Cargando…

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

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‐w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kirsner, Robert, Dove, Cyaandi, Reyzelman, Alex, Vayser, Dean, Jaimes, Henry
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6852528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31087729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12727
_version_ 1783469858618343424
author Kirsner, Robert
Dove, Cyaandi
Reyzelman, Alex
Vayser, Dean
Jaimes, Henry
author_facet Kirsner, Robert
Dove, Cyaandi
Reyzelman, Alex
Vayser, Dean
Jaimes, Henry
author_sort Kirsner, Robert
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6852528
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68525282019-11-20 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 Kirsner, Robert Dove, Cyaandi Reyzelman, Alex Vayser, Dean Jaimes, Henry Wound Repair Regen Original Research‐Clinical Science 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. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2019-06-13 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6852528/ /pubmed/31087729 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12727 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Wound Repair and Regeneration published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of by the Wound Healing Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Research‐Clinical Science
Kirsner, Robert
Dove, Cyaandi
Reyzelman, Alex
Vayser, Dean
Jaimes, Henry
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Original Research‐Clinical Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6852528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31087729
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12727
work_keys_str_mv AT kirsnerrobert aprospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT dovecyaandi aprospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT reyzelmanalex aprospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT vayserdean aprospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT jaimeshenry aprospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT kirsnerrobert prospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT dovecyaandi prospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT reyzelmanalex prospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT vayserdean prospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities
AT jaimeshenry prospectiverandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrialontheefficacyofasingleusenegativepressurewoundtherapysystemcomparedtotraditionalnegativepressurewoundtherapyinthetreatmentofchroniculcersofthelowerextremities