MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1136/bcr-2013-010133

Медицинская библиотека · BMJ case reports · 2013

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with haloperidol use in critical care setting: should haloperidol still be considered the drug of choice for the management of delirium in the critical care setting?

Dixit Deepali, Shrestha Pranabh, Adelman Marc

Клинический случайСтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

A 48-year-old man was brought to the emergency department because of intoxication. The patient was in respiratory distress, subsequently intubated for airway protection. On hospital day 5, he was diagnosed with delirium. Haloperidol was initiated at 5 mg intravenous every 6 h and titrated up to a dose of 60 mg /day over 5 days. On hospital day 18, his temperature peaked to 107.1°F. Other symptoms included mental status change, muscular rigidity and autonomic dysfunction. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) associated with haloperidol was suspected. No other causes for these symptoms were present. Concurrent medications were reviewed and ruled out for possible drug-induced fever. Haloperidol was discontinued and dantrolene and bromocriptine was initiated. The temperature decreased to 102.2°F within 3 h and other symptoms resolved overtime. The temporal relationship between the patient's fever decline with the discontinuation of haloperidol, and improvement with dantrolene and bromocriptine, the diagnosis was believed to be haloperidol-induced NMS.

Для цитирования: Dixit Deepali, Shrestha Pranabh, Adelman Marc. Neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with haloperidol use in critical care setting: should haloperidol still be considered the drug of choice for the management of delirium in the critical care setting?. BMJ case reports. 2013. DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2013-010133.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.