PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Rodríguez Esquíroz, A
AU  - Lizama Gómez, NG
AU  - Gascón Villacampa, AM
AU  - Pío Asín, M
AU  - Lorza Gil, L
AU  - Millacoy Austenrritt, DP
AU  - Sarobe Carricas, M
TI  - 4CPS-121 Analysis of the use of intravenous iron in outpatients
AID  - 10.1136/ejhpharm-2023-eahp.133
DP  - 2023 Mar 01
TA  - European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy
PG  - A63--A63
VI  - 30
IP  - Suppl 1
4099  - http://ejhp.bmj.com/content/30/Suppl_1/A63.2.short
4100  - http://ejhp.bmj.com/content/30/Suppl_1/A63.2.full
SO  - Eur J Hosp Pharm2023 Mar 01; 30
AB  - Background and Importance For the last several years, there has been a growing tendency of administering ferric carboxymaltose in hospitals. This study has been carried out due to the fact that intravenous iron treatments require very specific occasions.Aim and Objectives Evaluating the amount of ferric carboxymaltose administered to outpatients.Material and Methods A retrospective, descriptive study. All patients administered with intravenous ferric carboxymaltose from January 2022 to June 2022 were included.The following data was collected: demographic parameters (age and sex), clinics and blood test: administered dose, haemoglobin, iron profile, comorbidities that affect said profile (kidney failure, heart failure, immune-mediated disorders, oncological procedure, infection) and the concomitant use of oral iron.The indication was assessed following the data sheet. Cases with discrepancies were revised by the haematology ward. It was checked whether a control blood test had been carried out within three months and whether iron overload had occurred.Results 273 patients were included, 60% were women with an average age of 63,7 ± 19,03 years old. 26.4% of patients had normal values of haemoglobin. 79.9% of patients had their iron profile requested. 26.4% had an oral iron treatment and 12.1% had it prescribe it afterwards. In 29.7% of patients, the treatment’s effectiveness was not proven since there was not a subsequent analysis within the next three months. An iron overload after the intravenous iron treatment was noticed in 2.2% of patients.26% of treatments were not indicated: 8.3% due to the brief duration of the oral treatment, 56.3% due to the inexistence of a previous iron profile and 35.2% since an iron deficiency was not found.Conclusion and Relevance This study concluded that a high percentage of patients received intravenous iron treatment when it was not indicated. The main reasons were the lack of an iron profile and the absence of a previous oral iron treatment. An intravenous iron usage protocol should be set in motion in the hospital to ensure its correct use and to carry out a subsequent study to analyse the results after its implementation.Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest