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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of oncology pharmacy practice 2024-03, Vol.30 (2), p.251-256
Hauptverfasser: Caron, Guillaume, Vasseur, Michèle, Courtin, Justin, Masse, Morgane, Décaudin, Bertrand, Genay, Stéphanie, Odou, Pascal, Simon, Nicolas
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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; 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 &lt; 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