A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities.
Journal
Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
ISSN: 1524-475X
Titre abrégé: Wound Repair Regen
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9310939
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
12
07
2018
revised:
24
04
2019
accepted:
09
05
2019
pubmed:
16
5
2019
medline:
7
7
2020
entrez:
16
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Multicenter, phase-4, randomized, comparative-efficacy study in patients with VLUs or DFUs comparing for noninferiority the percentage change in target ulcer dimensions (area, depth, and volume) a single-use negative pressure wound therapy (s-NPWT) system versus traditional NPWT (t-NPWT) over a 12-week treatment period or up to confirmed healing. Baseline values were taken at the randomization visit. Randomized by wound type and size, 164 patients with non-infected DFUs and VLUs were included. The ITT population was composed of 161 patients (101 with VLUs, 60 with DFUs) and 115 patients completed follow-up (64 in the s-NPWT group and 51 in the t-NPWT group) (PP population). The average age for all patients was 61.5 years, 36.6% were women, and treatment groups were statistically similar at baseline. Primary endpoint analyses on wound area reduction demonstrated statistically significant reduction in favor of s-NPWT (p = 0.003) for the PP population and for the ITT population (p < 0.001). Changes in wound depth (p = 0.018) and volume (p = 0.013) were also better with s-NPWT. Faster wound closure was observed with s-NPWT (Cox Proportional Hazards ratio (0.493 (0.273, 0.891); p = 0.019) in the ITT population. Wound closure occurred in 45% of patients in the s-NPWT group vs. 22.2% of patients in the t-NPWT group (p = 0.002). Median estimate of the time to wound closure was 77 days for s-NPWT. No estimate could be provided for t-NPWT due to the low number of patients achieving wound closure. Device-related AEs were more frequent in the t-NPWT group (41 AEs from 29 patients) than in the s-NPWT group (16 AEs from 12 patients). The s-NPWT system met noninferiority and achieved statistical superiority vs. t-NPWT in terms of wound progression toward healing over the treatment period. When NPWT is being considered for the management of challenging VLUs and DFUs, s-NPWT should be considered a first choice over other types of NPWT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31087729
doi: 10.1111/wrr.12727
pmc: PMC6852528
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
519-529Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of by the Wound Healing Society.
Références
Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2016 Jan;32 Suppl 1:169-78
pubmed: 26451519
J Vasc Surg. 2006 Nov;44(5):1029-37; discussion 1038
pubmed: 17000077
J Wound Care. 2015 Sep;24 Suppl 9:S4-S12
pubmed: 26352284
Am J Surg. 2011 Apr;201(4):544-56
pubmed: 21421104
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 May 30;294(6584):1389-91
pubmed: 3109669
Int Wound J. 2015 Apr;12(2):195-201
pubmed: 23647737
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014 Mar;60(3):30-6
pubmed: 24610558
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Feb;63(2 Suppl):3S-21S
pubmed: 26804367
Diabetes Care. 2008 Apr;31(4):631-6
pubmed: 18162494
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011 Sep;64 Suppl:S1-16
pubmed: 21868296
Burns. 2012 Jun;38(4):573-7
pubmed: 22100423
Lancet. 2005 Nov 12;366(9498):1704-10
pubmed: 16291063
World J Orthop. 2015 May 18;6(4):387-93
pubmed: 25992316
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:297230
pubmed: 24696847
J Wound Care. 2011 Jan;20(1):35-7
pubmed: 21278639
Vasc Med. 2015 Apr;20(2):168-81
pubmed: 25832604
J Clin Invest. 2007 May;117(5):1219-22
pubmed: 17476353
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2014 May-Jun;41(3):233-7
pubmed: 24805174
Bone Joint Res. 2016 Aug;5(8):328-37
pubmed: 27496913
Ann Plast Surg. 1997 Jun;38(6):553-62
pubmed: 9188970
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2018 Jan;64(1):26-33
pubmed: 29406300
J Tissue Viability. 2011 Dec;20 Suppl 1:S1-18
pubmed: 22119531
Wound Repair Regen. 2012 May-Jun;20(3):332-41
pubmed: 22564228
Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2015 Apr;28(2):151-7
pubmed: 25692273
Wounds. 2015 Jul;27(7):180-90
pubmed: 26192736
Br J Community Nurs. 2015 Jun;Suppl Community Wound Care:S14, S16-20
pubmed: 26052990
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015 Nov;25(11):789-93
pubmed: 26577962
Ann Plast Surg. 1997 Jun;38(6):563-76; discussion 577
pubmed: 9188971
J Wound Care. 2015 Feb;24 Suppl 2:S4-9
pubmed: 25647506
N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 19;377(16):1559-1567
pubmed: 29045216
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018 Jan;1411(1):153-165
pubmed: 29377202
Healthcare (Basel). 2014 Sep 30;2(4):417-28
pubmed: 27429285
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 14;(7):CD011354
pubmed: 26171910
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015 Feb;39(1):29-39
pubmed: 25614499
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018 Jan 12;6(1):e1560
pubmed: 29464150
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Aug 15;8(8):12548-56
pubmed: 26550165