Randomized, controlled trial of topical exit-site application of honey (Medihoney) versus Mupirocin for the prevention of catheter-associated infections in hemodialysis patients

The clinical usefulness of hemodialysis catheters is limited by increased infectious morbidity and mortality. Topical antiseptic agents, such as mupirocin, are effective at reducing this risk but have been reported to select for antibiotic-resistant strains. The aim of the present study was to determine the efficacy and the safety of exit-site application of a standardized antibacterial honey versus mupirocin in preventing catheter-associated infections. A randomized, controlled trial was performed comparing the effect of thrice-weekly exit-site application of Medihoney versus mupirocin on infection rates in patients who were receiving hemodialysis via tunneled, cuffed central venous catheters. A total of 101 patients were enrolled. The incidences of catheter-associated bacteremias in honey-treated (n = 51) and mupirocin-treated (n = 50) patients were comparable (0.97 versus 0.85 episodes per 1000 catheter-days, respectively; NS). On Cox proportional hazards model analysis, the use of honey was not significantly associated with bacteremia-free survival (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 3.24; P = 0.92). No exit-site infections occurred. During the study period, 2% of staphylococcal isolates within the hospital were mupirocin resistant. Thrice-weekly application of standardized antibacterial honey to hemodialysis catheter exit sites was safe, cheap, and effective and resulted in a comparable rate of catheter-associated infection to that obtained with mupirocin (although the study was not adequately powered to assess therapeutic equivalence). The effectiveness of honey against antibiotic-resistant microorganisms and its low likelihood of selecting for further resistant strains suggest that this agent may represent a satisfactory alternative means of chemoprophylaxis in patients with central venous catheters.

Comparison of the Berman Intubating Airway and the Williams Airway Intubator for fibreoptic orotracheal intubation in anaesthetised patients

Sixty patients with no clinical indicators of a difficult airway were selected to undergo a fibreoptic assessment after induction of general anaesthesia using both the Berman Intubating Airway and the Williams Airway Intubator. The bronchoscopic view and ease of railroading a tracheal tube during fibreoptic orotracheal intubation were studied. The bronchoscopic views obtained by the Berman Airway and the Williams Airway were significantly different (p < 0.008, test of symmetry). The estimated odds ratio of obtaining an obstructed path was 3.06 times higher for the Berman than the Williams Airway. However, if the glottis could be reached with the bronchoscope, there was no significant difference in the degree of ease of intubation between the two airways.