| Literature DB >> 36060926 |
Zunjiang Zhao1,2, Dalun Lv1, Baode Zhang2, Liu Yong2, Rongtao Zhang2, Xiukun Wang2.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the clinical efficacy of recombinant human epidermal growth factor (rh-EGF) combined with povidone-iodine (PVI) on patients with pressure ulcers (PUs).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36060926 PMCID: PMC9436609 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3878320
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mediators Inflamm ISSN: 0962-9351 Impact factor: 4.529
Baseline data of the two groups [n(%), mean ± SEM].
| Factors |
| Control group ( | Observation group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | 0.006 | 0.941 | |||
| Male | 50 | 24 (48.00) | 26 (47.27) | ||
| Female | 55 | 26 (52.00) | 29 (52.73) | ||
| Age (Y) | 0.405 | 0.525 | |||
| <65 | 47 | 24 (48.00) | 23 (41.82) | ||
| ≥65 | 58 | 26 (52.00) | 32 (58.18) | ||
| Average age (Y) | 105 | 64.64 ± 9.68 | 67.22 ± 10.61 | 1.297 | 0.197 |
| Wound area (cm2) | 105 | 70.22 ± 14.04 | 71.72 ± 14.91 | 0.529 | 0.598 |
| Wound site | 0.542 | 0.462 | |||
| Arms and legs | 28 | 15 (30.00) | 13 (23.64) | ||
| Trunk | 77 | 35 (70.00) | 42 (76.36) | ||
| Medical history of PUs | 0.549 | 0.459 | |||
| No | 87 | 40 (80.00) | 47 (85.45) | ||
| Yes | 18 | 10 (20.00) | 8 (14.55) | ||
| Drinking history | 0.159 | 0.690 | |||
| No | 63 | 31 (62.00) | 32 (58.18) | ||
| Yes | 42 | 19 (38.00) | 23 (41.82) | ||
| Place of residence | 0.095 | 0.757 | |||
| Urban area | 75 | 35 (70.00) | 40 (72.73) | ||
| Rural area | 30 | 15 (30.00) | 15 (27.27) | ||
| Marital status | 0.350 | 0.554 | |||
| Unmarried | 64 | 29 (58.00) | 35 (63.64) | ||
| Married | 41 | 21 (42.00) | 20 (36.36) |
Clinical efficacy on the two groups [n, (%)].
| Group |
| Cured | Markedly effective | Effective | Ineffective | The total effective rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The control group | 50 | 25 (50.00) | 15 (30.00) | 2 (4.00) | 8 (16.00) | 42 (84.00) |
| The observation group | 55 | 44 (80.00) | 6 (10.91) | 3 (5.45) | 2 (3.64) | 53 (96.36) |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | 4.646 |
|
| — | — | — | — | — | 0.031 |
Figure 1PU alleviation in the two groups. (a) The observation group showed a statistically higher total area reduction rate than the control group. (b) The observation group showed a statistically higher total depth reduction rate than the control group. (c) The observation group showed a statistically higher total volume reduction rate than the control group. Note: ∗P < 0.05; ∗∗P < 0.01.
Figure 2Healing time and pain degree of the two groups. (a) The observation group experienced statistically shorter healing time than the control group. (b) The observation group experienced statistically milder pain degree than the control group. Notes: ∗P < 0.05; ∗∗P < 0.01.
Figure 3Inflammation indexes in the two groups. (a) After therapy, IL-8 in the observation group decreased statistically, which was lower than that in the control group. (b) After therapy, TNF-α in the observation group decreased statistically, which was lower than that in the control group. (c) After therapy, hs-CRP in the observation group decreased statistically, which was lower than that in the control group. Notes: ∗P < 0.05; ∗∗P < 0.01.
Figure 4Hydroxyproline content in the wound in the two groups. ∗P < 0.05vs. the level after 3 days of therapy; ∗∗P < 0.01vs. the level after 3 days of therapy; #P < 0.05vs. the control group.