American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 99, Issue 7 , Pages 1002-1005, 1 April 2007

Impact of Smart Infusion Technology on Administration of Anticoagulants (Unfractionated Heparin, Argatroban, Lepirudin, and Bivalirudin)

  • John Fanikos, RPh, MBA

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pharmacy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Karen Fiumara, PharmD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pharmacy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Steve Baroletti, PharmD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pharmacy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Carol Luppi, RN

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nursing, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Catherine Saniuk, RN

      Affiliations

    • Department of Nursing, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Amar Mehta, PharmD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pharmacy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Jon Silverman, PharmD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pharmacy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • ,
  • Samuel Z. Goldhaber, MD

      Affiliations

    • Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel: 617-732-7566; fax: 617-264-5144.

Received 20 July 2006; received in revised form 31 October 2006; accepted 31 October 2006.

This study reviewed 863 alerts generated from the infusion of anticoagulants in 355 patients from October 2003 to January 2005. Alerts were generated by smart infusion technology pumps and recorded in the devices’ memory. The most common alerts were underdose alerts (59.8%), followed by overdose alerts (31.3%) and duplicate drug therapy alerts (8.9%). In response to the alerts, users’ most frequent action was to cancel (46.5%) or reprogram (43.1%) the infusions. The highest percentage of alerts occurred from 2 to 4 p.m. During the study, there were 4 infusion rate errors, compared with 15 in the immediately preceding 16-month period. In conclusion, smart infusion technology intercepted keypad entry errors, thereby reducing the likelihood of intravenous anticoagulant overdose or underdose. Dose or infusion rate programming during intravenous anticoagulation is an important targets for medication safety interventions.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-9149(06)02509-4

doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.10.069

American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 99, Issue 7 , Pages 1002-1005, 1 April 2007