Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026

A Novel Approach for the Administration of Medications and Fluids in Emergency Scenarios and Settings
Published on: November 9, 2016
Administration Routes for Perioperative Prophylactic Antibiotics: A Scoping Review of Intravenous Push Versus
Canyu Yang1, Shuhua Deng2, Yuan Wei3
1Department of Pharmacy, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
Objectives:
Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent a significant postoperative challenge. Although timely perioperative prophylaxis with cephalosporins is essential to prevention, adherence to the recommended 30-60 min administration window may be challenging with traditional intravenous infusion (IVI) in settings with high surgical turnover, as is the case in China. Intravenous push (IVP) has been proposed as a more time-efficient alternative. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence comparing IVP with IVI for perioperative cephalosporin administration across four domains: safety, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), efficacy, and economic impact.
Methods:
A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and gray literature up to February 2026. Data were systematically charted and extracted using a standardized form.
Results:
Of the 14 included sources, only 3 were peer-reviewed comparative studies; the remaining 11 (78.6%) were gray literature documents. Among the gray literature, 72.7% (8/11) permitted or recommended IVP for cephalosporin prophylaxis; however, this proportion reflected practice patterns of heterogeneous methodological rigor. The 3 peer-reviewed studies focused on the safety, PK/PD, and economic outcomes. Two studies-in orthopedic and bariatric surgery, respectively-found no significant difference in adverse event rates between IVP and IVI, though both were limited by small samples. A single small study suggested similar PK/PD target attainment between IVI and IVP cefazolin. No study directly compared SSI rates between the two routes. One study suggested potential cost savings with IVP, but the evidence was dated and based on limited patient numbers.
Conclusions:
The available evidence for IVP is predominantly derived from gray literature, while peer-reviewed articles suggest that safety and PK/PD profiles do not differ markedly from IVI in the limited populations, surgical procedures, and agents studied; economic data are suggestive but dated. Direct comparative data on clinical efficacy outcomes, such as SSI rates, are absent. Well-powered, multi-center comparative studies comparing IVP and IVI with SSI as a primary endpoint are needed.
Related Concept Videos
Dosage Interval and Administration Route: Determination Methods
Routes of Drug Administration: Parenteral
The intravenous route (IV) of drug administration can be further categorized into two types. The bolus injection administers the entire dose rapidly, while an intravenous infusion slowly delivers smaller doses steadily.
The IV route is often...
Drug Accumulation During Multiple Dosing: Intermittent IV Infusions
Drug Delivery: Parenteral Route
There are three primary parenteral routes: intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC). The IV route introduces the drug directly into the bloodstream, ensuring immediate action. The IM route...
Additional Routes of Drug Administration
Administering drugs via inhalation allows for the direct delivery of gaseous, volatile substances or droplets to different parts of the respiratory tract. One of the advantages of the inhalation route is the rapid absorption of drugs into the circulatory system, which is possible because of the large surface area of...
Pharmaceutical Alternatives: Stability-Related Therapeutic Nonequivalence