Improvement of microcirculation and healing of venous hypertension and ulcers with Crystacide. Evaluation of free radicals, laser Doppler flux and PO2. A prospective-randomized-controlled study

Hydrogen peroxide and cutaneous biology: Translational applications, benefits, and risks

Hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) is an endogenous reactive oxygen species that contributes to oxidative stress directly as a molecular oxidant and indirectly through free radical generation. Topically applied 1% to 45% H₂O₂ can be used for a range of clinical purposes, which will be reviewed here in addition to its safety. In concentrations from 1% to 6%, H₂O₂ has antimicrobial properties and can act as a debriding agent through its effervescence, making low-concentration H₂O₂ useful for wound care. H₂O₂ has also been shown to promote venous insufficiency ulcer healing, but studies in other wound types are needed. In 1% formulations, H₂O₂ is used outside the United States to treat acne and has shown efficacy similar to or greater than benzoyl peroxide, with reduced side effects. In a concentration of 40%, H₂O₂ is US Food and Drug Administration-approved to treat seborrheic keratoses and may cause fewer pigmentary changes than cryotherapy, although elimination often requires 2 to 4 treatments. However, H₂O₂ should be used with caution, as exposure can cause adverse effects through its oxidant capabilities. Low H₂O₂ concentrations cause only transient symptoms (blanching and blistering), but exposure to 9% to 45% H₂O₂ can cause more severe skin damage, including epidermal necrosis leading to erythema and bullae. Overall, H₂O₂ has numerous therapeutic uses, and novel indications, such as treating actinic keratoses and skin cancers, continue to be explored.

Variations in Plasma Free Radicals with Topical Aescin + Essential Phospholipids Gel in Venous Hypertension: New Clinical Data

The aim of this study was the evaluation of the effects of Aescin + essential phospholipids (AEPL) gel on plasma free radicals (PFRs). In this study, ten patients with venous hypertension, no ulcerations or infections, venous microangiopathy, and varicose veins were treated with topical AEPL applied in a standard protocol. AEPL was applied for 2 weeks, three times daily at the same skin region (perimalleolar internal region at defined distance from the medial malleolus and from the anterior edge of the tibia). In subjects with venous hypertension, PFR values were higher than 420 Carr units. After treatment, the values of PRF decreased to almost normal as an effect of the massage with AEPL gel. The decrease in value was observed in all treatment subjects. A ranking system indicates that the AEPL preparation is active in all subjects who have venous microangiopathy. The decrease in PFR value was greater than 30% in all treatment subjects (p<0.05). The decrease in PFR can be considered an important indication of an improvement in skin perfusion, which protects the skin from deterioration and eventually from venous ulcerations. The evaluation of PFR is an important new physiologic parameter that can be associated with other noninvasive tests to study the microcirculation and its evolution and improvement with systemic or topical medical treatment.

Improvement of Microcirculation and Healing of Venous Hypertension and Ulcers With Crystacide ®: Evaluation With a Microcirculatory Model, Including Free Radicals, Laser Doppler Flux, and PO2/PCO2 Measurements

In 32 patients with chronic venous insufficiency and venous hypertension associated with ulcerations, the effects of the local application of a hydrogen peroxide cream (Crystacide) applied onto the skin was evaluated using a complex, proportional, microcirculatory model to assess and quantify venous microangiopathy after local treatment. A comparative group treated without Crystacide was included. Laser Doppler flowmetry was used to assess skin perfusion (flux and venoarteriolar response) in association with transcutaneous PO2 and PCO2 measurements. Local plasma free radicals were evaluated in the area surrounding the venous ulcer using the D-Roms test. Crystacide was applied around and on the ulcer for 10 days. Crystacide was more effective than the control treatments. PO2 was increased (improved, P < .05), and plasma free radicals, PCO2, and laser Doppler flowmetry were decreased (improving toward normal values, P < .05). Also, the ulcerated area was significantly smaller at 10 days in the Crystacide group in comparison with controls (P < .05). In the proportional microcirculatory model, all parameters indicated an important level of improvement significantly larger than in controls. In conclusion, in chronic venous insufficiency and venous ulcerations, local treatment with Crystacide (10 days) improves the microcirculation and decreases skin free radicals, thus improving healing.

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.

Healing process of venous ulcers: the role of microcirculation

In order to describe adequately the process of healing in the intermediate degrees, we investigated microcirculatory changes in the venous ulcers at well-defined stages of wound repair. We investigated dynamic changes in microcirculation during the healing process of venous ulcers. Ten venous ulcers were investigated in three consecutive clinical stages of wound healing: non granulation tissue (NGTA), GTA and scar. Subpapillary microcirculation was measured by laser Doppler perfusion (LDP) imaging and expressed using LDP values in arbitrary units. Nutritive perfusion by capillary microscopy and expressed as capillary density (CD) - the number of capillaries per square millimetre. Before the development of GTA the LDP was low (median 1·35; lower-upper quartiles 0·71-1·83) accompanied with zero CD in all but one patient who had a density of 1. With the first appearance of GTA in the same area, the LDP was improved (2·22; 1·12-2·33; P = 0·0024) when compared with NGTA, in combination with a significant increase in CD (1·75; 0-3; P = 0·0054). In scar, the LDP was similar to that in the NGTA (1·03; 0·77-1·83; P = 0·278), combined with the highest CD (5·75; 4·5-8) in comparison with the previous stages of the area (for both pairs, P < 0·0001). Venous ulcers are caused by poor nutritive and subpapillary perfusion. Subpapillary perfusion plays a major role in the formation of GTA. In a scar, the increased nutritive perfusion is sufficient to cover the blood supply and keep skin viable while subpapillary perfusion is low.

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. There are two main strategies used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the update of this review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24/09/09); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) - The Cochrane Library 2009 Issue 3; Ovid MEDLINE - 1950 to September Week 3 2009; Ovid EMBASE - 1980 to 2009 Week 38; and EBSCO CINAHL - 1982 to September Week 3 2009. No language or publication date restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials recruiting people with venous leg ulceration and 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 authors working independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes were 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 author and checked by a second.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty five trials reporting 32 comparisons were identified. Five trials evaluated systemic antibiotics; the remainder evaluated topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (10 trials); povidone iodine (5 trials); peroxide-based preparations (3 trials); ethacridine lactate (1 trial); mupirocin (1 trial); and chlorhexidine (1 trial). For the systemic antibiotics, the only comparison where a statistically significant between-group difference was detected was that in favour of the antihelminthic levamisole when compared with placebo. This trial, in common with the other evaluations of systemic antibiotics, was small and so the observed effect could have occurred by chance or been due to baseline imbalances in prognostic factors. For topical preparations, there is some evidence to suggest that cadexomer iodine generates higher healing rates than standard care. One study showed a statistically significant result in favour of cadexomer iodine when compared with standard care (not involving compression) in the frequency of complete healing at six weeks (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.74). The intervention regimen used was intensive, involving daily dressing changes, and so these findings may not be generalisable to most everyday clinical settings. When cadexomer iodine was compared with standard care with all patients receiving compression, the pooled estimate from two trials for frequency of complete healing at 4 to 6 weeks indicated significantly higher healing rates for cadexomer iodine (RR 6.72, 95% CI 1.56 to 28.95). Surrogate healing outcomes such as change in ulcer surface area and daily or weekly healing rate showed favourable results for cadexomer iodine, peroxide-based preparations and ethacridine lactate in some studies. These surrogate outcomes may not be valid proxies for complete healing of the wound. Most of the trials were small and many had methodological problems such as poor baseline comparability between groups, failure to use (or report) true randomisation, adequate allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessment and analysis by intention-to-treat.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is no evidence to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics to promote healing in 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, there is some evidence to support the use of cadexomer iodine. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics and topical preparations such as povidone iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate, mupirocin and 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 only be used in cases of clinical infection and 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 life. Many of these wounds are colonised by bacteria or show signs of clinical infection. The presence of infection may delay ulcer healing. There are two main strategies used to prevent and treat clinical infection in venous leg ulcers: systemic antibiotics and topical antibiotics or antiseptics.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched up to October 2007: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; and CINAHL. In addition, the reference lists of included studies and relevant review articles were examined.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials recruiting people with venous leg ulceration that evaluated at least one systemic antibiotic, topical antibiotic or topical antiseptic and 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 three authors working independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information on the characteristics of participants, interventions and outcomes were recorded on a standardised data extraction form. In addition, aspects of trial methods were extracted, including methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, use of blinded outcome assessment, intention-to-treat analysis, reporting of patient follow-up and study group comparability at baseline. Data extraction and validity assessment were conducted by one author and checked by a second.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two trials were identified of different antibiotics and antiseptics, including systemic antibiotics (5 trials). The remainder were topical preparations: cadexomer iodine (10 trials); povidone iodine (2 trials); peroxide-based preparations (3 trials); ethacridine lactate (1 trial); and mupirocin (1 trial). For the systemic antibiotics, the only comparison where a statistically significant between-group difference was detected was that in favour of the antihelminthic levamisole when compared with placebo. This trial, in common with the other evaluations of systemic antibiotics, was small and so the observed effect could have occurred by chance. In terms of topical preparations, there is some evidence to suggest that cadexomer iodine generates higher healing rates than standard care. One study showed a statistically significant result in favour of cadexomer iodine when compared with standard care (not involving compression) in terms of frequency of complete healing at six weeks (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 4.74). The intervention regimen used was intensive, involving daily dressing changes, and so these findings may not be generalisable to most everyday clinical settings. When cadexomer iodine was compared with standard care with all patients receiving compression, the pooled estimate from two trials for frequency of complete healing at 4 to 6 weeks indicated significantly higher healing rates for cadexomer iodine (RR 6.72, 95% CI 1.56 to 28.95). Surrogate healing outcomes such as change in ulcer surface area and daily or weekly healing rate showed favourable results for cadexomer iodine, peroxide-based preparations and ethacridine lactate in some studies. These surrogate outcomes may not be valid proxies for complete healing of the wound. Most of the trials were small and many had methodological problems such as poor baseline comparability between groups, failure to use (or report) true randomisation, adequate allocation concealment, blinded outcome assessment and analysis by intention-to-treat.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is no existing evidence to support the routine use of systemic antibiotics to promote healing in 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, there is some evidence to support the use of cadexomer iodine. Further good quality research is required before definitive conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of systemic antibiotics and topical preparations such as povidone iodine, peroxide-based preparations, ethacridine lactate and mupirocin in healing venous leg ulceration. In light of the increasing problem of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, current prescribing guidelines recommend that antibacterial preparations should only be used in cases of defined infection and not for bacterial colonisation.

Microcirculation Disturbances in Patients with Venous Ulcer before and after Healing as Assessed by Laser Doppler Flux-Metry

BACKGROUND

We studied whether a characteristic pattern of laser Doppler flux (LDF) could be identified in perimalleolar skin of patients with venous ulcer before and after ulcer healing.

METHODS

Nine subjects with venous ulcer that healed after conservative treatment in 1-6 months and nine healthy persons were included in the study. Microcirculation investigations of laser Doppler flux (LDF) were carried out before and after ulcer healing at rest, upon arterial occlusion, during thermal stimulation and during experimental venous hypertension.

RESULTS

Resting LDF expressed as median and range (in arbitrary perfusion units) was significantly higher in patients with venous ulcer in comparison to healthy subjects: 60.6 (40.2-156.5) vs. 9.2 (6.5-19.5), p=0.008. During thermal stimulation and during postischemic reactive hyperemia, absolute values of LDF were slightly but significantly higher in patients with venous ulcer than in healthy subjects, but indices of hyperemic reactivity were very low in patients (median postischemic LDF increase to 101.8 vs. 450.0% in healthy controls, p=0.008; and thermally induced LDF increase to 125.5 vs. 881.5% in healthy controls, p=0.008. Experimental venous hypertension (cuff pressure 40 and 70 mmHg, respectively) led to an equally pronounced relative reduction of LDF in healthy persons as in patients with venous ulcer before and after ulcer healing, but the absolute values of flow remained about six to seven times higher in patients when compared to healthy subjects. Hyperemic reactivity and venoarteriolar response did not change after ulcer healing.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated basal LDF and preserved maximal LDF during reactive hyperemia were found in perimalleolar skin of patients with venous ulcers that eventually healed. The relative venoarteriolar response was preserved in spite of elevated absolute values of LDF during experimental venous hypertension. These hemodynamic characteristics remained unchanged after epithelialization of venous ulcers.

Effect of sharp debridement using curette on recalcitrant nonhealing venous leg ulcers: a concurrently controlled, prospective cohort study

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of sharp debridement on the progression of recalcitrant chronic venous leg ulcers (CVLU) and to assess the feasibility of performing this procedure in an outpatient setting. We performed a prospective study of 55 CVLU (53 patients) over a 12-month period. The study group, which underwent debridement, contained 28 CVLU whose wound beds had slough, nonviable tissue, and no granulation tissue. The control group was 27 CVLU with minimal (15-20%) granulation tissue, but no slough or nonviable tissue. Treatments were otherwise similar. Age, body mass index, mean ulcer surface area (MSA) and mean ulcer duration were comparable in both groups. Ulcer measurements were taken at 4 weeks before debridement, at the time of debridement, and 4 and 20 weeks post-debridement. There was no change in the MSA from 4 weeks before to the time of debridement in either group. At 4 weeks post-debridement, the study ulcers showed a 6 cm(2) reduction in the MSA vs. a 1 cm(2) reduction in controls (P = 0.02). By week 20 post-debridement, the study ulcers achieved a 7.4 cm(2) reduction in the MSA vs. an increase of 1.3 cm(2) in controls (P = 0.008). Between weeks 8 and 20 post-debridement, 16% of study ulcers vs. 4.3% of control ulcers achieved complete healing. Infection rates and antimicrobial usage were similar. We conclude that sharp debridement is effective in stimulating healing of recalcitrant CVLU. It is safe, well tolerated, and can be performed in an outpatient setting.