Comparison of six methods for preparing cefazolin sodium for intermittent injection

Area of Science:

• Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Healthcare Administration
• Clinical Pharmacy

Background:

• Intravenous (IV) piggyback doses of cefazolin sodium are commonly prepared in hospital settings.
• Preparation methods vary, including manual techniques and automated systems, impacting efficiency and cost.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the time and cost associated with preparing IV cefazolin sodium doses using automated and manual methods.
• To evaluate the efficiency of bulk-vial reconstitution versus prefilled container systems.

Main Methods:

• Six different preparation methods were evaluated for one-gram doses of cefazolin sodium in batches of 100.
• Methods included manual syringe reconstitution, automated fluid-delivery devices (Burron Multi-Ad, Unispense, Valleylab), and prefilled container systems (Faspak, manufacturer's piggyback bottles).
• Total equipment process times, personnel time, and materials costs were recorded and analyzed.

Main Results:

• Automated bulk-vial methods (Multi-Ad and Unispense) showed significantly shorter total process times compared to manual methods.
• Prefilled systems, particularly the Faspak method, demonstrated significantly lower total process time and personnel time.
• Materials costs were lower for both prefilled systems, with overall costs favoring these methods over bulk-reconstitution.

Conclusions:

• Manufacturer's prefilled container systems offer significant advantages in terms of reduced personnel time and materials costs for preparing IV cefazolin sodium doses.
• The Faspak system required approximately one-third the personnel time compared to other methods.
• Prefilled systems are a more cost-effective and time-efficient alternative to traditional bulk-reconstitution methods.