Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2023
Residual chemotherapy drugs after flushing infusion lines.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Marchal Marie-Alix, Robert Marie, Pesqué Raphaëlle, Jourdan Nathalie, Sessink Paul, Madelaine Isabelle, Levert Hélène
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: During administration of chemotherapies, disconnection presents risks for nurses. Thus, it is recommended to flush the infusion line with solvent to reduce this risk and ensure that the entire dose is administered. Objectives of this study were to evaluate flushing practices and to investigate the efficiency of flushing, according to the type of hospitalization, in hospitalization (HU) or day-care unit (DCU), for three drugs.
METHODS: Twenty secondary infusion lines were collected in five HU and 20 in two DCU. Flushing volumes were estimated by weighing solvent bags. The amount of residual drug was measured for secondary lines by mass spectrometry coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography.
RESULTS: Chemotherapies were administered by 26 nurses. All of infusion lines contained chemotherapy after flushing. Flushing volumes, residual concentrations and flushing efficiencies were significantly different between these two types of units. In contrast, flushing volumes administrated did not differ between chemotherapy drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: Local recommendations are fully implemented in HU and partially in DCU. The use of small volumes in DCU is related to the patient length of stay, it may, also, be due to omitting the average tubing volume. All infusion lines still contained chemotherapy, including those with a flush volume much higher than recommended, showing that the risk of exposure persists. To achieve a rinse volume greater than 50 mL, it is necessary to use at least 100 mL. It is also important to insist on personal protective equipment and to consider closed safety system for administration.
METHODS: Twenty secondary infusion lines were collected in five HU and 20 in two DCU. Flushing volumes were estimated by weighing solvent bags. The amount of residual drug was measured for secondary lines by mass spectrometry coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography.
RESULTS: Chemotherapies were administered by 26 nurses. All of infusion lines contained chemotherapy after flushing. Flushing volumes, residual concentrations and flushing efficiencies were significantly different between these two types of units. In contrast, flushing volumes administrated did not differ between chemotherapy drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: Local recommendations are fully implemented in HU and partially in DCU. The use of small volumes in DCU is related to the patient length of stay, it may, also, be due to omitting the average tubing volume. All infusion lines still contained chemotherapy, including those with a flush volume much higher than recommended, showing that the risk of exposure persists. To achieve a rinse volume greater than 50 mL, it is necessary to use at least 100 mL. It is also important to insist on personal protective equipment and to consider closed safety system for administration.