Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

No abstract

Background: Recent shortages of intravenous (IV) fluids have resulted in healthcare systems converting administration of many medications from IV piggyback (IVPB) to IV push (IVP). Administering medications via IVP presents numerous advantages; however, IV site reactions such as phlebitis and infiltration may occur. Objective: The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the infusion site safety of ertapenem given as peripheral IVP compared to IVPB in adult patients. Methods: This was an institutional review board–approved, single-center, retrospective study. Patients, ages 18 or older, receiving IV ertapenem were identified. The major endpoints analyzed were IV site reactions including phlebitis and infiltration. The Naranjo Nomogram was utilized to assess the causality of the reactions to determine the likelihood of whether the event was caused by the medication itself or other factors. Results: To date, 283 administrations (92 patients) in the IVP group and 319 administrations (82 patients) in the IVPB group were analyzed. There were 13 IV site reactions compared to 8 in the IVP vs IVPB group, respectively ( P-value = 0.16). Ten of the events in the IVP group were deemed “possible” and 2 deemed “doubtful,” while the remaining event was considered “probable” per the Naranjo Nomogram. Of the events in the IVPB group, all 8 were found to be “possible.” Conclusion: The administration of IVP ertapenem showed comparable rates of infusion site reactions compared to IVPB. Implementation of IVP ertapenem appears to be associated with infusion site safety similar to IVPB and should be considered safe to administer.

No abstract