W hile there have been remarkable advances in the field of pediatric intestinal rehabilitation (IR), morbidity and mortality in this patient population is not insignificant. Recurrent lifethreatening episodes of sepsis related to central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) with loss of central venous access sites has long been a predictor of patient outcomes, often a critical juncture during which life-saving intestinal transplantation is considered (1). In fact, a large, multicenter, international study in a contemporary cohort of patients with intestinal failure (IF) showed that loss of 3 or more out of 6 central venous catheter sites, often secondary to thromboses related to removal of central venous catheters to effectively sterilize bloodstream, is associated with high risk of death without intestinal transplantation (2). With the shift in practice toward CLABSI elimination and prevention, however, we have seen an improvement in patient outcomes with decreased morbidity and mortality, shortened length of hospital stay, and billions of dollars in health care savings. This culture shift is not without significant effort, encompassing multidisciplinary expertise with a focus on liver health, bundled central line care, caregiver education, and, of course, antimicrobial locks (AMLs).The field of intestinal rehabilitation has undoubtedly capitalized on the benefit of AMLs, most notably ethanol lock therapy (ELT) for prevention of infection as first introduced by our pediatric oncology colleagues in 2003 (3). Over the last 20 years, numerous studies have demonstrated a decrease in the incidence of CLABSIs in the pediatric IF population with ethanol locks as the frontrunners among the AML contenders. As an efficacious, well-studied, widely used agent, ETL has shown to significantly lower CLABSI rates in children with IF from 8 to 10 infections per 1000 catheter days ~10 years ago to <2 infections per 1000 catheter days now (4,5). The revolution of CLABSI prevention with AML, particularly ethanol locks, is indisputable and supported by a myriad of studies described in the article by Gibson et al (6). While Gibson et al note variation in study quality and lack of randomized-controlled trials, the evidence in favor of AML therapy with attention to patient outcomes, safety, efficacy, and health care costs seems all but irrefutable. So much so that a randomized trial between AML (intervention) and heparin (control) is now arguably unethical.