Epidemiology, etiology, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in Lebanon

BACKGROUND

In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) constitutes a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. As data is scarce in the Middle East and Lebanon, we devised this study to shed some light on it to better inform both hospitals and policymakers about the magnitude and quality of IHCA care in Lebanon.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospective data from 680 IHCA events at the American University of Beirut Medical Center between July 1, 2016 and May 2, 2019. Sociodemographic variables included age and sex, in addition to the comorbidities listed in the Charlson comorbidity index. IHCA event variables were day, event location, time from activation to arrival, initial cardiac rhythm, and the total number of IHCA events. We also looked at the months and years. We considered the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and survival to discharge (StD) to be our outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

The incidence of IHCA was 6.58 per 1,000 hospital admissions (95% CI: 6.09-7.08). Non-shockable rhythms were 90.7% of IHCAs. Most IHCA cases occurred in the closed units (87.9%) (intensive care unit, respiratory care unit, neurology care unit, and cardiology care unit) and on weekdays (76.5%). ROSC followed more than half the IHCA events (56%). However, only 5.4% of IHCA events achieved StD. Both ROSC and StD were higher in cases with a shockable rhythm. Survival outcomes were not significantly different between day, evening, and nightshifts. ROSC was not significantly different between weekdays and weekends; however, StD was higher in events that happened during weekdays than weekends (6.7%vs. 1.9%, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of IHCA was high, and its outcomes were lower compared to other developed countries. Survival outcomes were better for patients who had a shockable rhythm and were similar between the time of day and days of the week. These findings may help inform hospitals and policymakers about the magnitude and quality of IHCA care in Lebanon.

Use of Sponge-Foam Inserts in Compression Bandaging of Non-Healing Venous Leg Ulcers

Objective: Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) caused by chronic venous insufficiency are difficult to treat. Outcomes after compression therapy and the current standard of care often used in conjunction with other options vary widely. We examined the effects of foam inserts on sub-bandage pressures in patients with VLUs and compared use of foam inserts in elastic and inelastic compression bandaging. Methods: Six patients (≥20 years old) with VLUs and skin perfusion pressure >40 mmHg were included. Each patient underwent weekly treatment regimens of debridement, dressing changes, and dual sponge-insert application followed by elastic (n=3) or inelastic (n=3) compression bandaging. The median resting sub-bandage pressures of the ulcer beds, wound sizes, and healing percentages were recorded. Wound beds were biopsied before and after treatment for histological assessment. Nine healthy volunteers served as controls during preliminary testing. Results: With proper sub-bandage pressures (>35 mmHg), the average healing time was 88.0±66 days, which was shorter than anticipated (i.e., ≥6 months). Combining large and local sponge-foam inserts increased sub-bandage pressures regardless of the compression bandage selected, with marked improvements seen in deeper wounds. Conclusion: Layering one or two sponge-foam inserts beneath compression bandages facilitates uniform and optimal wound-bed pressure, which accelerates the healing of VLUs.

A randomised controlled clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of bandaging compared to the JuxtaCures™ device in the management of people with venous ulceration: Feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

The mainstay of treatment for venous ulceration remains compression therapy. Velcro Wrap devices are being increasingly used in these patients despite limited evidence. This feasibility study aimed to compare standard bandaging to the JuxtaCures™ Velcro wrap device.

METHODS

A single centre, unblinded RCT compared participants with venous ulceration randomised to either the JuxtaCures™ device or short stretch bandaging. Participants were followed up for 26 weeks.

RESULTS

160 participants were screened with 40 randomised. 3 participants in bandaging and 1 in JuxtaCures™ didn't complete the study. 60% in JuxtaCures™ healed v 55% in bandaging despite larger ulcers in the JuxtaCures™ arm (9.33 cm² v 6.97 cm²). There was no significant difference in time to healing (12.17 v 13.64 weeks). JuxtaCures™ showed improved ulcer reduction for those that didn't heal (14.91-5.00 cm² v 14.20-8.62 cm²; P = 0.06). JuxtaCures™ had more consistent sub-bandage pressure dropping from 39-36 mmHg versus 41-25 mmHg in bandaging between application and removal (P < 0.001). Quality of life (EQ5D) was improved in JuxtaCures at 3 months (mean difference 0.14, p = 0.04), but not at 1 and 6 months, or in disease specific quality of life. Cost was lower in JuxtaCures™ £842.47 v £1064.68. Duration of appointment was significantly shorter in JuxtaCures™ (41 minutes v 53 minutes; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

This study has shown the feasibility and necessity of running a multicentre trial to evaluate the use of Velcro wrap devices for venous ulceration. It highlights the potential benefits of more consistent pressure, increased self-care, and potential with regards to ulcer healing, cost, nursing resource and quality of life.

An audience survey of practice relating to pain in the management of chronic venous leg ulcers

Venous leg ulcers (VLU) respond well to compression, yet many ulcers remain unhealed after 1 year. Practitioners could be reluctant to apply compression to patients with significant ulcer pain. This study aimed to capture the views of practitioners on compression therapy for patients with painful VLU. A survey was conducted at a UK meeting in 2019 using handheld voting pads to capture the anonymous responses to four questions to which a mean of 90 practitioners responded. Nearly 40% of practitioners treat six or more patients a day with painful lower-limb ulcers. Some 80% felt confident in managing patients with painful ulcers; yet, most practitioners suggested they would refer onward for pain management. Some 40% would omit or reduce compression therapy as a pain management strategy. This survey supports the need for technological solutions that reduce VLU pain so that patients receive effective compression therapy.

Review of adjustable velcro wrap devices for venous ulceration

Compression therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients with venous leg ulcers. Current gold standard is 4 layer bandaging, which has a significant impact on patients comfort, ability to wear their own shoes, and quality of life, as well as taking significant time to apply, and losing compression over time. This systematic review aims to evaluate the use of Velcro wrap devices for the treatment of venous ulceration. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to identify articles reporting the use of Velcro wrap devices in patients with venous ulceration. Sixteen articles were identified (14 case series, 1 randomised trial, and 1 audit) reporting on 192 patients. There were reports of improved time to healing, reduced cost by >50%, reduced number and duration of nursing appointments, and improved quality of life in patients in Velcro wrap devices. Although the evidence remains poor, Velcro devices have potential to improve outcomes for patients with venous ulceration and further good quality studies should be undertaken to evaluate these further.

Assessment and management of older people with venous leg ulcers

A venous leg ulcer (VLU) is defined as the loss of skin below the knee on the leg or foot in the presence of venous disease, which takes more than two weeks to heal. The prevalence of VLUs is increasing, especially in older people, which will increase the demand for nursing care. Development of a lower leg ulcer should trigger immediate assessment of risk factors for chronic venous disease followed by action to identify the cause and initiate treatment, which should prevent progression to more complex and chronic problems. Justification for choice of appropriate wound management and application of compression therapy should be based on the assessment and diagnosis. Management of patients with VLUs can be cyclical and lifelong, which highlights the importance of helping patients to understand the rationale for management strategies so that cooperation in self-care is achieved.

Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are open skin wounds on the lower leg which can be slow to heal, and are both painful and costly. The point prevalence of open venous leg ulcers in the UK is about 3 cases per 10,000 people, and many people experience recurrent episodes of prolonged ulceration. First-line treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression therapy, but a wide range of dressings and topical treatments are also used. This diversity of treatments makes evidence-based decision-making challenging, and a clear and current overview of all the evidence is required. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of (1) dressings and (2) topical agents for healing venous leg ulcers in any care setting and to rank treatments in order of effectiveness, with assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. We updated this search in March 2018; as a result several studies are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults with venous leg ulcers and compared the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of venous leg ulcers: any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open venous leg ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factors and other biological agents, larval therapy and treatments such as laser, heat or ultrasound. Studies were required to report complete wound healing to be eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We conducted this NMA using frequentist meta-regression methods for the efficacy outcome; the probability of complete healing. We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for individual treatments focusing on comparisons with widely used dressing classes, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 RCTs (7014 participants) in this review. Of these, 59 studies (5156 participants, 25 different interventions) were included in the NMA; resulting in 40 direct contrasts which informed 300 mixed-treatment contrasts.The evidence for the network as a whole was of low certainty. This judgement was based on the sparsity of the network leading to imprecision and the general high risk of bias in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses also demonstrated instability in key aspects of the network and results are reported for the extended sensitivity analysis. Evidence for individual contrasts was mainly judged to be low or very low certainty.The uncertainty was perpetuated when the results were considered by ranking the treatments in terms of the probability that they were the most effective for ulcer healing, with many treatments having similar, low, probabilities of being the best treatment. The two most highly-ranked treatments both had more than 50% probability of being the best (sucralfate and silver dressings). However, the data for sucralfate was from one small study, which means that this finding should be interpreted with caution. When exploring the data for silver and sucralfate compared with widely-used dressing classes, there was some evidence that silver dressings may increase the probability of venous leg ulcer healing, compared with nonadherent dressings: RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.74 (moderate-certainty evidence in the context of a low-certainty network). For all other combinations of these five interventions it was unclear whether the intervention increased the probability of healing; in each case this was low- or very low-certainty evidence as a consequence of one or more of imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, largely because of the low certainty of the whole network and of individual comparisons.The results of this NMA focus exclusively on complete healing; whilst this is of key importance to people living with venous leg ulcers, clinicians may wish to take into account other patient-important outcomes and factors such as patient preference and cost.

Chronic oedema: its prevalence, effects and management

Ageing affects not only individuals but also society. It occurs throughout the western world. The ageing process may lead to the development of conditions, such as chronic oedema, as well as comorbidities such as osteoarthritis. These comorbidities can make the management of chronic oedema even more difficult. This is an especially important consideration when tailoring individualised care plans, such as exercise, as conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis can limit patients' ability to manage their oedema. Despite challenges, education can improve patient outcomes when evidence-based practice is used.

A review of the evidence for adjustable compression wrap devices

Compression therapy is a key component in the effective management of people with lower limb problems associated with venous, lymphatic and fat disorders such as lipoedema. Individuals with lymphoedema, venous ulceration and lipoedema often require long-term compression therapy to prevent and manage problems such as chronic ulceration and skin changes, persistent swelling and shape distortion. Challenges remain in achieving acceptable, safe, effective and cost-efficient compression therapy choices. Adjustable compression wrap devices using hook and loop fasteners, commonly called VELCRO brand fasteners, present new opportunities for improving treatment outcomes, supporting patient independence and self-management in the use of compression therapy. This paper reports the findings of an evidence review of adjustable compression wrap devices in people with lymphoedema, chronic oedema, venous ulceration and lipoedema.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Adaptive compression therapy for venous leg ulcers: a clinically effective, patient-centred approach

A prospective, randomised, 12-week study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of two compression methods for venous leg ulcers (VLUs); a new adaptive compression therapy (ACT) system, combining intermittent and sustained pneumatic compression (n = 38) and a conventional four-layer bandage system (n = 52). Primary outcomes were ulcer healing and safety. Secondary outcomes were comfort, compliance, ulcer pain, patient-perceived product performance and quality of life. Ulcer healing rate was similar (31·6% versus 42·3%, respectively, P = 0·30) between the treatments. Adverse events and patient-rated comfort were also similar. Average daily usage for the dual system was 10·5 and 1·8 hours in the sustained and intermittent modes, respectively, representing its use during 71% of waking hours. Predicted final ulcer pain was also similar (P = 0·68). Performance was subjectively better for adaptive compression and significantly higher for exudate management (P = 0·04), skin protection (P < 0·001), removal ease (P = 0·0007), bathing (P < 0·0001) and sleep comfort (P = 0·0405). The adjusted final quality-of-life score was 0·1025 higher for adaptive compression (P = 0·0375). Subjects with healed ulcers attained higher final scores than unhealed subjects (P = 0·0004). This study provides evidence that ACT is comparably efficacious to successfully heal VLUs compared with four-layer bandage management but is better accepted and achieves higher patient-reported quality-of-life scores in these challenging patients.

Venous disease and chronic oedema: treatment and patient concordance

Compression therapy is the mainstay in the management of chronic venous disease, venous leg ulceration (VLU) and chronic oedema. The management of VLU alone is thought to cost a staggering £400 million per year and accounts for 13% of all district nursing visits. The predicted increase in elderly, obese and chronically ill patients will pose a further strain on already stretched resources. The impact of chronic venous and lymphovenous disease is also costly in terms of physical and psychological terms for patients. Adopting a preventive approach would reduce the financial, workload and symptomatic aspects of this condition.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antiseptics Cadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers; review authors also examined the effects of these interventions on clinical infection, bacterial flora, bacterial resistance, ulcer recurrence, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antisepticsCadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.

Working in partnership with patients to promote concordance with compression bandaging

Patients may be tempted to remove their compression bandages if they find them uncomfortable, particularly at night. Working in partnership with patients to select bandages that they find tolerable and then applying them in a way that promotes comfort will encourage concordance with this therapy.

Compression therapy for ulcers: The science and the art

INTRODUCTION

Chronic ulcers are characterized by being resistant to all forms of treatment. Recent improvement in compression techniques, notably use of multilayer bandaging has created a need for a re-look into it's use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors present two case reports of successful management of chronic ulcers using compression through bandaging where all other forms of treatment had failed. This is followed by a review of literature based on previous articles as well as more recent ones found through Pubmed.

CONCLUSION

It is suggested that, at least in India, compression through proper multilayer bandaging, should be a choice far higher in the treatment ladder than so previously. However, if the technique is improper, it may be harmful so the option is to be exercised with care and only by those who have received adequate training. The need of a team approach, and alongside, wider introduction of more and better training facilities for therapists and nurses is underlined.

Venous leg ulcers and the impact of compression bandaging

Venous leg ulcers are a major health issue in terms of financial burden to the NHS, nurses' input, and physical, psychological and social impact to the patient. The best practice management of leg ulcers is the application of high compression, which is a complex task and requires substantial skill and knowledge. Healing and recurrence rates are poor in some cases and this adds to the physical and psychosocial impact, as well as the financial burden. Many of the sequelae of ulceration hinder patients' ability to tolerate treatment. Nurses must acknowledge the difficulties patients face and become skilled in holistic assessment, care planning and the delivery of patient-focused best practice.