Regenerating matrix-based therapy for chronic wound healing: a prospective within-subject pilot study

Suzanne L Groah, Alexander Libin, Miriam Spungen, Kim-Loan Nguyen, Earthaleen Woods, Marjan Nabili, Jessica Ramella-Roman, Denis Barritault, Suzanne L Groah, Alexander Libin, Miriam Spungen, Kim-Loan Nguyen, Earthaleen Woods, Marjan Nabili, Jessica Ramella-Roman, Denis Barritault

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether a skin-specific bioengineered regenerating agent (RGTA) heparan sulphate mimetic (CACIPLIQ20) improves chronic wound healing. The design of this article is a prospective within-subject study. The setting was an urban hospital. Patients were 16 African-American individuals (mean age 42 years) with 22 wounds (mean duration 2.5 years) because of either pressure, diabetic, vascular or burn wounds. Two participants each were lost to follow-up or removed because of poor compliance, resulting in 18 wounds analysed. Sterile gauze was soaked with CACIPLIQ20 saline solution, placed on the wound for 5 min, then removed twice weekly for 4 weeks. Wounds were otherwise treated according to the standard of care. Twenty-two percent of wounds fully healed during the treatment period. Wounds showed a 15.2-18.1% decrease in wound size as measured by the vision engineering research group (VERG) digital wound measurement system and total PUSH scores, respectively, at 4 weeks (P = 0.014 and P = 0.003). At 8 weeks there was an 18-26% reduction in wound size (P = 0.04) in the remaining patients. Wound-related pain measured by the visual analogue pain scale and the wound pain scale declined 60% (P = 0.024) and 70% (P = 0.001), respectively. Patient and clinician satisfaction remained positive throughout the treatment period. It is concluded that treatment with CACIPLIQ20 significantly improved wound-related pain and may facilitate wound healing. Patient and clinician satisfaction remained high throughout the trial.

© 2010 The Authors. © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd and Medicalhelplines.com Inc.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution by wound type.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PUSH, WPS and VAPS scores by treatment session.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit