• 1.

    Condie CK, Tyler LS, Barker B, et al. Visual compatibility of caspofungin acetate with commonly used drugs during simulated Y-site delivery. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:454457.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Asempa TE, Avery LM, Kidd JM, et al. Physical compatibility of plazomicin with select i.v. drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018;75:10481056.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Benlabed M, Perez M, Gaudy R, et al. Clinical implications of intravenous drug incompatibilities in critically ill patients. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2019;38:173180.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Gaetani M, Frndova H, Seto W, et al. Concurrent intravenous drug administration to critically ill children: evaluation of frequency and compatibility. J Crit Care 2017;41:198203.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Bradley JS, Wassel RT, Lee L, et al. Intravenous ceftriaxone and calcium in the neonate: assessing the risk for cardiopulmonary adverse events. Pediatrics 2009;123:e609e613.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Plumb DC. Enrofloxacin. In: Plumb DC, ed. Plumb's veterinary drug handbook. 9th ed. Stockholm, Wis: PharmaVet Inc, 2018;427428.

  • 7.

    Baytril [product label]. Shawnee Mission, Kan: Bayer HealthCare LLC. Available at: www.baytril.com. Accessed Oct 15, 2018.

  • 8.

    Jim LK. Physical and chemical compatibility of intravenous ciprofloxacin with other drugs. Ann Pharmacother 1993;27:704707.

  • 9.

    Mody V, Shah S, Patel J, et al. Compatibility of norepinephrine bitartrate with levofloxacin and moxifloxacin during simulated Y-site administration. Int J Pharm Compd 2016;20:236238.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Chan P, Bishop A, Kupiec TC, et al. Compatibility of ceftobiprole medocaril with selected drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:15451551.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Ghazi I, Hamada Y, Nicolau DP. Physical compatibility of tedizolid phosphate with selected i.v. drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2016;73:17691776.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Wade J, Cooper M, Ragan R. Simulated Y-site compatibility of vancomycin and piperacillin-tazobactam. Hosp Pharm 2015;50:376379.

  • 13.

    Monogue ML, Almarzoky Abuhussain SS, Kuti JL, et al. Physical compatibility of fosfomycin for injection with select i.v. drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2018;75:e36e44.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Singh BN, Dedhiya MG, DiNunzio J, et al. Compatibility of ceftaroline fosamil for injection with selected drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2011;68:21632169.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Kidd JM, Avery LM, Asempa TE, et al. Physical compatibility of meropenem and vaborbactam with select intravenous drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Clin Ther 2018;40:261269.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Allen LV Jr, Levinson RS, Phisutsinthop D. Compatibility of various admixtures with secondary additives at Y-injection sites of intravenous administration sets. Am J Hosp Pharm 1977;34:939943.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Trissel LA, Saenz CA, Ogundele AB, et al. Physical compatibility of pemetrexed disodium with other drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004;61:22892293.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Foushee JA, Fox LM, Gormley LR, et al. Physical compatibility of cisatracurium with selected drugs during simulated Y-site administration. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2015;72:483486.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Greenhill K, Hornsby E, Gorman G. Investigations of physical compatibilities of commonly used intravenous medications with and without parenteral nutrition in pediatric cardiovascular intensive care unit patients. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2019;12:67.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    King M. Management of Tyndall effect. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2016;9:E6E8.

  • 21.

    Compound summary. Enrofloxacin. Available at: pubchem. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Enrofloxacin. Accessed Jul 25, 2020.

  • 22.

    Compound summary. Metoclopramide. Available at: pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Metoclopramide. Accessed Jul 25, 2020.

  • 23.

    Compound summary. Ampicillin-sulbactam. Available at: pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ampicillin_sulbactam. Accessed Jul 25, 2020.

  • 24.

    Bentley J, Heard K, Collins G, et al. Mixing medicines: how to ensure patient safety. Pharm J 2015;294:453456.

  • 25.

    Newton DW. Drug incompatibility chemistry. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009;66:348357.

  • 26.

    Brown WH, March J. Carboxylic acid: chemical compound. Available at: www.britannica.com/science/carboxylic-acid. Accessed May 5, 2020.

  • 27.

    Corte-Real J, Bertucci M, Soukoulis C, et al. Negative effects of divalent mineral cations on the bioaccessibility of carotenoids from plant food matrices and related physical properties of gastro-intestinal fluids. Food Funct 2017;8:10081019.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Vernier Software & Technology. Turbidity sensor. Available at: www.vernier.com/manuals/trb-bta/. Accessed May 5, 2020.

Advertisement

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

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

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.

Contributor Notes

Dr. Gochenauer's present address is the College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61802.

Address correspondence to Dr. Aghili (aaghili@purdue.edu).