Search

Introduction: Biofilm is linked through a variety of mechanisms to the pathogenesis of chronic wounds. However, accurate biofilm detection is challenging, demanding highly specialized and technically complex methods rendering it unapplicable for most clinical settings. This study evaluated promising methods of bedside biofilm localization, fluorescence imaging of wound bacterial loads, and biofilm blotting by comparing their performance against validation scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Methods: In this clinical trial, 40 chronic hard-to-heal wounds underwent the following assessments: (1) clinical signs of biofilm (CSB), (2) biofilm blotting, (3) fluorescence imaging for localizing bacterial loads, wound scraping taken for (4) SEM to confirm matrix encased bacteria (biofilm), and (5) PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) and NGS (Next Generation Sequencing) to determine absolute bacterial load and species present. We used a combination of SEM and PCR microbiology to calculate the diagnostic accuracy measures of the CSB, biofilm blotting assay, and fluorescence imaging. Results: Study data demonstrate that 62.5% of wounds were identified as biofilm-positive based on SEM and microbiological assessment. By employing this method to determine the gold truth, and thus calculate accuracy measures for all methods, fluorescence imaging demonstrated superior sensitivity (84%) and accuracy (63%) compared to CSB (sensitivity 44% and accuracy 43%) and biofilm blotting (sensitivity 24% and accuracy 40%). Biofilm blotting exhibited the highest specificity (64%), albeit with lower sensitivity and accuracy. Using SEM alone as the validation method slightly altered the results, but all trends held constant. Discussion: This trial provides the first comparative assessment of bedside methods for wound biofilm detection. We report the diagnostic accuracy measures of these more feasibly implementable methods versus laboratory-based SEM. Fluorescence imaging showed the greatest number of true positives (highest sensitivity), which is clinically relevant and provides assurance that no pathogenic bacteria will be missed. It effectively alerted regions of biofilm at the point-of-care with greater accuracy than standard clinical assessment (CSB) or biofilm blotting paper, providing actionable information that will likely translate into enhanced therapeutic approaches and better patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The retrospective pragmatic real‐world data (RWD) study compared the healing outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) treated with either ovine forestomach matrix (OFM) (n = 1150) or collagen/oxidised regenerated cellulose (ORC) (n = 1072) in out‐patient wound care centres. Median time to wound closure was significantly (P =.0015) faster in the OFM group (14.6 ± 0.5 weeks) relative to the collagen/ORC group (16.4 ± 0.7). A sub‐group analysis was performed to understand the relative efficacy in DFUs requiring longer periods of treatment and showed that DFUs treated with OFM healed up to 5.3 weeks faster in these challenging wounds. The percentage of wounds closed at 36 weeks was significantly improved in OFM treated DFUs relative to the collagen/ORC. A Cox proportional hazards analysis showed OFM‐treated wounds had a 18% greater probability of healing versus wounds managed with collagen/ORC, and the probability increased to 21% when the analysis was adjusted for multiple variables. This study represents the first large retrospective RWD analysis comparing OFM and collagen/ORC and supports the clinical efficacy of OFM in the treatment of DFUs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The purpose of this large, retrospective, pragmatic real-world evidence (RWE) study was to directly compare the healing outcomes of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) treated with either ovine forestomach matrix (OFM) or collagen/oxidized regenerated cellulose (collagen/ORC). Method: The two cohorts consisted of DFU treated with OFM (n=1150) and collagen/ORC (n=1072). Data was extracted from a wound database from 2014 to 2020, representing 449 wound care centers across the United States. Data was extracted from a pool of 31,883 wounds and filtered based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The median time to wound closure and the percentage of wounds closed standard intervals were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The percentage of DFUs closed were statistically compared between treatment groups using Greenwood's standard error estimates. Results / Discussion: A sub-analysis was performed to understand the relative efficacy in DFUs requiring longer periods of treatment and showed that OFM-treated DFUs healed up to ~5 weeks faster in this subgroup of more challenging wounds. The percentage of wounds closed at 12-, 24- and 36-weeks was improved in OFM-treated DFUs relative to the collagen/ORC cohort. Conclusion: The results of this large RWE study support the clinical efficacy of OFM in the treatment of challenging DFUs. Further, real-world data studies should be considered an impactful study design in wound healing as RWE studies can more accurately reflect the actual patient population suffering from complex wounds compared to randomized controlled trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Normal wound healing is accomplished through a series of well-coordinated, progressive events with overlapping phases. Chronic wounds are described as not progressing to healing or not being responsive to management in a timely manner. A consensus panel of multidisciplinary wound care professionals was assembled to (1) educate wound care practitioners by identifying key principles of the basic science of chronic wound pathophysiology, highlighting the impact of metalloproteinases and biofilms, as well as the role of the extracellular matrix; and (2) equip practitioners with a systematic strategy for the prevention and healing of acute injuries and chronic wounds based upon scientific evidence and the panel members' expertise. An algorithm is presented that represents a shift in strategy to proactive and early aggressive wound management. With proactive management, adjunct therapies are applied preemptively to acute injuries to reduce wound duration and risk of chronicity. For existing chronic wounds, early aggressive wound management is employed to break the pathophysiology cycle and drive wounds toward healing. Reducing bioburden through debridement and bioburden management and using collagen dressings to balance protease activity prior to the use of advanced modalities may enhance their effectiveness. This early aggressive wound management strategy is recommended for patients at high risk for chronic wound development at a minimum. In their own practices, the panel members apply this systematic strategy for all patients presenting with acute injuries or chronic wounds.

Many wound care centers (WCCs) provide a specialized level of care using various wound care therapies and are managed by quali ed healthcare professionals (QHPs) from di erent specialty backgrounds such as family medicine, podiatry, and plastic surgery. However, these QHPs are sometimes challenged by reimbursement issues, limited therapy and dressing options, reduced access to multidisciplinary team members, and cost-driven factors unique to WCCs. To help address these issues, a meeting was convened by an expert panel of WCC physicians to discuss best practices for treating complex patients in a WCC. This publication presents an overview of WCC chal- lenges, describes a holistic approach to treating WCC patients, and provides clinical guidance on the decision-mak- ing process for selecting optimal treatment plans for the WCC patient. Clinical cases of atypical, surgical and chronic wounds seen in a WCC are also presented.

Wound complications such as infection continue to in ict enormous nancial and patient quality-of-life burdens.The traditional practice of using antiseptics and antibiotics to prevent and/or treat infections has been questioned with increasing concerns about the cytoxitity of antiseptics and proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Solutions of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), commonly known as Dakin's solution, have been used in wound care for 100 years. In the last 15 years, more advanced hypochlorous acid (HOCl) solutions, based on electrochemistry, have emerged as safe and viable wound-cleansing agents and infection treatment adjunct therapies. After developing a literature-based summary of available evidence, a consensus panel of wound care researchers and practitioners met to review the evidence for 1) the antimicrobial effectiveness of HOCl based on in vitro studies, 2) the safety of HOCl solutions, and 3) the effectiveness of HOCl acid in treating different types of infected wounds in various settings and to develop recommendations for its use and application to prevent wound infection and treat infected wounds in the context of accepted wound care algorithms. Each participant gave a short presentation; this was followed by a moderated roundtable discussion with consensus-making regarding conclusions. Based on in vitro studies, the antimicrobial activity of HOCl appears to be comparable to other antiseptics but without cytotoxicity; there is more clinical evidence about its safety and effectiveness. With regard to the resolution of infection and improvement in wound healing by adjunct HOCl use, strong evidence was found for use in diabetic foot wounds; moderate evidence for use in septic surgical wounds; low evidence for venous leg ulcers, wounds of mixed etiology, or chronic wounds; and no evidence for burn wounds.The panel recommended HOCl should be used in addition to tissue management, infection, moisture imbalance, edge of the wound (the TIME algorithm) and aggressive debridement.The panel also recommended intralesional use of HOCl or other methods that ensure the wound is covered with the solution for 15 minutes after debridement. More controlled clinical studies are needed to determine the safety and ef cacy of HOCl in wound types with limited outcomes data and to evaluate outcomes of various application methods.