Therapeutic ultrasound for venous leg ulcers

CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Many surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (in French 'cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire' (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system. This is the second update of the review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 19 October 2020. We also searched PUBMED to 19 October 2020 and checked the references of relevant articles to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CHIVA to other therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed and selected studies, extracted data, and performed quantitative analysis from the selected papers. A third author solved any disagreements. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The main outcomes of interest were the recurrence of varicose veins and side effects.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update, we identified two new additional studies. In total, we included six RCTs with 1160 participants (62% women) and collected from them eight comparisons. Three RCTs compared CHIVA with vein stripping. One RCT compared CHIVA with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. The new studies included three comparisons, one compared CHIVA with vein stripping and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and one compared CHIVA with vein stripping and endovenous laser therapy. We judged the certainty of the evidence for our outcomes as low to very low due to inconsistency, imprecision caused by the low number of events and risk of bias. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor personnel were blinded to the interventions. Two studies attempted to blind outcome assessors, but the characteristics of the surgery limited concealment. Five studies reported the outcome clinical recurrence of varicose veins with a follow-up of 18 months to 10 years. CHIVA may make little or no difference to the recurrence of varicose veins in the lower limb compared to stripping (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.20; 5 studies, 966 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether CHIVA reduced recurrence compared to compression dressing (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; 1 study, 47 participants; very low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to clinical recurrence compared to RFA (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.53; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence) and endovenous laser (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no clear difference between CHIVA and stripping for the side effects of limb infection (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 studies, 746 participants; low-certainty evidence), and superficial vein thrombosis (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.17; 4 studies, 846 participants; low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may reduce slightly nerve injury (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; NNTH 9, 95% CI 5 to 100; 4 studies, 846 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hematoma compared to stripping (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97; NNTH 11, 95% CI 5 to 100; 2 studies, 245 participants; low-certainty evidence). For bruising, one study found no differences between groups while another study found reduced rates of bruising in the CHIVA group compared to the stripping group. Compared to RFA, CHIVA may make little or no difference to rates of limb infection, superficial vein thrombosis, nerve injury or hematoma, but may cause more bruising (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.28; NNTH 8, CI 95% 5 to 25; 1 study, 144 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to endovenous laser, CHIVA may make little or no difference to rates of limb infection, superficial vein thrombosis, nerve injury or hematoma. The study comparing CHIVA versus compression did not report side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be little or no difference in the recurrence of varicose veins when comparing CHIVA to stripping (low-certainty evidence), but CHIVA may slightly reduce nerve injury and hematoma in the lower limb (low-certainty evidence). Very limited evidence means we are uncertain of any differences in recurrence when comparing CHIVA with compression (very low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to recurrence compared to RFA (low-certainty evidence), but may result in more bruising (low-certainty evidence). CHIVA may make little or no difference to recurrence and side effects compared to endovenous laser therapy (low-certainty evidence). However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed, and the results were imprecise due to the low number of events. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.

Development of Low Frequency (20-100 kHz) Clinically Viable Ultrasound Applicator for Chronic Wound Treatment

This paper details the systematic approach used to develop a viable clinical prototype of a therapeutic ultrasound applicator and discusses the rationale and deliberations that led to the design strategy. The applicator was specifically devised to treat chronic wounds and-to the best of the author's knowledge-is the first truly wearable device with a proven record of reducing healing time, directly translating to a reduction of healthcare costs. The prototype operates in the kHz (20-100) range of frequencies and uses noncavitational and nonthermal levels of ultrasound energy. Hence, in the absence of inertial cavitation and temperature elevation, the tissue-ultrasound interaction is considered to be dependent on stable cavitation (if any) and radiation force. The peak acoustic output pressure amplitude is limited to 55 kPa, corresponding to a spatial peak-temporal peak intensity of 100 mW/cm2. This level of intensity is considered to be safe to apply for extended (up to 4 h) periods of time. The patch-like applicator design is suitable to be embedded in wound dressing. With its lightweight (<20 g) and circular (40 mm dia) disk-shape architecture, the applicator is well suited for chronic wound treatment. A small ( n = 8 ) pilot study on the effects of the applicator on diabetic ulcers (DUs) healing time is presented. The average time to wound closure was 4.7 weeks for subjects treated with the active ultrasound applicator, compared to 12 weeks for subjects treated with a sham applicator, suggesting that patients with DUs may benefit from the proposed treatment.

The venous ulcer continues to be a clinical challenge: an update

Venous ulcers are a common chronic problem in many countries especially in Northern Europe and USA. The overall prevalence of this condition is 1% rising to 3% in the over 65 years of age. Over the last 25 years, there have been many developments applicable to its diagnosis and treatment. These advances, notwithstanding healing response and recurrence, are variable, and the venous ulcer continues to be a clinical challenge.

The pathogenesis of venous ulcers is unrelieved or ambulatory venous hypertension resulting mostly from deep venous thrombosis leading to venous incompetence, lipodermatosclerosis, leucocyte plugging of the capillaries, tissue hypoxia and microvascular dysfunction. It is not known what initiates venous ulcers. Triggers vary from trauma of the lower extremity to scratching to relieve itchy skin over the ankle region. Venous ulcers can be painful, and this condition presents an increasing burden of care. A systematic analysis of the role of technology used for diagnosis and management strongly supports the use of compression as a mainstay of standardised care. It further shows good evidence for the potential of some treatment procedures to accelerate healing. This article reviews the pathogenetic mechanisms, current diagnostic methods and standard care and its limitations.

Interstitial Matrix Prevents Therapeutic Ultrasound From Causing Inertial Cavitation in Tumescent Subcutaneous Tissue

We search for cavitation in tumescent subcutaneous tissue of a live pig under application of pulsed, 1-MHz ultrasound at 8 W cm^-2 spatial peak and pulse-averaged intensity. We find no evidence of broadband acoustic emission indicative of inertial cavitation. These acoustic parameters are representative of those used in external-ultrasound-assisted lipoplasty and in physical therapy and our null result brings into question the role of cavitation in those applications. A comparison of broadband acoustic emission from a suspension of ultrasound contrast agent in bulk water with a suspension injected subcutaneously indicates that the interstitial matrix suppresses cavitation and provides an additional mechanism behind the apparent lack of in-vivo cavitation to supplement the absence of nuclei explanation offered in the literature. We also find a short-lived cavitation signal in normal, non-tumesced tissue that disappears after the first pulse, consistent with cavitation nuclei depletion in vivo.

Wound healing treatment by high frequency ultrasound, microcurrent, and combined therapy modifies the immune response in rats

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic high-frequency ultrasound, microcurrent, and a combination of the two have been used as potential interventions in the soft tissue healing process, but little is known about their effect on the immune system.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of therapeutic high frequency ultrasound, microcurrent, and the combined therapy of the two on the size of the wound area, peritoneal macrophage function, CD4+ and CD8+, T lymphocyte populations, and plasma concentration of interleukins (ILs).

METHOD

Sixty-five Wistar rats were randomized into five groups, as follows: uninjured control (C, group 1), lesion and no treatment (L, group 2), lesion treated with ultrasound (LU, group 3), lesion treated with microcurrent (LM, group 4), and lesion treated with combined therapy (LUM, group 5). For groups 3, 4 and 5, treatment was initiated 24 hours after surgery under anesthesia and each group was allocated into three different subgroups (n=5) to allow for the use of the different therapy resources at on days 3, 7 and 14 Photoplanimetry was performed daily. After euthanasia, blood was collected for immune analysis.

RESULTS

Ultrasound increased the phagocytic capacity and the production of nitric oxide by macrophages and induced the reduction of CD4+ cells, the CD4+/CD8+ ratio, and the plasma concentration of IL-1β. Microcurrent and combined therapy decreased the production of superoxide anion, nitric oxide, CD4+-positive cells, the CD4+/CD8+ ratio, and IL-1β concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic high-frequency ultrasound, microcurrent, and combined therapy changed the activity of the innate and adaptive immune system during healing process but did not accelerate the closure of the wound.

Therapeutic ultrasound for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic, recurring, complex wound that is more common in people aged over 65 years. Venous ulcers pose a significant burden to patients and healthcare systems. While compression therapy (such as bandages or stockings) is an effective first-line treatment, ultrasound may have a role to play in healing venous ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether venous leg ulcers treated with ultrasound heal more quickly than those not treated with ultrasound.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register (searched 19 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and Epub Ahead of Print) (1946 to 19 September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to 19 September 2016); and EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1937 to 19 September 2016). We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ultrasound with no ultrasound. Eligible non-ultrasound comparator treatments included usual care, sham ultrasound and alternative leg ulcer treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the search results and selected eligible studies. Details from included studies were summarised using a data extraction sheet, and double-checked. We attempted to contact trial authors for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven trials are included in this update; 10 of these we judged to be at an unclear or high risk of bias. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in duration of follow-up, and ultrasound regimens. Nine trials evaluated high frequency ultrasound; seven studies provided data for ulcers healed and two provided data on change in ulcer size only. Two trials evaluated low frequency ultrasound and both reported ulcers healed data.It is uncertain whether high frequency ultrasound affects the proportion of ulcers healed compared with no ultrasound at any of the time points evaluated: at seven to eight weeks (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.71; 6 trials, 678 participants; low quality evidence - downgraded once for risk of bias and once for imprecision); at 12 weeks (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.73; 3 trials, 489 participants; moderate quality evidence - downgraded once for imprecision); and at 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; 1 trial, 337 participants; low quality evidence - downgraded once for unclear risk of bias and once for imprecision).One trial (92 participants) reported that a greater percentage reduction in ulcer area was achieved at four weeks with high-frequency ultrasound, while another (73 participants) reported no clear difference in change in ulcer size at seven weeks. We downgraded the level of this evidence to very low, mainly for risk of bias (typically lack of blinded outcome assessment and attrition) and imprecision.Data from one trial (337 participants) suggest that high frequency ultrasound may increase the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.64; moderate quality evidence - downgraded once for imprecision) and serious adverse events (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.89; moderate quality evidence downgraded once for imprecision).It is uncertain whether low frequency ultrasound affects venous ulcer healing at eight and 12 weeks (RR 3.91, 95% CI 0.47 to 32.85; 2 trials, 61 participants; very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision)).High-frequency ultrasound probably makes little or no difference to quality of life (moderate quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). The outcomes of adverse effects, quality of life and cost were not reported for low-frequency ultrasound treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether therapeutic ultrasound (either high or low frequency) improves the healing of venous leg ulcers. We rated most of the evidence as low or very low quality due to risk of bias and imprecision.

Wound bed preparation: TIME for an update

While the overwhelming majority of wounds heal rapidly, a significant proportion fail to progress through the wound-healing process. These resultant chronic wounds cause considerable morbidity and are costly to treat. Wound bed preparation, summarised by the TIME (Tissue, Inflammation/infection, Moisture imbalance, Epithelial edge advancement) concept, is a systematic approach for assessing chronic wounds. Each of these components needs to be addressed and optimised to improve the chances of successful wound closure. We present an up-to-date literature review of the most important recent aspects of wound bed preparation. While there are many novel therapies that are available to the treating clinician, often, there are limited data on which to assess their clinical value, and a lack of appreciation for adequate wound bed preparation needed before expensive therapy is used to heal a wound.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Chronic Wounds: The Spectrum from Basic to Advanced Therapy

Significance: Almost 7 million Americans have chronic cutaneous wounds and billions of dollars are spent on their treatment. The number of patients with nonhealing wounds keeps increasing worldwide due to an ever-aging population, increasing number of obese and diabetic patients, and cardiovascular disease. Recent Advances: Advanced treatments for difficult wounds are needed. Therapy with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is attractive due to their differentiating potential, their immunomodulating properties, and their paracrine effects. Critical Issues: New technologies (including growth factors and skin substitutes) are now widely used for stimulating wound healing. However, in spite of these advances, the percentage of complete wound closure in most clinical situations is around 50-60%. Moreover, there is a high rate of wound recurrence. Future Directions: Recently, it has been demonstrated that MSCs speed up wound healing by decreasing inflammation, by promoting angiogenesis, and by decreasing scarring. However, there are some potential limitations to successful MSC therapy. These limitations include the need to improve cell delivery methods, cell viability, heterogeneity in MSC preparations, and suboptimal wound bed preparation. Further large, controlled clinical trials are needed to establish the safety of MSCs before widespread clinical application.

Alginate dressings for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are a common and recurring type of chronic, complex wound associated with considerable cost to patients and healthcare providers. To aid healing, primary wound contact dressings are usually applied to ulcers beneath compression devices. Alginate dressings are used frequently and there is a variety of alginate products on the market, however, the evidence base to guide dressing choice is sparse. 

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative dressings, non-dressing treatments or no dressing, with or without concurrent compression therapy, on the healing of venous leg ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update, in March 2015, we searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of any type of alginate dressing in the treatment of venous ulcers were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was undertaken when deemed feasible and appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs (295 participants) were included in this review. All were identified during the original review. The overall risk of bias was high for two RCTs and unclear for three. One RCT compared different proprietary alginate dressings (20 participants), three compared alginate and hydrocolloid dressings (215 participants), and one compared alginate and plain non-adherent dressings (60 participants). Follow-up periods were six weeks in three RCTs and 12 weeks in two. No statistically significant between-group differences were detected for any comparison, for any healing outcome. Meta-analysis was feasible for one comparison (alginate and hydrocolloid dressings), with data from two RCTs (84 participants) pooled for complete healing at six weeks: risk ratio 0.42 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 1.21). Adverse event profiles were generally similar between groups (not assessed for alginate versus plain non-adherent dressings).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence base does not suggest that alginate dressings are more or less effective in the healing of venous leg ulcers than hydrocolloid or plain non-adherent dressings, and there is no evidence to indicate a difference between different proprietary alginate dressings. However, the RCTs in this area are considered to be of low or unclear methodological quality. Further, good quality evidence is required from well designed and rigorously conducted RCTs that employ - and clearly report on - methods to minimise bias, prior to any definitive conclusions being made regarding the efficacy of alginate dressings in the management of venous leg ulcers.

CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Many surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system. This is an update of the review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.

SEARCH METHODS

The Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched the Specialised Register (April 2015), the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3) and clinical trials databases. The review authors searched PubMed (April 2015). There was no language restriction. We contacted study authors to obtain more information when necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the CHIVA method versus any other treatments. Two review authors independently selected and evaluated the studies. One review author extracted data and performed the quantitative analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data from the selected papers. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), the number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were identified for this update. We included four RCTs with 796 participants (70.5% women). Three RCTs compared the CHIVA method with vein stripping, and one RCT compared the CHIVA method with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. We judged the quality of the evidence of the included studies as low to moderate due to imprecision caused by the low number of events and because the studies were open. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor outcome assessors were blinded to the interventions. The primary endpoint, clinical recurrence, pooled between studies over a follow-up of 3 to 10 years, showed more favorable results for the CHIVA method than for vein stripping (721 people; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%, NNTB 6; 95% CI 4 to 10) or compression dressings (47 people; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; NNTB 3; 95% CI 2 to 17). Only one study reported data on quality of life (presented graphically) and these results significantly favored the CHIVA method.The vein stripping group had a higher risk of side effects than the CHIVA group; specifically, the RR for bruising was 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.76; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 6) and the RR for nerve damage was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; I(2) = 0%; NNTH 12; 95% CI 9 to 20). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of limb infection and superficial vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The CHIVA method reduces recurrence of varicose veins and produces fewer side effects than vein stripping. However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed and the results were imprecise due to low number of events. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds

BACKGROUND

Chronic wounds are common and present a health problem with significant effect on quality of life. Various pathologies may cause tissue breakdown, including poor blood supply resulting in inadequate oxygenation of the wound bed. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested to improve oxygen supply to wounds and therefore improve their healing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of adjunctive HBOT for treating chronic ulcers of the lower limb.

SEARCH METHODS

For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 February 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 17 February 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 17 February 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 17 February 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 February 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect on chronic wound healing of therapeutic regimens which include HBOT with those that exclude HBOT (with or without sham therapy).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of the relevant trials using the Cochrane methodology and extracted the data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreement by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included twelve trials (577 participants). Ten trials (531 participants) enrolled people with a diabetic foot ulcer: pooled data of five trials with 205 participants showed an increase in the rate of ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 4.62; P = 0.01) with HBOT at six weeks but this benefit was not evident at longer-term follow-up at one year. There was no statistically significant difference in major amputation rate (pooled data of five trials with 312 participants, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.18). One trial (16 participants) considered venous ulcers and reported data at six weeks (wound size reduction) and 18 weeks (wound size reduction and number of ulcers healed) and suggested a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area only at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 33.00%, 95% CI 18.97 to 47.03, P < 0.00001). We identified one trial (30 participants) which enrolled patients with non-healing diabetic ulcers as well as venous ulcers ("mixed ulcers types") and patients were treated for 30 days. For this "mixed ulcers" there was a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area at the end of treatment (30 days) (MD 61.88%, 95% CI 41.91 to 81.85, P < 0.00001). We did not identify any trials that considered arterial and pressure ulcers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with foot ulcers due to diabetes, HBOT significantly improved the ulcers healed in the short term but not the long term and the trials had various flaws in design and/or reporting that means we are not confident in the results. More trials are needed to properly evaluate HBOT in people with chronic wounds; these trials must be adequately powered and designed to minimise all kinds of bias.

Electrical Stimulation and Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Review of Clinical Evidence

Electrical stimulation (ES) has been shown to have beneficial effects in wound healing. It is important to assess the effects of ES on cutaneous wound healing in order to ensure optimization for clinical practice. Several different applications as well as modalities of ES have been described, including direct current (DC), alternating current (AC), high-voltage pulsed current (HVPC), low-intensity direct current (LIDC) and electrobiofeedback ES. However, no one method has been advocated as the most optimal for the treatment of cutaneous wound healing. Therefore, this review aims to examine the level of evidence (LOE) for the application of different types of ES to enhance cutaneous wound healing in the skin. An extensive search was conducted to identify relevant clinical studies utilising ES for cutaneous wound healing since 1980 using PubMed, Medline and EMBASE. A total of 48 studies were evaluated and assigned LOE. All types of ES demonstrated positive effects on cutaneous wound healing in the majority of studies. However, the reported studies demonstrate contrasting differences in the parameters and types of ES application, leading to an inability to generate sufficient evidence to support any one standard therapeutic approach. Despite variations in the type of current, duration, and dosing of ES, the majority of studies showed a significant improvement in wound area reduction or accelerated wound healing compared to the standard of care or sham therapy as well as improved local perfusion. The limited number of LOE-1 trials for investigating the effects of ES in wound healing make critical evaluation and assessment somewhat difficult. Further, better-designed clinical trials are needed to improve our understanding of the optimal dosing, timing and type of ES to be used.

Overview of guidelines for the prevention and treatment of venous leg ulcers: a US perspective

Comprehensive care of chronic venous insufficiency and associated ulcers requires a multipronged and interprofessional approach to care. A comprehensive treatment approach includes exercise, nutritional assessment, compression therapy, vascular reconstruction, and advanced treatment modalities. National guidelines, meta-analyses, and original research studies provide evidence for the inclusion of these approaches in the patient plan of care. The purpose of this paper is to review present guidelines for prevention and treatment of venous leg ulcers as followed in the US. The paper further explores evidence-based yet pragmatic tools for the interprofessional team to use in the management of this complex disorder.

Electrostimulation: Current Status, Strength of Evidence Guidelines, and Meta-Analysis

Significance: Delayed healing of skin wounds is a serious problem for the patients, clinicians, and society. The application of interventions with proven effectiveness to increase wound healing is relevant. Recent Advances: This article summarizes the results of effect studies with the application of electrostimulation (ES) as additional treatment to standard wound care (SWC). Therefore, five published narrative reviews are discussed. In addition, 15 studies with a clear randomized controlled trial design are analyzed systematically and the results are presented in four forest plots. The healing rate is expressed in the outcome measure percentage area reduction in 4 weeks of treatment (PAR4). This leads to a continuous measure with mean differences between the percentage healing in the experimental group (SWC plus ES) and in the control group (SWC alone or SWC plus placebo ES). Adding ES to SWC in all wound types increases PAR4 by an extra 26.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.6, 37.8); adding unidirectional ES to SWC increases PAR4 by 30.8% (95% CI 20.9, 40.6) and adding unidirectional ES to the treatment of pressure ulcers increases PAR4 by 42.7% (95% CI 32.0, 53.3). Critical Issues: There is a discrepancy between the proven effectiveness of ES as additional treatment to SWC and the application of ES in real practice. Possible drawbacks are the lack of clinical expertise concerning the proper application of ES and the extra time effort and necessary equipment that are needed. Future Directions: Clinicians concerned about the optimal treatment of patients with delayed wound healing should improve their practical competency to be able to apply ES.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antiseptics Cadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers are a type of chronic wound affecting up to 1% of adults in developed countries at some point during their lives. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. Two main strategies are used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics and antiseptics on the healing of venous ulcers; review authors also examined the effects of these interventions on clinical infection, bacterial flora, bacterial resistance, ulcer recurrence, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013, for this second update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 May 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to Week 3 May 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations, 22 May 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to Week 20 2013); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 17 May 2013). No language or publication date restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with venous leg ulceration, evaluating at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic that reported an objective assessment of wound healing (e.g. time to complete healing, frequency of complete healing, change in ulcer surface area) were eligible for inclusion. Selection decisions were made by two review authors while working independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes was recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one review author and were checked by a second. Data were pooled when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs reporting 53 comparisons and recruiting a total of 4486 participants were included, Many RCTs were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias. Ulcer infection status at baseline and duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Five RCTs reported eight comparisons of systemic antibiotics, and the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (11 RCTs reporting 12 comparisons); povidone-iodine (six RCTs reporting seven comparisons); peroxide-based preparations (four RCTs reporting four comparisons); honey-based preparations (two RCTs reporting two comparisons); silver-based preparations (12 RCTs reporting 13 comparisons); other topical antibiotics (three RCTs reporting five comparisons); and other topical antiseptics (two RCTs reporting two comparisons). Few RCTs provided a reliable estimate of time to healing; most reported the proportion of participants with complete healing during the trial period. Systemic antibioticsMore participants were healed when they were prescribed levamisole (normally used to treat roundworm infection) compared with placebo: risk ratio (RR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.62). No between-group differences were detected in terms of complete healing for other comparisons: antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus usual care; ciprofloxacin versus standard care/placebo; trimethoprim versus placebo; ciprofloxacin versus trimethoprim; and amoxicillin versus topical povidone-iodine. Topical antibiotics and antisepticsCadexomer iodine: more participants were healed when given cadexomer iodine compared with standard care. The pooled estimate from four RCTs for complete healing at four to 12 weeks was RR 2.17 (95% CI 1.30 to 3.60). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected when cadexomer iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid dressing; paraffin gauze dressing; dextranomer; and silver-impregnated dressings.Povidone iodine: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when povidone-iodine was compared with the following: hydrocolloid; moist or foam dressings according to wound status; and growth factor. Time to healing estimates for povidone-iodine versus dextranomer, and for povidone-iodine versus hydrocolloid, were likely to be unreliable.Peroxide-based preparations: four RCTs reported findings in favour of peroxide-based preparations when compared with usual care for surrogate healing outcomes (change in ulcer area). There was no report of complete healing.Honey-based preparations: no between-group difference in time to healing or complete healing was detected for honey-based products when compared with usual care.Silver-based preparations: no between-group differences in complete healing were detected when 1% silver sulphadiazine ointment was compared with standard care/placebo and tripeptide copper complex; or when different brands of silver-impregnated dressings were compared; or when silver-impregnated dressings were compared with non-antimicrobial dressings.Other topical antibiotics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants healed at four weeks when treated with an enzymatic cleanser (a non-antibiotic preparation) compared with a chloramphenicol-containing ointment (additional active ingredients also included in the ointment): RR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.99). No between-group differences in complete healing were detected for framycetin sulphate ointment versus enzymatic cleanser; chloramphenicol ointment versus framycetin sulphate ointment; mupirocin ointment versus vehicle; and topical antibiotics given according to antibiogram versus an herbal ointment.Other topical antiseptics: data from one RCT suggested that more participants receiving an antiseptic ointment (ethacridine lactate) had responsive ulcers (defined as > 20% reduction in area) at four weeks when compared with placebo: RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.73). Complete healing was not reported. No between-group difference was detected between chlorhexidine solution and usual care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, no evidence is available to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics in promoting healing of venous leg ulcers. However, the lack of reliable evidence means that it is not possible to recommend the discontinuation of any of the agents reviewed. In terms of topical preparations, some evidence supports the use of cadexomer iodine. Current evidence does not support the routine use of honey- or silver-based products. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of povidone-iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, chloramphenicol, framycetin, mupirocin, ethacridine or chlorhexidine in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should be used only in cases of clinical infection, not for bacterial colonisation.

CHIVA method for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency

BACKGROUND

Many surgical approaches are available to treat varicose veins secondary to chronic venous insufficiency. One of the least invasive techniques is the ambulatory conservative hemodynamic correction of venous insufficiency method (cure conservatrice et hémodynamique de l'insuffisance veineuse en ambulatoire (CHIVA)), an approach based on venous hemodynamics with deliberate preservation of the superficial venous system.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of the CHIVA method with alternative therapeutic techniques to treat varicose veins.

SEARCH METHODS

The Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched the Specialised Register (November 2012), CENTRAL (2012, Issue 10) and clinical trials databases. The review authors searched PubMed and EMBASE (December 2012). There was no language restriction. We contacted study authors to obtain more information when necessary.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the CHIVA method versus any other treatments. Two review authors independently selected and evaluated the studies. One review author extracted data and performed the quantitative analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors extracted data from the selected papers. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), the number of people needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB), and the number of people needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs with 796 participants (70.5% women) from the 434 publications identified by the search strategy. Three RCTs compared the CHIVA method with vein stripping, and one RCT compared the CHIVA method with compression dressings in people with venous ulcers. We judged the methodological quality of the included studies as low to moderate. The overall risk of bias across studies was high because neither participants nor outcome assessors were blinded to the interventions. The primary endpoint, clinical recurrence, pooled between studies over a follow-up of 3 to 10 years, showed more favorable results for the CHIVA method than for vein stripping (721 people; RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%, NNTB 6; 95% CI 4 to 10) or compression dressings (47 people; RR 0.23; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.96; NNTB 3; 95% CI 2 to 17). Only one study reported data on quality of life and these results presented graphically significantly favored the CHIVA method.The vein stripping group had a higher risk of side effects than the CHIVA group; specifically, the RR for bruising was 0.63 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.76; NNTH 4; 95% CI 3 to 6) and the RR for nerve damage was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; I(2) = 0%; NNTH 12; 95% CI 9 to 20). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding the incidence of limb infection and superficial vein thrombosis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The CHIVA method reduces recurrence of varicose veins and produces fewer side effects than vein stripping. However, we based these conclusions on a small number of trials with a high risk of bias as the effects of surgery could not be concealed. New RCTs are needed to confirm these results and to compare CHIVA with approaches other than open surgery.

New techniques for wound debridement

Debridement is a crucial component of wound management. Traditionally, several types of wound debridement techniques have been used in clinical practice such as autolytic, enzymatic, biodebridement, mechanical, conservative sharp and surgical. Various factors determine the method of choice for debridement for a particular wound such as suitability to the patient, the type of wound, its anatomical location and the extent of debridement required. Recently developed products are beginning to challenge traditional techniques that are currently used in wound bed preparation. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate the current evidence behind the use of these newer techniques in clinical practice. There is some evidence to suggest that low frequency ultrasound therapy may improve healing rates in patients with venous ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers. Hydrosurgery debridement is quick and precise, but the current evidence is limited and further studies are underway. Debridement using a monofilament polyester fibre pad and plasma-mediated bipolar radiofrequency ablation are both very new techniques. The initial evidence is limited, and further studies are warranted to confirm their role in management of chronic wounds.

A pilot study evaluating non-contact low-frequency ultrasound and underlying molecular mechanism on diabetic foot ulcers

Non-contact low-frequency ultrasound (NCLF-US) devices have been increasingly used for the treatment of chronic non-healing wounds. The appropriate dose for NCLF-US is still in debate. The aims of this pilot study were to evaluate the relationship between dose and duration of treatment for subjects with non-healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and to explore the correlation between wound healing and change of cytokine/proteinase/growth factor profile. This was a prospective randomised clinical study designed to evaluate subjects with non-healing DFUs for 5 weeks receiving standard of care and/or NCLF-US treatment. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: application of NCLF-US thrice per week (Group 1), NCLF-US once per week (Group 2) and the control (Group 3) that received no NCLF-US. All subjects received standard wound care plus offloading for a total of 4 weeks. Percent area reduction (PAR) of each wound compared with baseline was evaluated weekly. Profiles of cytokines/proteinase/growth factors in wound fluid and biopsied tissue were quantified to explore the correlation between wound healing and cytokines/growth factor expression. Twelve DFU patients, 2 (16·7%) type 1 and 10 (83·3%) type 2 diabetics, with an average age of 58 ± 10 years and a total of 12 foot ulcers were enrolled. Average ulcer duration was 36·44 ± 24·78 weeks and the average ABI was 0·91 ± 0·06. Group 1 showed significant wound area reduction at weeks 3, 4 and 5 compared with baseline, with the greatest PAR, 86% (P < 0·05); Groups 2 and 3 showed 25% PAR and 39% PAR, respectively, but there were no statistically significant differences between Groups 2 and 3 over time. Biochemical and histological analyses indicated a trend towards reduction of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, IL-8, IL-1β, TNF-α and GM-CSF), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and macrophages in response to NCLF-US consistent with wound reduction, when compared with control group subjects. This proof-of-concept pilot study demonstrates that NCLF-US is effective in treating neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers through, at least in part, inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines in chronic wound and improving tissue regeneration. Therapeutic application of NFLU, thrice (3) per week, renders the best wound area reduction.

Wound Healing Society (WHS) venous ulcer treatment guidelines: what's new in five years?

Since the establishment of the guidelines for the treatment of venous ulcers by the Wound Healing Society in 2006, there has been an abundance of new literature, both in accord and discord with the guidelines. The goal of this update is to highlight new findings since the publication of these guidelines to assist practitioner and patient in appropriate health care decisions, as well as to drive future research endeavors.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic wounds

BACKGROUND

Chronic wounds are common and present a health problem with significant effect on quality of life. Various pathologies may cause tissue breakdown, including poor blood supply resulting in inadequate oxygenation of the wound bed. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has been suggested to improve oxygen supply to wounds and therefore improve their healing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of adjunctive HBOT for treating chronic ulcers of the lower limb.

SEARCH METHODS

For this first update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 12 January 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to January Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 11 July 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 01); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 6 January 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect on chronic wound healing of therapeutic regimens which include HBOT with those that exclude HBOT (with or without sham therapy).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently evaluated the risk of bias of the relevant trials using the Cochrane methodology and extracted the data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreement by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials (471 participants). Eight trials (455 participants) enrolled people with a diabetic foot ulcer: pooled data of three trials with 140 participants showed an increase in the rate of ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 21.66; P = 0.02) with HBOT at six weeks but this benefit was not evident at longer-term follow-up at one year. There was no statistically significant difference in major amputation rate (pooled data of five trials with 312 participants, RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.18). One trial (16 participants) considered venous ulcers and reported data at six weeks (wound size reduction) and 18 weeks (wound size reduction and number of ulcers healed) and suggested a significant benefit of HBOT in terms of reduction in ulcer area only at six weeks (mean difference (MD) 33.00%, 95% CI 18.97 to 47.03, P < 0.00001). We did not identify any trials that considered arterial and pressure ulcers.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with foot ulcers due to diabetes, HBOT significantly improved the ulcers healed in the short term but not the long term and the trials had various flaws in design and/or reporting that means we are not confident in the results. More trials are needed to properly evaluate HBOT in people with chronic wounds; these trials must be adequately powered and designed to minimise all kinds of bias.

Use of weekly, low dose, high frequency ultrasound for hard to heal venous leg ulcers: the VenUS III randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness of weekly delivery of low dose, high frequency therapeutic ultrasound in conjunction with standard care for hard to heal venous leg ulcers.

DESIGN

Multicentre, pragmatic, two arm randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Community and district nurse led services, community leg ulcer clinics, and hospital outpatient leg ulcer clinics in 12 urban and rural settings (11 in the United Kingdom and one in the Republic of Ireland).

PARTICIPANTS

337 patients with at least one venous leg ulcer of >6 months' duration or >5 cm(2) area and an ankle brachial pressure index of ≥ 0.8.

INTERVENTIONS

Weekly administration of low dose, high frequency ultrasound therapy (0.5 W/cm(2), 1 MHz, pulsed pattern of 1:4) for up to 12 weeks plus standard care compared with standard care alone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was time to healing of the largest eligible leg ulcer. Secondary outcomes were proportion of patients healed by 12 months, percentage and absolute change in ulcer size, proportion of time participants were ulcer-free, health related quality of life, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The two groups showed no significant difference in the time to healing of the reference leg ulcer (log rank test, P=0.61). After adjustment for baseline ulcer area, baseline ulcer duration, use of compression bandaging, and study centre, there was still no evidence of a difference in time to healing (hazard ratio 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.40), P=0.97). The median time to healing of the reference leg ulcer was inestimable. There was no significant difference between groups in the proportion of participants with all ulcers healed by 12 months (72/168 in ultrasound group v 78/169 in standard care group, P=0.39 for Fisher's exact test) nor in the change in ulcer size at four weeks by treatment group (model estimate 0.05 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.19)). There was no difference in time to complete healing of all ulcers (log rank test, P=0.61), with median time to healing of 328 days (95% CI 235 to inestimable) with standard care and 365 days (224 days to inestimable) with ultrasound. There was no evidence of a difference in rates of recurrence of healed ulcers (17/31 with ultrasound v 14/31 with standard care, P=0.68 for Fisher's exact test). There was no difference between the two groups in health related quality of life, both for the physical component score (model estimate 0.69 (-1.79 to 3.08)) and the mental component score (model estimate -0.93 (-3.30 to 1.44)), but there were significantly more adverse events in the ultrasound group (model estimate 0.30 (0.01 to 0.60)). There was a significant relation between time to ulcer healing and baseline ulcer area (hazard ratio 0.64 (0.55 to 0.75)) and baseline ulcer duration (hazard ratio 0.59 (0.50 to 0.71)), with larger and older ulcers taking longer to heal. In addition, those centres with high recruitment rates had the highest healing rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose, high frequency ultrasound administered weekly for 12 weeks during dressing changes in addition to standard care did not increase ulcer healing rates, affect quality of life, or reduce ulcer recurrence. Trial registration ISRCTN21175670 and National Research Register N0484162339.