This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vandenbroucke, J. Articles by Robays, H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Vandenbroucke, J. Articles by Robays, H. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

How to protect environment and employees against cytotoxic agents, the UZ Ghent experience

Central Pharmacy, University Hospital Ghent, Belgium

Hugo Robays

Central Pharmacy, University Hospital Ghent, Belgium

Objective. To compare two different systems for the reconstitution and preparation of cytotoxic drug-containing infusion bags. The Classical System (open) uses Luer lock syringes and needles, and the PhaSeal^A System (closed) uses special devices.

Methods. Both wipe samples of the Biological Safety Cabinet (BSC) plus surroundings and urine analysis of technicians and pharmacists involved in the preparatory activities were used. Analyses were performed using gas chromatography in tandem with mass spectroscopy.

Results. An important difference has been found in the surface contamination rate and in the number, periods and values of contaminated urine samples in favour of the closed PhaSeal^A System. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2001) 6, 146-152.

Key Words: Cytotoxic drugs • contamination • cyclophosphamide • pharmacy • toxicity • health risk • environmental • wipe samples • urine samples • cytotoxic contamination • monitoring • safe handling

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Section 1 Introduction Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, September 1, 2007; 13(3_suppl): 3 - 6. [PDF]

				Section 7 Special devices Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, September 1, 2007; 13(3_suppl): 27 - 30. [PDF]

				Section 10 Chemical contamination monitoring Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, September 1, 2007; 13(3_suppl): 44 - 48. [PDF]

				B. R. Harrison, B. G. Peters, and M. R. Bing Comparison of surface contamination with cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil using a closed-system drug transfer device versus standard preparation techniques. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., September 15, 2006; 63(18): 1736 - 1744. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. H CONNOR Hazardous anticancer drugs in health care: environmental exposure assessment. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., September 1, 2006; 1076: 615 - 623. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				ASHP Guidelines on Handling Hazardous Drugs Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., June 15, 2006; 63(12): 1172 - 1191. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Roberts, N. Khammo, G. McDonnell, and G. J Sewell Studies on the decontamination of surfaces exposed to cytotoxic drugs in chemotherapy workstations Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice, June 1, 2006; 12(2): 95 - 104. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. H. Connor, P. J. M. Sessink, B. R. Harrison, J. R. Pretty, B. G. Peters, R. M. Alfaro, A. Bilos, G. Beckmann, M. R. Bing, L. M. Anderson, et al. Surface contamination of chemotherapy drug vials and evaluation of new vial-cleaning techniques: Results of three studies Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., March 1, 2005; 62(5): 475 - 484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]