4.6 Article

The use of droperidol before and after the Food and Drug Administration black box warning: a survey of the members of the Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 35-39

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2007.08.003

关键词

antiemetics; droperidol; emesis control; FDA black box warning; postoperative nausea and vomiting

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objective: To determine the practice of members of the Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) before and after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) black box warning on droperidol. Design: Survey questionnaire. Setting: The Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia. Measurements: After institutional review board approval, a survey was posted on the SAMBA Web site from June 1, 2005, until October 30, 2005. Visitors of the Web site were invited to participate in the survey. The survey was designed to elicit information about the management of PONV, particularly the use of droperidol, before and after the FDA black box warning. Participants were also asked about reasons for not using droperidol in their current practice and whether they believed that the black box warning was justified. Main Results: Two hundred ninety-five physicians of 1,179 eligible SAMBA members completed the survey for a 25% response rate. For PONV prophylaxis, the choice of droperidol as a first-line agent decreased from 47% to 5% after the black box warning appeared (P < 0.0001). Similarly, for treatment of established PONV, the choice of droperidol decreased from 38% to 8% during this same period (P < 0.0001). A total of 261 (92%) of responders did not believe that the black box warning was justified. Conclusions: Although most surveyed practitioners believed that the FDA black box warning on droperidol is not justified, the use of this cost-effective agent has significantly declined. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据