Methods: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included 244 patients, of whom 86 were treated with chitosan derivative film and 84 with hydrocolloid. The percentage of epithelisation, as well as patient comfort, clinical signs, and patient convenience in application and removal of the dressings were assessed.
Results: The primary outcome of this study was the percentage of epithelisation. Except for race (p = 0.04), there were no significant differences between groups in sex, age, antibiotic usage, or initial wound size (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean epithelisation percentage between groups (p = 0.29). Patients using chitosan derivative film experienced more pain during removal of dressing than those in the hydrocolloid group (p = 0.007). The chitosan derivative film group showed less exudate (p = 0.036) and less odour (p = 0.024) than the control group. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of adherence, ease of removal, wound drainage, erythema, itchiness, pain, and tenderness. No oedema or localised warmth was observed during the study.
Conclusion: This study concluded that chitosan derivative film is equivalent to hydrocolloid dressing and can be an option in the management of superficial and abrasion wounds.
Clinical trial No: NMRR-11-948-10565.
Methods: Cirrhotic patients with suspected EVB were screened (n = 352). Eligible patients were assigned based on the physician's preference to either somatostatin (group S) or terlipressin (group T) followed by EVL. In group S, intravenous bolus (250 µg) of somatostatin followed by 250 µg/hour was continued for three days. In group T, 2 mg bolus injection of terlipressin was followed by 1 mg infusion every 6 h for three days.
Results: A total of 150 patients were enrolled; 41 in group S and 109 in group T. Reasons for physician preference was convenience in administration (77.1%) for group T and good safety profile (73.2%) for group S. Very early rebleeding within 49-120 h occurred in one patient in groups S and T (p = 0.469). Four patients in group S and 14 patients in group T have variceal rebleeding episodes within 6-42 d (p = 0.781). Overall treatment-related adverse effects were compatible in groups S and T (p = 0.878), but the total cost of terlipressin and somatostatin differed i.e., USD 621.32 and USD 496.43 respectively.
Conclusions: Terlipressin is the preferred vasoactive agent by physicians in our institution for acute EVB. Convenience in administration and safety profile are main considerations of physicians. Safety and hemostatic effects did not differ significantly between short-course somatostatin or terlipressin, although terlipressin is more expensive.
METHODS: We prospectively analyzed the use of FloSeal with a hemostatic delivery system in transnasal endoscopic and microscopic skull base procedures performed at the authors' institution from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2015. In all cases the number of aliquots was noted for the entire operation, and the total number of FloSeal ampules of 5 mL was also recorded.
RESULTS: Our device allowed controlled application of small amounts (0.5-1 mL) of FloSeal to the site of bleeding. This controlled application resulted not only in increased visibility during its application, but it also reduced the amount of FloSeal required during the procedure. We were able to use 5-10 applications per 5-mL ampule of FloSeal within an individual procedure. No procedure required more than one 5-mL ampule of FloSeal. Therefore, the use of our device results in a reduction of costs. Prior to the use of our device, we were often only able to use 1 vial of 5 ml of material for 1 or 2 applications, especially in transnasal endoscopic procedures when working along a deep corridor.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that our delivery device of FlowSeal can effectively control hemostasis by applying small amounts of FlowSeal to the site of bleeding. This results in increased visibility during hemostasis and a reduction of cost.