Treatment time, ease of use and cost associated with use of Equashield™, PhaSeal®, or no closed system transfer device for administration of cancer chemotherapy to a dog model1. (10th April 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kicenuik, K.; Northrup, N.; Dawson, A.; Locke, J.; Villamil, J. A.; Chretin, J.; Sfiligoi, G.; Clifford, C.; Rosenberg, M.; Hamilton, T.; Regan, R.; Parsons‐Doherty, M.; Mallett, C.; Philibert, J.; Impellizeri, J.; Hofmeister, E.
• Is Part Of: Veterinary and comparative oncology. Volume 15:Number 1(2017:Mar.)
• Page Start: 163
• Page End: 173
• Publication Date: 2015-04-10
• Subjects: antineoplastic drug -- device -- occupational safety -- ONB; Veterinary oncology -- Periodicals; Neoplasms -- veterinary -- Periodicals; 636.0896994005
• DOI: 10.1111/vco.12148
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1476-5810

Abstract

Abstract: This prospective experimental simulation study evaluated the efficiency, ease of use (EOU) and cost of administering chemotherapy with two closed system transfer devices (CSTD, Equashield™ and PhaSeal ® ) and no CSTD. Forty‐six veterinary technicians (VT) working in oncology specialty practices were timed during chemotherapy administration simulated with water and a model canine limb 10 times with each system and with no CSTD. EOU and likelihood of recommending each system were rated by VT using visual analog scales. Costs were obtained from veterinary distributors. Administration was fastest with Equashield™ ( P = 0.0003), but the difference was not enough to affect case flow. Equashield™ was easier to use than PhaSeal ® or no CSTD ( P = 0.002), however VT recommended both CSTD more strongly than no CSTD ( P < 0.0001). Equashield™ cost less than PhaSeal ® but was sold only in bulk quantities. CSTD did not decrease efficiency in administering chemotherapy and were readily accepted by VT.