Dataset Information

Evaluating Six Commercially Available Closed-System Drug-Transfer Devices Against NIOSH's 2015 Draft Vapor Protocol.

ABSTRACT: Purpose: In 2015, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a draft vapor containment protocol to quantitatively evaluate combined liquid, aerosol, and vapor containment performance of commercially available closed-system drug-transfer devices (CSTDs) that claim to be effective for gas/vapor containment within a controlled test environment. Until the release of this proposed protocol, no standard method for evaluating airtightness of CSTDs existed. The aim of this study was to evaluate six commercially available CSTDs utilizing NIOSH draft protocol methodology to evaluate vapor containment under a robust vapor challenge. Methods: In this study, six commercially available CSTDs were tested utilizing draft NIOSH vapor containment protocol methodology to simulate drug compounding and administration using 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) as the challenge agent. All device manipulations were carried out in an enclosed test chamber. A Miran sapphIRe gas analyzer was used to detect IPA vapor levels that escaped the device. Study test included the two tasks designated by the NIOSH protocol, with additional steps added to the evaluation. Tasks were repeated 10 times for each device. Results: Only three of the six tested CSTDs (Equashield®, HALO®, and PhaSealTM) had an average IPA vapor release below the quantifiable performance threshold (1.0 ppm) for all tasks performed. This value was selected by NIOSH to represent the performance threshold for successful containment. The remaining three CSTDs had vapor release above 1 ppm at various times during the IPA manipulation process. Conclusion: Equashield®, HALO®, and PhaSealTM devices tested met the 2015 NIOSH protocol quantifiable performance threshold, functioning as a truly closed system. Quantifiable effective data may be useful in product selection.

SUBMITTER: Halloush S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7672663 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClosed System Transfer Devices (CSTD) have been developed to reduce healthcare worker exposure to hazardous drugs during medication handling. To evaluate CSTD performance in preventing the escape of drug vapors, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) developed a 2015 draft testing protocol incorporating two compounding tasks utilizing 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) as a medication surrogate.PurposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of three CSTDs (Chemolock [ICU Medical Inc., San Clemente, CA], PhaSeal [BD, Franklin Lakes, NJ], and Equashield [Equashield, Port Washington, NY]) in preventing the escape of drug vapor in accordance with the 2015 NIOSH draft protocol during simulated compounding and administration tasks.MethodsThe protocol was modified for the CSTDs to be used in accordance with manufacturer instructions for use and to represent clinical practice through repeated CSTD connections. Tasks were executed with each of the three CSTDs using 70% IPA as the medication surrogate to simulate compounding of a lyophilized drug, intravenous (IV) bag preparation (task 1), and bolus administration through an IV set (task 2). A positive control was performed by completing both tasks in duplicate, utilizing a needle and syringe instead of the CSTD to simulate preparation and injection through luer connectors. Differences in time to complete each simulated task was also evaluated.ResultsThe three CSTDs had statistically equivalent performance and maintained IPA vapor levels below the limit of detection (LOD) of 1.0 ppm. Positive controls had mean vapor release of 17.40 ppm and 23.45 ppm for tasks 1 and 2, respectively. Positive controls also required statistically longer mean time to complete both tasks, followed in decreasing order by PhaSeal, Equashield, and Chemolock.ConclusionsThis study suggests that when evaluated in accordance with the 2015 NIOSH draft protocol, the three CSTDs are equivalent in their ability to prevent IPA vapor release while differences in time required for task completion may exist.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40267-022-00905-x.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity Paramedics (CPs) require access to timely blood analysis in the field to guide treatment and transport decisions. Point of care testing (POCT), as opposed to laboratory analysis, may offer a solution, but limited research exists on CP POCT. The purpose of this study was to compare the validity of two devices (Abbott i-STAT® and Alere epoc®) by CPs in the community.MethodsIn a CP programme responding to 6000 annual patient care events, a split sample validation of POCT against traditional laboratory analysis for seven analytes (sodium, potassium, chloride, creatinine, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and glucose) was conducted on a consecutive sample of patients. The difference of proportion of discrepant results between POCT and laboratory was compared using a two sample proportion test. Usability was analysed by survey of CP experience, a linear mixed effects model of Systems Usability Scale (SUS) adjusted for CP clinical and POCT experience, an expert heuristic evaluation of devices, a review of device-logged errors, and coded observations of POCT use during quality control testing.ResultsOf 1649 episodes of care screened for enrollment, 174 required a blood draw, with 108 episodes (62.1%) enrolled from 73 participants. Participants had a mean age of 58.7 years (SD16.3); 49% were female. In 4 of 646 (0.6%) comparisons, POCT reported a critical value but the laboratory did not; with no statistically significant (p = 0.323) difference between i-STAT® (0.9%;95%CI:0.0,1.9%) compared with epoc® (0.3%;95%CI:0.0,0.9%). There were no instances of the laboratory reporting a critical value when POCT did not. In 88 of 1046 (8.4%) comparisons the a priori defined acceptable difference between POCT and the laboratory was exceeded; occurring more often in epoc® (10.7%;95%CI:8.1,13.3%) compared with i-STAT® (6.1%;95%CI:4.1,8.2%)(p = 0.007). Eighteen of 19 CP surveys were returned, with 11/18 (61.1%) preferring i-STAT® over epoc®. The i-STAT® had a higher mean SUS score (higher usability) compared with epoc® (84.0/100 vs. 59.6/100; p = 0.011). There were no statistically significant differences in device logged errors between i-STAT® and epoc® (p = 0.063).ConclusionsCP programmes can expect clinically valid results from POCT. Device usability assessments should be considered with any local implementation as the two POCT systems have different strengths.

Project description:BackgroundMonitoring resistance training has a range of unique difficulties due to differences in physical characteristics and capacity between athletes, and the indoor environment in which it often occurs. Traditionally, methods such as volume load have been used, but these have inherent flaws. In recent times, numerous portable and affordable devices have been made available that purport to accurately and reliably measure kinetic and kinematic outputs, potentially offering practitioners a means of measuring resistance training loads with confidence. However, a thorough and systematic review of the literature describing the reliability and validity of these devices has yet to be undertaken, which may lead to uncertainty from practitioners on the utility of these devices.ObjectiveA systematic review of studies that investigate the validity and/or reliability of commercially available devices that quantify kinetic and kinematic outputs during resistance training.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search of SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Medline was performed; studies included were (1) original research investigations; (2) full-text articles written in English; (3) published in a peer-reviewed academic journal; and (4) assessed the validity and/or reliability of commercially available portable devices that quantify resistance training exercises.ResultsA total of 129 studies were retrieved, of which 47 were duplicates. The titles and abstracts of 82 studies were screened and the full text of 40 manuscripts were assessed. A total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additional 13 studies, identified via reference list assessment, were included. Therefore, a total of 44 studies were included in this review.ConclusionMost of the studies within this review did not utilise a gold-standard criterion measure when assessing validity. This has likely led to under or overreporting of error for certain devices. Furthermore, studies that have quantified intra-device reliability have often failed to distinguish between technological and biological variability which has likely altered the true precision of each device. However, it appears linear transducers which have greater accuracy and reliability compared to other forms of device. Future research should endeavour to utilise gold-standard criterion measures across a broader range of exercises (including weightlifting movements) and relative loads.

Project description:IntroductionThe ability to reliably measure real-world vaping behavior is critical to understand exposures to potential toxins. Commercially available mobile topography devices were originally designed to measure cigarette puffing behavior. Information regarding how applicable these devices are to the measurement of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) vaping topography is needed.MethodsClinical Research Support System (CReSS; Pocket) and Smoking Puff Analyzer Mobile (SPA-M) topography devices were tested against the calibrated laboratory-based smoking puff analyzer duplicator (SPA-D) device combined with an analytical smoking machine that generates programmable puffs with high precision. Puff topography of e-cigarettes was measured over a range of puff volumes (10-130 mL) at 2 and 5 s puff durations (using bell- and square-shaped puffs). "Real-world" topography data collected from 10 participants during 1 week of at-home vaping were also analyzed. Recording anomalies and limitations of the devices, such as accuracy of detection of the puff end, flow rate dropouts, unreported puffs, and abandoned vaping sessions for the CReSS, and multi-peak puffs for the SPA-M were defined.ResultsThe accuracy of puff volumes and durations was determined for both devices. The error for SPA-M was generally within ±10%, whereas that for the CReSS varied more widely. The CReSS consistently underestimated puff duration at higher flow rates.ConclusionsCReSS and SPA-M topography devices can be used for real-world e-cigarette topography measurements, but researchers have to be aware of the limitations. Both devices can provide accurate measurements only under certain puff parameter ranges. The SPA-M provided more accurate measurements under a wider range of puffing parameters than the CReSS. Summary data reported by both devices require thorough analysis of the raw data to avoid misleading data interpretation.ImplicationsResults of this study provide researchers with valuable information about the capability of commercially available cigarette topography devices to measure real-world vaping behaviors. The differing measurement ranges of the two devices and puff recording limitations and anomalies should be taken into account during analysis and interpretation of real-world data.

Dataset Information

Evaluating Six Commercially Available Closed-System Drug-Transfer Devices Against NIOSH's 2015 Draft Vapor Protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets