A new study leaves people who threaten the development of a dangerous superbug infection after leaving the hospital
Think about how it is eliminated. Hospital patients who are urged by some visitors may be in danger of developing widespread infections if they enter their nose when using a special soap and oral mouth for six months after going home, they have studied .
It is a low tech approach with a major problem: MRSA ̵
The hygiene stages tested by researchers are trimmed that they have almost under a third intention.
READ MORE MORE:
* Call Superbug spurs to hospitals to act as a biosecurity border control
* Apple said he was developing EKG heart monitor for smartwatch
* Retail 8 year boy Age from buckwheat in superbug against infection
"It's a very simple solution. You do not need to cure medicine, you only need to clean the outside of your body for a period longer, "said Dr. Susan Huang of the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. She gave the federally funded study, published by New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.
Many have been done to restrict infections in hospitals and taking care of what happens after leaving patients.
Nine United States – California, Washington, Nevada, Minnesota, Illinois, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Maine and New Jersey – require the hospitals to test the most vulnerable patients, such as those in strict care, on MRSA . Many other places do it voluntarily.
Hospitals in southern California found that they had MRSA or Staphylococcus aureus resistant metabolism bacteria with more than 2000 patients. All information on ways to avoid infection was given, and special products also expanded – mouthwash, liquid soap containing antiseptic and antibiotic ointment to swab in the nose. They were asked to use this Monday to Friday, every other week for six months.
A year later, 6 percent of those in the global blood group developed MRSA infection compared to 9 percent of the others. They also had fewer infections from other roots. Doctors assessed that 25 to 30 people should be treated to prevent one case.
There were no serious side effects; 44 people had a dry or irritated skin, despite the fact that the majority continued to use the products.
Heather Avizius was one. The 41-year-old kidney had MRSA infections and entered into the study following the serious difficulties of Crohn's disease in a land in St. Jude's Medical Center in Fullerton, California, eight years ago.
"I really regret the regimen," and she did not have MRSA since she said. "I felt cleaner and safer" and I was less concerned about the spread of germs to her children, she said.
Almost half of the study fell early or could not; Many people can think of "I think fine, I have to do this," said Dr John Jernigan of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. " But "the risk does not finish when you go home."
The products were federally paid off. They would cost US $ 150 to US $ 200 for six months otherwise, said Huang The antiseptic soap solution was 4 percent of chlorhexidine sold in many drugs.
Other soaps, even antibacterial labeled heads, "may not have the active ingredients to remove MRSA," said Dr Robert Weinstein, another study leader and infected specialist at the Cork University Medical Center and Rush in Chicago.
It is worth patients if they can do to prevent MRSA infection, he said.
" You left the hospital, you do not want to go back. & # 39; & # 39;