Literature DB >> 28448266

A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Trial Comparing Transdermal Continuous Oxygen Delivery to Moist Wound Therapy for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers.

Vickie R Driver, Alexander Reyzelman, Jill Kawalec, Michael French.   

Abstract

Worldwide, diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) continue to exact a major burden on patients and health care providers. Although hyperbaric oxygen therapy is well-known as an adjunct option, less is known about the efficacy of transdermal continuous oxygen therapy (TCOT). A prospective, randomized, blinded, multicenter, parallel study was conducted from October 2009 to November 2012 to evaluate healing time and the proportion of DFUs healed after 12 weeks of moist wound therapy (MWT) with or without TCOT. Study participants (persons with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and a nonhealing [>1-month but <1-year duration], 1 cm² to 10 cm² in area, infection-free DFU) were randomized to TCOT or a sham device (control) in addition to receiving MWT. TCOT treatment consisted of continuous administration of 98+% oxygen to the wound site using a 15-day device with dressings changed every 3 to 7 days per care plan or more often when clinically required. Potential participants completed demographic and clinical screening and wound and laboratory evaluations at baseline, and wound evaluations, evaluation of adverse events, debridement, and treatment once weekly until the wound healed or up to 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as complete wound closure by week 12. Wound measurements were made utilizing acetate tracings. Original tracings were collected at approximately 6-week intervals and analyzed upon study closure. Data were collected via paper Case Report Forms and entered into an electronic database after the patient's final visit. Statistical analysis was performed on datasets exported from the electronic database. Wound measurement data were analyzed using chi-squared. Time to complete closure was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis in conjunction with the log-rank test. Of the 130 potential participants, 8 with protocol violations were excluded from analysis. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 122, average age 59 years [range 28-85 years]), the majority were male (74%), Caucasian (81%), and had a plantar ulcer (76%). Mean baseline wound area was 2.3 ± 1.7 cm² (range 0.4-8.9 cm2) and 2.0 ± 1.7 cm² (range 0.6-8.7 cm²) in the control and TCOT groups, respectively. HbA1c (%) was 7.9 ± 1.7 in the control and 8.0 ± 1.7 in the treatment group. In the TCOT group, 35 of 65 (54%) wounds healed compared to 31 of 63 (49%) in the control arm (P = .4167). In the per-protocol population (PP) (ie, patients without protocol violations), 34 of 61 wounds (56%) in the TCOT group and 31 of 61 (49%) in the control group healed. In the ≥65 years PP subgroup, 14 of 17 (82%) in the TCOT and 8 of 16 (50%) in the control arm healed (P = .049). Median time to complete closure in the PP group was 63 days for the TCOT and 77 days for the control group (P >.05). No device-related serious adverse events occurred in either group. Wound outcomes of patients in both groups were good, but the TCOT device did not appear to offer added benefit over moist wound healing treatment and offloading to facilitate the healing of small, nonsevere diabetic foot ulcers of relatively healthy patients. The data suggest the device may offer a greater benefit to older patients. Studies including a more diverse and larger sample patient population are warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28448266

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


  8 in total

1.  Barriers and enablers to patient recruitment for randomised controlled trials on treatment of chronic wounds: A systematic review.

Authors:  Lyndal Bugeja; Jac Kee Low; Rosemary A McGinnes; Victoria Team; Sankar Sinha; Carolina Weller
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 3.315

2.  Hyperbaric oxygen for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: love you more than I can say.

Authors:  Qinan Wu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-06

3.  Australian guideline on wound healing interventions to enhance healing of foot ulcers: part of the 2021 Australian evidence-based guidelines for diabetes-related foot disease.

Authors:  Pamela Chen; Keryln Carville; Terry Swanson; Peter A Lazzarini; James Charles; Jane Cheney; Jenny Prentice
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 3.050

Review 4.  Update on management of diabetic foot ulcers.

Authors:  Estelle Everett; Nestoras Mathioudakis
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 5.691

5.  Aurix Gel Is an Effective Intervention for Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Warren Gude; Daniel Hagan; Ferial Abood; Peter Clausen
Journal:  Adv Skin Wound Care       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.347

Review 6.  Managing Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Pharmacotherapy for Wound Healing.

Authors:  Danielle Dixon; Michael Edmonds
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 7.  Editorial and Mini-Review: Topical Oxygen Therapy for Diabetic Foot Ulcerations - Avenue Towards New Hope?

Authors:  Prashanth R J Vas; Nikolaos Papanas
Journal:  Rev Diabet Stud       Date:  2019-12-29

8.  Shixiang Plaster, a Traditional Chinese Medicine, Promotes Healing in a Rat Model of Diabetic Ulcer Through the receptor for Advanced Glycation End Products (RAGE)/Nuclear Factor kappa B (NF-κB) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)/Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1 (VCAM-1)/Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) Signaling Pathways.

Authors:  Ji Fei; Yi-Ming Ling; Man-Jie Zeng; Kai-Wei Zhang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2019-12-11
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.