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.

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.

A Prospective Before and After Study of Droperidol for Prehospital Acute Behavioral Disturbance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute behavioral disturbance is a common problem for emergency medical services. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of droperidol compared to midazolam in the prehospital setting. METHODS: This was a prospective before and after study comparing droperidol to midazolam for prehospital acute behavioral disturbance, when the state ambulance service changed medications. The primary outcome was the proportion of adverse effects (airway intervention, oxygen saturation < 90%, respiratory rate < 12, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, sedation assessment tool score -3 and dystonic reactions) in patients receiving sedation. Secondary outcomes included time to sedation, requirement for additional sedation, staff and patient injuries, and prehospital time. RESULTS: There were 141 patients administered midazolam and 149 patients administered droperidol in the study. Alcohol was the most common cause of acute behavioral disturbance. Fewer patient adverse events occurred with droperidol (11/149) compared to midazolam (33/141) (7% vs. 23%; absolute difference 16%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8% to 24%; p = 0.0001). Median time to sedation was 22 min (interquartile range [IQR]:18 to 35 min) for droperidol compared to 30 min (IQR:20 to 45 min) for midazolam. Additional prehospital sedation was required in 6/149 (4%) droperidol patients and 20/141 (14%) midazolam patients, and 11 (7%) droperidol and 59 (42%) midazolam patients required further sedation in the emergency department. There were no differences in patient or staff injuries, or prehospital time. CONCLUSIONS: The use of droperidol for acute behavioral disturbance in the prehospital setting is associated with fewer adverse events, a shorter time to sedation, and fewer requirements for additional sedation.