Literature DB >> 19246785

A prospective, randomized clinical trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of a modern foam dressing versus a traditional saline gauze dressing in the treatment of stage II pressure ulcers.

Wyatt G Payne1, John Posnett, Oscar Alvarez, Marie Brown-Etris, Gayle Jameson, Randall Wolcott, Hussein Dharma, Samantha Hartwell, Diane Ochs.   

Abstract

Modern dressings such as hydrocolloids, gels, and foams are typically more expensive than traditional dressings such as gauze. However, if modern dressings require fewer changes, the overall cost of treatment may be lower despite the higher initial purchase price. If healing rates are comparable or better, modern dressings also may be cost-effective. A 4-week, prospective, randomized clinical trial to assess differences in treatment costs and cost-effectiveness between a modern foam dressing and saline-soaked gauze was conducted among 36 patients (22 men, 14 women, mean age 72.8 years) with a Stage II pressure ulcer (mean duration 35 weeks) at five centers in the United States. Participants were randomized to treatment with a self-adhesive polyurethane foam (n = 20) or saline-soaked gauze dressing (n = 16). No difference in time to wound closure was observed (P = 0.817). Patients in the foam group had less frequent dressing changes (P <0.001). Total cost over the study period was lower by $466 per patient (P = 0.055) and spending on dressings was lower by $92 per patient in the foam group (P = 0.025). Cost per ulcer healed was lower by $1,517 and cost per ulcer-free day was lower by $80 for patients in the foam group. On the evidence of this study, the foam dressing is a more cost-effective treatment than saline-soaked gauze for the treatment of Stage II pressure ulcers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19246785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ostomy Wound Manage        ISSN: 0889-5899            Impact factor:   2.629


  7 in total

Review 1.  Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Maggie J Westby; Jo C Dumville; Marta O Soares; Nikki Stubbs; Gill Norman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-06-22

2.  The cost-benefit of using soft silicone multilayered foam dressings to prevent sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: a within-trial analysis of the Border Trial.

Authors:  Nick Santamaria; Wei Liu; Marie Gerdtz; Sarah Sage; Jane McCann; Amy Freeman; Theresa Vassiliou; Stephanie DeVincentis; Ai W Ng; Elizabeth Manias; Jonathan Knott; Danny Liew
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2013-10-06       Impact factor: 3.315

3.  Active Release of Nitric Oxide-Releasing Dendrimers from Electrospun Polyurethane Fibers.

Authors:  Brittany V Worley; Robert J Soto; Paige C Kinsley; Mark H Schoenfisch
Journal:  ACS Biomater Sci Eng       Date:  2016-02-29

Review 4.  The economic benefits of negative pressure wound therapy in community-based wound care in the NHS.

Authors:  Caroline Dowsett; Lynn Davis; Valerie Henderson; Richard Searle
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 3.315

5.  Management of pressure ulcers - What is new?

Authors:  Dilip Gude
Journal:  J Midlife Health       Date:  2011-07

Review 6.  A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types.

Authors:  Andrea C Tricco; Elise Cogo; Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai; Paul A Khan; Geetha Sanmugalingham; Jesmin Antony; Jeffrey S Hoch; Sharon E Straus
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 8.775

7.  Treatment of Nonhealing Ulcers with an Allograft/Xenograft Substitute: A Case Series.

Authors:  Tobias Sivlér; Petter Sivlér; Mårten Skog; Luca Conti; Daniel Aili
Journal:  Adv Skin Wound Care       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.347

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.