Hydrocolloid dressings for healing diabetic foot ulcers
ABSTRACT Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are a prevalent and serious global health issue. Wound dressings are regarded as important components of ulcer treatment, with clinicians and patients having many different types to choose from including hydrocolloid dressings. There is a range of different hydrocolloids available including fibrous-hydrocolloid and hydrocolloid (matrix) dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use.
To compare the effects of hydrocolloid wound dressings with no dressing or alternative dressings on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
We searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4 January 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to December Week 3 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, January 03, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 52); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 30 December 2011). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared the effects on ulcer healing of hydrocolloid with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
We included four studies (511 participants) in the review: these compared hydrocolloids with basic wound contact dressings, foam dressings and alginate dressings. Meta-analysis of two studies indicated no statistically significant difference in ulcer healing between fibrous-hydrocolloids and basic wound contact dressings: risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.38). One of these studies found that a basic wound contact dressing was more cost-effective than a fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing. One study compared a hydrocolloid-matrix dressing with a foam dressing and found no statistically significant difference in the number of ulcers healed. There was no statistically significant difference in healing between an antimicrobial (silver) fibrous-hydrocolloid dressing and standard alginate dressing; or an antimicrobial dressing (iodine-impregnated) and a standard fibrous hydrocolloid dressing.
Currently there is no research evidence to suggest that any type of hydrocolloid wound dressing is more effective in healing diabetic foot ulcers than other types of dressing. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as dressing cost and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type e.g. exudate management.
- SourceAvailable from: Patricia Elaine Price[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three dressing products, N-A, Inadine and Aquacel, for patients with diabetic foot ulcers, as well as the feasibility and consequences of less frequent dressing changes by health-care professionals. A multicentre, prospective, observer-blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled trial, with three arms. Established expert multidisciplinary clinics for the management of diabetic foot ulcers across the UK. Patients over age 18 with type 1 or type 2 diabetes with a chronic (present for at least 6 weeks) full-thickness foot ulcer (on or below the malleoli) not penetrating to tendon, periosteum or bone, and with a cross-sectional area between 25 and 2500 mm(2). Participants were randomised 1:1:1 to treatment with one of N-A (a non-adherent, knitted, viscose filament gauze), Inadine (an iodine-impregnated dressing), both traditional dressings, or Aquacel, a newer product. The primary outcome measure was the number of ulcers healed in each group at week 24. Secondary measures included time to healing, new ulcerations, major and minor amputations, and episodes of secondary infection. A total of 317 patients were randomised. After 88 withdrawals, 229 remained evaluable. A greater proportion of smaller (25-100 mm(2) ulcers healed within the specified time (48.3% versus 37.3%; p = 0.048). There was, however, no difference between the three dressings in terms of percentage healed by 24 weeks, or in the mean time to healing, whether analysed on the basis of intention to treat (Inadine 44.4%, N-A 38.7%, Aquacel 44.7%; not significant) or per protocol (Inadine 55.2%, N-A 59.4%, Aquacel 63.0%; not significant). There was no difference in the quality of healing, as reflected in the incidence of recurrence within 12 weeks. Likewise, there was no difference in the incidence of adverse events, although a greater proportion of those randomised to the non-adherent dressings were withdrawn from the study (34.9% versus 29.1% Aquacel and 19.4% Inadine; p = 0.038). The only statistically significant difference found in the health economic analysis was the cost associated with the provision of dressings (mean cost per patient: N-A 14.85 pounds, Inadine 17.48 pounds, Aquacel 43.60 pounds). The higher cost of Aquacel was not offset by the fewer dressings required. There was no difference in measures of either generic or condition-specific measures of quality of life. However, there was a significant difference in the change in pain associated with dressing changes between the first and second visits, with least pain reported by those receiving non-adherent dressings (p = 0.012). There was no difference in the costs of professional time, and this may relate to the number of dressing changes undertaken by non-professionals. Fifty-one per cent of all participants had at least one dressing change undertaken by themselves or a non-professional carer, although this ranged from 22% to 82% between the different centres. As there was no difference in effectiveness, there is no reason why the least costly of the three dressings could not be used more widely across the UK National Health Service, thus generating potentially substantial savings. The option of involving patients and non-professional carers in changing dressings needs to be assessed more formally and could be associated with further significant reductions in health-care costs. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78366977.11/2009; 13(54):1-86, iii-iv. DOI:10.3310/hta13540
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Diabetic foot wounds present a great challenge to wound care practitioners. The objective of this pilot study was to determine whether vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) therapy would afford quicker wound resolution as compared to saline-moistened gauze in the treatment of postoperative diabetic foot wounds. Ten patients were randomized into either the experimental V.A.C. group or control saline gauze group. Included in the study were diabetic patients 18 to 75 years of age who had a nonhealing foot ulceration. Excluded were those patients with venous disease, coagulopathy, or those who had active infections not resolved by initial surgical debridement. All foot ulcers were surgically debrided prior to initiation of V.A.C. or gauze treatment. In the experimental group, V.A.C. dressings were applied in accordance with manufacturer's protocol for chronic wounds and changed every 48 hours. In the control group, saline gauze dressings were applied at the time of surgical debridement and changed twice a day thereafter. Measurements and photos were obtained to document wound progress. Main outcome measures included: 1) time to satisfactory healing (calculated from date of initial debridement to date of definitive closure, and 2) change in wound surface area (calculated from initial wound tracing to final tracing). Satisfactory healing in the V.A.C. group was achieved in 22.8 (+/- 17.4) days, compared to 42.8 (+/- 32.5) days in the control group. Surface area changes of 28.4% (+/- 24.3) average decrease in wound size in the V.A.C. group, compared to a 9.5% (+/- 16.9) average increase in the control group during measurement period.Ostomy/wound management 09/2000; 46(8):28-32, 34. · 1.23 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The goal of this study was to estimate the prevalence of diabetes and the number of people of all ages with diabetes for years 2000 and 2030. Data on diabetes prevalence by age and sex from a limited number of countries were extrapolated to all 191 World Health Organization member states and applied to United Nations' population estimates for 2000 and 2030. Urban and rural populations were considered separately for developing countries. The prevalence of diabetes for all age-groups worldwide was estimated to be 2.8% in 2000 and 4.4% in 2030. The total number of people with diabetes is projected to rise from 171 million in 2000 to 366 million in 2030. The prevalence of diabetes is higher in men than women, but there are more women with diabetes than men. The urban population in developing countries is projected to double between 2000 and 2030. The most important demographic change to diabetes prevalence across the world appears to be the increase in the proportion of people >65 years of age. These findings indicate that the "diabetes epidemic" will continue even if levels of obesity remain constant. Given the increasing prevalence of obesity, it is likely that these figures provide an underestimate of future diabetes prevalence.Diabetes Care 05/2004; 27(5):1047-53. DOI:10.2337/diacare.27.5.1047 · 8.57 Impact Factor