Literature DB >> 15719586

Using a medium-fill simulation to evaluate the microbial contamination rate for USP medium-risk-level compounding.

Lawrence A Trissel1, Joseph A Gentempo, Roger W Anderson, Joel D Lajeunesse.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The estimated microbial contamination rate for complex, multiple-step, medium-risk-level compounding was studied.
METHODS: The results of evaluations of the aseptic technique of pharmacists and technicians in compounding complex USP medium-risk-level sterile preparations were compiled to estimate the microbial contamination rate. The testing took place in 2002 and 2003 at a single institution and involved reconstitution of sterile dry growth medium and a series of complicated transfers of the medium from vials and ampuls to intravenous bags. The bags were incubated at 25-35 degrees C for 14 days and observed for microbial growth.
RESULTS: Of 539 evaluations, 28 (5.2%) resulted in preparations that yielded microbial growth. Pharmacists' compounding resulted in a slightly lower contamination rate (4.4%) than that of technicians (6.2%). Inadvertent touch contamination may have been the principal source of the contamination.
CONCLUSION: . A two-year series of 539 evaluations of the aseptic technique of pharmacists and technicians conducted with sterile growth medium and designed to simulate the compounding of USP medium-risk-level sterile preparations yielded an overall contamination rate of 5.2%.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15719586     DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/62.3.285

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Health Syst Pharm        ISSN: 1079-2082            Impact factor:   2.637


  7 in total

1.  Parenterals laboratory course to reduce microbial contamination rates in media fill tests performed by pharmacy students.

Authors:  Christine M Isanhart; Kenneth L McCall; Diane Kretschmer; Barbie A Grimes
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  Acquisition and Retention of Sterile Compounding Accuracy Skills.

Authors:  Tracy M Kosinski; Michael C Brown; Katie Valdovinos; Pedro J Zavala
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.047

3.  Nutrition therapy cost analysis in the US: pre-mixed multi-chamber bag vs compounded parenteral nutrition.

Authors:  Robin S Turpin; Todd Canada; Frank Xiaoqing Liu; Catherine J Mercaldi; Alessandro Pontes-Arruda; Paul Wischmeyer
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 2.561

4.  Use of Piggyback Electrolytes for Patients Receiving Individually Prescribed vs Premixed Parenteral Nutrition.

Authors:  Rebecca A Busch; Caitlin S Curtis; Glen E Leverson; Kenneth A Kudsk
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 4.016

5.  Comparison of Aseptic Compounding Errors Before and After Modified Laboratory and Introductory Pharmacy Practice Experiences.

Authors:  Vincent C Dennis; Arthur H Owora; Alice E Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2015-12-25       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  Intravitreal administration of bevacizumab: pros and cons.

Authors:  Simin Dashti-Khavidaki; Mohammad Abdollahi
Journal:  Daru       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 7.  Risk of parenteral nutrition in neonates--an overview.

Authors:  Walter Zingg; Maren Tomaske; Maria Martin
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 5.717

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.