The effect of nitric oxide releasing cream on healing pressure ulcers

The clinical impact of hydroresponsive dressings in dynamic wound healing: Part I

OBJECTIVE

Management of any wound, either acute or hard-to-heal, might involve the use of multiple and different wound dressings in its treatment. This approach is necessary to overcome the myriad of clinical challenges the wound presents, as well as any underlying comorbidities that might affect the clinical outcomes. This article describes the clinical effectiveness of a coordinated wound dressing treatment regimen.

METHOD

This was an open-labelled non-comparative study involving patients with a variety of hard-to-heal and acute wounds of differing levels of severity, but all of which required removal of devitalised tissue to enable wound healing to progress. The first phase used the hydroresponsive wound dressing HydroClean (PAUL HARTMANN AG, Germany). The PUSH score was used as the primary measurement parameter.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients (38 male/48 female), with a mean age of 67.7±21.7 years, took part in the study. The results showed that the hydroresponsive dressing was effective in managing wound exudate production and promoting wound cleansing and debridement, supporting good wound bed preparation. Wound closure was observed in 16/86 (18.6%) wounds at the end of the study (20 weeks). This enabled clinicians to switch to alternative wound dressings to promote subsequent clinical healing outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the hydroresponsive wound dressing was highly effective in preparing a clean wound bed such that the next stage of wound healing could be supported.

Ultrasound-mediated therapies for the treatment of biofilms in chronic wounds: a review of present knowledge

Bacterial biofilms are an ever-growing concern for public health, featuring both inherited genetic resistance and a conferred innate tolerance to traditional antibiotic therapies. Consequently, there is a growing interest in novel methods of drug delivery, in order to increase the efficacy of antimicrobial agents. One such method is the use of acoustically activated microbubbles, which undergo volumetric oscillations and collapse upon exposure to an ultrasound field. This facilitates physical perturbation of the biofilm and provides the means to control drug delivery both temporally and spatially. In line with current literature in this area, this review offers a rounded argument for why ultrasound-responsive agents could be an integral part of advancing wound care. To achieve this, we will outline the development and clinical significance of biofilms in the context of chronic infections. We will then discuss current practices used in combating biofilms in chronic wounds and then critically evaluate the use of acoustically activated gas microbubbles as an emerging treatment modality. Moreover, we will introduce the novel concept of microbubbles carrying biologically active gases that may facilitate biofilm dispersal.

The role of nitric oxide during embryonic wound healing

Background

The study of the mechanisms controlling wound healing is an attractive area within the field of biology, with it having a potentially significant impact on the health sector given the current medical burden associated with healing in the elderly population. Healing is a complex process and includes many steps that are regulated by coding and noncoding RNAs, proteins and other molecules. Nitric oxide (NO) is one of these small molecule regulators and its function has already been associated with inflammation and angiogenesis during adult healing.

Results

Our results showed that NO is also an essential component during embryonic scarless healing and acts via a previously unknown mechanism. NO is mainly produced during the early phase of healing and it is crucial for the expression of genes associated with healing. However, we also observed a late phase of healing, which occurs for several hours after wound closure and takes place under the epidermis and includes tissue remodelling that is dependent on NO. We also found that the NO is associated with multiple cellular metabolic pathways, in particularly the glucose metabolism pathway. This is particular noteworthy as the use of NO donors have already been found to be beneficial for the treatment of chronic healing defects (including those associated with diabetes) and it is possible that its mechanism of action follows those observed during embryonic wound healing.

Conclusions

Our study describes a new role of NO during healing, which may potentially translate to improved therapeutic treatments, especially for individual suffering with problematic healing.

Nitric oxide regulates intussusceptive-like angiogenesis in wound repair in chicken embryo and transgenic zebrafish models

Angiogenesis is the formation of new blood vessels that occurs by two distinct processes following sprouting angiogenesis (SA) and intussusceptive angiogenesis (IA). Nitric oxide (NO) is known for its pro-angiogenic functions. However, no clear mechanisms are delineated on its role in promoting angiogenesis in reparative wound healing. We propose that NO regulates SA to IA transition and vice versa in wound milieu. We have used three models which include a new chick embryo extra-vasculature (CEV) burn wound model, adult Tie2-GFP transgenic Zebrafish caudal fin regeneration model and Zebrafish skin wound model to study the mechanisms underlying behind the role of NO in wound healing. Wounds created in CEV were treated with NO donor (Spermine NONOate (SPNO)), NOS inhibitor (L-nitro-l-arginine-methyl ester (l-NAME)), NaNO₂, NaNO₃, and beetroot juice, a nitrite-rich juice respectively and the pattern of wound healing was assessed. Morphological and histological techniques tracked the wound healing at the cellular level, and the molecular changes were investigated by using real-time RT-PCR gene expression analysis. The result concludes that NO donor promotes wound healing by activating SA at an early phase of healing while NOS inhibitor induces wound healing via IA. At the later phase of wound healing NO donor followed IA while NOS inhibitor failed to promote wound repair. The current work underpinned a differential regulation of NO on angiogenesis in wound milieu and this study would provide new insights in designing therapeutics for promoting wound repair.

Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.A clear and current overview of all the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. 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 dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2016 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 searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and 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.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, 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 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds.We judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole.It is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze.More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.