Cardiovascular Safety of Metoclopramide Compared to Domperidone: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metoclopramide and domperidone are common prokinetics used to alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms. However, both drugs may trigger ventricular arrhythmias. AIM: We conducted this population-based study to compare the 30-day cardiovascular safety of metoclopramide versus domperidone in outpatient care. METHODS: We used health care databases to identify a cohort of patients in Ontario, Canada newly dispensed metoclopramide or domperidone. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores was used to balance the baseline characteristics of the two groups. All outcomes were assessed in the 30 days following drug dispensing. The primary outcome was hospital encounter with ventricular arrhythmia. The secondary outcomes were hospital encounter with cardiac arrest, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. RESULTS: We identified 196,544 patients, 19% of whom were prescribed metoclopramide. There was no difference in the risk of a hospital encounter with ventricular arrythmia (0.02% in both groups), or cardiac arrest (0.10% with metoclopramide and 0.08% with domperidone). However, 1.34% of patients died after starting metoclopramide compared to 0.52% of patients starting domperidone; weighted risk ratio 2.50 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.13 to 3.03). Similarly, 0.42% of patients died of cardiovascular causes after starting metoclopramide compared to 0.19 % of patients starting domperidone; weighted risk ratio 2.00 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.77). CONCLUSION: The 30-day risk for a hospital encounter with ventricular arrhythmia was low for both metoclopramide and domperidone, with no significant difference in the rate between the two drugs. The higher 30-day risk of death observed with metoclopramide compared with domperidone in this study has also been observed in other studies and warrants further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".