Academic Medical Center

Vial2Bag® Device Study

Single center, retrospective analysis performed from June 2017 - July 2018

This study was conducted using a device that is no longer on the market. West now offers the Vial2Bag Advanced™ 20mm Admixture Device as its transfer device.

Annual Pharmacy Sterile Compounding

150,000 patient-specific; 300,000 anticipatory


Annual cost avoidance realized from 250,000+ doses dispensed following Vial2Bag® device implementation

  • Reduce pharmacy labor, equipment and material cost versus Locally Compounded Sterile Product (LCSP)2,5-9**
  • Reduce risk of contamination and extend stability compared to LCSP3,4
  • Reduce expensive ready-to-use products
  • Reduce unnecessary compounding labor and materials2
  • Allow for unused drugs to be returned to inventory2

Annual units of LCSP moved from pharmacy to point-of-care through Vial2Bag® device dispensing

  • Reduce time to first dose through preparation at point-of-care as compared to LCSP
  • Utilize an Automated Dispensing System (ADS) to reduce medication errors related to preparation and administration of patient specific doses
  • Increase medications stocked in ADS
  • Flexible solution for managing drug shortages
  • Universal compatibility with all manufacturers’ 50, 100, and 250mL IV bags and 20mm vials***

Optimizing drug product utilization can improve workflow & minimize cost

Supply Disruptions

experience supply disruptions from their hospital’s manufacturer or outsourced facilities3

Impact to Patient Care

experienced a patient safety event due to this supply disruption3

Resource Constraints

agreed that outsourcing IV admixtures was cost-effective3


1. Tran LK, Anger KE, Dell’Orfano H, Rocchio MA, Szumita PM. Evaluation of Cost, Workflow, and Safety of Implementing a Vial Transfer Device for Ready-to-Mix Drugs at an Academic Medical Center. J Pharm Pract. 2020 Jul 8:897190020938195. doi: 10.1177/0897190020938195. Epubahead of print. PMID: 32638650.
2. van Zanten AR, Engelfriet PM, van Dillen K, et al. Importance of nondrug costs of intravenous antibiotic therapy. Crit Care. 2003; 7(6):R184-R190.
3. Trissel LA, Gentempo JA, Anderson RW, et al. Using a medium fill simulation to evaluate the microbial contamination rate for usp medium-risk-level compounding. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005; 62(3):285-288.
4. Maliekal J, Bertch KE, Witte KW. An update on ready-to-use intravenous delivery systems. Hosp Pharm. 1993;28(10):970–971, 5–7.
5. Hatoum HT, Witte KW, Biedron GT, et al. Microcosting method for small-volume injectables. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1986;43(2): 348-354.
6. Sherrin TP, Miller W, Latiolais CJ. Projecting staffing patterns from time study data in centralized intravenous admixture programs. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1972;29(12):1013-1019.
7. Rosselli D, Rueda JD, Silva MD, et al. Economic evaluation of four drug administration systems in intensive care units in Colombia. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;5:20-24.
8. Lopez IC, Cuervo MS, Toha AC, et al. Impact of the implementation of vasoactive drug protocols on safety and efficacy in the treatment of critically ill patients. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2016;41(6): 703-710.
9. Sebastian G, Thielke TS. Work analysis of an admixture service. Am J Hosp Pharm


* Extrapolated yearly cost avoidance was measured by multiplying the number of documented yearly administrations by the difference in respective LCSP or RTU costs from V2B system costs.
** LCSP labor and equipment costs were based on previous time study data that evaluated the costs of preparing small volume injectables (SVI)
*** ISO 8536-4 standard IV spike