clinical recommendations towards the approach of antipsychotic medication use for the management of delirium-related agitation and perceptual disturbances in intensive care settings.

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.

Use of Solvent Mapping for Characterizing the Binding Site and for Predicting the Inhibition of the Human Ether-á-Go-Go-Related K+ Channel

Molecular dynamics was used to optimize the droperidol-hERG complex obtained from docking. To accommodate the inhibitor, residues T623, S624, V625, G648, Y652, and F656 did not move significantly during the simulation, while F627 moved significantly. Binding sites in cryo-EM structures and in structures obtained from molecular dynamics simulations were characterized using solvent mapping and Atlas ligands, which were negative images of the binding site, were generated. Atlas ligands were found to be useful for identifying human ether-á-go-go-related potassium channel (hERG) inhibitors by aligning compounds to them or by guiding the docking of compounds in the binding site. A molecular dynamics optimized structure of hERG led to improved predictions using either compound alignment to the Atlas ligand or docking. The structure was also found to be suitable to define a strategy for lowering inhibition based on the proposed binding mode of compounds in the channel.

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.

Isoflurane not at the expense of postoperative nausea and vomiting in cardiac anesthesia - an observational study

OBJECTIVES

Inhalative anesthesia is of common use, but is generally known to potentiate postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). With an internal change of anesthesia regimen from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) to isoflurane (in terms of myocardial protection) in cardiac anesthesia a higher incidence of PONV was to be expected. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence of PONV after the simultaneous implementation of PONV prophylaxis.

METHODS

The incidence of PONV, prospectively assessed in 197 cardiac surgery patients (68 y ± 10.4, 66.5% male) having isoflurane plus dual PONV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and droperidol, was compared with previous data of 190 controls (67 y ± 9.6, 71% male) having TIVA without and with single or dual PONV prophylaxis (n = 64 dexamethasone and droperidol, n = 25 dexamethasone, n = 101 only TIVA), and the Apfel-scoring (0-4 depending on PONV-risk). DRKS00014275. Statistics: Chi²-test, p < .05 (Bonferroni).

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV under isoflurane with antiemetic prophylaxis was 20.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.4; 27.4) compared to 30.5% (95%CI 24; 37.6) under TIVA (p = .029; dexamethasone and droperidol 23.4% (95%CI 13.8; 35.7); dexamethasone 32% (95%CI 14.9; 53.5); only TIVA 34.7% (95%CI 25.5; 44.8)), but was not lower in high-risk patients than predicted according to Apfel-scoring 4 (71.4 vs. 78%).

CONCLUSION

In cardiac anesthesia, the use of isoflurane is not at the expense of PONV when using a risk-independent two-drug-prophylaxis. It is even beneficial resulting surprisingly in a lower incidence of PONV than under TIVA unless with and without prophylaxis. Patients with the highest risk for PONV and receiving isoflurane should receive a third antiemetic prophylactic drug.

The Risk of QTc Prolongation with Antiemetics in the Palliative Care Setting: A Narrative Review

Nausea and vomiting are common within the palliative care population. Antiemetic agents may help control symptoms, but may also place patients at risk for QTc prolongation. This article reviews pharmacotherapy agents including anticholinergics, antihistamines, antidopaminergics, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, dronabinol, and medical marijuana and their associated risk of QTc prolongation. A clinical treatment pathway is provided to help guide clinicians in choosing the most appropriate antiemetic based upon patient specific factors for QTc prolongation.

Reintegrating droperidol into emergency medicine practice

Purpose

After a long period of low utilization, droperidol has become easier to obtain in the US market. This comprehensive review discusses the safety, indications, clinical efficacy, and dosing of droperidol for use in the emergency department (ED) setting.

Summary

In 2001 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a boxed warning in the labeling of droperidol after reports of QT interval prolongation associated with droperidol use. Since that time, it has been difficult to access droperidol in the United States; as a result, many practicing clinicians lack experience in its clinical use. Multiple studies have been conducted to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of droperidol use in ED patients. Results consistently show the safety of droperidol and its clinical efficacy when used as an analgesic, antiemetic, and sedative. Now that droperidol is more widely available for use in the US market, pharmacists and prescribers need to reliably translate safety and efficacy data compiled since 2001 to help ensure appropriate and effective use of the medication.

Conclusion

Droperidol is an effective and safe option for the treatment of acute agitation, migraine, nausea, and pain for patients in the ED setting. Healthcare professionals can adopt droperidol for use in clinical practice, and they should become familiar with how to dose and monitor droperidol for safe and effective use.

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.

Prospective study of the safety and effectiveness of droperidol in elderly patients for pre-hospital acute behavioural disturbance

OBJECTIVE

Acute behavioural disturbance in the elderly (≥65 years) is a significant issue for emergency medical services with increasing prevalence of dementia and aging populations. We investigated the pre-hospital safety and effectiveness of droperidol in the elderly with acute behavioural disturbance.

METHODS

This was a pre-hospital prospective observational 1-year study of elderly patients with acute behavioural disturbance. The primary outcome was proportion of adverse events (AEs) (airway intervention, oxygen saturation <90% and/or respiratory rate <12/min, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, sedation assessment tool score of -3 and dystonic reactions). Secondary outcomes included time to sedation, additional sedation, proportion with successful sedation.

RESULTS

There were 149 patients (males 78 [52%], median age 78 years; 65-101 years) presenting on 162 occasions. Dementia was the commonest cause (107/164 [65%]) of acute behavioural disturbance. There were six AEs in five patients (5/162 [3%]; 95% confidence interval 1-7). Three had hypotension, one with associated hypoxia (80%); and two had respiratory AEs (respiratory rate, 10/min [no hypoxia] and hypoxia [88%] which required oxygen). Median time to sedation was 19 min (interquartile range 12-29 min). Additional sedation was given in 2/162 patients during ambulance transfer and 16/162 within an hour of hospital arrival; 24/162 (15%) failed to sedate in the ambulance; 16 subsequently settled in ED and 8/24 received additional sedation. Of 162, 123 (76%) patients successfully sedated, without AEs or additional sedation. Of 162, 114 (70%) patients received 5 mg, 46 (29%) received two doses of 5 mg and two patients (1%) received three doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol appeared to be safe and effective for pre-hospital sedation of acute behavioural disturbance in elderly patients.

Antipsychotic drugs and sudden cardiac death: A literature review of the challenges in the prediction, management, and future steps

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is relatively uncommon, yet it is a deadly consequence of some antipsychotic medications in patients with psychiatric disorders. The widespread concerns about the adverse cardiac effects associated with antipsychotics and their unpredictable nature have led to a restriction on the use of some antipsychotic medications. Recent progress has been made in the identification of important genetic factors that may contribute to the adverse complication of antipsychotic drugs, suggesting that high-risk individuals can be identified prior to initiating therapy. In addition, some high-tech smart wearable medical devices have recently been developed, allowing users to record and analyze the electrocardiogram (ECG) in couple with artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, and notifying of irregular heart rhythms or arrhythmias, a medical condition well documented in most SCD cases. In this literature review, we summarize recent advances in understanding the link between SCD and antipsychotic drug usage, as well as in utilizing wearable medical devices for monitoring of cardiac arrhythmias. New strategies for improving the care of patients receiving antipsychotic medications are proposed. As it is now possible to evaluate the risk of SCD in patients on antipsychotic medications, preventative measures and close monitoring may be used to detect the early signs of adverse cardiac events and SCD.

Effects of esmolol on QTc interval changes during tracheal intubation: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Esmolol is an ultra-short-acting β₁ antagonist that has been shown to attenuate the corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation associated with laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation (LTI). Prolongation of the QTc interval can precipitate arrhythmias, the most serious of which is torsades de pointes . The aim of this systematic review was to compare esmolol and placebo on QTc changes occurring during LTI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials and CINAHL databases (up to August 2018) were screened for randomised controlled trials comparing esmolol and placebo on QTc changes during LTI in cardiac and non-cardiac surgeries. The primary outcome was QTc changes during LTI and secondary outcome was related to adverse effects from esmolol such as bradycardia and hypotension.

RESULTS

Seven trials were identified involving 320 patients, 160 patients receiving esmolol or placebo apiece. A shortening of the QTc post-LTI was evident in the esmolol group compared with the placebo in four studies. Compared with the baseline, the QTc was reduced post-LTI in the esmolol group. In the placebo group, the QTc was prolonged compared with the baseline post LTI. Nonetheless, esmolol did not prevent QTc prolongation in the remaining three studies, and much of this was attributed to employing QTc prolonging agents for premedication and anaesthetic induction. No significant adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSION

Compared with placebo, esmolol reduced the LTI-induced QTc prolongation when current non-QTc prolonging agents were chosen for tracheal intubation. Future studies should explore whether transmural dispersion (a marker of torsadogenicity) is also affected during LTI by analysing parameters such as the Tp-e interval (interval between the peak to the end of the T-wave) and Tp-e/QTc (rate corrected Tp-e interval).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018090282.

A Prospective Study of the Safety and Effectiveness of Droperidol in Children for Prehospital Acute Behavioral Disturbance

Study objective: Although uncommon, children (<16 years) with acute behavioral disturbance are a significant issue for emergency medical service providers. In this study, we aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of droperidol in children with prehospital acute behavioral disturbance. Methods: This was a prospective observational study over 1 year investigating the use of droperidol (0.1-0.2 mg/kg) for children (< 16 years) with acute behavioral disturbance. Inclusion criteria for acute behavioral disturbance were defined by a sedation assessment tool score of ≥2 determined by the attending paramedic. The primary outcome was the proportion of adverse effects (need for airway intervention, oxygen saturation <90% and/or respiratory rate <12, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, sedation assessment tool score of -3 and dystonic reactions). Secondary outcomes included time to sedation (sedation assessment tool score decreased by 2 or more, or a score of zero), requirement for additional sedation, failure to sedate and proportion of sedation success defined as the number of patients successfully sedated who did not suffer any adverse events or receive additional sedation. Results: There were 96 patients (males 51 [53%], median age 14 years [range 7-15 years]) who presented on 102 occasions over the one year study period. Self-harm and/or harm to others was the commonest (74/105 [70%]) cause of acute behavioral disturbance followed by alcohol (16/105 [15%]). There were 9 adverse events in 8 patients (8/102 [8%]; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 3-13%) Five patients had hypotension, all asymptomatic and only one required treatment; 2 dystonic reactions managed with benztropine and one patient with respiratory depression. Median time to sedation was 14 min (interquartile range (IQR): 10-20 min; range: 3-85 min). There was no requirement for prehospital additional sedation (0/102 [0%]; 95% CI: 0-4%) and additional sedation in the first hour of arrival to hospital was required by 4 patients (4/102 [4%]; 95% CI: 1-10%). Overall successful sedation was achieved in 89 (87%) patients. Conclusions: The use of droperidol in children for acute behavioral disturbance in the prehospital setting is both safe and effective.

Intravenous midazolam-droperidol combination, droperidol or olanzapine monotherapy for methamphetamine-related acute agitation: subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To examine the efficacy and safety of (1) midazolam-droperidol versus droperidol and (2) midazolam-droperidol versus olanzapine for methamphetamine-related acute agitation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, controlled, clinical trial was conducted in two Australian emergency departments, between October 2014 and September 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Three hundred and sixty-one patients, aged 18-65 years, requiring intravenous medication sedation for acute agitation, were enrolled into this study. We report the results of a subgroup of 92 methamphetamine-affected patients.

INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR

Patients were assigned randomly to receive either an intravenous bolus of midazolam 5 mg-droperidol 5 mg combined, droperidol 10 mg or olanzapine 10 mg. Two additional doses were administered, if required: midazolam 5 mg, droperidol 5 mg or olanzapine 5 mg, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients sedated adequately at 10 minutes. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (ORs, 95% CI) were estimated.

FINDINGS

The baseline characteristics of patients in the three groups were similar. At 10 minutes, significantly more patients in the midazolam-droperidol group [29 of 34 (85.3%)] were sedated adequately compared with the droperidol group [14 of 30 (46.7%), OR = 6.63, 95% CI = 2.02-21.78] or with the olanzapine group [14 of 28 (50.0%), OR 5.80, 95% CI = 1.74-19.33]. The number of patients who experienced an adverse event (AE) in the midazolam-droperidol, droperidol and olanzapine groups was seven of 34, two of 30 and six of 28, respectively. The most common AE was oxygen desaturation.

CONCLUSION

A midazolam-droperidol combination appears to provide more rapid sedation of patients with methamphetamine-related acute agitation than droperidol or olanzapine alone.

Droperidol for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation

BACKGROUND

People experiencing acute psychotic illnesses, especially those associated with agitated or violent behaviour, may require urgent pharmacological tranquillisation or sedation. Droperidol, a butyrophenone antipsychotic, has been used for this purpose in several countries.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of droperidol, including its cost-effectiveness, when compared to placebo, other 'standard' or 'non-standard' treatments, or other forms of management of psychotic illness, in controlling acutely disturbed behaviour and reducing psychotic symptoms in people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated previous searches by searching the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (18 December 2015). We searched references of all identified studies for further trial citations and contacted authors of trials. We supplemented these electronic searches by handsearching reference lists and contacting both the pharmaceutical industry and relevant authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data that compared droperidol to any other treatment for people acutely ill with suspected acute psychotic illnesses, including schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, mixed affective disorders, the manic phase of bipolar disorder or a brief psychotic episode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For included studies, we assessed quality, risk of bias and extracted data. We excluded data when more than 50% of participants were lost to follow-up. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four relevant trials from the update search (previous version of this review included only two trials). When droperidol was compared with placebo, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for the droperidol group (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.31, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.52, low-quality evidence) than placebo. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no clear difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 227, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.Similarly, when droperidol was compared to haloperidol, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found evidence of a clear difference (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09, high-quality evidence). There was a clear demonstration of reduced risk of needing additional medication after 60 minutes for participants in the droperidol group (2 RCTs, N = 255, RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.90, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular hypotension (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 26.49,moderate-quality evidence) and cardiovascular hypotension/desaturation (1 RCT, N = 228, RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 67.98, low-quality evidence) than haloperidol. There was no suggestion that use of droperidol was unsafe. For mental state, there was no evidence of clear difference between the efficacy of droperidol compared to haloperidol (Scale for Quantification of Psychotic Symptom Severity, 1 RCT, N = 40, mean difference (MD) 0.11, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.29, low-quality evidence). There were no data for service use and costs.Whereas, when droperidol was compared with midazolam, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by 30 minutes we found droperidol to be less acutely tranquillising than midazolam (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.28, high-quality evidence). As regards the 'need for additional medication by 60 minutes after initial adequate sedation, we found an effect (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, moderate-quality evidence). In terms of adverse effects, we found no statistically significant differences between the two drugs for either airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55, low-quality evidence) or respiratory hypoxia (1 RCT, N = 153, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.03, moderate-quality evidence) - but use of midazolam did result in three people (out of around 70) needing some sort of 'airway management' with no such events in the droperidol group. There were no data for mental state, service use and costs.Furthermore, when droperidol was compared to olanzapine, for the outcome of tranquillisation or asleep by any time point, we found no clear differences between the older drug (droperidol) and olanzapine (e.g. at 30 minutes: 1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11, high-quality evidence). There was a suggestion that participants allocated droperidol needed less additional medication after 60 minutes than people given the olanzapine (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87, high-quality evidence). There was no evidence that droperidol caused more cardiovascular arrhythmia (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88, moderate-quality evidence) and respiratory airway obstruction (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.72, low-quality evidence) than olanzapine. For 'being ready for discharge', there was no difference between groups (1 RCT, N = 221, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34, high-quality evidence). There were no data for mental state and costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Previously, the use of droperidol was justified based on experience rather than evidence from well-conducted and reported randomised trials. However, this update found high-quality evidence with minimal risk of bias to support the use of droperidol for acute psychosis. Also, we found no evidence to suggest that droperidol should not be a treatment option for people acutely ill and disturbed because of serious mental illnesses.

Small doses of droperidol do not present relevant torsadogenic actions: a double-blind, ondansetron-controlled study

AIM

Drugs used for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis are believed to provoke torsadogenic changes in cardiac repolarization. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of small doses of droperidol on the parameters of cardiac repolarization, including the QTc interval and transmural dispersion of repolarization.

METHODS

A total of 75 patients were randomly allocated to receive 0.625 or 1.25 mg droperidol or 8 mg ondansetron. The QTc interval was calculated using Bazett's formula and the Framingham correction. The transmural dispersion of repolarization was determined as Tpeak -Tend time.

RESULTS

Transient QT prolongation, corrected with both formulae, followed 1.25 mg of droperidol 10 min after administration. No change in the QTc value was observed in the other groups. When corrected with Bazett's formula, QTc was prolonged above 480 ms in two patients receiving 1.25 mg droperidol (at the 10(th) and 20(th) minute of the study) and in one receiving ondansetron. No patients developed a QTc B prolongation over 500 ms. No increase above 480 ms was observed relative to the Framingham correction method. There were no significant differences in the Tpeak -Tend time either between or within the groups.

CONCLUSION

In men without cardiovascular disorders small doses (1.25 mg) of droperidol prophylaxis induced transient QTc prolongation without changes in transmural dispersion of repolarization. The apparently low risk of the drug applies only in low risk male patients with a low pro-QTc score.

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 transiently prolongs the QT interval in children undergoing single ventricle palliation

Historically, droperidol was commonly used for postoperative sedation of critically ill children. A FDA black box warning regarding its arrhythmogenic potential greatly reduced its use. We hypothesized that administration of neuroleptic dose droperidol during volatile anesthesia would transiently prolong the corrected QT interval (QTc) in patients undergoing single ventricle palliation. As part of a prospective study in children undergoing stage 2 or 3 single ventricle palliation, we recorded electrocardiograms preoperatively, after induction of volatile anesthesia, immediately after completion of 30 min intravenous infusion of 75 mcg/kg droperidol, and shortly after arrival in the cardiac intensive care unit. Mean absolute QT intervals and heart rate data were analyzed in a blinded fashion and the longest QT interval was determined. QT intervals were corrected for heart rate (QTc) with the Bazett and Friderici formulae. Any perioperative arrhythmias were recorded. Complete data were available for 62 patients. Volatile anesthesia was associated with significant prolongation of the QTc interval. Administration of droperidol after cardiopulmonary bypass was associated with further significant QTc prolongation. All QTc changes were transient and the postoperative QTc, while still prolonged relative to baseline, was significantly shorter than the QTc immediately postdroperidol. No episodes of Torsades de Pointes (TdP) or ventricular arrhythmias were observed. The administration of a neuroleptic dose of droperidol during volatile anesthesia in patients undergoing single ventricle palliation was associated with a significant prolongation of QTc, which was transient and did not result in TdP or other ventricular arrhythmias in our study population.

Droperidol for the Treatment of Acute Migraine Headaches

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of droperidol for the relief of acute migraine headaches. Data Sources: A MEDLINE search (1946 to August 2014) was performed using the following keywords and associated medical subject headings: droperidol, inapsine, headache, migraine, and migraine disorder.Study Selection and Data Extraction: The search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing droperidol with placebo or an active control in adult patients with acute migraine headaches that were published in English. Primary end points included acute headache improvement after the intervention. Safety end points included the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms, somnolence, and cardiac adverse effects. Data Synthesis: In all, 5 manuscripts are included in this review. Patients presenting to the emergency department with acute headache desire rapid pain relief, which was the primary objective in each of the evaluated studies. Droperidol was better than placebo and at least as effective as comparator drugs such as prochlorperazine, meperidine, or olanzapine using droperidol doses of 2.5 to 5 mg, given either intramuscularly (IM) or intravenously (IV). The most commonly reported adverse effects were extrapyramidal symptoms and sedation. Cardiac adverse effects were not reported in any of the studies; however, only 2 articles described using cardiac monitoring. Conclusions: Parenteral droperidol is an effective option for the treatment of acute migraine. The minimum effective dose is 2.5 mg given IM or IV. Clinicians must be aware of the risk for adverse events, select appropriate patients, perform EKG monitoring for patients at risk of QTc prolongation, and institute treatment if necessary.

Anesthetic premedication: new horizons of an old practice

The practice of anesthetic premedication embarked upon soon after ether and chloroform were introduced as general anesthetics in the middle of the 19(th) century. By applying opioids and anticholinergics before surgery, the surgical patients could achieve a less anxious state, and more importantly, they would acquire a smoother course during the tedious and dangerous induction stage. Premedication with opioids and anticholinergics was not a routine practice in the 20(th) century when intravenous anesthetics were primarily used as induction agents that significantly shorten the induction time. The current practice of anesthetic premedication has evolved into a generalized scheme that incorporates several aspects of patient care: decreasing preoperative anxiety, dampening intraoperative noxious stimulus and its associated neuroendocrinological changes, and minimizing postoperative adverse effects of anesthesia and surgery. Rational use of premedication in modern anesthesia practice should be justified by individual needs, the types of surgery, and the anesthetic agents and techniques used. In this article, we will provide our readers with updated information about premedication of surgical patients with a focus on the recent application of second generation serotonin type 3 antagonist, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants.

Recommendations for bowel obstruction with peritoneal carcinomatosis

This article reports on the clinical practice guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary group working on the indications and uses of the various available treatment options for relieving intestinal obstruction or its symptoms in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. These guidelines are based on a literature review and expert opinion. The recommended strategy involves a clinical and radiological evaluation, of which CT of the abdomen is a crucial component. The results, together with an analysis of the prognostic criteria, are used to determine whether surgery or stenting is the best option. In most patients, however, neither option is feasible, and the main emphasis, therefore, is on the role and administration of various symptomatic medications such as glucocorticoids, antiemetic agents, analgesics, and antisecretory agents (anticholinergic drugs, somatostatin analogues, and proton-pump inhibitors). Nasogastric tube feeding is no longer used routinely and should instead be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Recent studies have confirmed the efficacy of somatostatin analogues in relieving obstruction-related symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and pain. However, the absence of a marketing license and the high cost of these drugs limit their use as the first-line treatment, except in highly selected patients (early recurrence). When these medications fail to alleviate the symptoms of obstruction, venting gastrostomy should be considered promptly. Rehydration is needed for virtually every patient. Parenteral nutrition and pain management should be adjusted according to the patient needs and guidelines.

Effects of anesthetics, sedatives, and opioids on ventilatory control

This article provides a comprehensive, up to date summary of the effects of volatile, gaseous, and intravenous anesthetics and opioid agonists on ventilatory control. Emphasis is placed on data from human studies. Further mechanistic insights are provided by in vivo and in vitro data from other mammalian species. The focus is on the effects of clinically relevant agonist concentrations and studies using pharmacological, that is, supraclinical agonist concentrations are de-emphasized or excluded.

Pathophysiological and neurochemical mechanisms of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Clinical research shows that postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is caused primarily by the use of inhalational anesthesia and opioid analgesics. PONV is also increased by several risk predictors, including a young age, female sex, lack of smoking, and a history of motion sickness. Genetic studies are beginning to shed light on the variability in patient experiences of PONV by assessing polymorphisms of gene targets known to play roles in emesis (serotonin type 3, 5-HT3; opioid; muscarinic; and dopamine type 2, D2, receptors) and the metabolism of antiemetic drugs (e.g., ondansetron). Significant numbers of clinical trials have produced valuable information on pharmacological targets important for controlling PONV (e.g., 5-HT3 and D2), leading to the current multi-modal approach to inhibit multiple sites in this complex neural system. Despite these significant advances, there is still a lack of fundamental knowledge of the mechanisms that drive the hindbrain central pattern generator (emesis) and forebrain pathways (nausea) that produce PONV, particularly the responses to inhalational anesthesia. This gap in knowledge has limited the development of novel effective therapies of PONV. The current review presents the state of knowledge on the biological mechanisms responsible for PONV, summarizing both preclinical and clinical evidence. Finally, potential ways to advance the research of PONV and more recent developments on the study of postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) are discussed.

Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 2: neuroleptics, antihistamines, and others

OBJECTIVES

This second portion of a 3-part series examines the relative effectiveness of headache treatment with neuroleptics, antihistamines, serotonin antagonists, valproate, and other drugs (octreotide, lidocaine, nitrous oxide, propofol, and bupivacaine) in the setting of an emergency department, urgent care center, or headache clinic.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched using the terms "migraine" AND "emergency" AND "therapy" OR "treatment." Reports were from emergency department and urgent care settings and involved all routes of medication delivery. Reports from headache clinics were only included if medications were delivered by a parenteral route.

RESULTS

Prochlorperazine, promethazine, and metoclopramide, when used alone, were superior to placebo. Droperidol and prochlorperazine were superior or equal in efficacy to all other treatments, although they also have more side effects (especially akathisia). Metoclopramide was equivalent to prochlorperazine and, when combined with diphenhydramine, was superior in efficacy to triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Meperidine was inferior to chlorpromazine and equivalent to the other neuroleptics. The overall percentage of patients with pain relief after taking droperidol and prochlorperazine was equivalent to sumatriptan.

CONCLUSIONS

Prochlorperazine and metoclopramide are the most frequently studied of the anti-migraine medications in the emergent setting, and the effectiveness of each is superior to placebo. Prochlorperazine is superior or equivalent to all other classes of medications in producing migraine pain relief. Dopamine antagonists, in general, appear to be equivalent for migraine pain relief to the migraine-"specific" medications sumatriptan and dihydroergotamine, although there are fewer studies involving the last two. Lack of comparisons to placebo and the frequent use of combination medications in treatment arms complicate the comparison of single agents to one other.

A continuing black hole? The FDA boxed warning: an appeal to improve its clinical utility

The boxed warning is increasingly utilized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a clinical warning to prescribers of dangerous adverse drug reactions. As these warnings have expanded, we feel the utility and application of boxed warnings are becoming more nebulous. The use of drugs following issuance of a boxed warning has been variable. Droperidol sales decreased 10-fold in the year following the warning, yet there has been essentially no change in the methadone usage over a similar time period after its boxed warning. Including more information, such as estimation of incidence for the adverse drug reaction, would be more clinically useful to the prescriber. Reasonable standards using supplemental databases outside of the FDA (such as national poison center data) could be helpful in developing an integrated and balanced approach to boxed warnings.

Sedation and Analgesia in Critically Ill Neurologic Patients

Critically ill neurologic patients can pose a challenge when it comes to providing sedation and analgesia, primarily with the balance of maintaining sedation to provide patient comfort while still allowing a neurological examination. Determination of the optimal agent requires assessment and understanding of the underlying requirement for sedation: provision of analgesia, anxiolysis, or treatment of delirium. Pharmacological options exist that can affect individual or multiple underlying sedation requirements. Numerous evaluation tools exist to monitor the efficacy of sedation as well as help clinicians titrate agents to predefined goals; these tools allow the safe administration of drugs that can otherwise have serious adverse effects. Sedation regimens must ultimately be individualized to each patient to account for differences in pharmacokinetics and dynamics of the various agents, and this is particularly true in sedating neurologically injured patients. The agents frequently used to provide sedation and analgesia in the critically ill neurologic patient will be reviewed.

Patients presenting with acute toxin ingestion

Organ toxicity caused by poisons or drug therapy is diverse and may not be commonly encountered clinically. In general, commonly encountered conditions caused by drug/toxin pharmacology can be classified into 7 categories by shared mechanisms of organ injury. This review of drug/toxin-induced injury discusses drug or toxin-induced pathology that the clinician may encounter and therapeutic approaches to these syndromes.

Sevoflurane causes greater QTc interval prolongation in elderly patients than in younger patients

BACKGROUND

Sevoflurane and droperidol prolong the QT interval, and advancing age is not only associated with a prolongation of the QT interval but is also a risk factor for drug-induced QT interval prolongation. In this study, we compared the effect of sevoflurane and droperidol on the corrected QT (QTc) interval and the dispersion of ventricular repolarization (time interval from the peak to the end of the T wave [Tp-e]) in elderly patients with those in younger patients.

METHODS

Under sevoflurane anesthesia (1.5%-2.5%) with an antiemetic dose of droperidol (1.25 mg), the QT interval and the Tp-e interval, which indicates transmural dispersion of repolarization across the myocardial wall, were measured in 30 elderly patients (70 years and older) and in 30 younger patients (20-69 years) for 2 hours. The QT interval was normalized for heart rate (QTc) using 3 different formulas: Bazett, Matsunaga, and Van de Water. Data are presented as mean +/- sd.

RESULTS

The elderly group was 24.4 years older (P < 0.05) than the younger group. The QTc intervals in the 2 groups before anesthesia were not significantly different. Using all 3 formulas, the QTc interval in the elderly patient group was significantly prolonged by sevoflurane (the QTc intervals at preanesthesia and 60, 75, 90, and 120 minutes after sevoflurane exposure were 0.434 +/- 0.028 seconds, 0.450 +/- 0.037 seconds, 0.463 +/- 0.037 seconds, 0.461 +/- 0.037 seconds, and 0.461 +/- 0.038 seconds, respectively, with the Bazett formula). The sevoflurane-induced QTc interval prolongation in the elderly patient group was significantly greater than that in the younger patient group (0.450 +/- 0.037 seconds vs 0.432 +/- 0.034 seconds, 60 minutes after sevoflurane exposure; 0.463 +/- 0.037 seconds vs 0.441 +/- 0.037 seconds, 75 minutes after sevoflurane exposure; and 0.461 +/- 0.038 seconds vs 0.436 +/- 0.030 seconds, 120 minutes after sevoflurane exposure with the Bazett formula), but the sevoflurane-induced QTc interval prolongation was neither further enhanced with time nor by droperidol. The Tp-e interval was not affected in either group.

CONCLUSION

Sevoflurane causes greater QTc interval prolongation in elderly patients than in younger patients. Although sevoflurane does not affect the transmural dispersion of repolarization and sevoflurane-induced QTc prolongation does not advance with time and by droperidol administration, QT interval prolongation and its associated arrhythmias should be carefully monitored during sevoflurane anesthesia in elderly patients.

Drug-induced block of cardiac HERG potassium channels and development of torsade de pointes arrhythmias: the case of antipsychotics

The prolongation of the cardiac repolarization process, a result of the blocking of the Human Ether-a-go-go Related Gene potassium channel, is an undesired accessory property shared by many pharmacological classes of non-cardiovascular drugs. Often the delayed cardiac repolarization process can be identified by a prolongation of the QT interval of the electrocardiograph. In these conditions, premature action potentials can trigger a dangerous polymorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmia, known as torsade de pointes, which occasionally can result in lethal ventricular fibrillation. In this work, brief descriptions of the electrophysiological basis of torsade de pointes and of the several pharmacological classes of torsadogenic drugs are given. Attention is focused on antipsychotics, with a deeper overview on the experimental and clinical reports about their torsadogenic properties.

Pharmacological control of acute agitation: focus on intramuscular preparations

Acute agitation in the psychiatric emergency setting is a common presentation, which can endanger the patient, caregivers and professional staff. Rapid and effective treatment, followed by ongoing evaluation and maintenance treatment where appropriate, is key to circumvent negative outcomes. Nonpharmacological measures are the first step in treating the acutely agitated patient, and include verbal intervention and physical restraint. Pharmacological treatment is often required to ensure the safety of the patient, caregivers and the treatment team. The need for drug delivery in uncooperative patients favours the use of intramuscular preparations for the acutely agitated patient. Intramuscular treatment options include benzodiazepines, conventional antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics. Each of these medications offers a unique pharmacological profile that must be considered when treating acutely agitated patients, who may be unwilling or unable to accurately communicate their co-morbid conditions and concomitant medications.

Acute gastroenteritis in children: role of anti-emetic medication for gastroenteritis-related vomiting

Acute gastroenteritis is associated with significant morbidity in developed countries and each year is the cause of death of several million children in developing countries. Acute gastroenteritis is usually self-limiting. Oral rehydration therapy (ORT) is effective and successful in the majority of patients. Vomiting is common at the outset of viral gastroenteritis and can limit the effectiveness of ORT. Treatment with newer anti-emetic medications has been reported to facilitate ORT and to minimize the risk of dehydration and the need for intravenous hydration and hospitalization. The role of anti-emetic medications in the treatment of gastroenteritis-related vomiting is not clear. Some physicians agree with the use of anti-emetic medications because vomiting is unpleasant and distressing for the child and parents alike, and because vomiting can increase the likelihood of dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, and the need for intravenous hydration or hospitalization. Several surveys have shown that anti-emetic medications are commonly prescribed in the treatment of pediatric gastroenteritis and that adverse events are uncommon. Efficacy studies of the newer anti-emetic medications are now available and reveal that some are effective and help facilitate ORT. Other physicians disagree with the use of anti-emetic medications because acute gastroenteritis is a self-limiting condition, vomiting might help rid the body of toxic substances, there was previously a relative lack of published evidence of clinical benefit, and there are potential adverse events associated with the use of an anti-emetic medication. Anti-emetic medications that are currently available include ondansetron, granisetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, ramosetron, promethazine, dimenhydrinate, metoclopramide, domperidone, droperidol, prochlorperazine, and trimethobenzamide. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials suggest that ondansetron is efficacious and superior to other anti-emetic medications in the treatment of gastroenteritis-related vomiting. A recent double-blind clinical trial showed that a single oral dose of ondansetron reduces gastroenteritis-related vomiting and facilitates ORT without significant adverse events. Ondansetron shows promise as a first-line anti-emetic, and judicious use of this agent might increase the success of ORT, minimize the need for intravenous therapy and hospitalization, and reduce healthcare costs. Ondansetron should be considered in situations where vomiting hinders ORT, but a larger randomized, placebo-controlled trial is necessary before the medication can be routinely recommended for the treatment of gastroenteritis-related vomiting in children.

Klinische Pharmakologie

The rule of three describes three steps which are needed for an optimal control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Firstly, patients at high risk of PONV need to be identified. Knowledge about predictive factors may help to identify patients who may best profit from prophylaxis and those where prophylaxis is not worthwhile since the baseline risk is too low. Secondly, for high-risk patients a low emetogenic anaesthesia technique should be chosen, and thirdly, these patients should additionally receive a prophylactic antiemetic cocktail. At present, butyrophenones (e.g. droperidol), 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists ("setrons") and steroids (e.g. dexamethasone) are the most rational choices for the antiemetic cocktail. Although there is strong evidence that there is an additive effect when these antiemetics are combined, economic constraints may influence the number of antiemetics that are eventually chosen. Identification of high-risk patients remains the most difficult part of the rule of three. Risk scores have been proposed and have been widely implemented in clinical practice. The sensitivity and specificity of such scores, however, remain particularly unsatisfactory. Unless more reliable risk scores are developed, aggressive treatment of established PONV symptoms may be more useful and more cost-effective than prophylaxis for many patients.

Critical care sedation for neuroscience patients

In 2000, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) introduced the mandate for the implementation of standards for both pain assessment and need for therapy in hospitalized patients. The need for the appropriate titration of sedation and analgesia is particularly poignant in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting where iatrogenic discomfort often complicates patient management. Neurologically ill patients in ICUs present particularly complex sedation issues, owing to the need to monitor these patients with serial neurological exams. Hence, maximal comfort without diminishing neurological responsiveness is desirable. Here, we review the frequently applied methods of evaluating levels of pain and agitation in critically ill patients as well as discuss the appropriate classes of pharmaceutical agents common to this population, with particular emphasis on the potential neurophysiological impact of such therapy.

Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be a frequent and important cause of morbidity in children. Postoperative vomiting (POV) is more commonly studied in children than postoperative nausea because of a child's inability to effectively express distress after experiencing nausea. POV is problematic in children and is one of the leading postoperative complaints from parents and the leading cause of readmission to the hospital. POV occurs twice as frequently in children as in adults, increasing until puberty and then decreasing to adult incidence rates. Gender differences are not seen before puberty. POV remains a main cause of morbidity in children because severe vomiting can be associated with dehydration, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary aspiration, and wound dehiscence. While children have an increased potential for dehydration and the resulting physiologic impairments, other associated results such as a delay in hospital discharge or an overnight or longer hospital admission also must be considered. The two most common emetogenic surgical procedures evaluated in children are strabismus repair and adenotonsillectomy. The approach to the management of PONV and POV in children is similar to that in adults. However, as the rate of POV is more frequent in children than in adults, more children are candidates for antiemetic prophylaxis. The management approach is multifactorial and involves proper preoperative preparation, risk stratification, rational selection of antiemetic prophylaxis, choice of anesthesia technique, and a plan for postoperative antiemetic therapy. It is important to identify children at moderate-to-high risk for POV as prophylactic antiemetic therapy is useful in these children. Antiemetics of choice for POV in children include dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, perphenazine, ondansetron, dolasetron, granisetron, and tropisetron. The serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT(3)) antagonists are the antiemetic drugs of first choice for POV prophylaxis in children because as a group they have greater efficacy for preventing vomiting than nausea. The 5-HT(3) antagonists can be effectively combined with dexamethasone with an increase in efficacy. If possible, regional anesthesia should be considered. For those undergoing general anesthesia, the baseline POV risk should be reduced. Children at moderate-to-high PONV risk should receive combination therapy with two or three prophylactic antiemetics from different antiemetic drug classes. Reference to and the use of PONV guidelines and management algorithms help improve cost-effective postoperative care.

[Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children. An evidence-based approach]

Significant improvement towards an efficacious control of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has taken place recently. These improvements may be summarised using the "rule of three". That rule describes a pragmatic and rational approach of PONV control. First, identify the patient at risk using predictive factors. Second, modify the anaesthesia technique to keep the baseline risk as low as possible. Third, administer antiemetics rationally, considering their degree of efficacy, their risk, and their potential additive effects. Despite considerable research efforts, identifying the patient at high risk of PONV remains a difficult task. However, today, we understand the degree of efficacy, dose-responsiveness, and adverse effects of most antiemetics. None of those molecules should be regarded as being universally efficacious, there is no gold standard, and, when used alone, their degree of efficacy is limited. Thus, they should be combined for improved efficacy. Among the most promising molecules are butyrophenones (droperidol, haloperidol), 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (ondansetron, dolasetron, tropisetron, granisetron), and steroids (for instance, dexamethasone). The lack of relevant paediatric PONV data remains a major drawback and is highly unsatisfactory. Hopefully, future research will further improve the control of PONV not only in adults but also in children.

Intravenous droperidol: a review of its use in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Droperidol (Dehydrobenzperidol, Dehidrobenzoperidol, Dridol, Droleptan, Inapsine) is a dopamine D(2) receptor antagonist that has been widely used in adults and children for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) over several decades and, more recently, for the prevention of opioid-induced PONV during patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in adults. In well controlled clinical trials of patients undergoing surgery, the efficacy of single-dose intravenous (IV) droperidol in preventing PONV was similar to that of ondansetron and dexamethasone. Droperidol significantly reduced opioid-induced PONV in adults during PCA and had a morphine-sparing effect. Droperidol is generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse effects is similar to that observed with placebo and the serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (setrons). Guidelines recommend that, in adults, droperidol monotherapy be considered for those at moderate risk of PONV, and droperidol in combination with a setron and/or dexamethasone be considered for patients at moderate or high risk of PONV. In children with moderate or high risk of PONV, droperidol is recommended for first-line use in some countries, and second-line use in others.

Antipsychotic drugs and QTc prolongation: the potential role ofCYP2D6genetic polymorphism

Although the most common, and usually serious, side effects of first-generation (or typical) antipsychotic drugs, such as Parkinsonism, dystonias and tardive dyskinesia, were known from early times, their cardiovascular safety was not properly in the focus of treatment management. The growing evidence of these drug-related cardiac changes and the appearance of potentially fatal dysrhythmias have increased the interest on their safety profile. Thus, the introduction of the new second-generation (atypical) antipsychotic drugs put emphasis on the preregistration evaluation of the potential cardiac side effects and electrocardiogram predictors (QT interval lengthening). In spite of this, these drugs do not appear to be exempt from these potential risks. The present review summarizes up-to-date knowledge about the cardiac safety of antipsychotic drugs, and analyses the role of drug metabolic processes (CYP2D6 genetic polymorphism) in the complex pathophysiology of the phenomenon. In addition, some recommendations are formulated.