SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hardy, E.M.
Right arrow Articles by Sewell, G.J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Hardy, E.M.
Right arrow Articles by Sewell, G.J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

An evaluation of six infusion devices for the continuous infusion of cytotoxic drugs in ambulatory patients

E.M. Hardy, BPharm

Medicines Research Unit, Department of Pharmacy, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, United Kingdom

C. Williamson, BPharm

Medicines Research Unit, Department of Pharmacy, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, United Kingdom

G.J. Sewell, PhD

Medicines Research Unit, Department of Pharmacy, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, United Kingdom

Introduction. The clinical, economic, and user attributes of six ambulatory infusion devices were evaluated for their inclusion into the Home Oncol ogy Program, Exeter (HOPE).

Methods. Devices evaluated included; Graseby MS-26 syringe driver, Graseby 9100, Pharmacia CADD-1, Parker-Strato 2100 micropump (now un available), Baxter Multiday Infusor, and Infu-med 300. Criteria evaluated included accuracy, preci sion, in-use observations, capital cost, consumable cost, estimated monthly cost, degree of patient intervention, and patient comfort. A quality of life evaluation was undertaken in a more detailed assessment on the Graseby MS-26 and Infu-Med 300 device used routinely in the HOPE pro gramme.

Results. On the basis of these studies, the Parker-Strato 2100 pump was the preferred device although this has subsequently been withdrawn from the market. However, the newly developed Graseby 9000 series device was found to possess many of the qualities of the Parker-Strato pump and has been selected for further trials in this institu tion.

Key Words: Ambulatory • pump • infusion device • chemotherapy.

Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, Vol. 1, No. 1, 15-22 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/107815529500100102


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am J Health Syst PharmHome page
E. A. Skryabina and T. S. Dunn
Disposable infusion pumps.
Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., July 1, 2006; 63(13): 1260 - 1268.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Advertisement