-
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jun 2019To investigate whether daily bathing with a soap-like solution of 4% chlorhexidine (CHG) followed by water rinsing (CHGwr) would decrease the incidence of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
To investigate whether daily bathing with a soap-like solution of 4% chlorhexidine (CHG) followed by water rinsing (CHGwr) would decrease the incidence of hospital-acquired infections (HAI) in intensive care settings.
METHODS
Randomized, controlled trial; infectious diseases specialists were blinded to the intervention status. All patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and to the Post-operative Cardiosurgical Intensive Care Unit (PC-ICU) of the University Hospital of Perugia were enrolled and randomized to the intervention arm (daily bathing with 4% CHGwr) or to the control arm (daily bathing with standard soap). The incidence rate of acquisition of HAI was compared between the two arms as primary outcome. We also evaluated the incidence of bloodstream infections (BSI), central-line-associated BSI (CLABSI), ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and 4% CHGwr safety.
RESULTS
In all, 449 individuals were enrolled, 226 in treatment arm and 223 in control arm. Thirty-four individuals of the 226 (15%) and 57 (25.6%) suffered from at least an HAI in the intervention and control arms, respectively (p 0.008); 23.2 and 40.9 infections/1000 patient-days were detected in the intervention arm and control arm, respectively (p 0.037). The incidence of all bloodstream infections (BSI plus CABSI) was significantly reduced in the intervention arm (9.2 versus 22.6 infections/1000 patient-days, p 0.027); no differences were observed in the mortality between the two arms.
CONCLUSIONS
Daily bathing with 4% CHGwr significantly reduced HAI incidence in intensive care settings. CLINICALTRIAL.
GOV REGISTRATION
NCT03639363.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Baths; Chlorhexidine; Critical Care; Cross Infection; Disinfection; Female; Hospitals, University; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Italy; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30267930
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.09.012 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2020Using antiseptics in wound care can promote healing by preventing and treating infection. However, using antiseptics can present many challenges, including issues with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Using antiseptics in wound care can promote healing by preventing and treating infection. However, using antiseptics can present many challenges, including issues with tolerability, inactivation by organic matter and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance/cross-resistance. This review discussed the key challenges in antisepsis, focusing on povidone-iodine (PVP-I) antiseptic.
METHODS
Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, in January 2019, with a filter for the previous 5 years. Searches were based on the antimicrobial efficacy, antiseptic resistance, wound healing properties, and skin tolerability for the commonly used antiseptics PVP-I, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), polyhexanide (PHMB), and octenidine (OCT). Additional papers were identified based on author expertise.
RESULTS
When compared with CHG, PHMB and OCT, PVP-I had a broader spectrum of antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative bacteria, actinobacteria, bacterial spores, fungi and viruses, and a similar and broad spectrum of activity against Gram-positive bacteria. PVP-I was also highly effective at eradicating bacterial biofilms, which is a vitally important consideration for wound care and infection control. Despite a long history of extensive use, no resistance or cross-resistance to PVP-I has been recorded, which is in contrast with other antiseptics. Despite previous misconceptions, it has been shown that PVP-I has low allergenic properties, low cytotoxicity and can promote wound healing through increased expression of transforming growth factor beta.
CONCLUSION
With increased understanding of the importance of tackling antimicrobial resistance and bacterial biofilms in acute and chronic wound care, alongside improved understanding of the challenges of antiseptic use, PVP-I remains a promising agent for the management of antisepsis.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Biguanides; Biofilms; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Imines; Povidone-Iodine; Pyridines; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32599228
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106064 -
Journal of Dentistry Dec 2020Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a commonly used antiseptic mouthwash, used by dental practitioners and the public, due to its antimicrobial effects. The aim of this article was... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a commonly used antiseptic mouthwash, used by dental practitioners and the public, due to its antimicrobial effects. The aim of this article was to provide a narrative review of current antimicrobial uses of CHX relevant to dentistry in the context of oral diseases, highlighting need for further studies to support its safe and appropriate use.
STUDY SELECTION, DATA AND SOURCES
Randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and national (UK and US) guidelines were consulted where available, with search terms for each subject category entered into MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane database.
RESULTS
Some evidence existed to support adjunctive short-term use of CHX to manage dental plaque, and reduce clinical symptoms of gingivitis, dry socket, as well as reduce aerosolisation of bacteria. However, use must be weighed alongside the less desirable effects of CHX, including extrinsic staining of teeth, antimicrobial resistance to antiseptic agents and the rare, but fatal, allergic reactions to CHX. Conversely, evidence for the effectiveness of chlorhexidine to manage or prevent periodontitis, dental caries, necrotising periodontal diseases, peri-implantitis, and infections associated with extraction and aerosolised viruses remains less certain.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of CHX in dentistry and oral healthcare continues to be widespread and thus it is important that dental practitioners understand that, based on its differential mechanisms of action on different microbes, appropriate clinical and dental use of CHX should be oral disease specific. However, further scientific and clinical research is required before full recommendations can be made.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Dental Caries; Dentists; Humans; Mouthwashes; Professional Role
PubMed: 33075450
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103497 -
Annals of Surgery Dec 2021There is uncertainty around preoperative skin antisepsis in clean surgery. Network meta-analysis provides more precise estimates than standard pairwise meta-analysis and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
The Comparative Efficacy of Chlorhexidine Gluconate and Povidone-iodine Antiseptics for the Prevention of Infection in Clean Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
There is uncertainty around preoperative skin antisepsis in clean surgery. Network meta-analysis provides more precise estimates than standard pairwise meta-analysis and can rank interventions by efficacy, to better inform clinical decisions.
BACKGROUND
Infection is the most common and costly complication of surgery. The relative efficacy of CHG and PVI based skin antiseptics in clean surgery remains unclear.
METHODS
We searched for randomized or nonrandomized studies comparing the effect of different preparations of CHG and PVI on the dichotomous outcome of surgical site infection. We included studies of adults undergoing clean surgery. We excluded studies concerning indwelling vascular catheters, blood sampling, combination antiseptics or sequential applications of different antiseptics. We performed a network meta-analysis to estimate the relative efficacy of interventions using relative risks (RR).
RESULTS
We included 17 studies comparing 5 antiseptics in 14,593 individuals. The overall rate of surgical site infection was 3%. Alcoholic CHG 4%-5% was ranked as the most effective antiseptic as it halved the risk of surgical site infection when compared to aqueous PVI [RR 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.24, 1.02)] and also to alcoholic PVI, although uncertainty was larger [RR 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.21, 1.27)]. Adverse events related to antiseptic application were only observed with patients exposed to PVI.
CONCLUSIONS
Alcoholic formulations of 4%-5% CHG seem to be safe and twice as effective as PVI (alcoholic or aqueous solutions) in preventing infection after clean surgery in adults. Our findings concur with the literature on contaminated and clean-contaminated surgery, and endorse guidelines worldwide which advocate the use of alcoholic CHG for preoperative skin antisepsis.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ID CRD42018113001.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32773627
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004076 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2015Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.
SEARCH METHODS
For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Baths; Chlorhexidine; Disinfection; Female; Humans; Male; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Soaps; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 25927093
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004985.pub5 -
Journal of Preventive Medicine and... Jun 2022Chlorhexidine is considered the most potent chemotherapeutic agent against Streptococcus mutans. However, its side effects due to prolonged use, indicates need for... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Antimicrobial efficacy of Xylitol, Probiotic and Chlorhexidine mouth rinses among children and elderly population at high risk for dental caries - A Randomized Controlled Trial.
INTRODUCTION
Chlorhexidine is considered the most potent chemotherapeutic agent against Streptococcus mutans. However, its side effects due to prolonged use, indicates need for alternatives. The study intended to assess and compare antimicrobial efficacies of probiotic, xylitol and chlorhexidine mouth rinses in children and elderly.
METHODS
The study was a Double blind Randomized Controlled Trial conducted among residential school children aged 5-12 years and elderly greater than 60 years residing in old age homes. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04399161). 30 participants each among children and elderly were chosen based on eligibility criterion (high risk for caries). They were further randomly divided into 3 groups with 10 participants in each group. Participants were asked to rinse with 15 ml of freshly prepared mouth rinses once daily for 2 minutes for 14 days. Antimicrobial efficacy was determined by assessing change in Streptococcus mutans levels in dental plaque.
RESULTS
Significant reduction in Streptococcus mutans counts were observed in both children and elderly (Chlorhexidine: mean difference = 3.11 log10CFU/g, p = 0.022, Xylitol: mean difference = 0.93 log10CFU/g, p = 0.046, Probiotic: mean difference = 1.91 log10CFU/g, p = 0.023 in children); (Chlorhexidine: mean difference = 2.23 log10CFU/g, p = 0.004, Xylitol: mean difference = 1.39 log10CFU/g, p = 0.009, Probiotic: mean difference = 1.61 log10CFU/g, p = 0.018 in elderly). Intergroup comparison showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS
Antimicrobial efficacy of xylitol and probiotic mouth rinses were comparable to that of chlorhexidine in both children and elderly. Probiotics could potentially be more efficacious than xylitol among children.
Topics: Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Child; Chlorhexidine; Dental Caries; Humans; Mouthwashes; Probiotics; Streptococcus mutans; Xylitol
PubMed: 35968060
DOI: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2.1772 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Central venous catheters (CVCs) play a vital role in the management of acute and chronic illness. Dressings and securement devices must ensure CVCs do not dislodge or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Central venous catheters (CVCs) play a vital role in the management of acute and chronic illness. Dressings and securement devices must ensure CVCs do not dislodge or fall out, provide a barrier protection from microbial colonisation and infection, and be comfortable for the patient. There is a large range of dressing and securement products available for clinicians to use.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the available dressing and securement devices for CVCs, in terms of catheter-related bloodstream infection (BSI), catheter colonisation, entry- and exit-site infection, skin colonisation, skin irritation, failed catheter securement, dressing condition and mortality.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHSEED); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; six clinical trial registries and reference lists of identified trials. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of dressing and securement devices for CVCs. All types of CVCs were included, i.e. short- and long-term CVCs, tunnelled and non-tunnelled, port-a-caths, haemodialysis catheters, and peripherally-inserted central catheters (PICCs).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane Collaboration methods including independent review of titles and abstracts for relevance, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment of the included studies by two review authors. Results are expressed using risk ratio (RR) for categorical data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For outcomes best presented as a rate-per-time-period, rate ratios and standard errors have been used. We performed multiple treatment meta-analyses to rank the effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 studies involving 7436 participants comparing nine different types of securement device or dressing. All included studies were at unclear or high risk of performance bias due to the different appearances of the dressings and securement devices. The extent of blinding of outcome assessment was unclear in most studies. The quality of evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for imprecision, indirectness, risk of bias and inconsistency.It is unclear whether there is a difference in the rate of catheter-related BSI between securement with gauze and tape and standard polyurethane (SPU) (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.63, low quality evidence), or between chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated (CGI) dressings and SPU (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.05, moderate quality evidence). There is high quality evidence that medication-impregnated dressings reduce the incidence of catheter-related BSI relative to all other dressing types (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93).There is moderate quality evidence that CGI dressings reduce the frequency of catheter-related BSI per 1000 patient days compared with SPU dressings (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78).There is moderate quality evidence that catheter tip colonisation is reduced with CGI dressings compared with SPU dressings (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73), but the relative effects of gauze and tape and SPU are unclear (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.77, very low quality evidence). It is unclear if there is a difference in rates of skin irritation or damage when CGI dressings are compared with SPU dressings (moderate quality evidence) (RR 11.17, 95% CI 0.84 to 149.48).A multiple treatment meta-analysis found sutureless securement devices as likely to be the most effective at reducing the incidence of catheter-related BSI (low quality evidence), with CGI dressings ranked second (low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Medication-impregnated dressing products reduce the incidence of catheter-related BSI relative to all other dressing types. There is some evidence that CGI dressings, relative to SPU dressings, reduce catheter-related BSI for the outcomes of frequency of infection per 1000 patient days, risk of catheter tip colonisation and possibly risk of catheter-related BSI. A multiple treatment meta-analysis found that sutureless securement devices are likely to be the most effective at reducing catheter-related BSI though this is low quality evidence. Most studies were conducted in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. More, high quality research is needed regarding the relative effects of dressing and securement products for CVCs. Future research may adjust the estimates of effect for the products included in this review and is needed to assess the effectiveness of new products.
Topics: Bandages; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26358142
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010367.pub2 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2019Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing of hospitalized patients may have benefit in reducing hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs). However, the magnitude of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing of hospitalized patients may have benefit in reducing hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs). However, the magnitude of effect, implementation fidelity, and patient-centered outcomes are unclear. In this meta-analysis, we examined the effect of CHG bathing on prevention of HABSIs and assessed fidelity to implementation of this behavioral intervention.
METHODS
We undertook a meta-analysis by searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane's CENTRAL registry from database inception through January 4, 2019 without language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of CHG bathing versus a non-CHG comparator for prevention of HABSIs in any adult healthcare setting. Studies of pediatric patients, of pre-surgical CHG use, or without a non-CHG comparison arm were excluded. Outcomes of this study were HABSIs, patient-centered outcomes, such as patient comfort during the bath, and implementation fidelity assessed through five elements: adherence, exposure or dose, quality of the delivery, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation. Three authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality; a random-effects model was used.
RESULTS
We included 26 studies with 861,546 patient-days and 5259 HABSIs. CHG bathing markedly reduced the risk of HABSIs (IRR = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-0.68). The effect of CHG bathing was consistent within subgroups: randomized (0.67, 95% CI: 0.53-0.85) vs. non-randomized studies (0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.65), bundled (0.66, 95% CI: 0.62-0.70) vs. non-bundled interventions (0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68), CHG impregnated wipes (0.63, 95% CI: 0.55-0.73) vs. CHG solution (0.41, 95% CI: 0.26-0.64), and intensive care unit (ICU) (0.58, 95% CI: 0.49-0.68) vs. non-ICU settings (0.56, 95% CI: 0.38-0.83). Only three studies reported all five measures of fidelity, and ten studies did not report any patient-centered outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient bathing with CHG significantly reduced the incidence of HABSIs in both ICU and non-ICU settings. Many studies did not report fidelity to the intervention or patient-centered outcomes. For sustainability and replicability essential for effective implementation, fidelity assessment that goes beyond whether a patient received an intervention or not should be standard practice particularly for complex behavioral interventions such as CHG bathing.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Study registration with PROSPERO CRD42015032523 .
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Cross Infection; Fungi; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Humans; Incidence; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 31088521
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4002-7 -
BMC Infectious Diseases May 2019Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the role of Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prophylaxis of central venous catheter (CVC) related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated the role of Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing for prophylaxis of central venous catheter (CVC) related complications, but the results remained inconsistent, updated meta-analyses on this issue are warranted.
METHODS
A meta-analysis on the RCTs comparing Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing versus other dressing or no dressing for prophylaxis of central venous catheter-related complications was performed. A comprehensive search of major databases was undertaken up to 30 Dec 2018 to identify related studies. Pooled odd ratio (OR) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify the source of heterogeneity, and funnel plot and Egger test was used to identify the publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 12 RCTs with 6028 patients were included. The Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings provided significant benefits in reducing the risk of catheter colonization (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.58), decreasing the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.85). Subgroup analysis indicated that the Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings were conducive to reduce the risk of catheter colonization and CRBSI within the included RCTs with sample size more than 200, but the differences weren't observed for those with sample less than 200. No publication bias was observed in the Egger test for the risk of CRBSI.
CONCLUSIONS
Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing is beneficial to prevent CVC-related complications. Future studies are warranted to assess the role and cost-effectiveness of Chlorhexidine-impregnated dressings.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bandages; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31096918
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4029-9 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Oct 2013Up to 9% of children may have recurrent nosebleeds, usually originating from the anterior septum, but the majority grow out of the problem. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to 9% of children may have recurrent nosebleeds, usually originating from the anterior septum, but the majority grow out of the problem.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for recurrent idiopathic epistaxis in children? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 5 systematic reviews or RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antiseptic cream (containing chlorhexidine hydrochloride, neomycin sulfate, or both), petroleum jelly, and silver nitrate cautery.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Cautery; Child; Chlorhexidine; Epistaxis; Humans; Neomycin; Petrolatum; Remission Induction; Silver Nitrate
PubMed: 24172703
DOI: No ID Found