The Efficacy of Pressure Ulcer Treatment With Cathodal and Cathodal-Anodal High-Voltage Monophasic Pulsed Current: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

Electrical Stimulation in the Treatment of Pressure Injuries: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

GENERAL PURPOSE

To provide information on evidence-based practice regarding the use of electrical stimulation for pressure injury management.

TARGET AUDIENCE

This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES

After participating in this educational activity, the participant will:1. Apply clinical practice recommendations related to the use of electrical stimulation in the treatment of pressure injuries.2. Identify issues related to the use of electrical stimulation to treat pressure injuries.

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.

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.

Efficacy of Low-frequency Monophasic Pulsed Microcurrent Stimulation Therapy in Undermining Pressure Injury: A Double-blind Crossover-controlled Study

Objectives:

This double-blind crossover-controlled trial aimed to verify the effect of electrical stimulation therapy on pressure injuries with undermining.

Methods

: In this trial, we compared the healing rates between a sham period and a treatment period using monophasic pulsed microcurrent therapy. The participants were randomly assigned to the sham or treatment group and received stimulation for 2 weeks. All the participants, physical therapists, and researchers were blinded to the allocation. For the main analysis, data on the effect of the intervention on changes in weekly healing and contraction rates of the wound areas, including undermining, were analyzed based on a two-period crossover study design. The intervention effect was estimated by examining the mean treatment difference for each period using Wilcoxon’s signed-rank test.

Results

: The reduction of the entire wound area, including the undermining area, resulted in significantly higher healing and contraction rates in the treatment group (overall wound area reduction rate: contraction rate, P=0.008; period healing rate, P=0.002).

Conclusions

: Electrical stimulation therapy for pressure injuries, using conditions based on the findings of an in vivo culture study, was effective in reducing the wound area.

Wound Healing with Electrical Stimulation Technologies: A Review

Electrical stimulation (ES) is an attractive field among clinicians in the topic of wound healing, which is common yet complicated and requires multidisciplinary approaches. The conventional dressing and skin graft showed no promise on complete wound closure. These urge the need for the exploration of electrical stimulation to supplement current wound care management. This review aims to provide an overview of electrical stimulation in wound healing. The mechanism of galvanotaxis related to wound repair will be reviewed at the cellular and molecular levels. Meanwhile, different modalities of externally applied electricity mimicking a physiologic electric field will be discussed and compared in vitro, in vivo, and clinically. With the emerging of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, the integration of electroconductive biomaterials into modern miniaturised dressing is of interest and has become possible with the advancing understanding of smart biomaterials.

Electrical Stimulation to Enhance Wound Healing

Electrical stimulation (ES) can serve as a therapeutic modality accelerating the healing of wounds, particularly chronic wounds which have impaired healing due to complications from underlying pathology. This review explores how ES affects the cellular mechanisms of wound healing, and its effectiveness in treating acute and chronic wounds. Literature searches with no publication date restrictions were conducted using the Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed databases, and 30 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. In vitro and in vivo experiments investigating the effect of ES on the general mechanisms of healing demonstrated increased epithelialization, fibroblast migration, and vascularity around wounds. Six in vitro studies demonstrated bactericidal effects upon exposure to alternating and pulsed current. Twelve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated the effect of pulsed current on chronic wound healing. All reviewed RCTs demonstrated a larger reduction in wound size and increased healing rate when compared to control groups. In conclusion, ES therapy can contribute to improved chronic wound healing and potentially reduce the financial burden associated with wound management. However, the variations in the wound characteristics, patient demographics, and ES parameters used across studies present opportunities for systematic RCT studies in the future.

Electromedical devices in wound healing management: a narrative review

Wound healing is the sum of physiological sequential steps, leading to skin restoration. However, in some conditions, such as diabetes, pressure ulcers (PU) and venous legs ulcers (VLU), healing is a major challenge and requires multiple strategies. In this context, some electromedical devices may accelerate and/or support wound healing, modulating the inflammatory, proliferation (granulation) and tissue-remodelling phases. This review describes some helpful electromedical devices including: ultrasonic-assisted wound debridement; electrotherapy; combined ultrasound and electric field stimulation; low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields; phototherapy (for example, laser therapy and light-emitting diode (LED) therapy); biophotonic therapies, and pressure therapies (for example, negative pressure wound therapy, and high pressure and intermittent pneumatic compression) The review focuses on the evidence-based medicine and adequate clinical trial design in relation to these devices.

Electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure sores, decubitus ulcers or bedsores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both. Pressure ulcers are a disabling consequence of immobility. Electrical stimulation (ES) is widely used for the treatment of pressure ulcers. However, it is not clear whether ES is effective.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects (benefits and harms) of electrical stimulation (ES) for treating pressure ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ES (plus standard care) with sham/no ES (plus standard care) for treating pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies with 913 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 26 to 83 years; 50% were male. ES was administered for a median (interquartile range (IQR)) duration of five (4 to 8) hours per week. The chronicity of the pressure ulcers was variable, ranging from a mean of four days to more than 12 months. Most of the pressure ulcers were on the sacral and coccygeal region (30%), and most were stage III (45%). Half the studies were at risk of performance and detection bias, and 25% were at risk of attrition and selective reporting bias. Overall, the GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence for outcomes was moderate to very low. Nineteen studies were conducted in four different settings, including rehabilitation and geriatric hospitals, medical centres, a residential care centre, and a community-based centre. ES probably increases the proportion of pressure ulcers healed compared with no ES (risk ratio (RR) 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 2.85; I² = 0%; 11 studies, 501 participants (512 pressure ulcers)). We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. It is uncertain whether ES decreases pressure ulcer severity on a composite measure compared with no ES (mean difference (MD) -2.43, 95% CI -6.14 to 1.28; 1 study, 15 participants (15 pressure ulcers) and whether ES decreases the surface area of pressure ulcers when compared with no ES (12 studies; 494 participants (505 pressure ulcers)). Data for the surface area of pressure ulcers were not pooled because there was considerable statistical heterogeneity between studies (I² = 96%) but the point estimates for the MD of each study ranged from -0.90 cm² to 10.37 cm². We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. It is uncertain whether ES decreases the time to complete healing of pressure ulcers compared with no ES (hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.41; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 55 participants (55 pressure ulcers)). We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision. ES may be associated with an excess of, or difference in, adverse events (13 studies; 586 participants (602 pressure ulcers)). Data for adverse events were not pooled but the types of reported adverse events included skin redness, itchy skin, dizziness and delusions, deterioration of the pressure ulcer, limb amputation, and occasionally death. We downgraded the evidence to low certainty due to risk of selection and attrition bias and imprecision. ES probably increases the rate of pressure ulcer healing compared with no ES (MD 4.59% per week, 95% CI 3.49 to 5.69; I² = 25%; 12 studies, 561 participants (613 pressure ulcers)). We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. We did not find any studies that looked at quality of life, depression, or consumers' perception of treatment effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ES probably increases the proportion of pressure ulcers healed and the rate of pressure ulcer healing (moderate certainty evidence), but its effect on time to complete healing is uncertain compared with no ES (very low certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether ES decreases the surface area of pressure ulcers. The evidence to date is insufficient to support the widespread use of ES for pressure ulcers outside of research. Future research needs to focus on large-scale trials to determine the effect of ES on all key outcomes.

The effects of peppermint gel on prevention of pressure injury in hospitalized patients with head trauma in neurosurgical ICU: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of peppermint gel on the prevention of pressure injuries in patients with head trauma admitted to neurosurgical intensive care units.

DESIGN

This double blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial study was conducted on 150 patients with head trauma admitted to the ICU. Using sealed envelopes, patients were assigned randomly into two intervention (n = 75) and control (n = 75) groups.

SETTING

The study was conducted in the ICUs of a university hospital and a general hospital in Shiraz, Iran.

INTERVENTION

The intervention group received peppermint gel three times a day up to 14 days during the skin care as a layer on the skin areas exposed to the risk of pressure injuries. The control group used a placebo gel.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

The expected outcome in this study was the incidence of pressure injuries stage I, which once daily was evaluated by pairs of observers with the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of pressure injuries was 22.8% and 77% in the intervention and the control groups, respectively. The chi-square test result showed a significant deference between two groups (P < 0.001). Sacrum was the most common site for incidence of the pressure injuries.

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that the peppermint gel has a positive effect in the prevention of pressure injuries in the patients with head trauma admitted to ICUs. So, the use of this gel is suggested as an easy and low-cost method for prevention of pressure injuries in the patients admitted to ICUs.

Effect of laser therapy on expression of angio- and fibrogenic factors, and cytokine concentrations during the healing process of human pressure ulcers

Objective: To evaluate the effect of laser irradiation at different wavelengths on the expression of selected growth factors and inflammatory mediators at particular stages of the wound healing process. Methods: Sixty-seven patients were recruited, treated, and analyzed (group A - 940 nm: 17 patients; group B - 808 nm: 18 patients; group C - 658 nm: 16 patients; group D - sham therapy: 17 patients). Patients received a basic treatment, including repositioning and mobilization, air pressure mattress and bed support surfaces, wound cleansing and drug therapy. Additionally, patients received laser therapy once a day, 5 times a week for 1 month in use of a semiconductor lasers (GaAlAs) which emitted a continuous radiation emission at separate wavelengths of 940 nm (group A), 808 nm (group B) and 658 nm (group C). In group D (sham therapy), laser therapy was applied in the same manner, but the device was off during each session (only the applicator was switched on to scan pressure ulcers using none coherent red visible light). Results: The positive changes in the measured serum (IL-2, IL-6 and TNF-α) and wound tissue (TNF-α, VEGF and TGFβ1) parameters appeared to be connected only with the wavelength of 658 nm. The significant change in pro-inflammatory mediator levels [interleukin 2 (IL-2) with p=0.008 and interleukin 6 (IL-6) with p=0.016] was noticed after two weeks of laser therapy. In the other groups, the inflammation was also reduced, but the process was not as marked as in group C. Similarly, in the case of tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α) concentration, where after two weeks of treatment with irradiation at a wavelength of 658 nm, a rapid suppression was observed (p=0.001), whereas in the other groups, these results were much slower and not as obvious. Interestingly, again in the case of group C, the change in TNF-α concentration in wound tissue was most intensive (≈75% reduction), whereas the changes in other groups were not as obvious (≈50% reduction). After irradiation (658 nm), the VEGF expression increased significantly within the first two weeks, and then it decreased and maintained a stable level. In contrast, the TGFβ1 activity remained level, but always higher in comparison to other groups Conclusions: The effective healing of pressure ulcers is connected with laser irradiation at a wavelength of 658 nm. We believe that this effect is related to the inhibition of inflammatory processes in the wound and stimulation of angiogenesis and fibroblast proliferation at this specific radiation (based both on concentration of interleukins and TNF-α serum level and VEGF, TGFβ1, TNF-α activities in wound biopsies). Laser therapy at wavelengths of 940 and 808 nm does not significantly affect the above-mentioned repair processes, which explains its low effectiveness in the treatment of pressure ulcers.