4.6 Article

Use of a purified reconstituted bilayer matrix in the management of chronic diabetic foot ulcers improves patient outcomes vs standard of care: Results of a prospective randomised controlled multi-centre clinical trial

期刊

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
卷 19, 期 5, 页码 1197-1209

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13715

关键词

advanced wound care; advanced wound matrix; diabetic foot ulcers; standard of care; wound healing

资金

  1. Geistlich Pharma AG [002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetic foot infections continue to be a major challenge for health care systems. A study comparing a novel PRBM treatment with a standard of care (SOC) for chronic DFUs showed that PRBM resulted in a higher percentage of wounds closed, faster healing time, and greater reduction in wound area. The use of PRBM was safe and effective.
Diabetic foot infections continue to be a major challenge for health care delivery systems. Following encouraging results from a pilot study using a novel purified reconstituted bilayer matrix (PRBM) to treat chronic diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), we designed a prospective, multi-centre randomised trial comparing outcomes of PRBM at 12 weeks compared with a standard of care (SOC) using a collagen alginate dressing. The primary endpoint was percentage of wounds closed after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included assessments of complications, healing time, quality of life, and cost to closure. Forty patients were included in an intent-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis, with 39 completing the study protocol (n = 19 PRBM, n = 20 SOC). Wounds treated with PRBM were significantly more likely to close than wounds treated with SOC (ITT: 85% vs 30%, P = .0004, PP: 94% vs 30% P = .00008), healed significantly faster (mean 37 days vs 67 days for SOC, P = .002), and achieved a mean wound area reduction within 12 weeks of 96% vs 8.9% for SOC. No adverse events (AEs) directly related to PRBM treatment were reported. Mean PRBM cost of healing was $1731. Use of PRBM was safe and effective for treatment of chronic DFUs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据