Purpose: Evaluation of containment safety devices designed and introduced to protect preparers and administrators of hazardous drugs, through a multiple-test assessment.
Methods: Six devices were compared: (1) Kis1 gravity-fed infusion set (Doran International, France), (2) Tevadaptor Spike Port Adapter (Teva Pharma AG, France), (3) Phaseal Infusion Adapter C100 (Carmel Pharma AB, France), (4) Codan Connect Z (Codan, France), (5) Pchimx with or without a cap (Doran International, France), and (6) Clave extension set 011-H1225 with or without Spiros (Hospira, France). Assessment of exposure to hazardous drugs was performed using quinine as fluorescent marker. Mechanical tests included tightness, tension tests, and estimation of the force required to connect the infusion device to the bag. Ergonomic tests were performed by six pharmaceutical technicians. Microbiological contamination was tested with media-fill, on connected bag.
Results: No cytotoxic contamination was detected when using Phaseal, Tevadaptor or the Clave extension set with Spiros, Pchimx with a cap or Connect Z devices. For mechanical tests, all devices complied with the norm. Microbiological growth was observed neither in bags nor in tubings. The ergonomic study revealed differences between the devices for potential cytotoxic contamination risk only, but not for handling.
Conclusions. The use of containment safety devices offers improved handling conditions of hazardous compounds. As this study takes various selection criteria into account, its results offer assistance in choosing the most suitable device.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA work-practice guidelines for personnel dealing with cytotoxic (antineoplastic) drugs. Am J Hosp Pharm1986; 43: 1193–1204.
2.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Controlling occupational exposure to hazardous drugs. Am J Health-Syst Pharm1996; 53: 1669–1685.
3.
AcamporaACastigliaLMiragliaN. A case study: surface contamination of cyclophosphamide due to working practices and cleaning procedures in two Italian hospitals. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 611–618.
4.
Crauste-MancietSSessinkPJFerrariS. Environmental contamination with cytotoxic drugs in health care using positive air pressure isolators. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 619–628.
5.
MasonHJBlairSSamsC. Exposure to antineoplastic drugs in two UK hospital pharmacy units. Ann Occup Hyg2005; 49: 603–610.
6.
ConnorTHAndersonRWSessinkPJM. Surface contamination with antineoplastic agents in six cancer treatment centres in Canada and the United States. Am J Health-Syst Pharm1999; 56: 1427–1432.
7.
HedmerMTinnerbergHAxmonA. Environmental and biological monitoring of antineoplastic drugs in four workplaces in a Swedish hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health2008; 81: 899–911.
8.
American Society of Health-system Pharmacists. ASHP guidelines on handling hazardous drugs. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2006; 63: 1172–1193.
9.
International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners Standards Committee. ISOPP standards of practice. Safe handling of cytotoxics. J Oncol Pharm Pract2007; 13(suppl): 1–81.
10.
ConnorTHAndersonRWSessinkPJ. Effectiveness of a closed-system device in containing surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in an i.v. admixture area. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2002; 59: 68–72.
11.
NygrenOOlofssonEJohanssonL. Spill and leakage using a drug preparation system based on double-filter technology. Ann Occup Hyg2008; 52: 95–98.
12.
SpiveySConnorTH. Determining sources of workplace contamination with antineoplastic drugs and comparing conventional IV drug preparation with a closed system. Hosp Pharm2003; 38: 135–139.
13.
WickCSlawsonMHJorgensonJA. Using a closed-system protective device to reduce personnel exposure to antineoplastic agents. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2003; 60: 2314–2320.
14.
YoshidaJTeiGMochizukiC. Use of a closed system device to reduce occupational contamination and exposure to antineoplastic drugs in the hospital work environment. Ann Occup Hyg2009; 53: 153–160.
15.
HarrisonBPetersBBingM. Comparison of surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil using a closed-system drug transfer device versus standard preparation techniques. Am J Health-Syst Pharm2006; 63: 1736–1744.
16.
TurciRSottaniCSpagnoliG. Biological and environmental monitoring of hospital personnel exposed to antineoplastic agents: a review of analytical methods. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci2003; 789: 169–209.
17.
NygrenOGustavssonBStrömL. Exposure to anti-cancer drugs during preparation and administration. Investigations of an open and a closed system. J Environ Monit2002; 4: 739–742.
18.
KromhoutHHoekFUitterhoeveR. Postulating a dermal pathway for exposure to anti-neoplastic drugs among hospital workers. Applying a conceptual model to the results of three workplace surveys. Ann Occup Hyg2000; 44: 551–560.
19.
ZauggCAckermannMZiewitzC. Évaluation de tubulures courtes à connecter aux poches de chimiothérapies. Pharm Hosp2009; 44: 64–69.
20.
JorgensonJASpiveySMAuC. Contamination comparison of transfer devices intended for handling hazardous drugs. Hosp Pharm2008; 43: 723–727.
21.
CherrieJWBrouwerDHRoffM. Use of qualitative and quantitative fluorescence techniques to assess dermal exposure. Ann Occup Hyg2000; 44: 519–522.
22.
FenskeRA. Correlation of fluorescent tracer measurements of dermal exposure and urinary metabolite excretion during occupational exposure to malathion. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J1988; 49: 438–444.
23.
FenskeRABlackerAMHamburgerSJ. Worker exposure and protective clothing performance during manual seed treatment with lindane. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol1990; 19: 190–196.
24.
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Harmonized guidelines for single-laboratory validation of methods of analysis (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem2002; 74: 835–855.
25.
ConoverWJImanRL. Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat1981; 35: 124–129.
