Search

Background: This study sought to examine the real-world impact of multimodality cyclical-pressure topical wound oxygen therapy (TWO2) on hospitalizations and amputations in patients with diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) compared to patients without TWO2. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of deidentified patient medical records at 2 US Veterans Affairs hospitals between January 2012 and January 2020. DFU patients were assigned to TWO2 or NO TWO2 cohorts based on their treatment records. Patients received appropriate standard of care and may have received other advanced wound treatments, including skin substitutes, negative pressure wound therapy, and growth factors. Primary study outcomes were patients requiring hospitalization and/or amputation within 360 days of initial wound documentation. Findings: Among unmatched cohorts of 202 DFU patients (91 TWO2, 111 NO TWO2), 6·6% and 12·1% of TWO2 patients had hospitalizations and amputations, respectively, compared to 54·1% and 41·4% of NO TWO2 patients within 360 days (P < 0·0001, P < 0·0001), representing 88% and 71% reductions. Among propensity score matched cohorts of 140 DFU patients (70 TWO2, 70 NO TWO2), compared to NO TWO2, 82% fewer TWO2 patients were hospitalized (7·1% vs 40·0%, P < 0·0001) and 73% fewer TWO2 patients had amputations (8·6% vs. 31·4%, P = 0·0007). Logistic regression among matched cohorts demonstrated nearly 9-fold and 5-fold higher risk of hospitalization and amputation, respectively, for NO TWO2 vs. TWO2. Interpretation: This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that treating DFU patients with TWO2 leads to significant reductions in hospitalizations and amputations in the real-world setting. Funding: AOTI Ltd. Declaration of Interest: This study was sponsored by AOTI Ltd. (Galway, Ireland). Health Advances received consultative reimbursement from AOTI, and T.N. received consultative reimbursement from Health Advances for his independent performance of the statistical analysis. R.G.F. has received research funding from and is a consultant for AOTI. M.G.G. has received research funding and is a consultant for AOTI. A.M.L. has received research funding from AOTI. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported. Ethical Approval: The protocol 18 was approved by the Institutional Review Board at each facility.