Prescribed exercise regimen versus usual care and hypochlorous acid wound solution versus placebo for treating venous leg ulcers: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (Factorial4VLU)

INTRODUCTION

Compression is the mainstay of treatment for venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and there are few effective adjuvant treatments. There is only observational evidence supporting the use of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) as a topical wound solution on VLU and some limited randomised evidence for the effect of a prescribed regimen of exercise.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Factorial4VLU trial is a pragmatic, blinded, factorial randomised controlled trial, with 380 participants receiving either a prescribed exercise regimen compared with usual care and either active HOCl wound solution or placebo wound solution at each dressing change for up to 24 weeks. All participants will receive compression therapy. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with healed VLU at 12 weeks after randomisation as adjudicated by blinded review of ulcer photographs. Secondary outcomes are proportion healed at 24 weeks, time to healing, estimated change in ulcer area, change in 2-Minute Walk Test, change in health-related quality of life, incidence of infection and incidence of all-cause adverse events. If either of the interventions shows a statistically significant positive difference on healing outcomes, cost-effectiveness will be modelled using a health service perspective.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Factorial4VLU trial received ethical approval from the Northern B Health and Disability Ethics Committee. We plan to publish the results within 1 year of trial completion and will include the results on the trial registration page.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (http://www.anzctr.org.au) (ACTRN12620000116921); Universal Trial Number (WHO) (U1111-1236-2997).

Revised Venous Clinical Severity Score: A Facile Measurement of Outcomes in Venous Disease

Outcome assessment is an important criterion for the objective determination of the risks and benefits of a given procedure. The choice of an assessment instrument is critical in order to generate meaningful and relevant data. Assessment instruments are platforms for comparison and stratification of information that provide a common ground and unified language for discussions on disease processes and therapies. Like many complex conditions, venous disease has benefited from the institution of several assessment instruments designed to clarify elements of the disease process. Among these is the venous clinical severity score (VCSS), which has proved to be a valuable tool for evaluating changes in condition over time with or without intervention. The VCSS has recently undergone a revision to increase its sensitivity and value in interpreting the language of venous disease.

A systematic review of health-related quality of life instruments used for people with venous ulcers: an assessment of their suitability and psychometric properties

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To review the quality of life questionnaires used to measure the impact of venous ulceration and to evaluate their psychometric properties.

BACKGROUND

Venous leg ulcers have a negative impact on quality of life. Health-related quality of life can be measured using structured questionnaires. Nurses are the primary care providers for patients with venous ulceration and are ideally placed to assess and develop these types of questionnaires. There may also be an opportunity to use such quality of life instruments to measure the impact of nursing interventions in other areas where nurses are the key care providers.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHOD

Studies were sought that used quality of life instruments to evaluate the impact of venous ulceration. Fourteen electronic bibliographical databases and 11 Internet-based health services research related resources were searched. In addition, grey literature was sought and the reference lists of relevant articles checked. Data were extracted regarding the type of instrument used, sample, number of items and domains and psychometric performance of the instrument.

RESULTS

The initial search identified a total of 338 potential citations. After review, a total of 31 studies were included: 17 used generic and 14 used disease-specific instruments. Five different types of generic and seven disease-specific instruments were identified. There was significant heterogeneity between the studies in terms of study design, aetiology of ulceration and times of assessment. The disease-specific instruments showed limitations in relation to their applicability to venous ulcer patients because of flaws in design or validation.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature on quality of life related to venous ulceration failed to sufficiently distinguish between those with different causes of leg ulceration. There appeared to be problems with the ability of current quality of life instruments to detect changes in quality of life related to ulcer healing. Relevance to clinical practice.  There appears to be an opportunity for nurses to develop a health-related quality of life health-related quality of life instruments to evaluate their impact on patient outcomes. Such instruments could potentially allow nursing interventions to be assessed more effectively than the recently proposed nursing metrics.

Venous Clinical Severity Score and quality-of-life assessment tools: application to vein practice

The time is ripe for universal understanding and acceptance of outcome assessment in venous disease. Outcome studies promote understanding of the diseases we treat and the results of treatment. The choice of a valid and reliable assessment tool is crucial. Patient-generated quality-of-life tools include generic instruments and disease-specific instruments. Generic instruments evaluate overall well-being and provide subjective measurements of treatment outcomes in various disease states. The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and the Nottingham Health Profile are widely used generic surveys. Disease-specific instruments relate to a particular disease state. They are popular in venous disease reporting and have high sensitivity. The Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire, the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study, the Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire and the Charing Cross Venous Ulceration Questionnaire are such devices. Physician-generated measurement tools are used to evaluate and classify the consequences of venous disease. The clinical, aetiology, anatomy, pathophysiology classification (CEAP) is a popular descriptive platform for chronic venous disease. The Venous Severity Scoring (VSS) system was derived from the CEAP classification to provide evaluative capabilities. The three elements of the VSS are the venous disability score, the venous segmental disease score and the venous clinical severity score (VCSS). The VCSS facilitates the follow-up of features of venous disease that change with treatment. Each of these outcomes tools has been validated, and each has strengths and weaknesses. Maintaining the dynamic nature of assessment with periodic review and revision is the way forward to generating universal applicability. Although the choice of instrument is debatable, the most important factor in improving treatment outcomes is the decision to examine results and to share them in a meaningful way.