Identification of potentially irritating intravenous medications

AIMS

To identify commonly used intravenous drugs that may produce endothelial damage.

METHODS

An experimental research study was performed using a sample of 62 intravenous drugs commonly used in emergency care, pH and osmolarity were measured. Subsequently, based on these values, the theoretical capacity to cause irritation or endovascular damage was determined and classified as high, moderate, and low.

RESULTS

Samples from 19 drugs for fluid therapy, 21 antibiotics and 22 drugs for intravenous use were studied. Glucose solutions, sodium bicarbonate 1M and mannitol 10% showed a high capacity to cause venous irritation. Vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, amiodarone, haloperidol, and labetalol solution presented a high capacity for irritation based on their acidic pH. The antibiotics, dexketoprofen, diazepam, digoxin, etomidate, phenytoin, levetiracetam and metamizole also showed high osmotic values in their reconstituted or undiluted presentations. Moreover, osmolarity of diazepam, digoxin and phenytoin remained high despite being diluted in 100 ml of saline.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing the pH and osmolarity of intravenous drugs allows their capacity to cause endothelial damage to be assessed. The use of comprehensive tables based on the chemical properties of the drugs can be a useful tool to help prevent chemically-induced phlebitis.

[Analysis of dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation instructions to laypersons in an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest]

Randomized simulation trial to analyze dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation instructions provided from the emergency call center in an out-of-hospital heart arrest assisted by lay persons. An analysis of the telephone instructions was performed using a 14-item checklist by two external researchers. Simulations lasted nine minutes. Twenty-one volunteers were enrolled. All of them started resuscitation maneuvers. Telephone instructions were verbalized in very heterogeneous ways. Half of the indicators exceeded 90% compliance. Frequently the recommendation of push hard and fast on the patient's chest was omitted and the dispatcher tended to mark a slower compression rate. The average time from the call to the start of the resuscitation was 3 min 33 s (SD: 1 min 7 s). The telephone instructions were verbalized in a very heterogeneous way. It is necessary to standardize and provide training in how to guide a dispatcher-assisted resuscitation.