A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Assessment of chemical contamination by cancer drugs during use of the RIVA compounding robot: A pilot study. | LitMetric

Introduction: Many hospitals are now investing in robotic compounding system for the preparation of cytotoxic agents. The objective of the present study was to describe contamination by cytotoxics inside and outside the RIVA robot (ARxIUM, Winnipeg, Canada).

Material & Methods: We applied a risk analysis to determine which locations inside and outside the compounding robot should be monitored. Samples were collected by swabbing with a wet swab (using 0.1 mL of sterile water) before the robots was cleaned. Ten cytotoxics compounded with the robot were screened for using LC-MS/MS. We determined the percentage contamination rates inside (CR) and outside (CR) the robot and the amounts of each contaminant (in ng/cm²). If a sample was found to be positive, a corrective action was implemented.

Results: Our risk analysis highlighted 10 locations inside the robot and 7 outside. Ten sampling campaigns (10 samples per campaign) were performed. The mean CR (40%) was significantly higher than the mean CR (2%; p < 10). Gemcitabine and cyclophosphamide were the main contaminants. After the implementation of corrective measures (such as daily cleaning with SDS/isopropyl alcohol), the CR fell from 60% to 10%.

Discussion/conclusion: The frequency of contamination was lower for robotic compounding than for manual compounding in an isolator. However, robotic compounding tended to generated larger mean amounts of contaminant; this was related to incidents such as splashing when syringes were disposed of after the compounding. The implementation of corrective actions effectively reduced the CRs. Further longer-term studies are required to confirm these results.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10781552241276530DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

compounding robot
8
risk analysis
8
locations inside
8
inside robot
8
robot
6
assessment chemical
4
chemical contamination
4
contamination cancer
4
cancer drugs
4
drugs riva
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!