Economic outcomes in clinical studies assessing hyperbaric oxygen in the treatment of acute and chronic wounds.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) is used to treat acute and chronic wounds. This systematic review was conducted to summarise and evaluate existing evidence on the costs associated with HBOT in the treatment of wounds. METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases in March 2015 for cohort studies and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that reported on the clinical effectiveness and treatment costs of HBOT in the treatment of acute or chronic wounds. RESULTS: One RCT and three cohort studies reported on economic as well as clinical outcomes. These studies comprised different disorders (ischaemic diabetic foot ulcers, thermal burns, Fournier's gangrene and necrotising soft tissue infections) and employed different clinical and economic outcome measures. Only the RCT had a good methodological quality. Three of the included studies reported that their primary clinical outcomes (wound healing, hospital stay, complications) improved in the HBOT group. The effects of HBOT on costs were variable. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is little direct evidence on the cost-effectiveness of HBOT in the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. Although there is some evidence suggesting effectiveness of HBOT, further studies should include economic outcomes in order to make recommendations on the cost-effectiveness of applying HBOT in wound care.

Is additional hyperbaric oxygen therapy cost-effective for treating ischemic diabetic ulcers? Study protocol for the Dutch DAMOCLES multicenter randomized clinical trial?

BACKGROUND: The value of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in the treatment of diabetic ulcers is still under debate. Available evidence suggests that HBOT may improve the healing of diabetic ulcers, but it comes from small trials with heterogeneous populations and interventions. The DAMOCLES-trial will assess the (cost-)effectiveness of HBOT for ischemic diabetic ulcers in addition to standard of care. METHODS: In a multicenter randomized clinical trial, including 30 hospitals and all 10 HBOT centers in the Netherlands, we plan to enroll 275 patients with Types 1 or 2 diabetes, a Wagner 2, 3 or 4 ulcer of the leg present for at least 4 weeks, and concomitant leg ischemia, defined as an ankle systolic blood pressure of <70 mmHg, a toe systolic blood pressure of <50 mmHg or a forefoot transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcpO2) of <40 mmHg. Eligible patients may be candidates for revascularization. Patients will be randomly assigned to standard care with or without 40 HBOT-sessions. RESULTS: Primary outcome measures are freedom from major amputation after 12 months and achievement of, and time to, complete wound healing. Secondary endpoints include freedom from minor amputations, ulcer recurrence, TcpO2 , quality of life, and safety. In addition, we will assess the cost-effectiveness of HBOT for this indication. CONCLUSION: The DAMOCLES trial will be the largest trial ever performed in the realm of HBOT for chronic ulcers, and it is unique for addressing patients with ischemic diabetic foot ulcers who may also receive vascular reconstructions. This matches the treatment dilemma in current clinical practice.

Systemic wound care: a meta-review of cochrane systematic reviews.

Wound care is a classic example of a surgical realm with a great variation in care. The diversity in wounds and wound treatments, the limited amount of convincing evidence, and the diverging opinions among doctors and nurses involved in wound care contribute to this undesirable variation in care. For chronic wounds, such as arterial or venous ulcers, pressure sores, and diabetic foot ulcers, but also for acute wounds after surgery or trauma, international and national guidelines provide recommendations on diagnostic procedures and treatment options, but rely mostly on expert opinion. We present the available evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews for the systemic treatment (i.e., not prevention) of patients with wounds, as opposed to topical wound treatments. This evidence shows: - Venous ulcers: High-compression therapy is the classic and evidence-based treatment for treating venous ulcers. Oral pentoxifylline promotes ulcer healing with and without compression therapy. Oral zinc is not effective to heal venous ulcers. - Acute wounds: Recombinant human growth hormone accelerates healing of large burn wounds and donor sites, while high-carbohydrate feeding might reduce the risk of pneumonia. Linezolid is more effective than vancomycin for treating skin and soft tissue infections. Hyperbaric oxygen may help heal crush wounds and skin grafts. Therapeutic touch does not heal acute wounds. - Pressure sores: Air-fluidized and some low-tech devices appear effective for treating existing pressure ulcers. Oral zinc, protein, or vitamin C supplements seem ineffective. Also, evidence is lacking on the effectiveness of repositioning regimes as a treatment option. - Diabetic ulcers: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy and pressure-relieving devices may improve healing rates. - Arterial ulcers: Prostanoids and spinal cord stimulation may be effective in healing ischemic ulcers. Thus, fortunately, some high-level evidence exists for various local and systemic interventions in wound care. Caregivers should be aware of, and apply, the strongest evidence available. Only when all stakeholders (patients, physicians, wound care nurses, but also manufacturers and buyers) implement this available evidence will optimum quality of care for patients with wounds be ensured.