Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

Chemical Restraint in the ED

By ACEP Now | on December 1, 2012 | 0 Comment
CME CME Now
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version

Until this decade, only typical antipsychotics were available for IM use, which is often needed in the uncooperative patient,2 thus, a lack of familiarity with newer IM atypicals may have limited physician use. In addition, lack of rapid ED availability (Pyxis®, Omnicell®) and higher drug costs could play a role. AmerisourceBergen®, a large pharmaceutical distributor, lists a wide range of institutional acquisition prices. For example, IM haloperidol lists at $0.82 per vial, while IM olanzapine lists at $28.69 per vial.5 Increased acquisition costs may be directly related to drug availability in the ED. At the author’s home institution, a large urban ED in Chicago, droperidol, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and aripiprazole are not available in any of the hospital pharmaceutical distribution machines.

You Might Also Like
  • Proactive Approach Urged to Chemical-Weapons Attacks
  • Ketamine Effective for Agitated, Aggressive Emergency Department Patients
  • A 5-Step Approach to the Agitated Patient
Explore This Issue
ACEP News: Vol 31 – No 12 – December 2012

Droperidol was routinely used in the ED for rapid tranquilization until 2001. Compared with haloperidol, droperidol has a faster onset of action, shorter duration of action, more consistent effects, and comparable side effects, even in severely intoxicated patients.1,3,6 Droperidol remained the ideal drug for the combative ED patient who needed rapid re-assessment until 2001, when the FDA instituted a black box warning for prolonged QT syndrome and fatal arrhythmia.7 Since the FDA warning, use in many EDs declined secondary to both medico-legal and safety concerns. Data underlying the FDA’s decision was based on post marketing surveillance, not on peer reviewed medical literature.8 For example, haloperidol at doses greater than 50 mg IV has been shown to cause QT prolongation to the same degree as droperidol, though it has no FDA black box warning and continues to be used in the ED with great frequency. Since the FDA warning, several large retrospective reviews have shown no increase in morbidity or mortality between droperidol and haloperidol.9,10 A large Australian prospective ED trial described no difference in QT prolongation or other adverse effects in head to head trials between droperidol and midazolam.11 Many ED’s have removed the drug from formulary use, and until the FDA revisits safety data, it is unlikely that droperidol will regain common use.1

Learning Objectives

After reading this article, the physician should be able to:

  • Review the history, current trends, and indications of chemical restraint in the Emergency Department.
  • Understand the safety and efficacy of atypical antipsychotics in the management of the violent patient.
  • Assess the newest data surrounding chemical restraint in the Emergency Department.
  • Learn the pharmacokinetics and dosing of the most common medications used to aid the combative patient.
  • Know how to safely chemically restrain the agitated elderly patient.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Single Page

Topics: Clinical GuidelineCMEEducationEmergency MedicineEmergency PhysicianFDAPatient SafetyPharmaceuticalsPractice ManagementPractice TrendsProcedures and SkillsResearch

Related

  • Florida Emergency Department Adds Medication-Dispensing Kiosk

    November 7, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • Q&A with ACEP President L. Anthony Cirillo

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • FACEPs in the Crowd: Dr. John Ludlow

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

About the Author

ACEP Now

View this author's posts »

No Responses to “Chemical Restraint in the ED”

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603