Laura Négrier1, Anthony Martin Mena2, Gilles Lebuffe2, Pascal Odou2, Stéphanie Genay2, Bertrand Décaudin2. 1. Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 7365 - GRITA - Groupe de Recherche sur les formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées, F-59000, Lille, France. laura.negrier.etu@univ-lille.fr. 2. Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 7365 - GRITA - Groupe de Recherche sur les formes Injectables et les Technologies Associées, F-59000, Lille, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Drug protocols in intensive care units may require the concomitant administration of many drugs as patients' venous accesses are often limited. A major challenge for clinicians is to limit the risk of simultaneously infusing incompatible drugs. Incompatibilities can lead to the formation of particles and inactivation of drugs, whose consequences on the body have already been indicated. Our objective was to assess current strategies to counter the risk of incompatible infusions and control the resulting clinical consequences. METHODS: This review was independently conducted by three investigators in respect of the PRISMA statement. Three online databases were consulted. Full-text articles, notes, or letters written in English or French, published or in press between the 1990s and the end of February 2020, with clinical study design, were eligible. Parameters of interest were mainly number and size of particles, and a number of observed/avoided incompatibilities. RESULTS: All in all, 382 articles were screened, 17 meeting all the acceptance criteria. The strategies outlined and assessed were filtration, the use of multi-lumen devices, the purging of infusion lines, incompatibility tables and databases, and the use of standard operating procedures. CONCLUSION: Although many strategies have been developed in recent years to address drug incompatibility risks, clinical data is still lacking. All studies with in vitro design were excluded although some current innovative strategies, like niosomes, should be considered and studied by means of clinical data in the future.
PURPOSE: Drug protocols in intensive care units may require the concomitant administration of many drugs as patients' venous accesses are often limited. A major challenge for clinicians is to limit the risk of simultaneously infusing incompatible drugs. Incompatibilities can lead to the formation of particles and inactivation of drugs, whose consequences on the body have already been indicated. Our objective was to assess current strategies to counter the risk of incompatible infusions and control the resulting clinical consequences. METHODS: This review was independently conducted by three investigators in respect of the PRISMA statement. Three online databases were consulted. Full-text articles, notes, or letters written in English or French, published or in press between the 1990s and the end of February 2020, with clinical study design, were eligible. Parameters of interest were mainly number and size of particles, and a number of observed/avoided incompatibilities. RESULTS: All in all, 382 articles were screened, 17 meeting all the acceptance criteria. The strategies outlined and assessed were filtration, the use of multi-lumen devices, the purging of infusion lines, incompatibility tables and databases, and the use of standard operating procedures. CONCLUSION: Although many strategies have been developed in recent years to address drug incompatibility risks, clinical data is still lacking. All studies with in vitro design were excluded although some current innovative strategies, like niosomes, should be considered and studied by means of clinical data in the future.
Authors: Hans-Anton Lehr; Joachim Brunner; Ramzan Rangoonwala; C James Kirkpatrick Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Thomas Jack; Martin Boehne; Bernadette E Brent; Ludwig Hoy; Harald Köditz; Armin Wessel; Michael Sasse Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-04-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michael Sasse; Friederike Dziuba; Thomas Jack; Harald Köditz; Torsten Kaussen; Harald Bertram; Philipp Beerbaum; Martin Boehne Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Martin Boehne; Thomas Jack; Harald Köditz; Kathrin Seidemann; Florian Schmidt; Michaela Abura; Harald Bertram; Michael Sasse Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 2.125