Octenidine with hyaluronan dressing versus a silver dressing in hard-to-heal wounds: a post-marketing study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to provide comparative data on the clinical efficacy and safety of a novel hard-to-heal wound dressing (Sorelex; Contipro a.s., Czech Republic) that combines octenidine and hyaluronan, compared with a silver-based dressing. METHOD: This multicentre, open-label, randomised, post-market, clinical follow-up study provides a comparison of a octenidine and hyaluronan combination with a standard-of-care (SoC) silver-containing dressing. The investigators evaluated the management of infection in the hard-to-heal wounds based on recorded changes in the appearance of the wound bed tissue and the presence of clinical signs of infection after three weeks of treatment. Other relevant assessed parameters of wound healing were: wound size; exudation level; wound pain level; and surrounding skin appearance. RESULTS: The study cohort included 48 patients in the Sorelex arm and 39 patients in the SoC arm. Both products evinced numerous parameters of wound infection management: reductions in the wound bed slough; marked decreases in wound size; the formation of re-epithelialisation and granulation tissue; and improved pain management. Sorelex significantly improved the condition of surrounding skin after three weeks of treatment, unlike SoC. Sorelex reduced wound area significantly more than SoC (p=0.04). No statistically significant differences were detected in other assessed parameters between the two study arms. All the participating investigators expressed their satisfaction with both products. No adverse reactions to Sorelex were recorded over the mean treatment period of 53 days. CONCLUSION: The octenidine and hyaluronan combination provides a new alternative choice of dressing for the treatment of infected hard-to-heal wounds when compared with a silver-based product.

Evidence for person-centred care in chronic wound care: A systematic review and recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND: Chronic wounds affect an estimated 2.21 per 1000 population. They are a significant source of morbidity and affect individuals physically, psychologically, socially and financially. Person-centered care is one approach to improve patient outcomes in wound care as it values patients' perspectives, beliefs and autonomy and considers the person as a whole within the cultural context in which care is provided. AIM: We aimed to review the evidence on the use of person-centered care (PCC) in chronic wound care management and provide recommendations for practice and future research. METHOD: Using a systematic review methodology, we searched six databases for full-text papers from 2009-2019 published in peer-reviewed journals with no limits on language. RESULTS: Eighteen articles on studies involving 3149 patients from nine countries were identified. Studies were conducted under three broad intervention categories: healthcare professional education (n=1); patient education (n=14) and telemedicine (n=3). Studies were equally focused on prevention and treatment of chronic wounds. Significant improvements were reported in patient knowledge, pain and self-care behaviours. Only two studies evaluated the impact on wound healing and one study estimated the cost of implementing person-centered care. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base to support PCC in wound management is developing and based on our review has shown improved outcomes in areas of pressure ulcer prevention, patient satisfaction, patient knowledge and quality of life, but clinical outcomes such as wound healing were less well explored. Further research with more objective outcome measures are required.

A survey of practice and opinions on the use of topical antibiotics to prevent surgical site infection: more confusion than consensus.

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common causes of healthcare-associated infection. Although the use of topical antibiotics to prevent SSI is not recommended by current guidelines, published studies document conflicting results and conclusions. Objectives: The objectives of this survey were to: (i) determine the extent of the use of topical antibiotics to prevent SSI in clinical practice; and (ii) gather the opinions of healthcare professionals most likely to be involved in their use. Methods: A questionnaire was circulated to members of BSAC and the European Wound Management Association (EWMA). Results: The questionnaire received 160 responses from a variety of healthcare professionals around the world. Most respondents (70%) did not have guidelines for the use of topical antibiotics for the prevention of SSI in their institution; if present, local guidance was based on national guidelines (20/31, 65%). Most respondents did not use or recommend topical antibiotics to prevent SSI; of those that did, gentamicin collagen sponges were most commonly used (24/96 responses, 25%). Over half of the surgeons (18/33, 55%) who responded to the survey did not use topical antibiotics for the prevention of SSI but, when used, contaminated surgery (8/33, 24%) was the most commonly stated indication. Conclusions: There are diverse opinions and practices among healthcare professionals about the use of topical antibiotics for the prevention of SSI. This considerable, and possibly inappropriate, variation in clinical practice needs to be addressed as part of antibiotic stewardship.

Antimicrobial stewardship in wound care: a Position Paper from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy and European Wound Management Association.

BACKGROUND: With the growing global problem of antibiotic resistance it is crucial that clinicians use antibiotics wisely, which largely means following the principles of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). Treatment of various types of wounds is one of the more common reasons for prescribing antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: This guidance document is aimed at providing clinicians an understanding of: the basic principles of why AMS is important in caring for patients with infected wounds; who should be involved in AMS; and how to conduct AMS for patients with infected wounds. METHODS: We assembled a group of experts in infectious diseases/clinical microbiology (from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy) and wound management (from the European Wound Management Association) who, after thoroughly reviewing the available literature and holding teleconferences, jointly produced this guidance document. RESULTS: All open wounds will be colonized with bacteria, but antibiotic therapy is only required for those that are clinically infected. Therapy is usually empirical to start, but definitive therapy should be based on results of appropriately collected specimens for culture. When prescribed, it should be as narrowly focused, and administered for the shortest duration, as possible. AMS teams should be interdisciplinary, especially including specialists in infection and pharmacy, with input from administrative personnel, the treating clinicians and their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence is limited, but suggests that applying principles of AMS to the care of patients with wounds should help to reduce the unnecessary use of systemic or topical antibiotic therapy and ensure the safest and most clinically effective therapy for infected wounds.