[Randomized comparative trial of a collagen/oxidized regenerated cellulose dressing in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers]

Should video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy be used for adults undergoing endotracheal intubation in the pre-hospital setting? A critical appraisal of a systematic review

The safety and utility of endotracheal intubation by paramedics in the United Kingdom is a matter of debate. Considering the controversy surrounding the safety of paramedic-performed endotracheal intubation, any interventions that enhance patient safety should be evaluated for implementation based on solid evidence of their effectiveness. A systematic review performed by Hansel and colleagues (2022) sought to assess compare video laryngoscopes against direct laryngoscopes in clinical practice. This commentary aims to critically appraise the methods used within the review by Hansel et al (2022) and expand upon the findings in the context of clinical practice.

A meta-analysis examined the effect of oxidised regenerated cellulose/collagen dressing on the management of chronic skin wounds

To assess the impact of oxidised regenerated cellulose/collagen dressing on the management of chronic skin wounds, we conducted a meta-analysis. A thorough review of the literature up to September 2022 revealed that 1521 participants had chronic skin wounds at the start of the investigations; 763 of them used oxidised regenerated cellulose/collagen dressing, while 758 received control. Using dichotomous or contentious methods and a random or fixed-effect model, odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to evaluate the impact of oxidised regenerated cellulose/collagen dressing on the management of chronic skin wounds. The oxidised regenerated cellulose/collagen dressing had significantly higher complete wound healing (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.06-2.85; P = .03), higher wound relative reduction percent (MD, 13.50; 95% CI, 2.39-24.61; P = .02), and lower adverse events in wound healing (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98; P = .04) compared with control in chronic skin wounds. The oxidised regenerated cellulose/collagen dressing had significantly higher complete wound healing, higher wound relative reduction percent and lower adverse events in wound healing compared with control in chronic skin wounds. The low sample size of 8 out of 10 researches in the meta-analysis and the small number of studies in several comparisons calls for care when analysing the results.

Efficacy of Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose/Collagen Dressing for Management of Skin Wounds: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the wound healing efficacy of oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC)/collagen dressing and ORC/collagen/silver-ORC dressings compared to standard of care or control in treatment of chronic skin wounds such as diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), venous leg ulcers (VLUs), and pressure injuries sore ulcers (PISUs).

METHODS

An electronic search was carried out in four popular databases PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and CENTRAL to identify thirteen included studies, comparing the clinical efficacy of ORC/collagen dressings when compared to control in management of chronic skin wounds, especially DFUs, VLUs, and PISUs, and skin graft donor site wounds.

RESULTS

Consolidated data from thirteen comparative clinical studies undertaken for management of DFUs, VLUs, and PISUs showed favorable outcomes towards use of ORC/collagen compared to other traditional and hydrocolloid foam dressings in terms of wound healing rate (P=0.02) and percentage wound relative reduction (P=0.003). The time taken to achieve complete wound healing in the included studies did not show any statistical significant difference (P=0.24). There was no significant difference in adverse events between ORC/collagen-treated group and comparative group (P=0.19).

CONCLUSION

ORC/collagen wound dressings are beneficial in terms of improved wound healing rate and percentage wound relative reduction compared to already existing traditional standard of care with non-MMP, inhibiting biomaterials such as moistened gauze, autologous growth factors, hydrocolloid foam dressings, or ovine extracellular matrix.

Oxidized Regenerated Cellulose/Collagen Dressings: Review of Evidence and Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

Healthcare systems are being challenged to manage increasing numbers of nonhealing wounds. Wound dressings are one of the first lines of defense in wound management, and numerous options exist. The oxidized regenerated cellulose (ORC)/collagen dressing may offer healthcare providers a robust and cost-effective tool for use in a variety of wounds.

DESIGN

A multidisciplinary panel meeting was convened to discuss the use of ORC/collagen dressings in wound care and provide practice recommendations. A literature search was conducted to provide a brief review of the peer-reviewed studies published between January 2000 and March 2016 to inform the meeting.

SETTING

A 2-day panel meeting convened in February 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare providers with experience using ORC/collagen dressings. This multidisciplinary panel of 15 experts in wound healing included podiatrists, wound care specialists (doctors, certified wound care nurses, and research scientists), and an orthopedist.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 58 articles, a majority of which were low levels of evidence (69.3% were level 3 or lower). Panel members identified wound types, such as abrasions, burns, stalled wounds, diabetic foot ulcers, and pressure injuries, where ORC/collagen dressing use could be beneficial. Panel members then provided recommendations and technical pearls for the use of ORC/collagen dressings in practice. Barriers to ORC/collagen dressing use were discussed, and potential resolutions were offered.

CONCLUSIONS

An ORC/collagen dressing can be a critical tool for clinicians to help manage a variety of wounds. Clinical and economic studies comparing standard-of-care dressings and plain collagen dressings to ORC/collagen dressings are needed.

Designing cellulosic and nanocellulosic sensors for interface with a protease sequestrant wound-dressing prototype: Implications of material selection for dressing and protease sensor design

Interfacing nanocellulosic-based biosensors with chronic wound dressings for protease point of care diagnostics combines functional material properties of high specific surface area, appropriate surface charge, and hydrophilicity with biocompatibility to the wound environment. Combining a protease sensor with a dressing is consistent with the concept of an intelligent dressing, which has been a goal of wound-dressing design for more than a quarter century. We present here biosensors with a nanocellulosic transducer surface (nanocrystals, nanocellulose composites, and nanocellulosic aerogels) immobilized with a fluorescent elastase tripeptide or tetrapeptide biomolecule, which has selectivity and affinity for human neutrophil elastase present in chronic wound fluid. The specific surface area of the materials correlates with a greater loading of the elastase peptide substrate. Nitrogen adsorption and mercury intrusion studies revealed gas permeable systems with different porosities (28–98%) and pore sizes (2–50 nm, 210 µm) respectively, which influence water vapor transmission rates. A correlation between zeta potential values and the degree of protease sequestration imply that the greater the negative surface charge of the nanomaterials, the greater the sequestration of positively charged neutrophil proteases. The biosensors gave detection sensitivities of 0.015–0.13 units/ml, which are at detectable human neutrophil elastase levels present in chronic wound fluid. Thus, the physical and interactive biochemical properties of the nano-based biosensors are suitable for interfacing with protease sequestrant prototype wound dressings. A discussion of the relevance of protease sensors and cellulose nanomaterials to current chronic wound dressing design and technology is included.

Novel biological therapies for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers

INTRODUCTION

The number of people with diabetes mellitus (DM) is estimated to exceed 640 million by the year 2040. Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a debilitating illness that affects more than 2% of DM patients. DFU is caused by DM-induced neural and vascular lesions leading to a reduced sensation and microcirculation. The increase in the prevalence of DFU has prompted researchers to find new therapies for the management of DFU. Areas covered: This review presents the current status of novel biological therapies used in the treatment of DFU. Literature information and data analysis were collected from PubMed, the website of the American Diabetes Association, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The keywords used in the search were: DM, DFU, complications of DM. Expert opinion: Many biological agents have been investigated in a bid to find an effective therapy for DFU. These include growth factors (platelet-derived growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor etc), stem cells (epithelial progenitor-, adipose-derived stem cells etc), anti-diabetic drugs (insulin, exendin-4), herbs, urokinase, dalteparin, statins and bio-agents such as acid peptide matrix. Biological agents that can reduce hyperglycaemia, increase sensation, microcirculation and oxygenation and repair lost tissue are the most ideal for the treatment of DFU.

The Effectiveness of Negative Pressure Therapy in Diabetic Foot Ulcers with Elevated Protease Activity: A Case Series

Objective: Despite several works have described the usefulness of negative pressure therapy (NPT) in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), no studies have reported its ability in the proteases modulation in DFUs. The aim of this work was to evaluate the role of NPT as a protease-modulating treatment in DFUs. Approach: We conducted a prospective study of a series of diabetic patients affected by chronic DFUs. Each ulcer was assessed for matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) activity with a protease status diagnostic test at the baseline and after 2 weeks of NPT. Results: Four patients were included. All patients had type 2 diabetes with a disease duration of ≈20 years. A1c was 79.5 ± 15.3 mmol/mol. Ulcer area was >5 cm2 in all cases. All wounds showed elevated protease activity (EPA) at the baseline. After 2 weeks, all patients showed a normalization of MMPs activity. Innovation: NPT showed its effectiveness in the reduction of EPA in chronic DFUs. Conclusion: This study confirms the role of NPT in the positive modulation of protease activity also in chronic DFUs.

Wounds research for patient benefit: a 5-year programme of research

Background

Complex wounds are those that heal by secondary intention and include lower-limb ulcers, pressure ulcers and some surgical wounds. The care of people with complex wounds is costly, with care mainly being delivered by community nurses. There is a lack of current, high-quality data regarding the numbers and types of people affected, care received and outcomes achieved.

Objectives

To (1) assess how high-quality data about complex wounds can be captured effectively for use in both service planning and research while ensuring integration with current clinical data collection systems and minimal impact on staff time; (2) investigate whether or not a clinical register of people with complex wounds could give valid estimates of treatment effects, thus reducing dependence on large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs); (3) identify the most important research questions and outcomes for people with complex wounds from the perspectives of patients, carers and health-care professionals; (4) evaluate the potential contributions to decision-making of individual patient data meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis; and (5) complete and update systematic reviews in topic areas of high priority.

Methods

To meet objectives 1 and 2 we conducted a prevalence survey and developed and piloted a longitudinal disease register. A consultative, deliberative method and in-depth interviews were undertaken to address objective 3. To address objectives 4 and 5 we conducted systematic reviews including mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

Results

From the prevalence survey we estimated the point prevalence of all complex wounds to be 1.47 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.56 per 1000 people). Pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers were the most common type of complex wound. A total of 195 people with a complex wound were recruited to a complex wounds register pilot. We established the feasibility of correctly identifying, extracting and transferring routine NHS data into the register; however, participant recruitment, data collection and tracking individual wounds in people with multiple wounds were challenging. Most patients and health professionals regarded healing of the wound as the primary treatment goal. Patients were greatly troubled by the social consequences of having a complex wound. Complex wounds are frequently a consequence of, and are themselves, a long-term condition but treatment is usually focused on healing the wound. Consultative, deliberative research agenda setting on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment with patients, carers and clinicians yielded 960 treatment uncertainties and a top 12 list of research priorities. Of 167 RCTs of complex wound treatments in a systematic review of study quality, 41% did not specify a primary outcome and the overall quality of the conduct and reporting of the research was poor. Mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis in areas of high priority identified that matrix hydrocolloid dressings had the highest probability (70%) of being the most effective dressing for diabetic foot ulcers, whereas a hyaluronan fleece dressing had the highest probability (35%) of being the most effective dressing for venous ulcers; however, the quality of this evidence was low and uncertainty is high.

Conclusions

Complex wounds are common and costly with a poor evidence base for many frequent clinical decisions. There is little routine clinical data collection in community nursing. A prospective complex wounds register has the potential to both assist clinical decision-making and provide important research evidence but would be challenging to implement without investment in information technology in NHS community services. Future work should focus on developing insights into typical wound healing trajectories, identifying factors that are prognostic for healing and assessing the cost-effectiveness of selected wound treatments.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Non-healing foot ulcers in diabetic patients: general and local interfering conditions and management options with advanced wound dressings

Medical knowledge about wound management has improved as recent studies have investigated the healing process and its biochemical background. Despite this, foot ulcers remain an important clinical problem, often resulting in costly, prolonged treatment. A non-healing ulcer is also a strong risk factor for major amputation. Many factors can interfere with wound healing, including the patient's general health status (i.e., nutritional condition indicated by albumin levels) or drugs such as steroids that can interfere with normal healing. Diabetic complications (i.e., renal insufficiency) may delay healing and account for higher amputation rates observed in diabetic patients under dialysis treatment. Wound environment (e.g., presence of neuropathy, ischaemia, and infection) may significantly influence healing by interfering with the physiological healing cascade and adding local release of factors that may worsen the wound. The timely and well-orchestrated release of factors regulating the healing process, observed in acute wounds, is impaired in non-healing wounds that are blocked in a chronic inflammatory phase without progressing to healing. This chronic phase is characterised by elevated protease activity (EPA) of metalloproteinases (MMPs) and serine proteases (e.g., human neutrophil elastase) that interfere with collagen synthesis, as well as growth factor release and action. EPA (mainly MMP 9, MMP-8 and elastase) and inflammatory factors present in the wound bed (such as IL-1, IL-6, and TNFa) account for the catabolic state of non-healing ulcers. The availability of wound dressings that modulate EPA has added new therapeutic options for treating non-healing ulcers. The literature confirms advantages obtained by reducing protease activity in the wound bed, with better outcomes achieved by using these dressings compared with traditional ones. New technologies also allow a physician to know the status of the wound bed environment, particularly EPA, in a clinical setting. These may be helpful in guiding a clinician's options in treating very difficult-to-heal ulcers.

Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Wound dressings are regarded as important components of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrocolloid dressings. There is a range of different hydrocolloids available including fibrous-hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of hydrocolloid wound dressings with no dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of hydrocolloid with alternative wound treatments in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (535 participants) in the review: these compared hydrocolloids with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings, alginate dressings and a topical treatment. Meta-analysis of two studies indicated no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing between fibrous-hydrocolloids and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.38). One of these studies found that a basic wound contact dressing was more cost-effective than a fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. One study compared a hydrocolloid-matrix dressing with a foam dressing and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed. There was no statistically significant difference in healing between an antimicrobial (silver) fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing and standard alginate dressing; an antimicrobial dressing (iodine-impregnated) and a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing or a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing and a topical cream containing plant extracts.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that any type of hydrocolloid wound dressing is more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than other types of dressing or a topical cream containing plant extracts. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Hydrogel dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrogel dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hydrogel wound dressings compared with alternative dressings or none on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of hydrogel with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (446 participants) in this review. Meta analysis of three studies comparing hydrogel dressings with basic wound contract dressings found significantly greater healing with hydrogel: risk ratio (RR) 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.56. The three pooled studies had different follow-up times (12 weeks, 16 weeks and 20 weeks) and also evaluated ulcers of different severities (grade 3 and 4; grade 2 and grade unspecified). One study compared a hydrogel dressing with larval therapy and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed and another found no statistically significant difference in healing between hydrogel and platelet-derived growth factor. There was also no statistically significant difference in number of healed ulcers between two different brands of hydrogel dressing. All included studies were small and at unclear risk of bias and there was some clinical heterogeneity with studies including different ulcer grades. No included studies compared hydrogel with other advanced wound dressings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to suggest that hydrogel dressings are more effective in healing (lower grade) diabetic foot ulcers than basic wound contact dressings however this finding is uncertain due to risk of bias in the original studies. There is currently no research evidence to suggest that hydrogel is more effective than larval therapy or platelet-derived growth factors in healing diabetic foot ulcers, nor that one brand of hydrogel is more effective than another in ulcer healing. No RCTs comparing hydrogel dressings with other advanced dressing types were found.

Alginate dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus are a common and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of alginate wound dressings with no wound dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in April 2013, we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of alginate dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (375 participants) in this review; these compared alginate dressings with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings and a silver-containing, fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. Meta analysis of two studies found no statistically significant difference between alginate dressings and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio (RR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.80). Pooled data from two studies comparing alginate dressings with foam dressings found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when an anti-microbial (silver) hydrocolloid dressing was compared with a standard alginate dressing (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.47). All studies had short follow-up times (six to 12 weeks), and small sample sizes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that alginate wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however many trials in this field are very small. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.

Foam dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Dressings form a key part of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.

OBJECTIVES

The review aimed to evaluate the effects of foam wound dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL in April 2013. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects on ulcer healing of one or more foam wound dressings in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (157 participants) in this review. Meta analysis of two studies indicated that foam dressings do not promote the healing of diabetic foot ulcers compared with basic wound contact dressings (RR 2.03, 95%CI 0.91 to 4.55). Pooled data from two studies comparing foam and alginate dressing found no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.44). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed when foam dressings were compared with hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. All included studies were small and/or had limited follow-up times.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that foam wound dressings are more effective in healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes than other types of dressing however all trials in this field are very small. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.