![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Background. Crotaline Polyvalent Ovine Fab antivenom (CroFab®, Savage Laboratories and Protherics Inc., Brentwood, TN, USA) preparation requires that the lyophilized powder be manually reconstituted before use. We compared automated methods for driving the product into solution with the standard manual method of reconstitution, and the effect of repeated rinsing of the product vial, on the per-vial availability of antivenom. Methods. Normal saline (NS, 10 mL) was added to 12 vials of expired CroFab®. Vials were assigned in pairs to each of six mixing methods, including one pair mixed manually as recommended by the product package insert. Each vial's contents were diluted to a final volume of 75 mL of normal saline. Protein concentration was measured with a colorimetric assay. The fluid left in each vial was removed and the vial was washed with 10 mL NS. Results. Total protein yield from each step was calculated. There was no significant change in protein yield among three of five automated mixing methods when compared to manual reconstitution. Repeat rinsing of the product vial with an additional 10 mLs of fluid added to the protein yield regardless of the mixing method used. Discussion. We found slightly higher protein yields with all automated methods compared to manual mixing, but only two of five comparisons with the standard mixing method demonstrated statistical significance. However, for all methods tested, the addition of a second rinsing and recovery step increased the amount of protein recovered considerably, presumably by allowing solution of protein trapped in the foamy residues. Conclusion. Automated mixing methods and repeat rinsing of the product vial may allow higher protein yields in the preparation of CroFab® antivenom.