Evaluation of the Impact of Infusion Set Design on the Particulate Load Induced by Vancomycin-Piperacillin/Tazobactam Incompatibility

INTRODUCTION

Drug incompatibilities are among the most common medication errors in intensive care units. A precipitate can form and block the catheter or cause an adverse event in the patient. Intensive care units have implemented various strategies for limiting the occurrence of these incompatibilities, which have already been studied in vitro under standardized conditions. The objective of the present in vitro study was to continue these assessments by determining the impact of the infusion line geometry and the drugs' position in the infusion set-up on the prevention of vancomycin-piperacillin/tazobactam incompatibility.

METHODS

Infusion lines with a different common volume, a multilumen medical infusion device, a dilute vancomycin solution, and separate infusions of incompatible drugs were evaluated separately. The infusion line outlet was connected to a dynamic particle counter.

RESULTS

Reducing the common volume, using multilumen medical devices, or spacing out the two incompatible drugs on the infusion line did not prevent the occurrence of a significant particulate load. Only dilution of the vancomycin solution was associated with a significantly lower particulate load and the absence of drug incompatibility.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that under specific conditions, it is possible to reduce particulate contamination considerably.

Systematic Review of Piperacillin-Tazobactam and Vancomycin Y-Site Compatibility: Consideration of Concentration and Solution Variability

Simultaneous administration of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam (VPT) poses significant challenges related to physical and chemical compatibility, as well as clinical practice. A systematic review of available literature related to VPT Y-site compatibility was performed. Data was collected from primary and tertiary sources. Seven articles were included in addition to one internal assessment and one review article and information from tertiary drug databases. The literature supports the simultaneous administration via Y-site of piperacillin-tazobactam 33.75 mg/mL in normal saline (NS) and vancomycin 4 to 8 mg/mL in NS. The same drug products at differing concentrations, diluents, storage conditions, or preparations outside of this recommendation should be considered incompatible.

Evaluation of Strategies for Reducing Vancomycin-Piperacillin/Tazobactam Incompatibility

BACKGROUND

Drug incompatibility is defined as a physical-chemical reaction between two or more injectable drugs and that results mainly in precipitation or insolubility. Several strategies for reducing incompatibilities have been implemented empirically in intensive care units. However, these strategies have never been compared directly (and particularly in terms of the particulate load and drug mass flow rate) under standardized conditions. The objective of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the impact of various strategies for preventing incompatibility between simultaneously infused vancomycin and piperacillin/tazobactam.

METHODS

An in-line filter, a dilute vancomycin solution (5 mg/mL), and an alternative saline administration line were evaluated separately. The infusion line outlet was connected to a dynamic particle counter. The antibiotic concentration was measured in an HPLC-UV assay.

RESULT

The use of an in-line filter and an alternative saline administration route did not significantly reduce the particulate load caused by vancomycin-piperacillin/tazobactam incompatibility. Dilution of the vancomycin solution was associated with a significantly lower particulate load and maintenance of the vancomycin mass flow rate.

DISCUSSION

It is important to systematically compare the efficacy of strategies for preventing drug incompatibility. The use of diluted vancomycin solution gave the best results in the case of vancomycin-piperacillin/tazobactam incompatibility.

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.

Vancomycin Dosing and Monitoring: Critical Evaluation of the Current Practice

After more than six decades of its use as the mainstay antibiotic for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-positive bacterial infections, dosing and monitoring of vancomycin therapy have not been optimized. The current vancomycin therapeutic guidelines recommend empiric doses of 15-20 mg/kg administered by intermittent infusion every 8-12 h in patients with normal kidney function. Additionally, the guidelines recommend trough concentration of 15-20 mg/L as a therapeutic goal for adult patients with severe infections. This review critically discusses the current guidelines considering the basic pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vancomycin and the recent published reports from clinical studies. More in-depth discussion will be focused on (1) providing evidence of advantages of administering vancomycin by continuous infusion compared to intermittent infusion; (2) revising the current practice of trough-only monitoring versus the area under concentration-time curve (AUC); and (3) assessing the current practice of weight-based dosing versus AUC-based dosing. Using the gathered information presented in this paper, two user-friendly and scientifically based dosing strategies are proposed to improve the efficiency of vancomycin dosing while avoiding the risk of nephrotoxicity and minimizing the cost of therapeutic drug monitoring.

Vancomycin Plus Piperacillin-Tazobactam and Acute Kidney Injury in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess acute kidney injury with combination therapy of vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam, in general, adult patients and in critically ill adults. Rates of acute kidney injury, time to acute kidney injury, and odds of acute kidney injury were compared with vancomycin monotherapy, vancomycin plus cefepime or carbapenem, or piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified by searching Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane from inception to April 2017. Abstracts from selected conference proceedings were manually searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles not in English, pediatric studies, and case reports were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted data on study methods, rates of acute kidney injury, and time to acute kidney injury. Effect estimates and 95% CIs were calculated using the random effects model in RevMan 5.3.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Literature search identified 15 published studies and 17 conference abstracts with at least 24,799 patients. The overall occurrence rate of acute kidney injury was 16.7%, with 22.2% for vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam and 12.9% for comparators. This yielded an overall number needed to harm of 11. Time to acute kidney injury was faster for vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam than vancomycin plus cefepime or carbapenem, but not significantly (mean difference, -1.30; 95% CI, -3.00 to 0.41 d). The odds of acute kidney injury with vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam were increased versus vancomycin monotherapy (odds ratio, 3.40; 95% CI, 2.57-4.50), versus vancomycin plus cefepime or carbapenem (odds ratio, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.83-3.91), and versus piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy (odds ratio, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.97-3.69). In a small subanalysis of 968 critically ill patients, the odds of acute kidney injury were increased versus vancomycin monotherapy (odds ratio, 9.62; 95% CI, 4.48-20.68), but not significantly different for vancomycin plus cefepime or carbapenem (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.83-2.47) or piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.86-2.11).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam increased the odds of acute kidney injury over vancomycin monotherapy, vancomycin plus cefepime or carbapenem, and piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy. Limited data in critically ill patients suggest the odds of acute kidney injury are increased versus vancomycin monotherapy, and mitigated versus the other comparators. Further research in the critically ill population is needed.

Y-site Incompatibility Between Premix Concentrations of Vancomycin and Piperacillin-Tazobactam: Do Current Compatibility Testing Methodologies Tell the Whole Story?

Background: Published literature has demonstrated commercially available premix vancomycin (5 mg/mL) and piperacillin-tazobactam (67.5 mg/mL) as physically compatible via simulated Y-site methodology. Compatibility via actual Y-site infusion has yet to be established. Objective: To assess and compare the compatibility of commercially available premix concentrations of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam via simulated and actual Y-site evaluation. Methods: Vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam were tested using simulated and actual Y-site infusion methodologies. Simulated Y-site compatibility was performed using previously published methods via visual inspection, turbidity evaluation, and pH evaluation. Evaluation occurred immediately, 60 minutes, 120 minutes, and 240 minutes following mixing for each mixture and control. Mixtures were considered physically incompatible if there was visual evidence of precipitation or haze, an absorbance value was greater than 0.01 A, or an absolute change of 1.0 pH unit occurred. Actual Y-site infusion was simulated to mirror antibiotic infusion in the clinical setting by nursing personnel using smart pumps and intravenous tubing. Results: No evidence of physical incompatibility was observed during simulated Y-site testing via visual inspection, turbidity assessment, and pH evaluation. Conversely, physical incompatibility was observed to the unaided eye within 2 minutes during actual Y-site infusion. Conclusions: Despite observed compatibility between vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam via simulated Y-site testing, visual evidence of physical incompatibility was observed during actual Y-site infusion. This poses a potential compromise to patient safety if these antibiotics are administered simultaneously in the clinical setting. Actual Y-site testing should be performed prior to clinical adoption of compatibility studies that are based solely on simulated methodologies.

Compatibility of cefepime and vancomycin during simulated Y-site administration of prolonged infusion

PURPOSE

The physical and chemical compatibility of cefepime and vancomycin at concentrations typically used in prolonged-infusion cefepime infusions was assessed.

METHODS

Samples from a typical Y-site configuration of standard-infusion vancomycin and prolonged-infusion cefepime were collected at various time points during the simulated 4-hour infusion. Samples were analyzed by visual inspection, spectrophotometry, and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Infusion antibiotics were reconstituted in pairwise combinations of 0.9% sodium chloride injection and 5% dextrose injection to determine the effects of solvent selection on stability. Infusion simulations were performed in triplicate without light protection under fluorescent lighting at room temperature (22.5 °C). Experimental replicates were not run simultaneously but on sequential days due to the considerable time (~12 hours) required to analyze samples obtained from a single infusion simulation and the known time-dependent instability of reconstituted cefepime beyond 24 hours. Physical stability was assessed visually for evidence of particulate formation, haze, precipitation, color change, and gas evolution. Samples were also assessed spectrophotometrically at 600 nm at the time of collection and 24 hours after collection.

RESULTS

Cefepime was compatible with vancomycin at the concentrations tested. The solvent selected (0.9% sodium chloride or 5% dextrose) to reconstitute either antibiotic had no impact on compatibility. Solutions were indistinguishable from positive and negative controls (heat-degraded cefepime and freshly reconstituted cefepime, respectively) at all time points assessed in terms of visual clarity, spectrophotometric absorbance, and HPLC recovery.

CONCLUSION

Cefepime and vancomycin were physically and chemically compatible during simulated Y-site administration of prolonged-infusion cefepime.

Endothelial Cell Toxicity of Vancomycin Infusion Combined with Other Antibiotics

French guidelines recommend central intravenous (i.v.) infusion for high concentrations of vancomycin, but peripheral intravenous (p.i.v.) infusion is often preferred in intensive care units. Vancomycin infusion has been implicated in cases of phlebitis, with endothelial toxicity depending on the drug concentration and the duration of the infusion. Vancomycin is frequently infused in combination with other i.v. antibiotics through the same administrative Y site, but the local toxicity of such combinations has been poorly evaluated. Such an assessment could improve vancomycin infusion procedures in hospitals. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) were challenged with clinical doses of vancomycin over 24 h with or without other i.v. antibiotics. Cell death was measured with the alamarBlue test. We observed an excess cellular death rate without any synergistic effect but dependent on the numbers of combined infusions when vancomycin and erythromycin or gentamicin were infused through the same Y site. Incompatibility between vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam was not observed in our study, and rinsing the cells between the two antibiotic infusions did not reduce endothelial toxicity. No endothelial toxicity of imipenem-cilastatin was observed when combined with vancomycin. p.i.v. vancomycin infusion in combination with other medications requires new recommendations to prevent phlebitis, including limiting coinfusion on the same line, reducing the infusion rate, and choosing an intermittent infusion method. Further studies need to be carried out to explore other drug combinations in long-term vancomycin p.i.v. therapy so as to gain insight into the mechanisms of drug incompatibility under multidrug infusion conditions.