Skip to main content
Log in

Can variable practice habits and injection port dead-volume put patients at risk?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Injection ports used to administer medications and draw blood samples have inherent dead-volume. This volume can potentially lead to inadvertent drug administration, contribute to erroneous laboratory values by dilution of blood samples, and increase the risk of vascular air embolism. We sought to characterize provider practice in management of intravenous (IV) and arterial lines and measure dead-volumes of various injection ports. A survey was circulated to anesthesiology physicians and nurses to determine practice habits when administering medications and drawing blood samples. Dead-volume of one and four-way injection ports was determined by injecting methylene blue to simulate medication administration or blood sample aspiration and using absorption spectroscopy to measure sample concentration. Among the 65 survey respondents, most (64.52%) increase mainstream flow rate to flush medication given by a 1-way injection port. When using 4-way stopcocks, 56.45% flush through the same injection site. To obtain a sample from an arterial line, 67.74% draw back blood and collect the sample from the same 4-way stopcock; 32.26% use a different stopcock. Mean (SD) dead-volume in microliters ranged from 0.1 (0.0) to 5.6 (1.0) in 1-way injection ports and from 54.1 (2.8) to 126.5 (8.3) in 4-way injection ports. The practices of our providers when giving medications and drawing blood samples are variable. The dead-volume associated with injection ports used at our institution may be clinically significant, increasing errors in medication delivery and laboratory analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smart NG. The functional deadspace of needle-free injection ports. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1991;19(3):429–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gould T, Roberts RJ. Therapeutic problems arising from the use of the intravenous route for drug administration. J Pediatr. 1979;95(3):465–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lovich MA, Doles J, Peterfreund RA. The impact of carrier flow rate and infusion set dead-volume on the dynamics of intravenous drug delivery. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(4):1048–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lovich MA, Kinnealley ME, Sims NM, Peterfreund RA. The delivery of drugs to patients by continuous intravenous infusion: modeling predicts potential dose fluctuations depending on flow rates and infusion system dead volume. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(4):1147–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bartels K, Moss DR, Peterfreund RA. An analysis of drug delivery dynamics via a pediatric central venous infusion system: quantification of delays in achieving intended doses. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(4):1156–61. https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0b013e3181b220c9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cole DC, Baslanti TO, Gravenstein NL, Gravenstein N. Leaving more than your fingerprint on the intravenous line: a prospective study on propofol anesthesia and implications of stopcock contamination. Anesth Analg. 2015;120(4):861–7. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e318292ed45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Wald M, Kirchner L, Lawrenz K, Amann G. Fatal air embolism in an extremely low birth weight infant: can it be caused by intravenous injections during resuscitation? Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(4):630–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-003-1681-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Muffly MK, Chen MI, Claure RE, et al. Small-volume injections: evaluation of volume administration deviation from intended injection volumes. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(4):1192–9. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000001976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Casella SJ, Mongilio MK, Plotnick LP, Hesterberg MP, Long CA. Accuracy and precision of low-dose insulin administration. Pediatrics. 1993;91(6):1155–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):768–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Stefanini M. Iatrogenic anemia (can it be prevented?). J Thromb Haemost. 2014;12(10):1591. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.12642.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Steffen K, Doctor A, Hoerr J, et al (2017) Controlling phlebotomy volume diminishes PICU transfusion: implementation processes and impact. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2480.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Fowler RA, Berenson M. Blood conservation in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(12 Suppl):715-20. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000099350.50651.46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brull SJ, Prielipp RC. Vascular air embolism: a silent hazard to patient safety. J Crit Care. 2017;42:255–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kumar D, Gadhinglajkar SV, Moorthy K, Bhandari D. Paradoxical air embolism to left anterior descending artery during induction of anesthesia in a patient with an atrial septal defect. A A Case Rep. 2014;2(6):66–9. https://doi.org/10.1213/XAA.0000000000000007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dube L, Soltner C, Daenen S, Lemariee J, Asfar P, Alquier P. Gas embolism: an exceptional complication of radial arterial catheterization. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48(9):1208–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2004.00476.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Murphy GS, Szokol JW, Marymont JH, Avram MJ, Vender JS, Kubasiak J. Retrograde blood flow in the brachial and axillary arteries during routine radial arterial catheter flushing. Anesthesiology. 2006;105(3):492–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Emre Dikici, PhD of the University of Miami Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Miami, FL, USA, for allowing use of his laboratory’s spectrophotometer for absorption measurements.

Funding

Equipment for this study was purchased using RM’s departmental discretionary funds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard R. McNeer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Given the nature of the survey in this study, no formal Institutional Review Board approval was necessary. A waiver stating this was obtained. All procedures were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Appendices

Appendix 1

1.1 Provider survey

Question 1. When administering a medication through a one-way injection port on an IV line, do you typically flush the medication in:

  • By flushing through the same injection port as the medication was given through?

  • By increasing the flow rate of the IV line?

Question 2. When administering a medication through the side-port of a 4-way stopcock, do you typically flush the medication in by flushing through:

  • The same injection site as the medication was given?

  • A different injection site or increasing the flow rate of the IV line?

Question 3. When you draw a blood sample from an arterial line, do you typically draw back on the line and remove the blood sample from:

  • The same 4-way stopcock?

  • A different 4-way stopcock (e.g., one closer to the patient)?

Question 4. After drawing a blood sample from an arterial line, do you flush out and remove the residual blood from the side port from where you drew the sample? (Yes or No)

Question 5. Do you remain committed to using a single injection port to administer all medications throughout a case? (Yes or No)

Appendix 2: calibration curves and calculation of dead-volume

2.1 Calibration curve set-up

On the day of experiments, calibration curves were set-up by serially diluting stock methylene blue 10 times by a factor of 2 with Plasmalyte-A. Each standard sample dilution was aliquoted on the spectrometric well plates to generate three replicates for spectrometric analysis at a wavelength of 608 nm. The three measures were averaged to determine standard sample absorption. The calculated dilution factors were plotted as a function of measured absorptions. The linear portion of the curve was used to calculate the equation of a line of best fit (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Example of calibration curve used to calculate dead-volume

2.2 Calculation of dead-volume

Each collected experimental sample was plated to generate three replicates and the three absorption measurements were averaged to yield the absorption for the given experimental sample. The three experimental runs for each stopcock or injection port were then averaged to yield a final absorption value. Dead-volume was calculated by determining an experimental sample’s dilution based on the calibration’s equation of a line. The sample’s dilution was then multiplied by the volume of the collected sample to yield the calculated dead-volume. Using this approach, it was not necessary to determine the concentration of stock methylene blue. In the simulations of drug administration (Fig. 1), two sequential 5 mL samples were collected when evacuating methylene blue. In this case, dead-volumes were calculated separately for the sequential samples and then added to calculate the total dead-volume.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuntz, M.T., Dudaryk, R. & McNeer, R.R. Can variable practice habits and injection port dead-volume put patients at risk?. J Clin Monit Comput 33, 549–556 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0179-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-018-0179-3

Keywords

Navigation