Search

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the critical limb ischemia (CLI) Global Society aims to develop improved clinical guidance that will inform better care standards to reduce tissue loss and amputations during and following the new SARS‐CoV‐2 era. This will include developing standards of practice, improve gaps in care, and design improved research protocols to study new chronic limb‐threatening ischemia treatment and diagnostic options. Following a round table discussion that identified hypotheses and suppositions the wound care community had during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic, the CLI Global Society undertook a critical review of literature using PubMed to confirm or rebut these hypotheses, identify knowledge gaps, and analyse the findings in terms of what in wound care has changed due to the pandemic and what wound care providers need to do differently as a result of these changes. Evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence‐Based Medicine scheme. The majority of hypotheses and related suppositions were confirmed, but there is noticeable heterogeneity, so the experiences reported herein are not universal for wound care providers and centres. Moreover, the effects of the dynamic pandemic vary over time in geographic areas. Wound care will unlikely return to prepandemic practices. Importantly, Levels 2–5 evidence reveals a paradigm shift in wound care towards a hybrid telemedicine and home healthcare model to keep patients at home to minimize the number of in‐person visits at clinics and hospitalizations, with the exception of severe cases such as chronic limb‐threatening ischemia. The use of telemedicine and home care will likely continue and improve in the postpandemic era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic or hard-to-heal wounds fail to proceed through an orderly and timely healing process, resulting in a lack of anatomic and functional integrity. Infection is a common driver of nonhealing processes; therefore, infection prevention and management are essential components to healing chronic wounds. Inexpensive specialized cleansers, such as pure hypochlorous acid (pHA), can be used to cleanse vulnerable wounds to reduce microbial burden, thereby reducing the risk of infection and significantly decreasing the likelihood of the patient developing a costly wound complication., Objective: To report the findings of an expert panel composed of 10 health care professionals (HCPs) from diverse medical specialties convened to discuss the use of pHA in various care settings., Methods: During the panel discussion, experienced HCPs presented specific case examples in which pHA was used, along with associated costs., Results: A major theme of the panel discussion was the widespread benefit of pHA across various types of wounds and wound care settings. In addition, the patient cases illustrated a negligible economic impact of pHA coupled with positive effects on patient outcomes. This work did not include the development of a consensus statement., Conclusion: Together, the information presented in the panel discussion supports pHA as a dominant strategy (more effective, less costly) compared with standard wound management practices in many treatment settings.

Background: HOCl (eg, pHAp) preserved solutions have antimicrobial properties and are considered safe and effective for wound management. NPWTi-d (or NPWTi) is an established adjunctive wound modality for a variety of wound etiologies in various anatomic locations in which an instillate solution dwells on the surface of the wound to assist in wound bed preparation. A variety of solutions have been used, including 0.9% normal saline wound cleansers and antiseptics. pHAp is growing in popularity as the solution of choice for NPWTi-d., Objective: To evaluate consensus statements on the use of NPWTi-d with pHAp., Methods: A 15-member multidisciplinary panel of expert clinicians in the United States, Canada, and France convened in person in April 2023 in Washington, D.C. and/or corresponded later to discuss 10 statements on the use of pHAp with NPWTi-d. The panelists then replied "agree" or "disagree" to each statement and had the option to provide comments., Results: Ten consensus statements are presented, along with the proportion of agreement or disagreement and summary comments. Although agreement with the statements on NPWTi-d with pHAp varied, the statements appear to reflect individual preferences for use rather than concerns about safety or efficacy., Conclusion: The consensus indicates that NPWTi-d with pHAp can have a beneficial effect in wound care.

As the population ages and more people live with diabetes, obesity, and vascular disease, chronic wounds have become more prevalent. Increasingly, wound care falls into the hands of clinicians who may be new to the specialty. To facilitate a better understanding of wounds and to ensure all integral items for best outcomes are considered, an interprofessional panel of wound care experts developed a checklist to aid in lower extremity wound identification, assessment, evaluation, and potential complication recognition. This checklist focuses on an evidence-based approach to obtaining a medical history, evaluating the wound, determining the etiology, and assessing perfusion, edema, infection, and neurologic status. The goal of this fundamental evaluation tool is to help the clinician move towards the next steps in optimizing patient care. Evidence-based support for each item on the checklist is reviewed and detailed for clinician reference.

Acute and chronic wound infections create clinical, economic, and patient-centered challenges best met by multidisciplinary wound care teams providing consistent, valid, clinically relevant, safe, evidence-based management across settings. To develop an evidence-based wound infection guideline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched from inception through August 1, 2017 using the terms (or synonyms) wound infection and risk factor, significant, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, or surveillance. Studies on parasitic infections, in vitro studies, and non-English publications were excluded. The 19-member International Consolidated Wound Infection Guideline Task Force (ICWIG TF), hosted by the Association for the Advancement of Wound Care (AAWC), reviewed publications/assessed levels of evidence, developed recommendations, and verified representation of all major recommendations from 27 multidisciplinary wound infection documents. Using a web-based survey, practitioners were invited to assess the clinical relevance and strength of each recommendation using standardized scores. Survey responses from 42 practitioners, including registered nurses (RNs), Wound Care Certified and advanced practice RNs, physical therapists, physicians, podiatrists, and scientists from 6 countries were returned to AAWC staff, tabulated in a spreadsheet, and analyzed for content validity. Respondents had a median of >15 years of military or civilian practice and managed an average of 15.9 ± 23 patients with infected wounds per week. Recommendations supported by strong evidence and/or content validated as relevant by at least 75% of respondents qualified for guideline inclusion. Most (159, 88.8%) of the 179 ICWIG recommendations met these criteria and were summarized as a checklist to harmonize team wound infection management across specialties and settings. Most of the 20 recommendations found not to be valid were related to the use of antibiotics and antiseptics. After final ICWIG TF review of best evidence supporting each recommendation, the guideline will be published on the AAWC website.

In 2015, members of the Association for the Advancement of Wound Care (AAWC), Wound Healing Society, and the Canadian Association for Enterostomal Therapy formed the International Consolidated Guidelines Taskforce to update the AAWC Venous Ulcer Guidelines to the collaborative, intersociety, endorsed International Consolidated Venous Ulcer Guideline. This "guideline of guidelines" integrates recommendations from all relevant, published evidence-based guidelines on venous ulcer care and prevention. The update process was conducted in accordance with the National Guideline Clearinghouse inclusion criteria and was informed by a systematic review of the evidence, with additional content validation of each venous ulcer management recommendation. Twenty-three (23) wound experts participated. Compared to the 2010 version of the guideline, A-level recommendations increased from 62% to 77%, 31 recommendations were removed, and new recommendations included quality of life evaluations and surgical treatment options. Gaps in the evidence and needed areas for research include surgical, topical, and pharmaceutical interventions. Collaboration among societies and stakeholders and rigorous guideline development processes may expedite the implementation of evidence-based practices, fill in research gaps, and provide a powerful unified voice to regulatory and reimbursement agencies with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for persons with a venous ulcer.