Randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of a polymeric membrane dressing plus negative pressure wound therapy against negative pressure wound therapy alone: The WICVAC study

Randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of a polymeric membrane dressing plus negative pressure wound therapy against negative pressure wound therapy alone: The WICVAC study

ABSTRACT Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is the treatment of choice for chronic wounds; yet, it is associated with considerable workload. Prompted by its nonadhesive and wound‐healing properties, this study investigated the effect of an additional polymeric membrane interface dressing (PMD; P...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Wound repair and regeneration 2016-09, Vol.24 (5), p.928-935
Hauptverfasser: Skrinjar, Edda, Duschek, Nikolaus, Bayer, Gottfried S., Assadian, Ojan, Koulas, Spyridon, Hirsch, Kornelia, Basic, Jelena, Assadian, Afshin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 935
container_issue 5
container_start_page 928
container_title Wound repair and regeneration
container_volume 24
creator Skrinjar, Edda
Duschek, Nikolaus
Bayer, Gottfried S.
Assadian, Ojan
Koulas, Spyridon
Hirsch, Kornelia
Basic, Jelena
Assadian, Afshin
description ABSTRACT Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is the treatment of choice for chronic wounds; yet, it is associated with considerable workload. Prompted by its nonadhesive and wound‐healing properties, this study investigated the effect of an additional polymeric membrane interface dressing (PMD; PolyMem WIC) in NPWT. From October 2011 to April 2013, 60 consecutive patients with chronic leg wounds or surgical site infections after revascularization of lower extremities were randomly allocated to either treatment with conventional NPWT (control arm) or NPWT with an additional PMD (intervention arm). The primary outcome was wound healing achieved within 30 days, the secondary endpoints included: number of days between dressing changes, wound‐related pain, cost efficiency, and occurrence of adverse events (ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02399722). Forty‐seven patients completed follow‐up. No difference in wound healing was observed (p > 0.05) between both study arms. The additional PMD allowed significantly longer wearing times (days) between dressing changes (intervention: 8.8 ± 0.5, control: 4.8 ± 0.2; p 
doi_str_mv 10.1111/wrr.12457
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826699569</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1826699569</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3637-13be59be6a18bae3aaaabddcacd8d52c9a347522101b6278480d696dacf93b033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1u1DAUhS0Eon8seAHkJV2ktePYSdhVI1oqlYKG0mFnOfGdweDYwU4YwqvxcjhM2x3q3fj66jtH9j0IvaTkhKY63YZwQvOCl0_QPuV5kRUl__I09USUGa3zcg8dxPiNEMJ5XT1He3nJKCO82Ed_lspp35nfoHHr3RC8takdglE2DbpeBeM2ePgK860xTg3GO-zXWOHe26mDYFrcQdcE5QDrADHOgt6OETvYJPwn4H4ejwHw1o9Oz25B9RNWG2VcHB7nrHfwBt-kR6wuF7dnCxyHUU9H6Nla2Qgv7s5D9Pn87c3iXXb14eJycXaVtUywtADWAK8bEIpWjQKmUjVat6rVleZ5WyuW9pXnlNBG5GVVVESLWmjVrmvWEMYO0eudbx_8jxHiIDsTW7A2_diPUdIqF6KuuagTerxD2-BjDLCWfTCdCpOkRM5ZyZSV_JdVYl_d2Y5NB_qBvA8nAac7YGssTP93kqvl8t4y2ylMHODXg0KF71KUrORydX0hP12_X1W31bn8yP4C_TuzpA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826699569</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of a polymeric membrane dressing plus negative pressure wound therapy against negative pressure wound therapy alone: The WICVAC study</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Skrinjar, Edda ; Duschek, Nikolaus ; Bayer, Gottfried S. ; Assadian, Ojan ; Koulas, Spyridon ; Hirsch, Kornelia ; Basic, Jelena ; Assadian, Afshin</creator><creatorcontrib>Skrinjar, Edda ; Duschek, Nikolaus ; Bayer, Gottfried S. ; Assadian, Ojan ; Koulas, Spyridon ; Hirsch, Kornelia ; Basic, Jelena ; Assadian, Afshin</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is the treatment of choice for chronic wounds; yet, it is associated with considerable workload. Prompted by its nonadhesive and wound‐healing properties, this study investigated the effect of an additional polymeric membrane interface dressing (PMD; PolyMem WIC) in NPWT. From October 2011 to April 2013, 60 consecutive patients with chronic leg wounds or surgical site infections after revascularization of lower extremities were randomly allocated to either treatment with conventional NPWT (control arm) or NPWT with an additional PMD (intervention arm). The primary outcome was wound healing achieved within 30 days, the secondary endpoints included: number of days between dressing changes, wound‐related pain, cost efficiency, and occurrence of adverse events (ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02399722). Forty‐seven patients completed follow‐up. No difference in wound healing was observed (p &gt; 0.05) between both study arms. The additional PMD allowed significantly longer wearing times (days) between dressing changes (intervention: 8.8 ± 0.5, control: 4.8 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001). Pain was slightly higher in patients randomized to NPWT alone (VAS score: 4.8 ± 2.9) compared to NPWT + PMD (VAS score: 3.0 ± 2.9, p = 0.063). No wound infections were observed. Costs were reduced by 34% per patient in the intervention arm. These results suggest that the combination of NPWT and an additional interface PMD is a safe and economic method for the treatment of chronic wounds, which requires significantly fewer dressing changes for a comparable wound healing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1067-1927</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1524-475X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12457</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27313054</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><ispartof>Wound repair and regeneration, 2016-09, Vol.24 (5), p.928-935</ispartof><rights>2016 by the Wound Healing Society</rights><rights>2016 by the Wound Healing Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3637-13be59be6a18bae3aaaabddcacd8d52c9a347522101b6278480d696dacf93b033</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3637-13be59be6a18bae3aaaabddcacd8d52c9a347522101b6278480d696dacf93b033</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0129-8761</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fwrr.12457$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fwrr.12457$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27313054$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Skrinjar, Edda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duschek, Nikolaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayer, Gottfried S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assadian, Ojan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koulas, Spyridon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirsch, Kornelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Basic, Jelena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assadian, Afshin</creatorcontrib><title>Randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of a polymeric membrane dressing plus negative pressure wound therapy against negative pressure wound therapy alone: The WICVAC study</title><title>Wound repair and regeneration</title><addtitle>Wound Rep and Reg</addtitle><description>ABSTRACT Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is the treatment of choice for chronic wounds; yet, it is associated with considerable workload. Prompted by its nonadhesive and wound‐healing properties, this study investigated the effect of an additional polymeric membrane interface dressing (PMD; PolyMem WIC) in NPWT. From October 2011 to April 2013, 60 consecutive patients with chronic leg wounds or surgical site infections after revascularization of lower extremities were randomly allocated to either treatment with conventional NPWT (control arm) or NPWT with an additional PMD (intervention arm). The primary outcome was wound healing achieved within 30 days, the secondary endpoints included: number of days between dressing changes, wound‐related pain, cost efficiency, and occurrence of adverse events (ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02399722). Forty‐seven patients completed follow‐up. No difference in wound healing was observed (p &gt; 0.05) between both study arms. The additional PMD allowed significantly longer wearing times (days) between dressing changes (intervention: 8.8 ± 0.5, control: 4.8 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001). Pain was slightly higher in patients randomized to NPWT alone (VAS score: 4.8 ± 2.9) compared to NPWT + PMD (VAS score: 3.0 ± 2.9, p = 0.063). No wound infections were observed. Costs were reduced by 34% per patient in the intervention arm. These results suggest that the combination of NPWT and an additional interface PMD is a safe and economic method for the treatment of chronic wounds, which requires significantly fewer dressing changes for a comparable wound healing.</description><issn>1067-1927</issn><issn>1524-475X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc1u1DAUhS0Eon8seAHkJV2ktePYSdhVI1oqlYKG0mFnOfGdweDYwU4YwqvxcjhM2x3q3fj66jtH9j0IvaTkhKY63YZwQvOCl0_QPuV5kRUl__I09USUGa3zcg8dxPiNEMJ5XT1He3nJKCO82Ed_lspp35nfoHHr3RC8takdglE2DbpeBeM2ePgK860xTg3GO-zXWOHe26mDYFrcQdcE5QDrADHOgt6OETvYJPwn4H4ejwHw1o9Oz25B9RNWG2VcHB7nrHfwBt-kR6wuF7dnCxyHUU9H6Nla2Qgv7s5D9Pn87c3iXXb14eJycXaVtUywtADWAK8bEIpWjQKmUjVat6rVleZ5WyuW9pXnlNBG5GVVVESLWmjVrmvWEMYO0eudbx_8jxHiIDsTW7A2_diPUdIqF6KuuagTerxD2-BjDLCWfTCdCpOkRM5ZyZSV_JdVYl_d2Y5NB_qBvA8nAac7YGssTP93kqvl8t4y2ylMHODXg0KF71KUrORydX0hP12_X1W31bn8yP4C_TuzpA</recordid><startdate>201609</startdate><enddate>201609</enddate><creator>Skrinjar, Edda</creator><creator>Duschek, Nikolaus</creator><creator>Bayer, Gottfried S.</creator><creator>Assadian, Ojan</creator><creator>Koulas, Spyridon</creator><creator>Hirsch, Kornelia</creator><creator>Basic, Jelena</creator><creator>Assadian, Afshin</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0129-8761</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201609</creationdate><title>Randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of a polymeric membrane dressing plus negative pressure wound therapy against negative pressure wound therapy alone: The WICVAC study</title><author>Skrinjar, Edda ; Duschek, Nikolaus ; Bayer, Gottfried S. ; Assadian, Ojan ; Koulas, Spyridon ; Hirsch, Kornelia ; Basic, Jelena ; Assadian, Afshin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3637-13be59be6a18bae3aaaabddcacd8d52c9a347522101b6278480d696dacf93b033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Skrinjar, Edda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duschek, Nikolaus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayer, Gottfried S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assadian, Ojan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koulas, Spyridon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hirsch, Kornelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Basic, Jelena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assadian, Afshin</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Wound repair and regeneration</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Skrinjar, Edda</au><au>Duschek, Nikolaus</au><au>Bayer, Gottfried S.</au><au>Assadian, Ojan</au><au>Koulas, Spyridon</au><au>Hirsch, Kornelia</au><au>Basic, Jelena</au><au>Assadian, Afshin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of a polymeric membrane dressing plus negative pressure wound therapy against negative pressure wound therapy alone: The WICVAC study</atitle><jtitle>Wound repair and regeneration</jtitle><addtitle>Wound Rep and Reg</addtitle><date>2016-09</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>928</spage><epage>935</epage><pages>928-935</pages><issn>1067-1927</issn><eissn>1524-475X</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is the treatment of choice for chronic wounds; yet, it is associated with considerable workload. Prompted by its nonadhesive and wound‐healing properties, this study investigated the effect of an additional polymeric membrane interface dressing (PMD; PolyMem WIC) in NPWT. From October 2011 to April 2013, 60 consecutive patients with chronic leg wounds or surgical site infections after revascularization of lower extremities were randomly allocated to either treatment with conventional NPWT (control arm) or NPWT with an additional PMD (intervention arm). The primary outcome was wound healing achieved within 30 days, the secondary endpoints included: number of days between dressing changes, wound‐related pain, cost efficiency, and occurrence of adverse events (ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02399722). Forty‐seven patients completed follow‐up. No difference in wound healing was observed (p &gt; 0.05) between both study arms. The additional PMD allowed significantly longer wearing times (days) between dressing changes (intervention: 8.8 ± 0.5, control: 4.8 ± 0.2; p &lt; 0.001). Pain was slightly higher in patients randomized to NPWT alone (VAS score: 4.8 ± 2.9) compared to NPWT + PMD (VAS score: 3.0 ± 2.9, p = 0.063). No wound infections were observed. Costs were reduced by 34% per patient in the intervention arm. These results suggest that the combination of NPWT and an additional interface PMD is a safe and economic method for the treatment of chronic wounds, which requires significantly fewer dressing changes for a comparable wound healing.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>27313054</pmid><doi>10.1111/wrr.12457</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0129-8761</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1067-1927
ispartof Wound repair and regeneration, 2016-09, Vol.24 (5), p.928-935
issn 1067-1927
1524-475X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826699569
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
title Randomized controlled trial comparing the combination of a polymeric membrane dressing plus negative pressure wound therapy against negative pressure wound therapy alone: The WICVAC study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T05%3A04%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Randomized%20controlled%20trial%20comparing%20the%20combination%20of%20a%20polymeric%20membrane%20dressing%20plus%20negative%20pressure%20wound%20therapy%20against%20negative%20pressure%20wound%20therapy%20alone:%20The%20WICVAC%20study&rft.jtitle=Wound%20repair%20and%20regeneration&rft.au=Skrinjar,%20Edda&rft.date=2016-09&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=928&rft.epage=935&rft.pages=928-935&rft.issn=1067-1927&rft.eissn=1524-475X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/wrr.12457&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1826699569%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826699569&rft_id=info:pmid/27313054&rfr_iscdi=true