Use of closed systems in the Hospital Pharmacy

Objective: In the setting of the increasing use of closed systems for reconstitution and preparation of these drugs, we intend to analyze the correct use of these systems in the Hospital Pharmacy, with the objective to minimize the risks of exposure not only for those professionals directly involved, but also for all the staff in the unit, taking also into account efficiency criteria. Method: Since some systems protect against aerosol formation but not from vapours, we decided to review which cytostatics should be prepared using an awl with an air inlet valve, in order to implement a new working procedure. We reviewed the formulations available in our hospital, with the following criteria: method of administration, excipients, and potential hazard for the staff handling them. We measured the diameters of the vials. We selected drugs with Level 1 Risk and also those including alcohol-based excipients, which could generate vapours. Outcomes: Out of the 66 reviewed formulations, we concluded that 11 drugs should be reconstituted with this type of awl: busulfan, cabazitaxel, carmustine, cyclophosphamide, eribulin, etoposide, fotemustine, melphalan, paclitaxel, temsirolimus and thiotepa; these represented an 18% of the total volume of formulations. Conclusions: The selection of healthcare products must be done at the Hospital Pharmacy, because the use of a system with an air valve inlet only for those drugs selected led to an outcome of savings and a more efficient use of materials. In our experience, we confirmed that the use of the needle could only be avoided when the awl could adapt to the different formulations of cytostatics, and this is only possible when different types of awls are available. Besides, connections were only really closed when a single awl was used for each vial. The change in working methodology when handling these drugs, as a result of this study, will allow us to start different studies about environmental contamination as a future line of work.

Safety and risk factors for difficult endoscopist-directed ERCP sedation in daily practice: a hospital-based case-control study

Background: There are limited data concerning endoscopist-directed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography deep sedation. The aim of this study was to establish the safety and risk factors for difficult sedation in daily practice. Patients and methods: Hospital-based, frequency matched case-control study. All patients were identified from a database of 1,008 patients between 2014 and 2015. The cases were those with difficult sedations. This concept was defined based on the combination of the receipt of high-doses of midazolam or propofol, poor tolerance, use of reversal agents or sedation-related adverse events. The presence of different factors was evaluated to determine whether they predicted difficult sedation. Results: One-hundred and eighty-nine patients (63 cases, 126 controls) were included. Cases were classified in terms of high-dose requirements (n = 35, 55.56%), sedation-related adverse events (n = 14, 22.22%), the use of reversal agents (n = 13, 20.63%) and agitation/discomfort (n = 8, 12.7%). Concerning adverse events, the total rate was 1.39%, including clinically relevant hypoxemia (n = 11), severe hypotension (n = 2) and paradoxical reactions to midazolam (n = 1). The rate of hypoxemia was higher in patients under propofol combined with midazolam than in patients with propofol alone (2.56% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Alcohol consumption (OR: 2.674 [CI 95%: 1.098-6.515], p = 0.030), opioid consumption (OR: 2.713 [CI 95%: 1.096-6.716], p = 0.031) and the consumption of other psychoactive drugs (OR: 2.015 [CI 95%: 1.017-3.991], p = 0.045) were confirmed to be independent risk factors for difficult sedation. Conclusions: Endoscopist-directed deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe. The presence of certain factors should be assessed before the procedure to identify patients who are high-risk for difficult sedation.