Compression for venous leg ulcers

Susan O'Meara, Nicky Cullum, E Andrea Nelson, Jo C Dumville, Susan O'Meara, Nicky Cullum, E Andrea Nelson, Jo C Dumville

Abstract

Background: Up to one percent of people in industrialised countries will suffer from a leg ulcer at some time. The majority of these leg ulcers are due to problems in the veins, resulting in an accumulation of blood in the legs. Leg ulcers arising from venous problems are called venous (or varicose or stasis) ulcers. The main treatment is the application of a firm compression garment (bandage or stocking) in order to aid venous return. There is a large number of compression garments available and it was unclear whether they are effective in treating venous ulcers and, if so, which method of compression is the most effective.

Objectives: To undertake a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects on venous ulcer healing of compression bandages and stockings.Specific questions addressed by the review are:1. Does the application of compression bandages or stockings aid venous ulcer healing? 2. Which compression bandage or stocking system is the most effective?

Search methods: For this second update we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (31 May 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 5, 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to May Week 4 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 30 May 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 21); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 30 May 2012). No date or language restrictions were applied.

Selection criteria: RCTs recruiting people with venous leg ulceration that evaluated any type of compression bandage system or compression stockings were eligible for inclusion. Eligible comparators included no compression (e.g. primary dressing alone, non-compressive bandage) or an alternative type of compression. RCTs had to report an objective measure of ulcer healing in order to be included (primary outcome for the review). SECONDARY OUTCOMES of the review included ulcer recurrence, costs, quality of life, pain, adverse events and withdrawals. There was no restriction on date, language or publication status of RCTs.

Data collection and analysis: Details of eligible studies were extracted and summarised using a data extraction table. Data extraction was performed by one review author and verified independently by a second review author.

Main results: Forty-eight RCTs reporting 59 comparisons were included (4321 participants in total). Most RCTs were small, and most were at unclear or high risk of bias. Duration of follow-up varied across RCTs. Risk ratio (RR) and other estimates are shown below where RCTs were pooled; otherwise findings refer to a single RCT.There was evidence from eight RCTs (unpooled) that healing outcomes (including time to healing) are better when patients receive compression compared with no compression.Single-component compression bandage systems are less effective than multi-component compression for complete healing at six months (one large RCT).A two-component system containing an elastic bandage healed more ulcers at one year than one without an elastic component (one small RCT).Three-component systems containing an elastic component healed more ulcers than those without elastic at three to four months (two RCTs pooled), RR 1.83 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.67), but another RCT showed no difference between groups at six months.An individual patient data meta-analysis of five RCTs suggested significantly faster healing with the four-layer bandage (4LB) than the short stretch bandage (SSB): median days to healing estimated at 90 and 99 respectively; hazard ratio 1.31 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.58).High-compression stockings are associated with better healing outcomes than SSB at two to four months: RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.26 to 2.10), estimate from four pooled RCTs.One RCT suggested better healing outcomes at 16 months with the addition of a tubular device plus single elastic bandage to a base system of gauze and crepe bandages when compared with two added elastic bandages. Another RCT had three arms; when one or two elastic bandages were added to a base three-component system that included an outer tubular layer, healing outcomes were better at six months for the two groups receiving elastic bandages.There is currently no evidence of a statistically significant difference for the following comparisons:⋅alternative single-component compression bandages (two RCTs, unpooled);⋅two-component bandages compared with the 4LB at three months (three RCTs pooled);⋅alternative versions of the 4LB for complete healing at times up to and including six months (three RCTs, unpooled);⋅4LB compared with paste bandage for complete healing at three months (two RCTs, pooled), six months or one year (one RCT for each time point);⋅adjustable compression boots compared with paste bandages for the outcome of change in ulcer area at three months (one small RCT);⋅adjustable compression boots compared with the 4LB with respect to complete healing at three months (one small RCT);⋅single-layer compression stocking compared with paste bandages for outcome of complete healing at four months (one small RCT) and 18 months (another small RCT);⋅low compression stocking compared with SSB for complete healing at three and six months (one small RCT);⋅compression stockings compared with a two-component bandage system and the 4LB for the outcome of complete healing at three months (one small, three-armed RCT); and,⋅tubular compression compared with SSB (one small RCT) for complete healing at three months.

Secondary outcomes: 4LB was more cost-effective than SSB. It was not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding other secondary outcomes including recurrence, adverse events and health-related quality of life.

Authors' conclusions: Compression increases ulcer healing rates compared with no compression. Multi-component systems are more effective than single-component systems. Multi-component systems containing an elastic bandage appear to be more effective than those composed mainly of inelastic constituents. Two-component bandage systems appear to perform as well as the 4LB. Patients receiving the 4LB heal faster than those allocated the SSB. More patients heal on high-compression stocking systems than with the SSB. Further data are required before the difference between high-compression stockings and the 4LB can be established.

Conflict of interest statement

Nicky Cullum, Susan O'Meara and Jo Dumville receive funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme. This study presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme (RP‐PG‐0407‐10428). The views expressed in this review are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Nicky Cullum is an NIHR Senior Investigator.

Nicky Cullum was Principal Investigator for one of the trials included in this review (Iglesias 2004); this trial was commissioned after the first version of this review was completed. Nicky Cullum is currently Co‐Investigator on the UK NIHR HTA Programme VenUS IV trial which will be eligible for a future update of this review.

Andrea Nelson was co‐applicant and trial co‐ordinator for one of the trials included in this review (Iglesias 2004); this trial was commissioned after the first version of this review was completed. Andrea Nelson was trial co‐ordinator and author of the main publication for one of the trials included in this review (Nelson 2007a).

Figures

1
1
This figure shows all the comparisons included in the review, and the number of evaluations for each comparison. The green shaded areas represent comparisons between similar compression systems. The numbers shown refer to numbers of comparisons, not numbers of RCTs. Key: 4LB = four‐layer bandage The abbreviations A‐N at the head of each column refer to the corresponding types of compression shown at the start of each row.
2
2
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
3
3
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
Methodological quality summary with trials presented in chronological order Methodological quality summary with trials presented in chronological order Risk of bias summary figure with RCTs presented in chronological order.
5
5
Forest plot of comparison: 8 Two‐component system vs four‐layer bandage (4LB), outcome: 8.2 Patients with complete healing at 3 months.
6
6
Forest plot of comparison: 9 3 components including elastic bandage vs 3 components including inelastic bandage, outcome: 9.1 Patients/limbs with complete healing during trial.
7
7
Forest plot of comparison: 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), outcome: 12.1 Patients with complete healing during trial period based on IPD.
8
8
4LB versus SSB: Kaplan‐Meier survival curves (unstratified analysis) based on IPD
9
9
Forest plot of comparison: 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), outcome: 12.3 Hazard ratio estimates for time to healing based on IPD (fixed‐effect).
10
10
Forest plot of comparison: 17 Higher compression stockings versus SSB, outcome: 17.1 Patients with complete healing at 2‐4 months (fixed‐effect).
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Compression vs no compression (primary dressing only), Outcome 1 Ulcers completely healed at 6 months.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Compression vs no compression (non‐compressive bandage), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 1 year.
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Compression vs no compression (usual treatment), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 3 months.
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Compression vs no compression (usual treatment), Outcome 2 Patients with complete healing at 1 year.
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Compression vs no compression (usual treatment), Outcome 3 Patients with recurrence during 1 year follow‐up.
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Single‐component compression (elastic bandage) vs single‐component compression (paste bandage), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 3 months.
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Single‐component compression (elastic bandage) vs single‐component compression (paste bandage), Outcome 2 Percentage change during trial relative to baseline ulcer area.
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Single‐component compression (elastic bandage) vs single‐component compression (paste bandage), Outcome 3 Healing rate (cm squared per week adjusted for baseline ulcer perimeter).
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐component compression vs multi‐component compression (excluding paste bandages), Outcome 1 Complete healing during the trial period.
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐component compression vs multi‐component compression (excluding paste bandages), Outcome 2 Percentage change during trial relative to baseline ulcer area.
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Single‐component compression vs multi‐component compression (excluding paste bandages), Outcome 3 Complete healing during the trial period (participants with simple VLU only).
6.1. Analysis
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Single‐component compression vs multi‐component compression (paste bandage), Outcome 1 Complete healing during the trial period.
7.1. Analysis
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Two‐component (outer elastic) vs two‐component (outer inelastic), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 3‐6 months.
7.2. Analysis
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Two‐component (outer elastic) vs two‐component (outer inelastic), Outcome 2 Patients with complete healing at 1 month.
7.3. Analysis
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 Two‐component (outer elastic) vs two‐component (outer inelastic), Outcome 3 Patients with complete healing at 1 year.
8.1. Analysis
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 Two‐component system vs four‐layer bandage (4LB), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 1 month.
8.2. Analysis
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 Two‐component system vs four‐layer bandage (4LB), Outcome 2 Patients with complete healing at 3 months.
8.3. Analysis
8.3. Analysis
Comparison 8 Two‐component system vs four‐layer bandage (4LB), Outcome 3 Patients with complete healing at 6 months up to point of withdrawal from randomised treatment.
8.4. Analysis
8.4. Analysis
Comparison 8 Two‐component system vs four‐layer bandage (4LB), Outcome 4 Patients with complete healing at 6 months including withdrawals from randomised treatment.
9.1. Analysis
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 3 components including elastic bandage vs 3 components including inelastic bandage, Outcome 1 Patients/limbs with complete healing during trial.
10.1. Analysis
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 3 components including paste bandage vs 3 components including inelastic (short‐stretch) bandage, Outcome 1 Limbs with complete healing at 3 months.
11.1. Analysis
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11 Charing Cross 4LB vs other 4LB, Outcome 1 Patients/limbs with complete healing during trial.
12.1. Analysis
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing during trial period based on IPD.
12.2. Analysis
12.2. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 2 Limbs completely healed at 3 months (Duby 1993, IPD unavailable).
12.3. Analysis
12.3. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 3 Hazard ratio estimates for time to healing based on IPD (fixed‐effect).
12.4. Analysis
12.4. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 4 Hazard ratio estimates for time to healing based on IPD (random‐effects).
12.5. Analysis
12.5. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 5 Hazard ratio estimates for time to healing based on IPD (fixed‐effect, Partsch 2001 removed).
12.6. Analysis
12.6. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 6 Hazard ratio estimates for time to healing based on IPD (random‐effects, Partsch 2001 removed).
12.7. Analysis
12.7. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 7 Incidence of any type of adverse event based on IPD (fixed‐effect).
12.8. Analysis
12.8. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 8 Incidence of any type of adverse event based on IPD (random effects).
12.9. Analysis
12.9. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 9 Incidence of bandage‐related adverse events based on IPD.
12.10. Analysis
12.10. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 10 Number of adverse events (any type) based on IPD (fixed‐effect).
12.11. Analysis
12.11. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 11 Number of adverse events (any type) based on IPD (random‐effects).
12.12. Analysis
12.12. Analysis
Comparison 12 4LB vs multi‐layer short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 12 Number of adverse events (bandage‐related) based on IPD.
13.1. Analysis
13.1. Analysis
Comparison 13 Four‐layer bandage (4LB) vs compression system with paste bandage as the base, Outcome 1 Patients/limbs with complete healing during trial.
13.2. Analysis
13.2. Analysis
Comparison 13 Four‐layer bandage (4LB) vs compression system with paste bandage as the base, Outcome 2 Patients/limbs with complete healing at 3 months (random‐effects).
13.3. Analysis
13.3. Analysis
Comparison 13 Four‐layer bandage (4LB) vs compression system with paste bandage as the base, Outcome 3 Percentage reduction of baseline ulcer area at 6 months.
13.4. Analysis
13.4. Analysis
Comparison 13 Four‐layer bandage (4LB) vs compression system with paste bandage as the base, Outcome 4 Healing rate (pooled).
14.1. Analysis
14.1. Analysis
Comparison 14 Adjustable inelastic compression boot vs other compression system, Outcome 1 Healing rate.
15.1. Analysis
15.1. Analysis
Comparison 15 Single‐layer compression stocking vs paste bandage system, Outcome 1 Complete healing in trial period (varying lengths).
15.2. Analysis
15.2. Analysis
Comparison 15 Single‐layer compression stocking vs paste bandage system, Outcome 2 Healing rate (cm2 per week).
16.1. Analysis
16.1. Analysis
Comparison 16 Low‐compression stocking vs short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 3 months.
16.2. Analysis
16.2. Analysis
Comparison 16 Low‐compression stocking vs short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 2 Patients with complete healing at 6 months.
17.1. Analysis
17.1. Analysis
Comparison 17 High‐compression stockings vs short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 2‐4 months (fixed‐effect).
17.2. Analysis
17.2. Analysis
Comparison 17 High‐compression stockings vs short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 2 Patients with complete healing at 2‐4 months (random‐effects).
17.3. Analysis
17.3. Analysis
Comparison 17 High‐compression stockings vs short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 3 Percentage reduction of baseline ulcer area at 3 months.
18.1. Analysis
18.1. Analysis
Comparison 18 Compression stocking vs two‐component bandage system, Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 3 months.
19.1. Analysis
19.1. Analysis
Comparison 19 Compression stocking vs 4LB, Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 3 months.
20.1. Analysis
20.1. Analysis
Comparison 20 Tubular compression vs short‐stretch bandage (SSB), Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at 3 months.
21.1. Analysis
21.1. Analysis
Comparison 21 Tubular compression vs tubular plus 1 elastic bandage, Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at six months.
22.1. Analysis
22.1. Analysis
Comparison 22 Tubular compression vs tubular plus 2 elastic bandages, Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at six months.
23.1. Analysis
23.1. Analysis
Comparison 23 Tubular plus 1 elastic bandage vs tubular plus 2 elastic bandages, Outcome 1 Patients with complete healing at six months.

Source: PubMed

3
Se inscrever