High Voltage Monophasic Pulsed Current (HVMPC) for stage II-IV pressure ulcer healing. A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of high-voltage monophasic pulsed current on diabetic ulcers and their potential pathophysiologic factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The present review was conducted to determine the efficacy of high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC) in treating diabetic ulcers, assess its effect on skin lesions with each of the pathophysiologic factors potentially contributing to diabetic ulcers, evaluate its safety, and identify treatment parameters. Electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, PEDro and Google Scholar databases was conducted. The revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (RoB 2), the risk of bias in non-randomised studies-of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool were used to assess risk of bias and methodological quality. Overall quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) principles. Thirty-two studies matched the eligibility criteria, and included 1061 patients with 1103 skin lesions of selected aetiologies; 12 randomised controlled trials were included in quantitative synthesis. HVMPC plus standard wound care (SWC) likely increased the probability of complete wound healing of pressure ulcers (PrUs) compared with sham/no stimulation plus SWC; relative risk (RR) 2.08; 95% CI: [1.42, 3.04], p = 0.0002; I²  = 0%, p = 0.61; eight studies, 358 ulcers. Although conclusive evidence regarding the effect of HVMPC on diabetic ulcers was not found, collateral evidence might suggest a potential benefit. Direct evidence, with moderate certainty, may support its efficacy in treating PrUs, albeit few adverse reactions were reported. Other observations, moreover, might indicate that this efficacy may not be limited to PrUs. Nonetheless, several aspects remain to be clarified for safe and effective application of electrical stimulation for wound healing.

Home-Based Electrical Stimulation to Accelerate Wound Healing-A Double-Blinded Randomized Control Trial

BACKGROUND

Electrical stimulation (E-Stim) may offer a unique adjunctive treatment to heal complicated diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Our primary goal is to examine the effectiveness of daily home-based E-Stim therapy to speed-up wound healing.

METHODS

Patients with chronic DFUs and mild to severe peripheral arterial disease (PAD) were recruited and randomized to either control (CG) or intervention (IG) groups. The IG received 1-hour home-based E-Stim therapy on daily basis for 4 weeks (4W). E-Stim was delivered through electrical pads placed above the ankle joint using a bio-electric stimulation technology (BEST^®) platform (Tennant Biomodulator^® PRO). The CG was provided with an identical but non-functional device for the same period. The primary outcome included wound area reduction at 4W from baseline (BL).

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were recruited and 5 were removed due to non-compliance or infection, leaving 33 participants (IG, n = 16; CG, n =17). At 4W, the IG showed a significant wound area reduction of 22% (BL: 7.4 ± 8.5 cm² vs 4W: 5.8 ± 8.0 cm², P = 0.002). Average of wound area was unchanged in the CG (P = 0.982). The self-report adherence to daily home-therapy was 93.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily home-based E-Stim provides early results on the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of E-Stim as an adjunctive therapy to speed up wound healings in patients with chronic DFU and mild to severe PAD.

Effectiveness and safety of electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

This study aims to synthesize qualitative evidence on the effectiveness and safety of electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND

Electrical stimulation is often used clinically to treat pressure ulcers, but its effectiveness and safety and some potential problems are not clear.

DESIGN

This is a qualitative systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

The data sources are four English databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science) and four Chinese databases (CNKI, SinoMed, VIP and WANFANG).

METHODS

Two reviewers independently examined the records according to the eligibility criteria and extracted the data of each included study. We used the Review Manager 5.3 software to perform data analysis.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized controlled trials including 740 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials demonstrated that electrical stimulation significantly reduced the ulcer surface in contrast with standard wound care alone or pulsed sham electrical stimulation. Nine studies showed that electrical stimulation increased the risk of pressure ulcers being completely healed than the controlled group. Three studies reported that adverse reactions were rare.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that electrical stimulation was a relatively effective and safe adjunctive therapy for pressure ulcers treatment.

High-Voltage, Pulsed Electric Fields Eliminate Pseudomonas aeruginosa Stable Infection in a Mouse Burn Model

Objective: The incidence of severe infectious complications after burn injury increases mortality by 40%. However, traditional approaches for managing burn infections are not always effective. High-voltage, pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment shortly after a burn injury has demonstrated an antimicrobial effect in vivo; however, the working parameters and long-term effects of PEF treatment have not yet been investigated. Approach: Nine sets of PEF parameters were investigated to optimize the applied voltage, pulse duration, and frequency or pulse repetition for disinfection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in a stable mouse burn wound model. The bacterial load after PEF administration was monitored for 3 days through bioluminescence imaging. Histological assessments and inflammation response analyses were performed at 1 and 24 h after the therapy. Results: Among all tested PEF parameters, the best disinfection efficacy of P. aeruginosa infection was achieved with a combination of 500 V, 100 μs, and 200 pulses delivered at 3 Hz through two plate electrodes positioned 1 mm apart for up to 3 days after the injury. Histological examinations revealed fewer inflammatory signs in PEF-treated wounds compared with untreated infected burns. Moreover, the expression levels of multiple inflammatory-related cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1α/β, IL-6, IL-10, leukemia inhibitory factor [LIF], and tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNF-α]), chemokines (macrophage inflammatory protein [MIP]-1α/β and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 [MCP-1]), and inflammation-related factors (vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], macrophage colony-stimulating factor [M-CSF], and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) were significantly decreased in the infected burn wound after PEF treatment. Innovation: We showed that PEF treatment on infected wounds reduces the P. aeruginosa load and modulates inflammatory responses. Conclusion: The data presented in this study suggest that PEF treatment is a potent candidate for antimicrobial therapy for P. aeruginosa burn infections.

Electric Factors in Wound Healing

Significance: Electric factors such as electric charges, electrodynamic field, skin battery, and interstitial exclusion permeate wound healing physiology and physiopathology from injury to re-epithelialization. The understanding of how electric factors contribute to wound healing and how treatments may interfere with them is fundamental for the development of better strategies for the management of pathological scarring and chronic wounds. Recent Advances: Angiogenesis, cell migration, macrophage activation hemorheology, and microcirculation can interfere and be interfered with electric factors. New treatments with various types of electric currents, laser, light emitting diode, acupuncture, and weak electric fields applied directly on the wound have been developed to improve wound healing. Critical Issues: Despite the basic and clinical development, pathological scars such as keloids and chronic wounds are still a challenge. Future Directions: New treatments can be developed to improve skin wound healing taking into account the influence of electrical charges. Monitoring electrical activity during skin healing and the influence of treatments on hemorheology and microcirculation are examples of how to use knowledge of electrical factors to increase their effectiveness.

Electrical stimulation for pain reduction in hard-to-heal wound healing

OBJECTIVE

Despite treatment advances over the past 30 years, the societal impact of hard-to-heal wounds is increasingly burdensome. An unresolved issue is wound pain, which can make many treatments, such as compression in venous leg ulcers, intolerable. The aim of this review is to present the evidence and stimulate thinking on the use of electrical stimulation devices as a treatment technology with the potential to reduce pain, improve adherence and thus hard-to-heal wound outcomes.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted for clinical studies up to August 2020 reporting the effects of electrical stimulation devices on wound pain. Devices evoking neuromuscular contraction or direct spinal cord stimulation were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of seven publications (three non-comparative and four randomised trials) were identified with four studies reporting a rapid (within 14 days) reduction in hard-to-heal wound pain. Electrical stimulation is more widely known for accelerated healing and is one of the most evidence-based technologies in wound management, supported by numerous in vitro molecular studies, five meta-analyses, six systematic reviews and 30 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite this wealth of supportive evidence, electrical stimulation has not yet been adopted into everyday practice. Some features of electrical stimulation devices may have hampered adoption in the past.

CONCLUSION

As new, pocket-sized, portable devices allowing convenient patient treatment and better patient adherence become more widely available and studied in larger RCTs, the evidence to date suggests that electrical stimulation should be considered part of the treatment options to address the challenges of managing and treating painful hard-to-heal wounds.