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
Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
Southeast Veterinary Oncology, Orange Park, FL, USA.
Vet Comp Oncol. 2017 Mar;15(1):163-173. doi: 10.1111/vco.12148. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
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.
这项前瞻性实验模拟研究评估了使用两种封闭系统转移装置（CSTD，Equashield™和PhaSeal）以及不使用CSTD进行化疗给药的效率、易用性（EOU）和成本。对在肿瘤专科诊所工作的46名兽医技术人员（VT）进行了测试，他们使用水和模拟犬肢体在每个系统以及不使用CSTD的情况下进行了10次化疗给药模拟，并记录了时间。VT使用视觉模拟量表对每个系统的易用性和推荐可能性进行了评分。成本数据来自兽医经销商。使用Equashield™时给药速度最快（P = 0.0003），但差异不足以影响病例流程。Equashield™比PhaSeal或不使用CSTD更容易使用（P = 0.002），然而VT推荐两种CSTD的力度都比不使用CSTD更强（P < 0.0001）。Equashield™的成本低于PhaSeal，但仅批量销售。CSTD在化疗给药中并未降低效率，并且很容易被VT接受。
