Affiliations: [a] University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy, Chicago, IL, USA | [b] Quintiles Consulting, Zuccalistr. 19, 80639 Munich, Germany
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: M. Gabay, Director, Drug Information Group, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy, 833 S Wood St, M/C 886, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. Tel.: +1 312 413 3977; Fax: +1 312 996 0448; E-mail: [email protected].
Abstract: Introduction:Comparative information related to the properties of intravenous containers is lacking. Information is important as healthcare providers weigh the strengths and weaknesses of various competing products. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare three different intravenous containers: two closed-system fully collapsible bags that do not require external venting to empty (containers A and B) and one semi-rigid “bottle pack” that partially collapses unvented (container C). Methods:Through an observational study design, these containers were subjected to the following tests in order to evaluate their performance: determination of total and residual volume, air volume, admixture volume, presence of particulate matter, and a drop test. Results:The mean residual volume of container C was higher compared to containers A and B: between 0.6% and 11.7% with a closed administration set and between 0.7% and 10.8% with an open administration set. The mean air volume measured was increased relative to the nominal volume for container C. In addition, containers A and B exhibited no visible particulate matter after puncture, satisfied the drop test more frequently, and had relatively higher admixture volumes in comparison to container C. Conclusion:The results of these examinations reveal that containers A and B outperformed container C; however, caution must be used when interpreting these observational results in the clinical setting.
