Safety of Intravenous Push Ertapenem Compared to Intravenous Piggyback at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center

Background: Recent shortages of intravenous (IV) fluids have resulted in healthcare systems converting administration of many medications from IV piggyback (IVPB) to IV push (IVP). Administering medications via IVP presents numerous advantages; however, IV site reactions such as phlebitis and infilt...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of pharmacy practice 2023-04, Vol.36 (2), p.281-285
Main Authors: Corrado, Michael J., Riselli, Andrew, McLaughlin, Kevin C., Szumita, Paul M., Anger, Kevin E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Ertapenem - adverse effects
Humans
Infusions, Intravenous
Injections, Intravenous
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Phlebitis - etiology
Retrospective Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Recent shortages of intravenous (IV) fluids have resulted in healthcare systems converting administration of many medications from IV piggyback (IVPB) to IV push (IVP). Administering medications via IVP presents numerous advantages; however, IV site reactions such as phlebitis and infiltration may occur. Objective: The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the infusion site safety of ertapenem given as peripheral IVP compared to IVPB in adult patients. Methods: This was an institutional review board–approved, single-center, retrospective study. Patients, ages 18 or older, receiving IV ertapenem were identified. The major endpoints analyzed were IV site reactions including phlebitis and infiltration. The Naranjo Nomogram was utilized to assess the causality of the reactions to determine the likelihood of whether the event was caused by the medication itself or other factors. Results: To date, 283 administrations (92 patients) in the IVP group and 319 administrations (82 patients) in the IVPB group were analyzed. There were 13 IV site reactions compared to 8 in the IVP vs IVPB group, respectively (P-value = 0.16). Ten of the events in the IVP group were deemed “possible” and 2 deemed “doubtful,” while the remaining event was considered “probable” per the Naranjo Nomogram. Of the events in the IVPB group, all 8 were found to be “possible.” Conclusion: The administration of IVP ertapenem showed comparable rates of infusion site reactions compared to IVPB. Implementation of IVP ertapenem appears to be associated with infusion site safety similar to IVPB and should be considered safe to administer.
ISSN:0897-1900
1531-1937
DOI:10.1177/08971900211038355