Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr;46(2):373-381.
doi: 10.1111/jcpt.13291. Epub 2020 Oct 17.

Intravenous push versus intravenous piggyback beta-lactams for the empiric management of gram-negative bacteremia

Kassandra Marsh  1 , Yanina Dubrovskaya  1 , Shin-Pung Polly Jen  1 , Nabeela Ahmed  2 , Arnold Decano  2 , Justin Siegfried  1 , John Papadopoulos  1 , Cristian Merchan  1
Affiliations

Intravenous push versus intravenous piggyback beta-lactams for the empiric management of gram-negative bacteremia

Kassandra Marsh et al. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021 Apr.

Abstract

What is known and objective: Nationwide shortages of small-volume parenteral solutions (SVPS) compelled hospitals to develop strategies including the use of intravenous push (IVP) administration of antibiotics to reserve SVPS for absolute necessities. It is unknown if administration of beta-lactam antibiotics (BL) via IVP results in worse clinical outcomes compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) due to the potential inability to achieve pharmacodynamic targets.

Methods: Our health-system implemented a mandatory IVP action plan for BL from October 2017 to September 2018. This was a retrospective study of adult patients with GNB who received empiric therapy with IVPB (30 minutes) or IVP (5 minutes) cefepime (FEP) or meropenem (MEM) for at least 2 days. Endpoints included clinical response, microbiological clearance and mortality. All data are presented as n (%) or median (interquartile range).

Results: The final cohort included 213 patients (IVPB n = 105, IVP n = 108). The primary source of bacteremia was urinary, with Escherichia coli being the primary pathogen. Escalation of therapy was similar between groups (15 [14%] vs 11 [10%], P = .36) at a median of 3 days (P = .68). No significant differences were observed in any secondary endpoints including microbiological clearance, bacteremia recurrence, time to defervescence, WBC normalization, vasopressor duration or in-hospital mortality.

What is new and conclusion: Our findings suggest no differences in clinical response with the use of IVP compared to IVPB FEP and MEM for treatment of GNB. This form of administration may be considered as a fluid conservation strategy in times of shortage.

Keywords: antibiotics; bacteremia; beta-lactams; drug administration; sterile products.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Butterfield-Cowper JM, Burgner K. Effects of i.v. push administration on β-lactam pharmacodynamics. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74(9):e170-e175.
    1. Wiskirchen DE, Housman ST, Quintiliani R, Nicolau DP, Kuti JL. Comparative pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerability of ertapenem 1 gram/day administered as a rapid 5-minute infusion versus the standard 30-minute infusion in healthy adult volunteers. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33(3):266-274.
    1. Garrelts JC, Wagner DJ. The pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerance of cefepime administered as an intravenous bolus or as a rapid infusion. Ann Pharmacother. 1999;33(12):1258-1261.
    1. Jaruratanasirikul S, Sriwiriyajan S, Ingviya N. Continuous infusion versus intermittent administration of cefepime in patients with Gram-negative bacilli bacteraemia. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2002;54(12):1693-1696.
    1. McLaughlin JM, Scott RA, Koenig SL, Mueller SW. Intravenous Push Cephalosporin Antibiotics in the Emergency Department: A Practice Improvement Project. Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2017;39(4):295-299.

LinkOut - more resources