ABPI reporting and compression recommendations in global clinical practice guidelines on venous leg ulcer management: A scoping review.
ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI)
clinical practice guidelines
consistency
scoping review
venous leg ulcers
Journal
International wound journal
ISSN: 1742-481X
Titre abrégé: Int Wound J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101230907
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
03
08
2018
revised:
01
11
2018
accepted:
11
11
2018
pubmed:
30
11
2018
medline:
6
8
2019
entrez:
29
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for venous leg ulcer (VLU) management recommend below-knee compression to improve healing outcomes after calculating the ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) to rule out significant arterial disease. This systematic scoping review aimed to complete a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of international CPGs for VLU management to determine if consensus existed in relation to recommendations for compression application based on an ABPI reading and clinical assessment. Our review shows that there is a lack of consensus across 13 VLU CPGs and a lack of clear guidance in relation to the specific ABPI range of compression therapy that can be safely applied. An area of uncertainty and disagreement exists in relation to an ABPI between 0.6 and 0.8, with some guidelines advocating that compression is contraindicated and others that there should be reduced compression. This has implications in clinical practice, including when it is safe to apply compression. In addition, the inconsistency in the levels of evidence and the grades of recommendation makes it difficult to compare across various guidelines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30485668
doi: 10.1111/iwj.13048
pmc: PMC7949354
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
406-419Subventions
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council
ID : APP1132444
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2018 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Int Wound J. 2019 Apr;16(2):406-419
pubmed: 30485668
Aust Fam Physician. 2014 Sep;43(9):594-8
pubmed: 25225642
J Wound Care. 2017 Jun 2;26(6):292-303
pubmed: 28598761
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005 May;29(5):443-51
pubmed: 15966081
J Wound Care. 2016 Jun;25 Suppl 6:S1-S67
pubmed: 27292202
Wound Repair Regen. 2012 Sep-Oct;20(5):619-37
pubmed: 22805581
BMJ Clin Evid. 2016 Jan 15;2016:
pubmed: 26771825
Lancet. 1993 Nov 27;342(8883):1317-22
pubmed: 7901634
J Natl Med Assoc. 2011 Sep-Oct;103(9-10):863-9
pubmed: 22364054
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Aug;60(2 Suppl):1S-2S
pubmed: 25064456
Int Wound J. 2018 Feb;15(1):29-37
pubmed: 29243398
Int Angiol. 2005 Jun;24(2):107-68
pubmed: 15997218
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Sep;31(9):1562-1568
pubmed: 28602045
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD000265
pubmed: 23152202
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2012 Nov-Dec;39(6):598-606
pubmed: 23138493
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1294-302
pubmed: 21803546
Wound Repair Regen. 2016 Jan-Feb;24(1):136-44
pubmed: 26663616
J Vasc Nurs. 2015 Jun;33(2):36-46
pubmed: 26025146
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016 Nov;30(11):1843-1875
pubmed: 27558268
Aust Fam Physician. 2012 May;41(5):331-7
pubmed: 22558626
PLoS Med. 2010 Feb 16;7(2):e1000217
pubmed: 20169112
Minerva Cardioangiol. 2016 Aug;64(4 Suppl 2):1-80
pubmed: 27713392
J Wound Care. 2012 Sep;21(9):448-53
pubmed: 22990398
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2012 Mar-Apr;39(2 Suppl):S21-9
pubmed: 22415168
Aust J Prim Health. 2011;17(2):142-9
pubmed: 21645469
J Mal Vasc. 2007 Apr;32(2):100-11
pubmed: 17632810