Journal of wound care · 2024
A double-blind trial comparing an antimicrobial combination to standard care in hard-to-heal wounds.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khan Maha, King Emily, Breisinger Kristy, Serena Laura, Serena Thomas E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Excessive numbers of bacteria in hard-to-heal wounds impede wound healing. Numerous topical antiseptics have demonstrated effectiveness in benchtop studies; however, few clinical studies have demonstrated efficacy in the target population: patients with hard-to-heal wounds. This study addressed the clinical efficacy of a novel antibiofilm cleanser and gel in reducing bacterial load and improving wound outcomes.
METHOD: Hard-to-heal wounds were photographed, measured and evaluated for bacterial load using fluorescence imaging weekly for four weeks. The target ulcers were randomised to be cleaned and treated with either a synergistic antibiofilm cleanser and antibiofilm gel with standard of care (AMC-AMG + SoC) or normal saline wash and an amorphous gel with standard of care (NSS-HG + SoC).
RESULTS: A Chi-squared test of independence determined that the relationship between the treatment and the patient reaching 40% percentage area reduction (PAR) in four weeks was not significant (χ2(1, n=54)=0.73; p=0.39 at a significance level of 0.05); however, there was a strong trend favouring the antibiofilm cleanser and gel. A significant reduction (p<0.05) in bacterial load was observed in the antibiofilm group.
CONCLUSION: This randomised controlled double-blind proof-of-concept study suggests that the performance of antibiofilm agents in vivo is comparable to that in vitro studies.
METHOD: Hard-to-heal wounds were photographed, measured and evaluated for bacterial load using fluorescence imaging weekly for four weeks. The target ulcers were randomised to be cleaned and treated with either a synergistic antibiofilm cleanser and antibiofilm gel with standard of care (AMC-AMG + SoC) or normal saline wash and an amorphous gel with standard of care (NSS-HG + SoC).
RESULTS: A Chi-squared test of independence determined that the relationship between the treatment and the patient reaching 40% percentage area reduction (PAR) in four weeks was not significant (χ2(1, n=54)=0.73; p=0.39 at a significance level of 0.05); however, there was a strong trend favouring the antibiofilm cleanser and gel. A significant reduction (p<0.05) in bacterial load was observed in the antibiofilm group.
CONCLUSION: This randomised controlled double-blind proof-of-concept study suggests that the performance of antibiofilm agents in vivo is comparable to that in vitro studies.