Clinical drug investigation · 2024
Safety of Intravenous Push Valproate Compared with Intravenous Piggyback at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center.
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.
Wang Felicia Y, McLaughlin Kevin C, Schontz Michael J, DeGrado Jeremy R, Dannemiller Robert E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Data are limited regarding the safety associated with administering valproate sodium by intravenous push (IVP) compared with intravenous piggyback (IVPB). The objective of this retrospective pre-post analysis was to compare the safety profile of valproate administration via IVPB from March to May 2022 and IVP from June to August 2022.
METHODS: A total of 890 IVPB and 440 IVP administrations were included. The major endpoint of this analysis was the incidence of infusion site reactions (infiltration or phlebitis).
RESULTS: The incidence of documented intravenous (IV) site reactions demonstrated minimal differences between both IVPB and IVP administration cohorts. Based on the Naranjo algorithm, all IVPB and IVP infusion site reactions were classified as possible or doubtful. Additional safety endpoints included bradycardia, hypotension, or sedation attributable to valproate sodium administration. Similar safety profiles were observed, including valproate-associated bradycardia, hypotension, and sedation events. All safety events were further classified as possible or doubtful by the Naranjo algorithm. Time from pharmacist verification to valproate administration was also collected. The mean time from pharmacist order verification to valproate administration was significantly faster in the IVP cohort compared to the IVPB cohort.
CONCLUSION: IVP valproate administration may be considered safe, allowing for more optimal clinical and operational outcomes in the acute care setting.
METHODS: A total of 890 IVPB and 440 IVP administrations were included. The major endpoint of this analysis was the incidence of infusion site reactions (infiltration or phlebitis).
RESULTS: The incidence of documented intravenous (IV) site reactions demonstrated minimal differences between both IVPB and IVP administration cohorts. Based on the Naranjo algorithm, all IVPB and IVP infusion site reactions were classified as possible or doubtful. Additional safety endpoints included bradycardia, hypotension, or sedation attributable to valproate sodium administration. Similar safety profiles were observed, including valproate-associated bradycardia, hypotension, and sedation events. All safety events were further classified as possible or doubtful by the Naranjo algorithm. Time from pharmacist verification to valproate administration was also collected. The mean time from pharmacist order verification to valproate administration was significantly faster in the IVP cohort compared to the IVPB cohort.
CONCLUSION: IVP valproate administration may be considered safe, allowing for more optimal clinical and operational outcomes in the acute care setting.