Assessment of the physical compatibility of injectable enrofloxacin with commonly used intravenous fluids and drugs during simulated Y-port administration

Anahita Aghili Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Anahita Aghili in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Elizabeth J. Thomovsky Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Elizabeth J. Thomovsky in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
,
Paula A. Johnson Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Paula A. Johnson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM
,
Aimee C. Brooks Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Aimee C. Brooks in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 DVM, MS
,
Trinna J. Pierce Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Trinna J. Pierce in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PharmD
, and
Alexandria E. Gochenauer Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

Search for other papers by Alexandria E. Gochenauer in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 PharmD

Click on author name to view affiliation information

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate physical compatibility of small animal (SAE) and large animal (LAE) injectable formulations of enrofloxacin with select IV fluids and drugs.

SAMPLE

162 admixtures containing SAE or LAE with saline (0.9% NaCl) solution, lactated Ringer solution (LRS), Plasma-Lyte A (PLA), 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 (HES), metoclopramide, or ampicillin-sulbactam.

PROCEDURES

In the first of 2 simultaneously conducted experiments, admixtures containing enrofloxacin (10 mg/kg) and a volume of IV fluid that would be administered over a 20-minute period when dosed at the maintenance infusion rate (40 mL/kg/d for saline solution, LRS, and PLA and 20 mL/kg/d for HES) were created. In the second experiment, enrofloxacin (10 mg/kg) was admixed with saline solution (40 mL/kg/d) and metoclopramide (2 mg/kg/d) or ampicillin-sulbactam (30 mg/kg). In both experiments, admixture components were infused into a flask over 20 minutes assuming patient weights of 5, 10, and 20 kg. Admixtures were created by use of undiluted SAE and SAE diluted 1:1 with saline solution and undiluted LAE and LAE diluted 1:1 and 1:10 with saline solution. Admixtures were assessed for physical incompatibility at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after completion of mixing. Physical incompatibility was defined as gross precipitation, cloudiness, Tyndall effect, or change in turbidity.

RESULTS

Admixtures containing undiluted SAE or LAE were physically incompatible with saline solution, PLA, LRS, and HES. Because saline solution was used to dilute SAE and LAE, all admixtures containing diluted SAE or LAE were also physically incompatible. Physical compatibility of enrofloxacin with metoclopramide or ampicillin-sulbactam could not be assessed because those admixtures also contained saline solution.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Enrofloxacin was physically incompatible with all tested solutions.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate physical compatibility of small animal (SAE) and large animal (LAE) injectable formulations of enrofloxacin with select IV fluids and drugs.

SAMPLE

162 admixtures containing SAE or LAE with saline (0.9% NaCl) solution, lactated Ringer solution (LRS), Plasma-Lyte A (PLA), 6% hydroxyethylstarch 130/0.4 (HES), metoclopramide, or ampicillin-sulbactam.

PROCEDURES

In the first of 2 simultaneously conducted experiments, admixtures containing enrofloxacin (10 mg/kg) and a volume of IV fluid that would be administered over a 20-minute period when dosed at the maintenance infusion rate (40 mL/kg/d for saline solution, LRS, and PLA and 20 mL/kg/d for HES) were created. In the second experiment, enrofloxacin (10 mg/kg) was admixed with saline solution (40 mL/kg/d) and metoclopramide (2 mg/kg/d) or ampicillin-sulbactam (30 mg/kg). In both experiments, admixture components were infused into a flask over 20 minutes assuming patient weights of 5, 10, and 20 kg. Admixtures were created by use of undiluted SAE and SAE diluted 1:1 with saline solution and undiluted LAE and LAE diluted 1:1 and 1:10 with saline solution. Admixtures were assessed for physical incompatibility at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after completion of mixing. Physical incompatibility was defined as gross precipitation, cloudiness, Tyndall effect, or change in turbidity.

RESULTS

Admixtures containing undiluted SAE or LAE were physically incompatible with saline solution, PLA, LRS, and HES. Because saline solution was used to dilute SAE and LAE, all admixtures containing diluted SAE or LAE were also physically incompatible. Physical compatibility of enrofloxacin with metoclopramide or ampicillin-sulbactam could not be assessed because those admixtures also contained saline solution.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Enrofloxacin was physically incompatible with all tested solutions.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 1783 0 0
Full Text Views 7943 3909 351
PDF Downloads 6208 2565 265
Advertisement