Abstract
Multicenter, phase-4, randomized, comparative-efficacy study in patients with VLUs or DFUs comparing for noninferiority the percentage change in target ulcer dimensions (area, depth, and volume) a single-use negative pressure wound therapy (s-NPWT) system versus traditional NPWT (t-NPWT) over a 12-week treatment period or up to confirmed healing. Baseline values were taken at the randomization visit. Randomized by wound type and size, 164 patients with non-infected DFUs and VLUs were included. The ITT population was composed of 161 patients (101 with VLUs, 60 with DFUs) and 115 patients completed follow-up (64 in the s-NPWT group and 51 in the t-NPWT group) (PP population). The average age for all patients was 61.5 years, 36.6% were women, and treatment groups were statistically similar at baseline. Primary endpoint analyses on wound area reduction demonstrated statistically significant reduction in favor of s-NPWT (p = 0.003) for the PP population and for the ITT population (p < 0.001). Changes in wound depth (p = 0.018) and volume (p = 0.013) were also better with s-NPWT. Faster wound closure was observed with s-NPWT (Cox Proportional Hazards ratio (0.493 (0.273, 0.891); p = 0.019) in the ITT population. Wound closure occurred in 45% of patients in the s-NPWT group vs. 22.2% of patients in the t-NPWT group (p = 0.002). Median estimate of the time to wound closure was 77 days for s-NPWT. No estimate could be provided for t-NPWT due to the low number of patients achieving wound closure. Device-related AEs were more frequent in the t-NPWT group (41 AEs from 29 patients) than in the s-NPWT group (16 AEs from 12 patients). The s-NPWT system met noninferiority and achieved statistical superiority vs. t-NPWT in terms of wound progression toward healing over the treatment period. When NPWT is being considered for the management of challenging VLUs and DFUs, s-NPWT should be considered a first choice over other types of NPWT.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Journal | Wound Repair and Regeneration |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2019 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Surgery
- Dermatology
Cite this
A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities. / Kirsner, Robert; Dove, Cyaandi; Reyzelman, Alex; Vayser, Dean; Jaimes, Henry.
In: Wound Repair and Regeneration, 01.01.2019.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities
AU - Kirsner, Robert
AU - Dove, Cyaandi
AU - Reyzelman, Alex
AU - Vayser, Dean
AU - Jaimes, Henry
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - Multicenter, phase-4, randomized, comparative-efficacy study in patients with VLUs or DFUs comparing for noninferiority the percentage change in target ulcer dimensions (area, depth, and volume) a single-use negative pressure wound therapy (s-NPWT) system versus traditional NPWT (t-NPWT) over a 12-week treatment period or up to confirmed healing. Baseline values were taken at the randomization visit. Randomized by wound type and size, 164 patients with non-infected DFUs and VLUs were included. The ITT population was composed of 161 patients (101 with VLUs, 60 with DFUs) and 115 patients completed follow-up (64 in the s-NPWT group and 51 in the t-NPWT group) (PP population). The average age for all patients was 61.5 years, 36.6% were women, and treatment groups were statistically similar at baseline. Primary endpoint analyses on wound area reduction demonstrated statistically significant reduction in favor of s-NPWT (p = 0.003) for the PP population and for the ITT population (p < 0.001). Changes in wound depth (p = 0.018) and volume (p = 0.013) were also better with s-NPWT. Faster wound closure was observed with s-NPWT (Cox Proportional Hazards ratio (0.493 (0.273, 0.891); p = 0.019) in the ITT population. Wound closure occurred in 45% of patients in the s-NPWT group vs. 22.2% of patients in the t-NPWT group (p = 0.002). Median estimate of the time to wound closure was 77 days for s-NPWT. No estimate could be provided for t-NPWT due to the low number of patients achieving wound closure. Device-related AEs were more frequent in the t-NPWT group (41 AEs from 29 patients) than in the s-NPWT group (16 AEs from 12 patients). The s-NPWT system met noninferiority and achieved statistical superiority vs. t-NPWT in terms of wound progression toward healing over the treatment period. When NPWT is being considered for the management of challenging VLUs and DFUs, s-NPWT should be considered a first choice over other types of NPWT.
AB - Multicenter, phase-4, randomized, comparative-efficacy study in patients with VLUs or DFUs comparing for noninferiority the percentage change in target ulcer dimensions (area, depth, and volume) a single-use negative pressure wound therapy (s-NPWT) system versus traditional NPWT (t-NPWT) over a 12-week treatment period or up to confirmed healing. Baseline values were taken at the randomization visit. Randomized by wound type and size, 164 patients with non-infected DFUs and VLUs were included. The ITT population was composed of 161 patients (101 with VLUs, 60 with DFUs) and 115 patients completed follow-up (64 in the s-NPWT group and 51 in the t-NPWT group) (PP population). The average age for all patients was 61.5 years, 36.6% were women, and treatment groups were statistically similar at baseline. Primary endpoint analyses on wound area reduction demonstrated statistically significant reduction in favor of s-NPWT (p = 0.003) for the PP population and for the ITT population (p < 0.001). Changes in wound depth (p = 0.018) and volume (p = 0.013) were also better with s-NPWT. Faster wound closure was observed with s-NPWT (Cox Proportional Hazards ratio (0.493 (0.273, 0.891); p = 0.019) in the ITT population. Wound closure occurred in 45% of patients in the s-NPWT group vs. 22.2% of patients in the t-NPWT group (p = 0.002). Median estimate of the time to wound closure was 77 days for s-NPWT. No estimate could be provided for t-NPWT due to the low number of patients achieving wound closure. Device-related AEs were more frequent in the t-NPWT group (41 AEs from 29 patients) than in the s-NPWT group (16 AEs from 12 patients). The s-NPWT system met noninferiority and achieved statistical superiority vs. t-NPWT in terms of wound progression toward healing over the treatment period. When NPWT is being considered for the management of challenging VLUs and DFUs, s-NPWT should be considered a first choice over other types of NPWT.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067655387&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067655387&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/wrr.12727
DO - 10.1111/wrr.12727
M3 - Article
C2 - 31087729
AN - SCOPUS:85067655387
JO - Wound Repair and Regeneration
JF - Wound Repair and Regeneration
SN - 1067-1927
ER -