Management of skin ulcers: understanding the mechanism and selection of enzymatic debriding agents

Antiseptic Agents for Chronic Wounds: A Systematic Review

In many parts of the world, antiseptic agents remain non-indicated in chronic wound care. In the current context of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and the development of new-generation antiseptic agents, wound antisepsis represents an asset for the prevention of wound infection. We aimed to evaluate four common antiseptic agents in chronic wound care complete healing. The review protocol was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention and devised in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Five databases and three clinical trials registries were searched from inception to 30 June 2021 without language restrictions. We included randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of antiseptic agents in chronic wound care in adults. Interventions considered were those using antiseptics for cleansing or within a dressing. Risk of bias was assessed using the bias excel tool provided by the Bristol Academy. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Of 838 studies, 6 were finally included, with a total of 725 patients. The included studies assessed iodine (cadexomer or povidone iodine) (n = 3), polyhexanide (n = 2), and octenidine (n = 1). Limited evidence suggested a better wound healing completion with iodine compared to saline (two randomised controlled trials (RCT), 195 patients, pooled RR 1.85 (95%CI (1.27 to 2.69)), moderate-quality evidence). There was not enough evidence to suggest a difference in wound healing using octenidine or polyhexamide. None of the antiseptic agents influenced adverse event occurrence compared to saline.

Hyaluronic Acid/Collagenase Ointment in the Treatment of Chronic Hard-to-Heal Wounds: An Observational and Retrospective Study

Background: Wound bed preparation is an important concept in clinical practice and is related to adequate debridement. The use of proteolytic enzymes is an established method of enzymatic wound debridement, especially in hard-to-heal ulcers that are unresponsive to normal healing procedures and progress. The TIME framework (tissue, inflammation/infection, moisture balance, and edge of wound) offers an appropriate strategy to eliminate resistance to healing, as well as maximizing the healing process. Maintenance debridement, as opposed to sporadic debridement, may be proposed in preserving an adequate wound bed towards complete recovery. Collagenase has been effective in debridement due to its ability to degrade collagen and elastin. In this clinical context, collagenase taken from Vibrio alginolitycus is the most favorably expressed enzymatic debriding agent. Methods: This retrospective observational study evaluates the efficacy of an ointment based on hyaluronic acid and collagenase (Bionect Start^®), considering a reduced healing time and greater healing quality. We included 70 patients with chronic wounds of different etiologies, including diabetes mellitus (20), post-traumatic ulcers (35), chronic burns of degrees I and II (10), and pressure ulcers (5). We analyzed wound characteristics using the wound bed score (WBS) concept, healing time, as well as operator and patient satisfaction. Results: Frequency of debridement efficacy in terms of wound bed cleansing varied from 26% after 2 weeks to 93% after 4 weeks. We observed complete healing in 62 patients within an eight-week period. The overall operator and patient satisfaction after 8 weeks were 100% and 90%, respectively. Moreover, all patients reported less pain. Conclusions: A combined action of hyaluronic acid and collagenase ointment demonstrated a reduction in healing time while improving healing quality, with a decrease in pain.