Comparison of six methods for preparing cefazolin sodium for intermittent injection.
The time and cost of preparing i.v. piggyback doses of cefazolin sodium using automated and manual methods were compared. One-gram doses of cefazolin sodium were prepared in batches of 100 using each of six methods. Total equipment process times were recorded during five trials with each method. Personnel time and total materials costs were determined. Bulk-vial reconstitution methods, including a manual syringe and three automated fluid-delivery devices (Burron Multi-Ad syringe pump, Unispense peristaltic pump, and Valleylab heart-valve cassette pump), were compared. Two prefilled container systems (Faspak flexible plastic bags with Physio-Control peristaltic pump, and glass piggyback bottles with the Multi-Ad pump) were compared with each other and with the bulk-reconstitution methods. Of the bulk-vial methods, total process times were significantly shorter for the Multi-Ad and Unispense systems. Of the prefilled container systems, total process time and personnel time were significantly shorter for the Faspak method than for the manufacturer's piggyback bottle method. Materials costs were similar for all bulk-vial methods and were significantly lower for both prefilled container systems. Overall costs were lower for prefilled systems; the cost per dose was $3.63 for the manufacturer's piggyback bottle system and $4.26 for the Faspak system. Total personnel time required by the Faspak method was 21.5 minutes per batch, approximately one third the time required by any other method. In terms of personnel time and materials costs for preparation of i.v. cefazolin sodium doses, manufacturers' prefilled container systems have advantages over bulk-reconstitution methods.
D002437:Cefazolin / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D004339:Drug Compounding; D006801:Humans; D007275:Injections, Intravenous; D013997:Time Factors
D002437:Cefazolin