ライフサイエンスコーパス: antiseptic

1 ormone metabolism than does the preoperative antiseptic.

2 ived chlorhexidine as a topical preoperative antiseptic.

3 d received povidone-iodine as a preoperative antiseptic.

4 ases, are commonly treated with various oral antiseptics.

5 ecificity to a wide range of antibiotics and antiseptics.

6 f virus infectivity and the effectiveness of antiseptics.

7 ping, and determined their susceptibility to antiseptics.

8 able on the susceptibility of B anthracis to antiseptics.

9 reater efficacy among the alcohol-containing antiseptics.

10 imal exploration and liberal use of then-new antiseptics.

11 , evidence is limited to guide the choice of antiseptic agent at cesarean delivery, which is the most

12 ap (antimicrobial or nonantimicrobial) or an antiseptic agent on at least the night before the operat

13 At quarterly intervals, the antiseptic agent used on each nursing unit was switched.

14 ot statistically significant between the two antiseptic agents (P = 1.0).

15 ffed, tunneled, or coated with antibiotic or antiseptic agents.

16 culture contamination rates among these four antiseptics, although there was some evidence suggesting

17 reduced skin NO synthesis, although topical antiseptic and antibiotics had little effect on NO gener

18 varied in the carriage of plasmids encoding antiseptic and antimicrobial resistance determinants.

19 PVP-I is a safe antiseptic and does not appear to impede wound healing o

20 Segments of antiseptic and non-antiseptic-impregnated catheters were

21 e was 5.4 and 11.3 per 1000 catheter days in antiseptic and nonantiseptic triple-lumen catheter group

22 the following statements: PVP-I is a potent antiseptic and, when used as a component in a rinse with

23 Use of some antiseptics and antibiotics and sterile gloves during MM

24 ects seen with the use of sterile gloves and antiseptics and antibiotics are clinically significant a

25 Clinical Question: Do antiseptics and antibiotics benefit surgical wounds heal

26 l anaesthetic, antinociceptive, cicatrizing, antiseptic, and especially antibacterial and antifungal

27 is resistant to a wide range of antibiotics, antiseptics, and heavy metals due to resistance genes en

28 bacterials, nonsteroidal antiinflammatories, antiseptics, antiepileptics, lipid regulators, beta-bloc

29 These antiseptics are derived from different chemical categori

30 Subclavian antiseptic-bonded CVCs combined with standardized daily

31 Femoral and internal jugular antiseptic-bonded CVCs develop bacterial colonization ea

32 ections with these organisms occurred in the antiseptic catheter group (P = 0.003).

33 0.01 to 2.34 per 1000 catheter-days) for the antiseptic catheter group (P = 0.6).

34 Cost-benefit analysis indicated that the antiseptic catheter should prove cost-beneficial if an i

35 The antiseptic catheter was not compared with an antibiotic-

36 No adverse effects from the antiseptic catheter were seen, and none of the 122 isola

37 Antiseptic catheters were less likely to be colonized at

38 Antiseptic catheters were less likely to be colonized at

39 ine replacement of central venous catheters; antiseptic chamberfilled hub or hub-protective antisepti

40 Antiseptic coating appears to reduce microbial colonizat

41 central venous catheters impregnated with an antiseptic combination of chlorhexidine and silver sulfa

42 These studies suggest that antiseptic compounds elute from catheters during broth-

43 antiseptic testing and a novel alcohol-based antiseptic containing 4 to 5% of the polar aprotic solve

44 sepsis is possible using new formulations of antiseptics containing strongly polarized but nonionizin

45 ive drugs from soft formulations, such as an antiseptic cream (chlorhexidine) and a nicotine-containi

46 ed levels of resistance against antibiotics, antiseptics, dyes, and detergents.

47 To assess the impact of the antiseptic effects of silver sulfadiazine-chlorhexidine-

48 To assess the duration of the antiseptic effects, catheter segments were suspended for

49 eptics, isopropyl alcohol may be the optimal antiseptic for use prior to obtaining blood for culture,

50 There are numerous disinfectants and antiseptics for treating materials in hospitals and comm

51 onium chloride (BAK), are frequently used in antiseptic formulations, including toothpastes, mouthwas

52 Even though the properties of an ideal oral antiseptic have been identified, its formulation has pro

53 Current antiseptics have a suboptimal efficacy resulting in subs

54 A number of skin antiseptics have been used to prevent the contamination

55 The use of antimicrobial/antiseptic-impregnated and/or heparin-impregnated CVCs i

56 h the colony counts for broth exposed to non-antiseptic-impregnated catheters (170 versus 540 CFU/ml)

57 ts were noted at 45 min for broth exposed to antiseptic-impregnated catheters compared with the colon

58 Inhibition of bacterial growth by antiseptic-impregnated catheters disappeared after 14 da

59 In the base-case analysis, use of antiseptic-impregnated catheters resulted in a decrease

60 er suggest that the antimicrobial effects of antiseptic-impregnated catheters wane within several day

61 Segments of antiseptic and non-antiseptic-impregnated catheters were sonicated in thiog

62 R-BSI of 2.2% (5.2% for standard vs 3.0% for antiseptic-impregnated catheters), a decrease in the inc

63 th of 0.33% (0.78% for standard vs 0.45% for antiseptic-impregnated), and a decrease in costs of $196

64 catheter used ($532 for standard vs $336 for antiseptic-impregnated).

65 sought to compare the efficacy of four skin antiseptics in preventing blood culture contamination in

66 Simple and inexpensive local antiseptic interventions with a chlorhexidine disc and h

67 The most effective antiseptic is 0.5% chlorhexidine in 80% ethanol, which i

68 Among the evaluated antiseptics, isopropyl alcohol may be the optimal antise

69 Umbilical cord cleansing with antiseptics might reduce infection and mortality risk, b

70 ria in the oral cavity through the use of an antiseptic mouthwash.

71 sue is of interest because standard adjuvant antiseptics, namely chlorhexidine (CHX), prove damaging

72 hexidine gluconate washcloths and intranasal antiseptic ointment is effective in eradicating MRSA in

73 Antiseptic or antibiotic-impregnated central venous cath

74 Chlorhexidine is widely used as an antiseptic or disinfectant in both hospital and communit

75 it is uncertain whether treating SWHSI with antiseptics or antibiotics is beneficial.

76 The study population, site of insertion, antiseptic preparation, catheter days, and prevalence of

77 Development of novel antiseptic products continues.

78 ed to examine the association between use of antiseptic products for hand hygiene of staff and reduct

79 The hope for the future is that now antiseptic products will treat oral disease better and o

80 thnobotany as food, beverages, seasoning and antiseptic remedies, among others.

81 None of the studies evaluated antibiotic/antiseptic resistance as the outcome.

82 ncluded the biofilm-associated bhp gene, the antiseptic resistance qacA gene, the cassette chromosome

83 rse major attributes: antibiotic, metal, and antiseptic resistance; degradation of chemicals; type IV

84 The DMSO-containing antiseptic resulted in a 1- to 2-log enhanced killing of

85 kocytes in tissues, in addition to its known antiseptic role.

86 iene, the use of surgical masks, appropriate antiseptic selection and application, and proper prepara

87 developing antimicrobial biomaterials using antiseptic silver ions to treat osteomyelitis.

88 In addition to topical antiseptics, simple, low-cost interventions such as hand

89 re facilities have instituted a preadmission antiseptic skin cleansing protocol using chlorhexidine g

90 e, duration, and timing was used to maximize antiseptic skin surface concentrations of chlorhexidine

91 18.0% squeezed out the wound, and 71.1% used antiseptic solution for cleansing a puncture wound.

92 Using alcohol-free antiseptic solutions in the periocular region and taking

93 Alcohol-containing antiseptic solutions may cause severe toxic keratopathy;

94 Alcohol-containing antiseptic solutions were used for presurgical preparati

95 tiseptic chamberfilled hub or hub-protective antiseptic sponge for central venous catheters; and use

96 Antiseptic susceptibility was similar for microbes recov

97 Here, we introduce an in vitro method for antiseptic testing and a novel alcohol-based antiseptic

98 Subjects in the test group received antiseptic therapy (Treatment 1), which included mechani

99 -degree burn wound after debridement/topical antiseptic therapy significantly accelerated epitheliali

100 dard therapy (burn wound debridement/topical antiseptic therapy) with (n = 22) or without (n = 22) de

101 e cord, a boiled thread to tie the cord, and antiseptic to clean the umbilicus were each significantl

102 3.04% for 70% isopropanol-1% iodine (control antiseptic) to 1.04% for 70% isopropanol-1% iodine-5% DM

103 the antituberculosis drug isoniazid and the antiseptic triclosan, which are inhibitors of fatty acid

104 The use of antiseptic triple-lumen catheters may substantially redu

105 using a Cox Proportional Hazards Model, the antiseptic triple-lumen catheters were associated with a

106 These dressings release antiseptic under occlusion onto the skin surrounding cat

107 tter of aversive conditioning, with invasive antiseptics used in the absence of antibiotics.

108 The anti-HCV activity of commercial antiseptics varied.

109 ture contamination rate associated with each antiseptic was then determined.

110 r of HCV virucidal activity of commonly used antiseptics was bleach (1:10) > cavicide (1:10) > ethano

111 in acute care settings from the traditional antiseptic wash to use of plain, mild soap and an alcoho

112 ition in HIV-infected women, and of applying antiseptic washes to the cervix and vagina during labor,

113 the use of prophylaxis with an antibiotic or antiseptic were significantly associated with an increas

114 control measure based on the use of topical antiseptics, which was more effective at reducing transm

115 other microbes in vitro compared to the same antiseptic without DMSO.