BACKGROUND: This randomized, open-label study evaluated Aquacel Ag Hydrofiber dressing with silver (HDS; ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ, USA) with an adherent or gelled protocol in the management of split-thickness donor sites. METHODS: HDS was the primary dressing in the adherent group (gauze as secondary covering) and gelled group (transparent film as secondary covering). Dressings were changed on study day 1 or 2 and study days 5 (optional), 10 (optional), and 14. The primary outcome was healing (>or=90% re-epithelialization) at study day 14. RESULTS:Seventy subjects were treated (36 adherent, 34 gelled). By study day 14, 77% of donor sites had healed (67% adherent, 88% gelled). Pain scores decreased over time in both treatment groups. Investigators were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with (adherent, gelled) time required to manage dressing change (89%, 79% of subjects), minimization of donor-site pain (64%, 82%), ease of application (97%, 94%), management of drainage (92%, 82%), ease of removal (77%, 85%), and ability of dressing to remain in place (69%, 76%). Thirty-nine (56%) subjects had adverse events, most commonly non-donor-site infection (11%) and gastrointestinal events (11%). CONCLUSION: In this randomized, open-label study, HDS was well-tolerated, versatile, and effective in the management of split-thickness donor sites.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This randomized, open-label study evaluated Aquacel Ag Hydrofiber dressing with silver (HDS; ConvaTec, Skillman, NJ, USA) with an adherent or gelled protocol in the management of split-thickness donor sites. METHODS: HDS was the primary dressing in the adherent group (gauze as secondary covering) and gelled group (transparent film as secondary covering). Dressings were changed on study day 1 or 2 and study days 5 (optional), 10 (optional), and 14. The primary outcome was healing (>or=90% re-epithelialization) at study day 14. RESULTS: Seventy subjects were treated (36 adherent, 34 gelled). By study day 14, 77% of donor sites had healed (67% adherent, 88% gelled). Pain scores decreased over time in both treatment groups. Investigators were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with (adherent, gelled) time required to manage dressing change (89%, 79% of subjects), minimization of donor-site pain (64%, 82%), ease of application (97%, 94%), management of drainage (92%, 82%), ease of removal (77%, 85%), and ability of dressing to remain in place (69%, 76%). Thirty-nine (56%) subjects had adverse events, most commonly non-donor-site infection (11%) and gastrointestinal events (11%). CONCLUSION: In this randomized, open-label study, HDS was well-tolerated, versatile, and effective in the management of split-thickness donor sites.
Authors: Joseph A Posluszny; Peggie Conrad; Marcia Halerz; Ravi Shankar; Richard L Gamelli Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.845