Intravenous Piggyback Research Articles

Evaluating the Efficiency and Staff Satisfaction of the Point-of-Care IV Activated System Versus Traditional Piggyback in Administering IV Antibiotics at a Saudi Tertiary Hospital.

This study aims to compare resource utilization and staff satisfaction between the point-of-care (POC) activated system and the traditional intravenous piggyback (PB) system in hospital pharmacy settings. Employing a pre-post quasi-experimental design from November 2019 to April 2020, the study assessed resource requirements for both the POC activated system and the traditional PB system. Additionally, a staff satisfaction survey was conducted, focusing on staff experiences related to the pharmacy preparation process and the subsequent activation of the system by nurses. The POC activated system required significantly fewer full-time equivalents (FTEs) per month compared to the PB system (0.36 ± 0.05 vs. 1.56 ± 0.07; p < 0.0001). Using POC in automated dispensing cabinets (ADCs) reduced medication administration time and returns (6.41% vs. 1.75%; p < 0.0001). The staff satisfaction survey revealed greater satisfaction with the POC activated system. A subsequent analysis showed the POC activated system had a low expiration rate of 0.1% and a cost of 39 Saudi riyal, while the traditional system had higher expiration rates and cost of 46,260 SR. The POC activated system reduced FTEs, decreased returned medications, and enhanced staff satisfaction compared to the PB system.

Efficiency and safety of high-dose undiluted intravenous push levetiracetam loading doses compared to intravenous infusion in seizing patients: A retrospective cohort study.

Intravenous (IV) push (IVP) is an alternative administration method for levetiracetam, but evidence evaluating it compared to IV piggyback (IVPB) for loading doses in acutely seizing patients is limited, particularly in patients with status epilepticus (SE). This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of IVP versus IVPB levetiracetam loading doses. This was a single-center sequential retrospective study conducted in adult (≥18 years) patients who received an IV levetiracetam loading dose (>2000 mg or ≥20 mg/kg) for acute or suspected seizure. The primary outcome was time to administration, compared between doses given as IVP versus IVPB. Secondary outcomes included rates of adverse events (AEs), rescue benzodiazepine or antiseizure medication administration, intubation, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission between groups. A total of 246 patients were included; 116 received IVP and 130 received IVPB loading doses. Median age was 56 years; most patients were male (62%) and White (60%) and had witnessed seizures (67%). Doses were administered for SE in 32 (27.5%) and 46 (35.4%) patients in the IVP and IVPB arms, respectively. Median time to administration was shorter in the IVP group (12 vs. 38 min, p < .001). Bradycardia (1.7% vs. 2.3%, p = .99), hypotension (7.8% vs. 12%, p = .30), sedation (6% vs. 12.3%, p = .09), intubation (10% vs. 8%, p = .37), ICU admission (32% vs. 39%, p = .31), and rescue medication administration (8.6% vs. 14.6% p = .10) were similar between groups. In SE patients, IVP was associated with shorter time to administration (12 vs. 44 min, p = .003) and lower odds of ICU admission after adjustment for age, dose, Status Epilepticus Severity Score, and seizure history (adjusted odds ratio = .23, 95% confidence interval = .06-.81). IVP reduced time to levetiracetam administration versus IVPB and was not associated with more AEs. Rescue agent use, intubation, and ICU admission were similar between arms, but IVP may reduce ICU admissions in SE patients. Prospective studies should assess the effectiveness of IVP versus IVPB.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Intravenous Push and Intravenous Piggyback Ceftriaxone in Critically Ill Patients.

Background/Objective: Intravenous fluid shortages have led to fluid-sparing measures such as intravenous push (IVP) administration of antibiotics. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of IVP and intravenous piggyback (IVPB) ceftriaxone in critically ill patients. Results: Demographics were similar in IVP (n = 201) and IVPB (n = 200) groups. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was higher, and sepsis and septic shock were more common in the IVP group. Treatment failure occurred in 37.8% of IVP and 19.5% of IVPB groups (p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was more common with IVP (21.4% vs. 9.5%, p < 0.001). Hospital LOS was longer with IVP while intensive care unit (ICU) LOS was similar between the groups. IVP ceftriaxone (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.43-3.79) and the SOFA score (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.1-1.27) were associated with treatment failure. Methods: A single-center, retrospective cohort study included adults admitted to an ICU from 2016 to 2021 who received empiric ceftriaxone for ≥72 h. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as a composite of inpatient mortality or escalation of antibiotics. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) and mortality. Chi-squared and independent-sample t-tests were used. Treatment failure was evaluated using multivariate logistic regression. Conclusions: Compared to IVPB, IVP ceftriaxone was associated with higher treatment failure in critically ill patients. Both safety and efficacy should be considered before implementing novel antibiotic administration strategies in practice based primarily on convenience.

Intravenous push lacosamide: Successful implementation and patient outcomes across a health system.

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Intravenous administration of the antiseizure medication lacosamide can be delayed given operational challenges related to short beyond-use-dating and controlled substance requirements. The purpose of this study was to describe the steps required to successfully transition from intravenous piggyback administration to intravenous push administration and demonstrate that workflow changes improved time to administration without compromising patient safety. This multicenter study had 2 components; the first portion was a prospective description of the implementation and operationalization process, while the second was a retrospective cohort analysis comparing patients who received intravenous piggyback and intravenous push lacosamide. After the transition, the default administration route for adult patients for lacosamide doses of 400mg or less was intravenous push. While the primary objective was to describe the implementation process, secondary objectives included comparison of time to administration and safety, using a composite and incidence of PR prolongation. Success in implementation and operationalization across a large health system was achieved by following a 6-month timeline. A total of 102 patients were included in the cohort study, with 869 individual administrations analyzed (519 intravenous piggyback and 350 intravenous push). Time from verification to administration was significantly decreased when comparing intravenous piggyback (median, 159 minutes) to intravenous push (median, 88 minutes) administrations (P = 0.008). No significant difference was found in the safety composite or PR prolongation. Transitioning intravenous lacosamide administration from piggyback to push administration is feasible and decreases time from verification to administration without increased incidence of adverse effects.

Enhancing Sepsis Outcomes: A 7-Year Multidisciplinary Endeavor.

Regulatory bodies in the United States have implemented quality metrics aimed at improving outcomes for patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. The current study was a quality improvement (QI) project in a community-based academic center aimed at improving adherence to sepsis quality metrics, time to antibiotic administration, and patient outcomes. Electronic health record systems were utilized to capture sepsis-related data. Regular audits and feedback sessions were conducted to identify areas for improvement, with a focus on the timely administration of antibiotics. Interventions included improving access to antibiotics, transitioning from intravenous piggyback to intravenous push formulations, and providing continuous staff education and training. This multidisciplinary QI initiative led to significant improvements in the mortality index, length of stay index, and direct cost index for patients with sepsis. Targeted multidisciplinary QI interventions resulted in improved quality metrics and patient outcomes.

Intravenous push antibiotics in the emergency department: Education and implementation.

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Intravenous push antibiotics can serve as an alternative to intravenous piggyback antibiotics while providing the same pharmacodynamics and adverse effect profile, easing shortage pressures and decreasing order to administration time, as well as representing a potential cost savings. The purpose of this study was to determine whether intravenous push antibiotics could decrease the time from an order to the start of administration compared to piggyback antibiotics in emergency departments. This study also measured the cost savings of antibiotic preparation and administration and assessed nursing satisfaction when using intravenous push antibiotics. Sample instances of use of intravenous push and piggyback antibiotics were identified. Patients were included if they were 18 years of age or older and received at least a single dose of intravenous push or piggyback ceftriaxone, cefepime, cefazolin, or meropenem in one of the institution's emergency departments. The primary outcome of the study was to compare the time from the order to the start of administration of intravenous push vs piggyback antibiotics. The secondary outcome was to compare the cost of antibiotic preparation for the 2 methods. The intravenous push and piggyback groups each had 43 patients. The time from the order to the start of administration decreased from 74 (interquartile range, 29-114) minutes in the piggyback group to 31 (interquartile range, 21-52) minutes in the push group (P = 0.003). When the estimated monthly cost savings for ceftriaxone, cefepime, and meropenem were added together, across the emergency departments, an estimated $227,930.88 is saved per year when using intravenous push antibiotics. Intravenous push antibiotics decrease the time from ordering to the start of administration and result in significant cost savings.

Safety of Intravenous Push Valproate Compared with Intravenous Piggyback at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center.

Data are limited regarding the safety associated with administering valproate sodium by intravenous push (IVP) compared with intravenous piggyback (IVPB). The objective of this retrospective pre-post analysis was to compare the safety profile of valproate administration via IVPB from March to May 2022 and IVP from June to August 2022. A total of 890 IVPB and 440 IVP administrations were included. The major endpoint of this analysis was the incidence of infusion site reactions (infiltration or phlebitis). The incidence of documented intravenous (IV) site reactions demonstrated minimal differences between both IVPB and IVP administration cohorts. Based on the Naranjo algorithm, all IVPB and IVP infusion site reactions were classified as possible or doubtful. Additional safety endpoints included bradycardia, hypotension, or sedation attributable to valproate sodium administration. Similar safety profiles were observed, including valproate-associated bradycardia, hypotension, and sedation events. All safety events were further classified as possible or doubtful by the Naranjo algorithm. Time from pharmacist verification to valproate administration was also collected. The mean time from pharmacist order verification to valproate administration was significantly faster in the IVP cohort compared to the IVPB cohort. IVP valproate administration may be considered safe, allowing for more optimal clinical and operational outcomes in the acute care setting.

Effect of Intravenous Push and Piggyback Administration of Ceftriaxone on Mortality in Sepsis

BackgroundThere is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for the administration methods of ceftriaxone in emergency departments (EDs), resulting in the reliance on individual institutional protocols for decision-making. ObjectiveThis study was performed to compare the effects of administering ceftriaxone via intravenous push (IVP) and intravenous piggyback (IVPB) on 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis. MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients aged 18 years or older with sepsis or septic shock who visited an ED and were treated with ceftriaxone as an initial antibiotic between March 2010 and February 2019. Patients were divided into the IVP group and the IVPB group based on the administration method. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between antibiotic administration methods and 28-day mortality. ResultsDuring the study period, a total of 939 patients were included in the final analysis, and the overall mortality rate was 12.2%. The antibiotic administration time was significantly lower in the IVP group than in the IVPB group, and the rates of antibiotic administration within 1 h and within 3 h were higher in the IVP group than in the IVPB group (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 0.69–1.65). ConclusionsIVP administration of ceftriaxone reduced the time of antibiotic administration compared with IVPB, but there was no difference in 28-day mortality.

Antibiotics Administered via Intravenous Push Versus Intravenous Piggyback to Adult Patients in the Emergency Department: a Randomized Trial

Antibiotics Administered via Intravenous Push Versus Intravenous Piggyback to Adult Patients in the Emergency Department: a Randomized Trial

Evaluation of Safety Outcomes of Undiluted Levetiracetam Intravenous Push Compared to Intravenous Piggyback

Background: Breakthrough seizures and status epilepticus require urgent management. Administration of intravenous push (IVP) levetiracetam has been demonstrated to be safe as compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB). This transition can potentially offer faster time to administration and reduced drug and material cost. The objective of this study was to observe safety of administration in patients receiving levetiracetam via IVP compared to IVPB in acute care settings. Methods: This is a multi-center, observational, retrospective cohort study of 1214 adult patients who received levetiracetam pre- and post-implementation of IVP over a 6 month timespan. Primary outcome was time from order verification to administration of urgent first-time doses. Secondary outcomes included time to administration of loading doses and cost. Safety outcome was infusion site related reactions. Results: Time from order verification to administration of urgent first-time doses pre- and post-implementation of IVP administration was reduced from 61 minutes to 47 minutes (P=0.0002). Infusion site related reactions were observed in 6 out of 5432 doses in the IVPB arm and in 5 out of 4700 doses in the IVP arm (P=1). Total estimated cost was $76,171.96 for the 5449 IVPB total doses and $11,484.33 for the 4721 IVP total doses. Conclusions: Transition from IVPB to IVP administration reduced time from order verification to administration of urgent first-time doses with both administrations having similar incidence of infusion site related reactions. Cost savings and improved workflow were observed. Levetiracetam administered via IVP may be considered as a safe alternative method of administration in the acute care setting.

An Unusual Case of Pyogenic Liver Abscess Secondary to Achromobacter xylosoxidans

Abstract Achromobacter xylosoxidans is a catalase-positive, oxidase-positive, motile, gram-negative rod. When isolated, it is usually a cause of bacteremia in immunocompromised patients. Here we present a case of liver abscess caused by this rare organism in an immunocompetent host. A 57-year-old Colombian woman came to the emergency department with complaints of subacute onset of back pain, burning in urination, fever, nausea, and vomiting. She was febrile and tachycardic. Urinalysis was positive for leukocyte esterase, nitrite, and bacteria. The patient was started on empiric piperacillin tazobactam 3375 mg as intravenous piggyback every 8 hours. On day 3 of hospitalization, the patient continued to experience flank pain without improvement. Computed tomographic scan of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast revealed 2 thick-walled complex collections in the right hepatic lobe and the caudate lobe of the liver. Purulent aspirate grew A. xylosoxidans. In this report, we explore the characteristics of A. xylosoxidans and the associated infections it is known to cause as well as suggested treatments from previously reported cases.

Evidence-Based Protocol for Administering First Dose of Cephalosporins via Intravenous Push in the Emergency Department

Traditional practice has dictated that solutions with an osmolality of 600 to 900 mOsm/L, such as intravenous (IV) antibiotics, be administered via the intravenous piggyback (IVPB) route. This practice is due to concern for phlebitis, local irritation, and infiltration during peripheral administration of hypertonic solutions. IV cephalosporins, when reconstituted with 0.9% sodium chloride injection, have an osmolality ranging from 575 mOsm/L with ceFAZolin to 1040 mOsm/L with Cefepime1 and subsequently fall into the category of solutions with an osmolality high enough to be of concern.

Evaluation of Intravenous Push Piperacillin-Tazobactam on Time to Antibiotic Administration in Emergency Department Patients with Sepsis

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if intravenous push (IVP) administration of piperacillin-tazobactam reduced the time to antibiotic administration compared to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) in emergency department (ED) patients who present with sepsis. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with sepsis who received piperacillin-tazobactam before and after implementation of an IVPB to IVP conversion protocol. Results: A total of 486 charts were reviewed and the final analysis included 127 patients in each group. The mean time to administration of piperacillin-tazobactam was 67 (± 48) minutes and 58 (± 36) minutes in the IVPB and IVP cohorts, respectively (P = NS). The time to administration of secondary antibiotics was reduced by 38 minutes in patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam by IVP (105 min ±69 vs 67 min ±37; P < .001). Nurse administration time was reduced by 11 min for piperacillin-tazobactam (54 min ±46 vs 43 min ±33; P = .034) and 40 min for secondary antibiotics (90 min ±67 vs 50 min ±32; P = < .001) in the IVP group. There was no difference in hypersensitivity reactions, hospital length of stay, or mortality. Conclusion: Conversion from piperacillin-tazobactam IVPB to IVP was associated with a reduction in time to piperacillin-tazobactam and secondary antibiotic administration in emergency department patients with sepsis. Further prospective research is needed to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with IVP administration.

Safety of Intravenous Push Levetiracetam Compared to Intravenous Piggyback at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center: A Retrospective Analysis.

Medication administration via intravenous push presents multiple potential advantages; however, there may be an increased risk of adverse drug reactions. In 2020, Brigham and Women's Hospital changed levetiracetam intravenous administration to intravenous push (IVP). The purpose of this analysis was to compare the safety profile of IVP to intravenous piggyback (IVPB) levetiracetam administration. This institutional review board-approved, single-center, pre-post analysis was performed between 1 November, 2019 and 30 May, 2020. The electronic health record was used to identify all administrations of intravenous levetiracetam greater than 1000 mg in patients ≥ 18 years old. The major safety outcomes included hypotension, bradycardia, drug-induced sedation, and intravenous site reactions such as phlebitis and infiltration. The major efficiency outcome was the time from pharmacy order verification to first-dose administration. A total of 498 administrations in 162 patients were included in the analysis: 252 administrations in 84 patients in the IVP group and 246 administrations in 78 patients in the IVPB group. The incidence of bradycardia was 7 vs 3 (3.2% vs 1.5%, p = 0.34); hypotension 10 vs 6 (5.2% vs 3.5%, p = 0.44); sedation 21 vs 36 (19.3% vs 27.9%, p = 0.12); and peripheral IV site reactions 0 vs 1 (0% vs 0.6%, p = 0.39) in the IVP vs IVPB groups, respectively. The median time between order verification and first-dose administration was significantly reduced in the IVP vs IVPB group (23.5 vs 55 min, p < 0.001). Intravenous push levetiracetam administration of doses up to 4000 mg was associated with a similar incidence of cardiovascular, sedation, and infusion site-related adverse events compared to IVPB and resulted in a significant reduction in time to first-dose administration. Intravenous push levetiracetam in doses as high as 4000 mg may be considered safe with appropriate monitoring.

178 Safety Comparison of Antibiotics Administered via Intravenous Push versus Intravenous Piggyback to Adult Patients in the Emergency Department

Prior to the 1980s, medications were commonly administered as intravenous (IV) push. However, the invention of intravenous piggybacks (IVPB) led to a shift in administration preference from IV push to IVPB. However, IV push administration could offer advantages in speed of administration and reduce costs. Although some data does exist about the safety of IV push antibiotics, as mentioned earlier, this data is generally retrospective in nature or has weak experimental design. Published prospective data is conducted in healthy volunteers and contains small sample sizes. No study on safety has been conducted in the emergency department setting. This study aims to examine the safety of IV push antibiotics in a randomized and controlled environment, examining rates and natures of adverse drug reactions in IV push antibiotics vs IVPB. This was a single center, prospective, double-blinded, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial on a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED from April 2018 to October 2019 receiving select beta-lactam antibiotics. There was no significant difference in the number of specific adverse reactions or the total number of adverse reactions between the two arms at 90 minutes following the administration of antibiotics: 11.8% of patients in the Piggyback group had an adverse drug reaction (ADR), whereas 18.9% of patients in the Push group had an ADR (95% CI -9.5 to 23.8). Only 3 patients who had a grade 2 reaction, and they all received push antibiotics. Two developed abdominal pain and one developed headache. There were no patients with higher than a grade 2 adverse drug reaction in either arm. No statistically significant difference in safety profile was found between IV push antibiotics versus IVPB administration of antibioticsView Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Push Dose Intravenous Administration of Antibiotics Should Not Be Routine in the Emergency Department

Effective treatment of systemic infections is imperative in the emergency department (ED). There is uncertainty regarding the most effective method of antibiotic administration.1,2 One option is an intravenous push, defined as administration within 5 minutes.1 Alternatively, intravenous piggyback entails administration within 30 minutes in conjunction with other fluid.3 Intravenous piggyback strikes an optimal balance between rapid antibiotic administration and flexibility in attenuating the rate of administration to minimize the risk of provoking higher-severity allergic reactions.

Intravenous Push Antibiotics Should be Administered in the Emergency Department

Antibiotics are commonly administered in the emergency department (ED). Traditionally, antibiotics have been administered as intravenous piggyback medications over 30 to 60 minutes. This paradigm has been challenged in recent years with intravenous push antibiotics. Though literature demonstrating direct impacts on mortality and length of stay is lacking, we propose that intravenous push antibiotics should be administered in the ED due to faster time to administration, which may be particularly beneficial with regard to sepsis, health care cost savings, and enhanced nursing satisfaction.

Safety of Intravenous Push Ertapenem Compared to Intravenous Piggyback at a Tertiary Academic Medical Center

Background: Recent shortages of intravenous (IV) fluids have resulted in healthcare systems converting administration of many medications from IV piggyback (IVPB) to IV push (IVP). Administering medications via IVP presents numerous advantages; however, IV site reactions such as phlebitis and infiltration may occur. Objective: The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the infusion site safety of ertapenem given as peripheral IVP compared to IVPB in adult patients. Methods: This was an institutional review board–approved, single-center, retrospective study. Patients, ages 18 or older, receiving IV ertapenem were identified. The major endpoints analyzed were IV site reactions including phlebitis and infiltration. The Naranjo Nomogram was utilized to assess the causality of the reactions to determine the likelihood of whether the event was caused by the medication itself or other factors. Results: To date, 283 administrations (92 patients) in the IVP group and 319 administrations (82 patients) in the IVPB group were analyzed. There were 13 IV site reactions compared to 8 in the IVP vs IVPB group, respectively (P-value = 0.16). Ten of the events in the IVP group were deemed “possible” and 2 deemed “doubtful,” while the remaining event was considered “probable” per the Naranjo Nomogram. Of the events in the IVPB group, all 8 were found to be “possible.” Conclusion: The administration of IVP ertapenem showed comparable rates of infusion site reactions compared to IVPB. Implementation of IVP ertapenem appears to be associated with infusion site safety similar to IVPB and should be considered safe to administer.

Evaluation of Time to Administration, Benzodiazepine Use, and Safety of Intravenous Push Levetiracetam in a Neuro-Spine Intensive Care Unit.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time to medication administration, clinical effect, and safety of a recent Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee-approved change in the administration of levetiracetam from intravenous piggyback (IVPB) over 15min to undiluted intravenous push (IVP) over 2-5min at a large academic medical center. The primary outcome was the time from order verification to the administration of IVP levetiracetam versus IVPB levetiracetam. The secondary outcome was any benzodiazepine administered in the time between levetiracetam order verification and administration in both groups. Adult patients admitted to the neuro-spine intensive care unit in the 6months prior to and after the policy change, and who received at least one dose of 1000mg or higher of IVP or IVPB levetiracetam for active seizures, were included in this retrospective, observational, institutional review board-approved study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, χ2, and the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. Of the 2055 hospital-wide levetiracetam doses ordered within the study period, 316 doses were screened for enrollment and 160 were enrolled with 60 and 100 patients assigned to the IVP and IVPB groups, respectively. There were no differences between the groups at baseline. The majority of the population was male, 57years old, had no significant renal dysfunction (defined as a creatinine clearance of less than 60ml/min), and had a seizure etiology of malignancy or traumatic brain injury. A significant reduction in the time to administration of levetiracetam was found with IVP compared with IVPB administration (28 vs. 80min, p < 0.0001). A subsequent reduction in patients who received benzodiazepines in the interim of levetiracetam order verification and administration was also associated with IVP compared with IVPB (2% vs. 13%, p = 0.042). There were no differences found in the rates of adverse effects between groups. Administration of levetiracetam doses up to 2000mg via IVP is a safe method of administration that results in a reduction of time to medication administration and a reduction of benzodiazepine use.

Evaluation of First-Dose, Intravenous Push Penicillins and Carbapenems in the Emergency Department

Background: Early appropriate antibiotic administration is associated with improved outcomes in infectious illnesses. During drug shortages in 2017, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists recommended intravenous push (IVP) administration of medications when possible to conserve small-volume parenteral solutions. Data supporting IVP penicillins and carbapenems was limited. Objective: The primary objective of this study compared time from patient emergency department (ED) arrival to antibiotic administration between IVP and intravenous piggy-back (IVPB) administration. Methods: This single-center pre-post protocol study assessed changes in administration timing and safety of ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, and ertapenem from 2015-2018. Medication administration by IVPB (pre) or IVP (post), ED arrival, antibiotic order and administration times, potential effectors of administration time, and safety events were assessed. Acquisition costs were estimated. Results: A total of 696 administrations were included, with 351 and 345 subjects in the IVPB and IVP cohorts, respectively. The median time from ED arrival to initiation of antibiotic administration was 140 (IQR 87-221) minutes and 110 (IQR 68-181) minutes in the IVPB and IVP cohorts, respectively, (P < 0.01). IVP administration increased the proportion of indexed antibiotics administered within 60 minutes of ED arrival compared to IVPB (20% vs. 12%, respectively, P < 0.01). There was no difference in adverse events between both cohorts. Supply acquisition cost savings totaled an more than $5,000 with the IVP protocol. Conclusion: IVP administration of ampicillin/sulbactam, piperacillin/tazobactam, and ertapenem improved times to initiation of empiric, first-dose antibiotics in the ED without an increase in adverse events, saving over $5,000 annually.