4.4 Article

An open-label, prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter, phase 1b study of StrataGraft skin tissue versus autografting in patients with deep partial-thickness thermal burns

Journal

BURNS
Volume 45, Issue 8, Pages 1749-1758

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2019.07.021

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Stratatech, a Mallinckrodt company
  2. Armed Forces Institute of Regenerative Medicine I (AFIRM I) [W81XWH-08-2-0032, WFUHS 40269]
  3. AFIRM

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This open-label, controlled, randomized study assessed the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of StrataGraft tissue compared to autograft in the treatment of deep partialthickness (DPT) burns. Methods: Thirty subjects with DPT thermal burns (3%-43% total body surface area) were treated with StrataGraft tissue as follows: cohort 1, <= 220 cm(2) refrigerated tissue; cohort 2, <= 440 cm(2) refrigerated tissue; and cohort 3, <= 440 cm(2) cryopreserved tissue. On each subject, two comparable areas of DPT burn were randomized to receive StrataGraft tissue or autograft. Coprimary end points were the percent area of the StrataGraft tissue treatment site undergoing salvage autografting by Day 28 and wound closure of treatment sites by 3 months. Results: By Day 28, no StrataGraft tissue treatment sites underwent autografting. By 3 months, 93% and 100% of the StrataGraft tissue and autograft treatment sites achieved complete wound closure, respectively. No significant differences in observer total and overall opinion POSAS scores between StrataGraft tissue and autograft treatment sites were observed at any timepoint. The most common adverse event was pruritus (17%). Conclusions: StrataGraft tissue treatment of DPT thermal burns reduced the need for autograft, resulted in wound closure and treatment-site cosmesis comparable to that of autograft, and was well tolerated. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available