Evaluation of cancer drug infusion devices prior to the implementation of a compounding robot
Introduction Compounding robots are increasingly being implemented in hospital pharmacies. In our hospital, the recent acquisition of a robot (RIVATM, ARxIUM) for intravenous cancer drug compounding obliged us to replace the previously used infusion devices. The objective of the present study was to...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of oncology pharmacy practice 2024-03, Vol.30 (2), p.251-256 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 256 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 251 |
container_title | Journal of oncology pharmacy practice |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Caron, Guillaume Vasseur, Michèle Courtin, Justin Masse, Morgane Décaudin, Bertrand Genay, Stéphanie Odou, Pascal Simon, Nicolas |
description | Introduction
Compounding robots are increasingly being implemented in hospital pharmacies. In our hospital, the recent acquisition of a robot (RIVATM, ARxIUM) for intravenous cancer drug compounding obliged us to replace the previously used infusion devices. The objective of the present study was to assess and qualify the new intravenous sets prior to their use in our hospital and prior to the implementation of the compounding robot.
Materials and Methods
The ChemoLockTM (ICU Medical) was compared with the devices used previously for compounding (BD PhaSealTM, Becton-Dickinson) and infusion (Connect-ZTM, Codan Medical). The connection/disconnection of infusion devices to/from 50 mL infusion bags was tested with a dynamometer (Multitest-i, Mecmesin). Leakage contamination was visualized by a methylene blue assay and was quantified in simulated pump infusions with 20 mg/mL quinine sulfate (N = 36/group); after the analytical assay had been validated, quinine was detected by UV-spectrophotometry at 280 and 330 nm. Groups were compared using chi-squared or Mann–Whitney U tests.
Results
The connection/disconnection test showed that although all the devices complied with the current standard, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean ± standard deviation compression force (51.5 ± 11.6 for the Connect-ZTM vs. 60.3 ± 11.7 for the ChemoLockTM; p = 0.0005). Leaks were detected in 32 (29.1%) of the 110 tests of the ChemoLockTM. The contamination rates were also significantly different: 13.9% for the BD PhaSealTM versus 75.0% for the ChemoLockTM; p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/10781552231170792 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04143931v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_10781552231170792</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2816764649</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-ff5d780130b868b31eac247eaf9e2bd575ca0f6aefb0c0b940a806f7f5290f5a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUFr3DAQhUVJSNK0P6CXIMglOXg7kizLPoZlkw0s5JJCL0XI8mjjYFsbyV7ov4-WTTfQkJOk0ffezPAI-cFgxphSPxmokknJuUhPUBX_Qs5YrlQGFf99lO7pP9sBp-RrjM8AUCpenpBToTiIJDkjfxZb001mbP1AvaPWDBYDbcK0pu3gprirN7htLUa6Ca0PdPR0fELa9psOexzGg9ZQ6_uNn4amHdY0-NqP38ixM13E72_nOfl1u3icL7PVw939_GaVWSHzMXNONqoEJqAui7IWDI3luULjKuR1I5W0Blxh0NVgoa5yMCUUTjnJK3DSiHNyvfd9Mp1OY_Ym_NXetHp5s9K7GuQsF5VgW5bYqz27Cf5lwjjqvo0Wu84M6KeoeckKVeRFXiX08j_02U9hSJtoXkmlWGJVotiessHHGNAdJmCgdznpDzklzcWb81T32BwU_4JJwGwPRLPG97afO74CoeGZ6g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2957712817</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of cancer drug infusion devices prior to the implementation of a compounding robot</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Caron, Guillaume ; Vasseur, Michèle ; Courtin, Justin ; Masse, Morgane ; Décaudin, Bertrand ; Genay, Stéphanie ; Odou, Pascal ; Simon, Nicolas</creator><creatorcontrib>Caron, Guillaume ; Vasseur, Michèle ; Courtin, Justin ; Masse, Morgane ; Décaudin, Bertrand ; Genay, Stéphanie ; Odou, Pascal ; Simon, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
Compounding robots are increasingly being implemented in hospital pharmacies. In our hospital, the recent acquisition of a robot (RIVATM, ARxIUM) for intravenous cancer drug compounding obliged us to replace the previously used infusion devices. The objective of the present study was to assess and qualify the new intravenous sets prior to their use in our hospital and prior to the implementation of the compounding robot.
Materials and Methods
The ChemoLockTM (ICU Medical) was compared with the devices used previously for compounding (BD PhaSealTM, Becton-Dickinson) and infusion (Connect-ZTM, Codan Medical). The connection/disconnection of infusion devices to/from 50 mL infusion bags was tested with a dynamometer (Multitest-i, Mecmesin). Leakage contamination was visualized by a methylene blue assay and was quantified in simulated pump infusions with 20 mg/mL quinine sulfate (N = 36/group); after the analytical assay had been validated, quinine was detected by UV-spectrophotometry at 280 and 330 nm. Groups were compared using chi-squared or Mann–Whitney U tests.
Results
The connection/disconnection test showed that although all the devices complied with the current standard, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean ± standard deviation compression force (51.5 ± 11.6 for the Connect-ZTM vs. 60.3 ± 11.7 for the ChemoLockTM; p = 0.0005). Leaks were detected in 32 (29.1%) of the 110 tests of the ChemoLockTM. The contamination rates were also significantly different: 13.9% for the BD PhaSealTM versus 75.0% for the ChemoLockTM; p < 0.0001).
Discussion/conclusion
Our results showed that the new infusion device complied with current standards. However, the presence of contamination emphasizes the need for operators to use the recommended personal protective equipment. Further studies of contamination with cancer drugs are required.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1078-1552</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-092X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/10781552231170792</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37203170</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Cancer ; Contamination ; Intravenous administration ; Life Sciences ; Methylene blue ; Quinine ; Robots ; Spectrophotometry ; Statistical analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice, 2024-03, Vol.30 (2), p.251-256</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-ff5d780130b868b31eac247eaf9e2bd575ca0f6aefb0c0b940a806f7f5290f5a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8267-5594 ; 0000-0001-7580-3471 ; 0000-0001-5257-440X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10781552231170792$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10781552231170792$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,21817,27922,27923,43619,43620</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37203170$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.univ-lille.fr/hal-04143931$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Caron, Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasseur, Michèle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Courtin, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masse, Morgane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Décaudin, Bertrand</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Genay, Stéphanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odou, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of cancer drug infusion devices prior to the implementation of a compounding robot</title><title>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice</title><addtitle>J Oncol Pharm Pract</addtitle><description>Introduction
Compounding robots are increasingly being implemented in hospital pharmacies. In our hospital, the recent acquisition of a robot (RIVATM, ARxIUM) for intravenous cancer drug compounding obliged us to replace the previously used infusion devices. The objective of the present study was to assess and qualify the new intravenous sets prior to their use in our hospital and prior to the implementation of the compounding robot.
Materials and Methods
The ChemoLockTM (ICU Medical) was compared with the devices used previously for compounding (BD PhaSealTM, Becton-Dickinson) and infusion (Connect-ZTM, Codan Medical). The connection/disconnection of infusion devices to/from 50 mL infusion bags was tested with a dynamometer (Multitest-i, Mecmesin). Leakage contamination was visualized by a methylene blue assay and was quantified in simulated pump infusions with 20 mg/mL quinine sulfate (N = 36/group); after the analytical assay had been validated, quinine was detected by UV-spectrophotometry at 280 and 330 nm. Groups were compared using chi-squared or Mann–Whitney U tests.
Results
The connection/disconnection test showed that although all the devices complied with the current standard, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean ± standard deviation compression force (51.5 ± 11.6 for the Connect-ZTM vs. 60.3 ± 11.7 for the ChemoLockTM; p = 0.0005). Leaks were detected in 32 (29.1%) of the 110 tests of the ChemoLockTM. The contamination rates were also significantly different: 13.9% for the BD PhaSealTM versus 75.0% for the ChemoLockTM; p < 0.0001).
Discussion/conclusion
Our results showed that the new infusion device complied with current standards. However, the presence of contamination emphasizes the need for operators to use the recommended personal protective equipment. Further studies of contamination with cancer drugs are required.</description><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Intravenous administration</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Methylene blue</subject><subject>Quinine</subject><subject>Robots</subject><subject>Spectrophotometry</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><issn>1078-1552</issn><issn>1477-092X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kUFr3DAQhUVJSNK0P6CXIMglOXg7kizLPoZlkw0s5JJCL0XI8mjjYFsbyV7ov4-WTTfQkJOk0ffezPAI-cFgxphSPxmokknJuUhPUBX_Qs5YrlQGFf99lO7pP9sBp-RrjM8AUCpenpBToTiIJDkjfxZb001mbP1AvaPWDBYDbcK0pu3gprirN7htLUa6Ca0PdPR0fELa9psOexzGg9ZQ6_uNn4amHdY0-NqP38ixM13E72_nOfl1u3icL7PVw939_GaVWSHzMXNONqoEJqAui7IWDI3luULjKuR1I5W0Blxh0NVgoa5yMCUUTjnJK3DSiHNyvfd9Mp1OY_Ym_NXetHp5s9K7GuQsF5VgW5bYqz27Cf5lwjjqvo0Wu84M6KeoeckKVeRFXiX08j_02U9hSJtoXkmlWGJVotiessHHGNAdJmCgdznpDzklzcWb81T32BwU_4JJwGwPRLPG97afO74CoeGZ6g</recordid><startdate>20240301</startdate><enddate>20240301</enddate><creator>Caron, Guillaume</creator><creator>Vasseur, Michèle</creator><creator>Courtin, Justin</creator><creator>Masse, Morgane</creator><creator>Décaudin, Bertrand</creator><creator>Genay, Stéphanie</creator><creator>Odou, Pascal</creator><creator>Simon, Nicolas</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8267-5594</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7580-3471</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5257-440X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240301</creationdate><title>Evaluation of cancer drug infusion devices prior to the implementation of a compounding robot</title><author>Caron, Guillaume ; Vasseur, Michèle ; Courtin, Justin ; Masse, Morgane ; Décaudin, Bertrand ; Genay, Stéphanie ; Odou, Pascal ; Simon, Nicolas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-ff5d780130b868b31eac247eaf9e2bd575ca0f6aefb0c0b940a806f7f5290f5a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Intravenous administration</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Methylene blue</topic><topic>Quinine</topic><topic>Robots</topic><topic>Spectrophotometry</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Caron, Guillaume</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vasseur, Michèle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Courtin, Justin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Masse, Morgane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Décaudin, Bertrand</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Genay, Stéphanie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Odou, Pascal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Caron, Guillaume</au><au>Vasseur, Michèle</au><au>Courtin, Justin</au><au>Masse, Morgane</au><au>Décaudin, Bertrand</au><au>Genay, Stéphanie</au><au>Odou, Pascal</au><au>Simon, Nicolas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of cancer drug infusion devices prior to the implementation of a compounding robot</atitle><jtitle>Journal of oncology pharmacy practice</jtitle><addtitle>J Oncol Pharm Pract</addtitle><date>2024-03-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>251</spage><epage>256</epage><pages>251-256</pages><issn>1078-1552</issn><eissn>1477-092X</eissn><abstract>Introduction
Compounding robots are increasingly being implemented in hospital pharmacies. In our hospital, the recent acquisition of a robot (RIVATM, ARxIUM) for intravenous cancer drug compounding obliged us to replace the previously used infusion devices. The objective of the present study was to assess and qualify the new intravenous sets prior to their use in our hospital and prior to the implementation of the compounding robot.
Materials and Methods
The ChemoLockTM (ICU Medical) was compared with the devices used previously for compounding (BD PhaSealTM, Becton-Dickinson) and infusion (Connect-ZTM, Codan Medical). The connection/disconnection of infusion devices to/from 50 mL infusion bags was tested with a dynamometer (Multitest-i, Mecmesin). Leakage contamination was visualized by a methylene blue assay and was quantified in simulated pump infusions with 20 mg/mL quinine sulfate (N = 36/group); after the analytical assay had been validated, quinine was detected by UV-spectrophotometry at 280 and 330 nm. Groups were compared using chi-squared or Mann–Whitney U tests.
Results
The connection/disconnection test showed that although all the devices complied with the current standard, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean ± standard deviation compression force (51.5 ± 11.6 for the Connect-ZTM vs. 60.3 ± 11.7 for the ChemoLockTM; p = 0.0005). Leaks were detected in 32 (29.1%) of the 110 tests of the ChemoLockTM. The contamination rates were also significantly different: 13.9% for the BD PhaSealTM versus 75.0% for the ChemoLockTM; p < 0.0001).
Discussion/conclusion
Our results showed that the new infusion device complied with current standards. However, the presence of contamination emphasizes the need for operators to use the recommended personal protective equipment. Further studies of contamination with cancer drugs are required.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>37203170</pmid><doi>10.1177/10781552231170792</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8267-5594</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7580-3471</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5257-440X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1078-1552 |
ispartof | Journal of oncology pharmacy practice, 2024-03, Vol.30 (2), p.251-256 |
issn | 1078-1552 1477-092X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04143931v1 |
source | SAGE Complete A-Z List |
subjects | Cancer Contamination Intravenous administration Life Sciences Methylene blue Quinine Robots Spectrophotometry Statistical analysis |
title | Evaluation of cancer drug infusion devices prior to the implementation of a compounding robot |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T21%3A00%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20cancer%20drug%20infusion%20devices%20prior%20to%20the%20implementation%20of%20a%20compounding%20robot&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20oncology%20pharmacy%20practice&rft.au=Caron,%20Guillaume&rft.date=2024-03-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=251&rft.epage=256&rft.pages=251-256&rft.issn=1078-1552&rft.eissn=1477-092X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/10781552231170792&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2816764649%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2957712817&rft_id=info:pmid/37203170&rft_sage_id=10.1177_10781552231170792&rfr_iscdi=true |