Clinical trial NCT03360617: Does a Safety Difference Exist Between IV Push and IV Piggyback Antibiotics?
Official title: Safety Comparison of Antibiotics Administered Via Intravenous Push Versus Intravenous Piggyback to Adult Patients in the Emergency Department
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: UNKNOWN
Phase: NA
Conditions: Infection
Keywords: IV
Intravenous
IV Push
Piggyback
Antibiotics
Beta Lactam
Infection
Lead sponsor: University Medical Center of Southern Nevada
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2017-12-04
Enrollment: 220
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: Single-center, prospective, double-blinded, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial
Primary purpose: OTHER

Brief summary: This study compares whether or not a safety difference exists between delivering antibiotics via IV push or IV piggyback method.

Detailed description: This study compares whether or not a safety difference exists between delivering antibiotics via the IV push or IV piggyback method. It will be a single center, prospective, double-blinded, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial on a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED receiving select beta-lactam antibiotics. Patients will be randomized to IV push antibiotic plus IV piggyback placebo or IV push placebo plus IV piggyback antibiotic. Patients will only be enrolled when a pharmacist who is familiar with the study is available to prepare medications. Treatment group assignment will be predetermined using an Excel random number generator. An investigator will conduct an informed consent with the patient. Only the pharmacist will have access to the randomization records and will not reveal the randomization until the end of the study. If the patient consents to the study, a pharmacist involved in the study will prepare the IV push syringe and IV piggyback. The IV push syringe and IV piggyback will be prepared in a manner that makes the contents blinded. Preparation of the IV push syringe and IV piggyback are standardized. The syringe and piggyback will be handed to the nurse for administration. The IV push antibiotic will be administered over 2-3 minutes and the IV piggyback antibiotic will be administered over 30 minutes. The IV push and IV piggyback will be administered at the same time. A research assistant will conduct surveys with the patient at the start of administration and every 15 minutes for a total of 90 minutes to observe for any adverse drug reactions. During the 90-minute observation period, other medications will be allowed to be administered to the patient. All medications received during this time period will be documented in the patient data sheet. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, the attending physician or medical resident caring for the patient will be notified to come evaluate the patient. Adverse drug reaction severity will be determined by the attending physician or medical resident based on a predetermined scale. Adverse drug reaction information will be collected to determine correlation of adverse drug reaction to drug administration. Adverse drug reactions deemed as serious will be reported to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) within 5 days of the event.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Age 18 or older
* Patients who present to the adult ED in whom IV aztreonam, cefazolin, cefoxitin, ceftriaxone, cefepime, ertapenem, or meropenem is ordered by the treating physician

Exclusion Criteria:

* Pregnant or breastfeeding
* Non-English speaking patient
* Attending provider excludes patient
* Unable to consent
* Prisoner
* Allergy to any beta-lactam antibiotic

Primary outcomes:
measure: Difference in number of adverse reactions at 90 minutes from time 0
timeFrame: From the time of administration (time 0) to 90 minutes
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Difference in severity of adverse reactions between study arms.
timeFrame: 90 minutes from drug administration (time 0)
measure: Difference in adverse reaction type between study arms.
timeFrame: 90 minutes from drug administration (time 0)
measure: Difference in hospital length of stay between study arms
timeFrame: Time from subject's arrival to Emergency Department (ED) until either discharged from ED to home, or if admitted, hospital discharge up to 90 days from ED admission.
measure: Difference of In-Hospital Mortality between study arms
timeFrame: Time from the subject's arrival to the Emergency Department (ED) until the subject is pronounced dead up to 90 days from ED admission.
measure: Cost comparison between study arms
timeFrame: 90 minutes from drug administration (time 0)
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Las Vegas
country: United States
facility: University Medical Center of Southen Nevada
state: Nevada
Study officials:
affiliation: University Medical Center of Southern Nevada
name: Aryan Rahbar, PharmD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Garrelts JC, Wagner DJ. The pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerance of cefepime administered as an intravenous bolus or as a rapid infusion. Ann Pharmacother. 1999 Dec;33(12):1258-61. doi: 10.1345/aph.19067.
citation: Wiskirchen DE, Housman ST, Quintiliani R, Nicolau DP, Kuti JL. Comparative pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of ertapenem 1 gram/day administered as a rapid 5-minute infusion versus the standard 30-minute infusion in healthy adult volunteers. Pharmacotherapy. 2013 Mar;33(3):266-74. doi: 10.1002/phar.1197. Epub 2013 Feb 11.
citation: Poole SM, Nowobilski-Vasilios A, Free F. Intravenous push medications in the home. J Intraven Nurs. 1999 Jul-Aug;22(4):209-15.
citation: Butterfield-Cowper JM, Burgner K. Effects of i.v. push administration on beta-lactam pharmacodynamics. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017 May 1;74(9):e170-e175. doi: 10.2146/ajhp150883.
citation: Martz C, Hoesly M, Davis N. Reducing Order to Antibiotic Administration Time in Septic Patients: The Role of IV Push Antibiotics. Unpublished Abstract. Eastern Virginia Medical School Institutional Review Board.
citation: Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP, 2015). Safe Practice guidelines for Adult IV Push Medications. Retrieved from http://www.ismp.org/Tools/guidelines/ivsummitpush/ivpushmedguidelines.pdf
citation: Rodriguez R. The Safety of Intravenous Drug Delivery Systems: Update on Current Issues Since the 2009 Consensus Development Conference. Hosp Pharm. 2018 Dec;53(6):408-414. doi: 10.1177/0018578718798638. Epub 2018 Sep 5.
citation: Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, Kumar A, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Nunnally ME, Rochwerg B, Rubenfeld GD, Angus DC, Annane D, Beale RJ, Bellinghan GJ, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith C, De Backer DP, French CJ, Fujishima S, Gerlach H, Hidalgo JL, Hollenberg SM, Jones AE, Karnad DR, Kleinpell RM, Koh Y, Lisboa TC, Machado FR, Marini JJ, Marshall JC, Mazuski JE, McIntyre LA, McLean AS, Mehta S, Moreno RP, Myburgh J, Navalesi P, Nishida O, Osborn TM, Perner A, Plunkett CM, Ranieri M, Schorr CA, Seckel MA, Seymour CW, Shieh L, Shukri KA, Simpson SQ, Singer M, Thompson BT, Townsend SR, Van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Wiersinga WJ, Zimmerman JL, Dellinger RP. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):486-552. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002255.
citation: Garrelts JC, Smith DF, Ast D, Peterie JD. A comparison of the safety, timing and cost-effectiveness of administering antibiotics by intravenous bolus (push) versus intravenous piggyback (slow infusion) in surgical prophylaxis. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992 Feb;1(2):116-23. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199201020-00008.
citation: Norrby SR, Newell PA, Faulkner KL, Lesky W. Safety profile of meropenem: international clinical experience based on the first 3125 patients treated with meropenem. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1995 Jul;36 Suppl A:207-23. doi: 10.1093/jac/36.suppl_a.207.