RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Limb compression is a key component of protocols used to heal venous leg ulcers (VLUs). A novel ambulatory pneumatic compression device was tested in comparison with multilayered bandage (MLB) compression systems for the treatment of VLUs in a prospective randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with VLUs measuring 1.5 to 50 cm2 with duration of 1 to 24 months were randomized to treatment with a pneumatic compression device, the ACTitouch adaptive compression therapy (ACT) system (Tactile Medical, Minneapolis, Minn), or MLB. The ACT group patients were seen in the clinic at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 16 or until wounds healed; the MLB group was seen weekly for bandage and dressing changes for 16 weeks or until wounds healed. All other aspects of VLU care were standardized between the two groups. The primary study objective was to compare the VLU percentage area reduction at 16 weeks in the ACT group compared with the MLB group. RESULTS: There were 56 patients randomized to treatment with ACT (n = 26) or MLB (n = 30). In the ACT group, five patients exited because of skin or wound problems related to the ACT device and five withdrew because of the inconvenience of using the device. Therefore, the trial was halted before full randomization so improvements to the ACT device could be made. Data collected on 42 patients who were able to tolerate treatment for the 16-week study period (per protocol group) showed that both groups experienced similar rates of wound healing. In the per protocol population, the percentage area size reduction was greater for the ACT group compared with the MLB group (83.8% vs 70.5%, respectively), whereas no significant differences were noted in the percentage of wounds that healed by 16 weeks (60.0% vs 63.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this truncated clinical trial, a novel dual-mode ambulatory compression device, when tolerated, achieved wound healing results similar to those with MLB for chronic VLUs. The device requires modifications to improve the patient's comfort and ease of use. However, this mode of therapy appears to have promise for improving the cost-effectiveness of treatment for chronic VLUs.
Assuntos
Bandagens Compressivas/economia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Dispositivos de Compressão Pneumática Intermitente/economia , Úlcera Varicosa/economia , Úlcera Varicosa/terapia , Insuficiência Venosa/economia , Insuficiência Venosa/terapia , Cicatrização , Doença Crônica , Bandagens Compressivas/efeitos adversos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Feminino , Humanos , Dispositivos de Compressão Pneumática Intermitente/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos , Úlcera Varicosa/diagnóstico por imagem , Úlcera Varicosa/fisiopatologia , Insuficiência Venosa/diagnóstico por imagem , Insuficiência Venosa/fisiopatologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the clinical and cost effectiveness of a 2-layer compression system (2LBA; 3M Coban Two-Layer Compression System; 3M, St Paul, MN) compared with other 2-layer (2LB) and 4-layer (4LB) compression systems in patients with noninfected venous leg ulcers (VLUs). METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation, and EconLit databases were searched from inception up to January 2017. The MEDLINE search was updated on March 31, 2017. Study selection, quality assessment, and data synthesis were undertaken in accordance with recommended standards. Findings were presented narratively. RESULTS: In total, 5 studies (N = 1509 patients) of mixed methodological quality were included. At 6 months, 2LBA achieved better ulcer healing in comparison with 2LBB (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-2.24; P = .03) and 4LBA (OR, 1.93, 95% CI, 1.26-2.97; P = .05) in patients with newly diagnosed ulcers only. For a combined population with newly diagnosed and existing VLUs, healing outcomes were OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.06-7.77; P = .04, and OR, 16.51; 95% CI, 2.08-131.37; P = .008, for 2LBs and 4LBs, respectively. Results on slippage were inconclusive. Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ significantly between interventions. Lower 6-month NHS costs for the combined population (£2413 vs. £2707 or £2648) and for newly diagnosed patients (£3045 vs. £3842 or £4480) were observed comparing 2LBA with 2LBB or 4LBA. Also, 2LBA was associated with better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, 2LBA may result in lower treatment costs and better ulcer healing and HRQoL compared with other multicomponent therapies, especially in patients with newly diagnosed VLUs. However, further high-quality research is needed, especially for outcomes such as slippage and bandage wear time.
Assuntos
Bandagens Compressivas/economia , Úlcera Varicosa/economia , Úlcera Varicosa/terapia , Bandagens Compressivas/efeitos adversos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do Tratamento , CicatrizaçãoRESUMO
To date, there have been no studies comparing flat-knit and round-knit compression garments for maintenance therapy of lymphedema of the leg. According to expert opinion, flat-knit fabrics are generally recommended for this purpose. Given the differences in the clinical presentation of lymphedema in terms of disease stage and location as well as patient adherence, and, last but not least, for economic reasons, it seems questionable whether all patients with lymphedema of the leg actually do require flat-knit compression garments. Considering technical aspects, published data and our own clinical experience, it seems reasonable that the choice of compression stockings be based on clinical findings and not on the diagnosis. Typical indications for flat-knit garments include significant differences in leg circumference as well as deep skin folds and edema of the toes/forefoot. However, there are also patients with lymphedema who benefit from round-knit fabrics with a high degree of stiffness. In any case, prior to maintenance therapy, it is essential to adequately decongest the legs using compression bandages and/or adaptive compression systems.
Assuntos
Vestuário/efeitos adversos , Bandagens Compressivas/efeitos adversos , Edema/patologia , Linfedema/terapia , Meias de Compressão/efeitos adversos , Bandagens Compressivas/economia , Elasticidade , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Pé/patologia , Humanos , Perna (Membro)/anatomia & histologia , Perna (Membro)/patologia , Linfedema/complicações , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cooperação do Paciente , Dobras Cutâneas , Meias de Compressão/economiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Compression is an effective and recommended treatment for venous leg ulcers. Although the four-layer bandage (4LB) is regarded as the gold standard compression system, it is recognised that the amount of compression delivered might be compromised by poor application technique. Also the bulky nature of the bandages might reduce ankle or leg mobility and make the wearing of shoes difficult. Two-layer compression hosiery systems are now available for the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Two-layer hosiery (HH) may be advantageous, as it has reduced bulk, which might enhance ankle or leg mobility and patient adherence. Some patients can also remove and reapply two-layer hosiery, which may encourage self-management and could reduce costs. However, little robust evidence exists about the effectiveness of two-layer hosiery for ulcer healing and no previous trials have compared two-layer hosiery delivering 'high' compression with the 4LB. OBJECTIVES: Part I To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HH and 4LB in terms of time to complete healing of venous leg ulcers. Part II To synthesise the relative effectiveness evidence (for ulcer healing) of high-compression treatments for venous leg ulcers using a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC). Part III To construct a decision-analytic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of high-compression treatments for venous leg ulcers. DESIGN: Part I A multicentred, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel, open randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an economic evaluation. Part II MTC using all relevant RCT data - including Venous leg Ulcer Study IV (VenUS IV). Part III A decision-analytic Markov model. SETTINGS: Part I Community nurse teams or services, general practitioner practices, leg ulcer clinics, tissue viability clinics or services and wound clinics within England and Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Part I Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a venous leg ulcer, who were willing and able to tolerate high compression. INTERVENTIONS: Part I Participants in the intervention group received HH. The control group received the 4LB, which was applied according to standard practice. Both treatments are designed to deliver 40 mmHg of compression at the ankle. Part II and III All relevant high-compression treatments including HH, the 4LB and the two-layer bandage (2LB). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Part I The primary outcome measure was time to healing of the reference ulcer (blinded assessment). Part II Time to ulcer healing. Part III Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. RESULTS: Part I A total of 457 participants were recruited. There was no evidence of a difference in time to healing of the reference ulcer between groups in an adjusted analysis [hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.25; p = 0.96]. Time to ulcer recurrence was significantly shorter in the 4LB group (HR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.94; p = 0.026). In terms of cost-effectiveness, using QALYs as the measure of benefit, HH had a > 95% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment based on the within-trial analysis. Part II The MTC suggests that the 2LB has the highest probability of ulcer healing compared with other high-compression treatments. However, this evidence is categorised as low to very low quality. Part III Results suggested that the 2LB had the highest probability of being the most cost-effective high-compression treatment for venous leg ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: Trial data from VenUS IV found no evidence of a difference in venous ulcer healing between HH and the 4LB. HH may reduce ulcer recurrence rates compared with the 4LB and be a cost-effective treatment. When all available high-compression treatments were considered, the 2LB had the highest probability of being clinically effective and cost-effective. However, the underpinning evidence was sparse and more research is needed. Further research should thus focus on establishing, in a high-quality trial, the effectiveness of this compression system in particular. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49373072. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Assuntos
Bandagens Compressivas/estatística & dados numéricos , Prevenção Secundária/métodos , Úlcera Varicosa/terapia , Cicatrização , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Bandagens Compressivas/efeitos adversos , Bandagens Compressivas/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Tomada de Decisões , Inglaterra , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Cadeias de Markov , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Irlanda do Norte , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/economia , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Cooperação do Paciente , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Recidiva , Autocuidado , Meias de Compressão/efeitos adversos , Meias de Compressão/economia , Meias de Compressão/estatística & dados numéricos , Fatores de Tempo , Úlcera Varicosa/economiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Drawbacks exist with the standard treatment (four-layer compression bandages) for venous leg ulcers. We have therefore compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two-layer compression hosiery with the four-layer bandage for the treatment of such ulcers. METHODS: We undertook this pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups in 34 centres in England and Northern Ireland. The centres were community nurse teams or services, family doctor practices, leg ulcer clinics, tissue viability clinics or services, and wound clinics. Participants were aged 18 years or older with a venous leg ulcer and an ankle brachial pressure index of at least 0·8, and were tolerant of high compression. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) to receive two-layer compression hosiery or a four-layer bandage, using a remote randomisation service and prevalidated computer randomisation program. Participants were stratified by ulcer duration and ulcer area with permuted blocks (block sizes four and six). The primary endpoint was time to ulcer healing, with a maximum follow-up of 12 months. Although participants and health-care providers were not masked to treatment allocation, the primary endpoint was measured by masked assessment of photographs. Primary analysis was intention to treat with Cox regression, with adjustment for ulcer area, ulcer duration, physical mobility, and centre. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN register, number ISRCTN49373072. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 457 participants to the two treatment groups: 230 to two-layer hosiery and 227 to the four-layer bandage, of whom 453 (230 hosiery and 223 bandage) contributed data for analysis. Median time to ulcer healing was 99 days (95% CI 84-126) in the hosiery group and 98 days (85-112) in the bandage group, and the proportion of ulcers healing was much the same in the two groups (70·9% hosiery and 70·4% bandage). More hosiery participants changed their allocated treatment (38·3% hosiery vs 27·0% bandage; p=0·02). 300 participants had 895 adverse events, of which 85 (9·5%) were classed as serious but unrelated to trial treatment. INTERPRETATION: Two-layer compression hosiery is a viable alternative to the four-layer bandage-it is equally as effective at healing venous leg ulcers. However, a higher rate of treatment changes in participants in the hosiery group than in the bandage group suggests that hosiery might not be suitable for all patients. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (07/60/26).