Safety and tolerability of i.v. push piperacillin/tazobactam within an emergency department

Intravenous push antibiotics in the emergency department: Education and implementation

PURPOSE

Intravenous push antibiotics can serve as an alternative to intravenous piggyback antibiotics while providing the same pharmacodynamics and adverse effect profile, easing shortage pressures and decreasing order to administration time, as well as representing a potential cost savings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether intravenous push antibiotics could decrease the time from an order to the start of administration compared to piggyback antibiotics in emergency departments. This study also measured the cost savings of antibiotic preparation and administration and assessed nursing satisfaction when using intravenous push antibiotics.

METHODS

Sample instances of use of intravenous push and piggyback antibiotics were identified. Patients were included if they were 18 years of age or older and received at least a single dose of intravenous push or piggyback ceftriaxone, cefepime, cefazolin, or meropenem in one of the institution's emergency departments. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the time from the order to the start of administration of intravenous push vs piggyback antibiotics. The secondary outcome was to compare the cost of antibiotic preparation for the 2 methods.

RESULTS

The intravenous push and piggyback groups each had 43 patients. The time from the order to the start of administration decreased from 74 (interquartile range, 29-114) minutes in the piggyback group to 31 (interquartile range, 21-52) minutes in the push group (P = 0.003). When the estimated monthly cost savings for ceftriaxone, cefepime, and meropenem were added together, across the emergency departments, an estimated $227,930.88 is saved per year when using intravenous push antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous push antibiotics decrease the time from ordering to the start of administration and result in significant cost savings.

Successful implementation of safe practice for adult intravenous push medication in a tertiary care hospital: determination of stability of four intravenous antibiotics in syringes

In 2017, a severe shortage of infusion bags resulted in a paradigm change in medication administration practice from intermittent infusion to intravenous push. The Institute for Safe Medication Practices proposed safe practice guidelines for adult intravenous push medications. A different study showed that ready-to-administer medication prepared in the sterile area of a pharmacy reduces the risk of harm, nurses' time for medication administration and the cost of medications. Based on the recommendation of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, we decided to conduct a pilot study on the implementation of sterile compounding and administration of intravenous push medication in adult patients admitted to the hospital. In the study, the stability of five intravenous push antibiotic syringes was also determined in the syringes.

Simultaneous infusion of two incompatible antibiotics: Impact of the choice of infusion device and concomitant simulated fluid volume support on the particulate load and the drug mass flow rates

Vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam are known to be incompatible. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the impact of their simultaneous infusion on mass flow rates and particulate load and identify preventive strategies. We assessed both static conditions and a reproduction of an infusion line used in a hospital's critical care unit. A high-performance liquid chromatography/UV diode array system and static and dynamic laser diffraction particle counters were used. The mass flow rates were primarily influenced by the choice of the infusion device and the presence of simulated fluid volume support. Drug incompatibility also appeared to affect vancomycin's mass flow rate, and the dynamic particulate load increased during flow rate changes - especially in the infusion set with a large common volume line and no concomitant simulated fluid volume support. Only discontinuation of the piperacillin/tazobactam infusion was associated with a higher particulate load in the infusion set with a large common volume line and no concomitant simulated fluid volume support. A low common volume line and the use of simulated fluid volume support were associated with smaller fluctuations in the mass flow rate. The clinical risk associated with a higher particulate load must now be assessed.

Evaluation of Intravenous Push Piperacillin-Tazobactam on Time to Antibiotic Administration in Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if intravenous push (IVP) administration of piperacillin-tazobactam reduced the time to antibiotic administration compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) in emergency department (ED) patients who present with sepsis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with sepsis who received piperacillin-tazobactam before and after implementation of an IVPB to IVP conversion protocol. Results: A total of 486 charts were reviewed and the final analysis included 127 patients in each group. The mean time to administration of piperacillin-tazobactam was 67 (± 48) minutes and 58 (± 36) minutes in the IVPB and IVP cohorts, respectively (P = NS). The time to administration of secondary antibiotics was reduced by 38 minutes in patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam by IVP (105 min ±69 vs 67 min ±37; P < .001). Nurse administration time was reduced by 11 min for piperacillin-tazobactam (54 min ±46 vs 43 min ±33; P = .034) and 40 min for secondary antibiotics (90 min ±67 vs 50 min ±32; P = < .001) in the IVP group. There was no difference in hypersensitivity reactions, hospital length of stay, or mortality. Conclusion: Conversion from piperacillin-tazobactam IVPB to IVP was associated with a reduction in time to piperacillin-tazobactam and secondary antibiotic administration in emergency department patients with sepsis. Further prospective research is needed to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with IVP administration.