Negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard moist wound care on diabetic foot ulcers in real-life clinical practice: results of the German DiaFu-RCT

Dörthe Seidel, Martin Storck, Holger Lawall, Gernold Wozniak, Peter Mauckner, Dirk Hochlenert, Walter Wetzel-Roth, Klemens Sondern, Matthias Hahn, Gerhard Rothenaicher, Thomas Krönert, Karl Zink, Edmund Neugebauer, Dörthe Seidel, Martin Storck, Holger Lawall, Gernold Wozniak, Peter Mauckner, Dirk Hochlenert, Walter Wetzel-Roth, Klemens Sondern, Matthias Hahn, Gerhard Rothenaicher, Thomas Krönert, Karl Zink, Edmund Neugebauer

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the DiaFu study was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients with diabetic foot wounds in clinical practice.

Design: In this controlled clinical superiority trial with blinded outcome assessment patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio stratified by study site and ulcer severity grade using a web-based-tool.

Setting: This German national study was conducted in 40 surgical and internal medicine inpatient and outpatient facilities specialised in diabetes foot care.

Participants: 368 patients were randomised and 345 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Adult patients suffering from a diabetic foot ulcer at least for 4 weeks and without contraindication for NPWT were allowed to be included.

Interventions: NPWT was compared with standard moist wound care (SMWC) according to local standards and guidelines.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcome was wound closure within 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were wound-related and treatment-related adverse events (AEs), amputations, time until optimal wound bed preparation, wound size and wound tissue composition, pain and quality of life (QoL) within 16 weeks, and recurrences and wound closure within 6 months.

Results: In the ITT population, neither the wound closure rate (difference: n=4 (2.5% (95% CI-4.7% - 9.7%); p=0.53)) nor the time to wound closure (p=0.244) was significantly different between the treatment arms. 191 participants (NPWT 127; SMWC 64) had missing endpoint documentations, premature therapy ends or unauthorised treatment changes. 96 participants in the NPWT arm and 72 participants in the SMWC arm had at least one AE (p=0.007), but only 16 AEs were related to NPWT.

Conclusions: NPWT was not superior to SMWC in diabetic foot wounds in German clinical practice. Overall, wound closure rate was low. Documentation deficits and deviations from treatment guidelines negatively impacted the outcome wound closure.

Trial registration numbers: NCT01480362 and DRKS00003347.

Keywords: benefit assessment; diabetic foot; negative pressure wound therapy; wound care; wound healing; wound treatment.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The German statutory health insurance companies commissioned the Witten/Herdecke University (UW/H) to plan, conduct, analyse and publish the study. DS is an employee of the UW/H. The study has been financed by the manufacturers KCI (Acelity) and S&N. DS received a consulting fee for the presentation of the study during an event organised by the manufacturer Hartmann. During study planning and conduct, EN was an employee of the UW/H. He was the director of the Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin. The clinical investigators MS, HL, GW, PM, DH, WW-R, KS, MH, GR, TK and KZ received a case fee of 1000€ for each patient included in the DiaFu study in order to compensate for the additional organisational and especially the documentation effort during trial conduct. Furthermore, all investigators received compensation for travelling to the investigator meetings. The institutions of the investigators used integrated care contracts for NPWT during study conduct in order to provide best practice for the study participants during outpatient care. GW and WW-R are members of the scientific advisory board of the manufacturer KCI (now Acelity).

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile (CONSORT); CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; NPWT, Negative Pressure Wound Therapy; SMWC, Standard Moist Wound Care.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Time until complete, sustained and verified wound closure in the ITT population. NPWT, negative pressure wound therapy; SMWC, standard moist wound care.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Time until complete, sustained and verified wound closure for the subgroup of large wounds. NPWT, negative pressure wound therapy; SMWC, standard moist wound care.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Time until complete, sustained and verified wound closure for the subgroup of small wounds. NPWT, negative pressure wound therapy; SMWC, standard moist wound care.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Time until complete, sustained and verified wound closure in the PP population; NPWT, negative pressure wound therapy; SMWC, standard moist wound care.

References

    1. World Health Organization Global report on diabetes, 2016. Available:
    1. International Diabetes Federation IDF diabetes atlas, 2015. Available:
    1. Yazdanpanah L, Nasiri M, Adarvishi S. Literature review on the management of diabetic foot ulcer. World J Diabetes 2015;6:37–53. 10.4239/wjd.v6.i1.37
    1. Leone S, Pascale R, Vitale M, et al. . [Epidemiology of diabetic foot]. Infez Med 2012;20 Suppl 1:8–13.
    1. Wu L, Norman G, Dumville JC, et al. . Dressings for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;55. 10.1002/14651858.CD010471.pub2
    1. Norman G, Westby MJ, Rithalia AD, et al. . Dressings and topical agents for treating venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;6:CD012583. 10.1002/14651858.CD012583.pub2
    1. Wu SC, Marston W, Armstrong DG. Wound care: the role of advanced wound-healing technologies. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2010;100:385–94. 10.7547/1000385
    1. Fleischmann W, Strecker W, Bombelli M, et al. . [Vacuum sealing as treatment of soft tissue damage in open fractures]. Unfallchirurg 1993;96:488–92.
    1. Argenta LC, Morykwas MJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg 1997;38:563–77. 10.1097/00000637-199706000-00002
    1. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, et al. . Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic Foundation. Ann Plast Surg 1997;38:553–62. 10.1097/00000637-199706000-00001
    1. Morykwas MJ, Faler BJ, Pearce DJ, et al. . Effects of varying levels of subatmospheric pressure on the rate of granulation tissue formation in experimental wounds in swine. Ann Plast Surg 2001;47:547–51. 10.1097/00000637-200111000-00013
    1. Gregor S, Maegele M, Sauerland S, et al. . Negative pressure wound therapy: a vacuum of evidence? Arch Surg 2008;143:189–96. 10.1001/archsurg.2007.54
    1. Peinemann F, Sauerland S. Negative-Pressure wound therapy: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011;108:381–9. 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0381
    1. Ubbink DT, Westerbos SJ, Evans D, et al. . Topical negative pressure for treating chronic wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008:CD001898. 10.1002/14651858.CD001898.pub2
    1. Vikatmaa P, Juutilainen V, Kuukasjärvi P, et al. . Negative pressure wound therapy: a systematic review on effectiveness and safety. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;36:438–48. 10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.06.010
    1. Armstrong DG, Lavery LA. Negative pressure wound therapy after partial diabetic foot amputation: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2005;366:1704–10. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67695-7
    1. Blume PA, Walters J, Payne W, et al. . Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2008;31:631–6. 10.2337/dc07-2196
    1. Dumville JC, Hinchliffe RJ, Cullum N, et al. . Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;10:CD010318. 10.1002/14651858.CD010318.pub2
    1. Rhee SM, et al. Negative pressure wound therapy technologies for chronic wound care in the home setting. Rockville (MD): Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center, 2014.
    1. CADTH Rapid Response Reports Negative pressure wound therapy for managing diabetic foot ulcers: a review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2014.
    1. Liu S, He C-Z, Cai Y-T, et al. . Evaluation of negative-pressure wound therapy for patients with diabetic foot ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2017;13:533–44. 10.2147/TCRM.S131193
    1. Liu Z, Dumville JC, Hinchliffe RJ, et al. . Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;10:CD010318. 10.1002/14651858.CD010318.pub3
    1. Seidel D, Mathes T, Lefering R, et al. . Negative pressure wound therapy versus standard wound care in chronic diabetic foot wounds: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:334. 10.1186/1745-6215-15-334
    1. Ärztliches Zentrum für Qualität in Der Medizin (Gemeinsame Einrichtung von Bundesärztekammer und Kassenärztlicher Bundesvereinigung) Im Auftrag von BÄK, K., AWMF, Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie (NVL) Typ-2-Diabetes Präventions- und Behandlungsstrategien für Fußkomplikationen. 2010, Bundesärztekammer (BÄK) Arbeitsgemeinschaft Der Deutschen Ärztekammern, 2010. Available:
    1. Bauer H. Typ-2-Diabetes: Präventions- und Behandlungsstrategien für Fußkomplikationen Nationale Versorgungs Leitlinien; 2010.
    1. Rüttermann M, Maier-Hasselmann A, Nink-Grebe B, et al. . Local treatment of chronic wounds: in patients with peripheral vascular disease, chronic venous insufficiency, and diabetes. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2013;110:25–31. 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0025
    1. Dupont WD, Plummer WD. Power and sample size calculations. A review and computer program. Control Clin Trials 1990;11:116–28. 10.1016/0197-2456(90)90005-m
    1. Schaper NC. Diabetic foot ulcer classification system for research purposes: a progress report on criteria for including patients in research studies. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2004;20 Suppl 1:S90–5. 10.1002/dmrr.464
    1. Sanders LJ, Frykberg RG. Diabetic neuropathic osteoarthropathy: the Charcot foot : The high risk foot in diabetes mellitus. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1991: 297–338.
    1. Levin ME. Preventing amputation in the patient with diabetes. Diabetes Care 1995;18:1383–94. 10.2337/diacare.18.10.1383
    1. Wagner FW. The diabetic foot. Orthopedics 1987;10:163–72.
    1. Rutherford RB, Baker JD, Ernst C, et al. . Recommended standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia: revised version. J Vasc Surg 1997;26:517–38. 10.1016/S0741-5214(97)70045-4
    1. Widmer LK, Plechl SC, Leu HJ, et al. . [Venous diseases in 1800 employees. Basel Studies II]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1967;97:107–10.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner