Updated Scar Management Practical Guidelines: Non-invasive and invasive measures

Summary Hypertrophic scars and keloids can be aesthetically displeasing and lead to severe psychosocial impairment. Many invasive and non-invasive options are available for the plastic (and any other) surgeon both to prevent and to treat abnormal scar formation. Recently, an updated set of practical evidence-based guidelines for the management of hypertrophic scars and keloids was developed by an international group of 24 experts from a wide range of specialities. An initial set of strategies to minimize the risk of scar formation is applicable to all types of scars and is indicated before, during and immediately after surgery. In addition to optimal surgical management, this includes measures to reduce skin tension, and to provide taping, hydration and ultraviolet (UV) protection of the early scar tissue. Silicone sheeting or gel is universally considered as the first-line prophylactic and treatment option for hypertrophic scars and keloids. The efficacy and safety of this gold-standard, non-invasive therapy has been demonstrated in many clinical studies. Other (more specialized) scar treatment options are available for high-risk patients and/or scars. Pressure garments may be indicated for more widespread scarring, especially after burns. At a later stage, more invasive or surgical procedures may be necessary for the correction of permanent unaesthetic scars and can be combined with adjuvant measures to achieve optimal outcomes. The choice of scar management measures for a particular patient should be based on the newly updated evidence-based recommendations taking individual patient and wound characteristics into consideration

Density-Functional-Based Determination of the CH3-CH4 Hydrogen Exchange Reaction Barrier

Due to the overbinding that is inherent in existing {\em local} approximations to the density-functional formalism, certain reaction energies have not been accessible. Since the generalized gradient approximation significantly decreases the overbinding, prospects for density-functional-based reaction dynamics are promising. Results on the generalized-gradient based determination of the CH3-CH4 hydrogen exchange reaction are presented. Including all Born-Oppenheimer effects an energy barrier of 9.5 kcal/Mole is found which is a very significant improvement over the local-density approximation.Comment: 5 twocolumn pages (needs twocolumn.sty), revtex, 3 figures, To appear in Chem.Phys.Let

Update on the role of antiseptics in the management of chronic wounds with critical colonisation and/or biofilm

Biofilms play a major role in delaying chronic wounds from healing. A wound infiltrated with biofilm, or “critically colonised” wound, may become clinically infected if the number of microbes exceeds a critical level. Chronic wound biofilms represent a significant treatment challenge by demonstrating recalcitrance towards antimicrobial agents. However, a “window of opportunity” may exist after wound debridement when biofilms are more susceptible to topical antiseptics. Here, we discuss the role of antiseptics in the management of chronic wounds and biofilm, focusing on povidone-iodine (PVP-I) in comparison with two commonly used antiseptics: polyhexanide (PHMB) and silver. This article is based on the literature reviewed during a focus group meeting on antiseptics in wound care and biofilm management, and on a PubMed search conducted in March 2020. Compared with PHMB and silver, PVP-I has a broader spectrum of antimicrobial activity, potent antibiofilm efficacy, no acquired bacterial resistance or cross-resistance, low cytotoxicity, good tolerability, and an ability to promote wound healing. PVP-I represents a viable therapeutic option in wound care and biofilm management, with the potential to treat biofilm-infiltrated, critically colonised wounds. We propose a practical algorithm to guide the management of chronic, non-healing wounds due to critical colonisation or biofilm, using PVP-I.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers

Background: Pressure ulcers, also known as pressure injuries and bed sores, are localised areas of injury to the skin or underlying tissues, or both. Dressings made from a variety of materials, including foam, are used to treat pressure ulcers. An evidence-based overview of dressings for pressure ulcers is needed to enable informed decision-making on dressing use. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane Reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers in people with an existing pressure ulcer in any care setting. Search methods: In February 2017 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; EBSCO CINAHL Plus and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED). We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that compared the clinical and cost effectiveness of foam wound dressings for healing pressure ulcers (Category/Stage II or above). Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias and data extraction. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies between the review authors. Main results: We included nine trials with a total of 483 participants, all of whom were adults (59 years or older) with an existing pressure ulcer Category/Stage II or above. All trials had two arms, which compared foam dressings with other dressings for treating pressure ulcers. The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low due to various combinations of selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. We had very little confidence in the estimate of effect of included studies. Where a foam dressing was compared with another foam dressing, we established that the true effect was likely to be substantially less than the study's estimated effect. We present data for four comparisons. One trial compared a silicone foam dressing with another (hydropolymer) foam dressing (38 participants), with an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain whether alternate types of foam dressing affected the incidence of healed pressure ulcers (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.75) or adverse events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.25), as the certainty of evidence was very low, downgraded for serious limitations in study design and very serious imprecision. Four trials with a median sample size of 20 participants (230 participants), compared foam dressings with hydrocolloid dressings for eight weeks or less (short-term). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing in comparison to hydrocolloid dressings over a short follow-up period in three trials (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.34), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious study limitations and serious imprecision. It was uncertain if there was a difference in risk of adverse events between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.11), very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty. One trial (34 participants), compared foam and hydrogel dressings over an eight-week (short-term) follow-up. It was uncertain if the foam dressing affected the probability of healing (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28), time to complete healing (MD 5.67 days 95% CI -4.03 to 15.37), adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.65) or reduction in ulcer size (MD 0.30 cm2 per day, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.75), as the certainty of the evidence was very low, downgraded for serious study limitations and very serious imprecision. The remaining three trials (181 participants) compared foam with basic wound contact dressings. Follow-up times ranged from short-term (8 weeks or less) to medium-term (8 to 24 weeks). It was uncertain whether foam dressings affected the probability of healing compared with basic wound contact dressings, in the short term (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.88) or medium term (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.72), or affected time to complete healing in the medium term (MD -35.80 days, 95% CI -56.77 to -14.83), or adverse events in the medium term (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.05). This was due to the very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious to very serious study limitations and imprecision. Reduction in ulcer size, patient satisfaction/acceptability, pain and cost effectiveness data were also reported but again, we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty. None of the included trials reported quality of life or pressure ulcer recurrence. Authors' conclusions: It is uncertain whether foam dressings are more clinically effective, more acceptable to users, or more cost effective compared to alternative dressings in treating pressure ulcers. It was difficult to make accurate comparisons between foam dressings and other dressings due to the lack of data on reduction of wound size, complete wound healing, treatment costs, or insufficient time-frames. Quality of life and patient (or carer) acceptability/satisfaction associated with foam dressings were not systematically measured in any of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence in the included trials as low to very low. Clinicians need to carefully consider the lack of robust evidence in relation to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of foam dressings for treating pressure ulcers when making treatment decisions, particularly when considering the wound management properties that may be offered by each dressing type and the care context.The NHMRC has provided funding for this review from its Centre of Research Excellence Scheme, which funds one or more of the authors. Griffith University, Australia. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK

Antibiotics and antiseptics for pressure ulcers

Background: Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. A range of treatments with antimicrobial properties, including impregnated dressings, are widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers. A clear and current overview is required to facilitate decision making regarding use of antiseptic or antibiotic therapies in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It also forms part of a suite of reviews investigating the use of different types of dressings and topical treatments in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Objectives: To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics on the healing of infected and uninfected pressure ulcers being treated in any clinical setting. Search methods: In October 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCOCINAHL Plus.We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with pressure ulcers of stage II or above were included in the review. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main results: We included 12 trials (576 participants); 11 had two arms and one had three arms. All assessed topical agents, none looked at systemic antibiotics. The included trials assessed the following antimicrobial agents: povidone iodine, cadexomer iodine, gentian violet, lysozyme, silver dressings, honey, pine resin, polyhexanide, silver sulfadiazine, and nitrofurazone with ethoxy-diaminoacridine. Comparators included a range of other dressings and ointments without antimicrobial properties and alternative antimicrobials. Each comparison had only one trial, participant numbers were low and follow-up times short. The evidence varied from moderate to very low quality. Six trials reported the primary outcome of wound healing. All except one compared an antiseptic with a non-antimicrobial comparator. There was some moderate and low quality evidence that fewer ulcers may heal in the short term when treated with povidone iodine compared with non-antimicrobial alternatives (protease-modulating dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98) and hydrogel (RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.97)); and no clear difference between povidone iodine and a third non-antimicrobial treatment (hydrocolloid) (low quality evidence). Pine resin salve may heal more pressure ulcers than hydrocolloid (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.05) (low quality evidence). There is no clear difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care, and between honey a combined antiseptic and antibiotic treatment (very low quality evidence). Six trials reported adverse events (primary safety outcome). Four reported no adverse events; there was very low quality evidence from one showing no clear evidence of a difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care; in one trial it was not clear whether data were appropriately reported. There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes. The five trials that reported change in wound size as a continuous outcome did not report any clear evidence favouring any particular antiseptic/anti-microbial treatments. For bacterial resistance, one trial found some evidence of more MRSA eradication in participants with ulcer treated with a polyhexanide dressing compared with a polyhexanideswab (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13); patients in the dressing group also reported less pain (MD −2.03, 95% CI −2.66 to −1.40). There was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions in infection resolution in three other comparisons. Evidence for secondary outcomes varied from moderate to very low quality; where no GRADE assessment was possible we identified substantial limitations which an assessment would have taken into account. Authors’ conclusions: The relative effects of systemic and topical antimicrobial treatments on pressure ulcers are not clear. Where differences in wound healing were found, these sometimes favoured the comparator treatment without antimicrobial properties. The trials are small, clinically heterogenous, generally of short duration, and at high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of the evidence ranges from moderate to very low; evidence on all comparisons was subject to some limitations

Towards an international language for incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD): design and evaluation of psychometric properties of the Ghent Global IAD Categorization Tool (GLOBIAD) in 30 countries

Background Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a specific type of irritant contact dermatitis with different severity levels. An internationally accepted instrument to assess the severity of IAD in adults, with established diagnostic accuracy, agreement and reliability, is needed to support clinical practice and research. Objectives To design the Ghent Global IAD Categorization Tool (GLOBIAD) and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods The design was based on expert consultation using a three-round Delphi procedure with 34 experts from 13 countries. The instrument was tested using IAD photographs, which reflected different severity levels, in a sample of 823 healthcare professionals from 30 countries. Measures for diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), agreement, interrater reliability (multirater Fleiss kappa) and intrarater reliability (Cohen’s kappa) were assessed. Results The GLOBIAD consists of two categories based on the presence of persistent redness (category 1) and skin loss (category 2), both of which are subdivided based on the presence of clinical signs of infection. The agreement for differentiating between category 1 and category 2 was 0 86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0 86–0 87], with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 84%. The overall agreement was 0 55 (95% CI 0 55–0 56). The Fleiss kappa for differentiating between category 1 and category 2 was 0 65 (95% CI 0 65–0 65). The overall Fleiss kappa was 0 41 (95% CI 0 41–0 41). The Cohen’s kappa for differentiating between category 1 and category 2 was 0 76 (95% CI 0 75–0 77). The overall Cohen’s kappa was 0 61 (95% CI 0 59–0 62). Conclusions The development of the GLOBIAD is a major step towards a better systematic assessment of IAD in clinical practice and research worldwide. However, further validation is needed.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

Bramwell-Hill modeling for local aortic pulse wave velocity estimation: a validation study with velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance and invasive pressure assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Bramwell-Hill model describes the relation between vascular wall stiffness expressed in aortic distensibility and the pulse wave velocity (PWV), which is the propagation speed of the systolic pressure wave through the aorta. The main objective of this study was to test the validity of this model locally in the aorta by using PWV-assessments based on in-plane velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), with invasive pressure measurements serving as the gold standard.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Seventeen patients (14 male, 3 female, mean age ± standard deviation = 57 ± 9 years) awaiting cardiac catheterization were prospectively included. During catheterization, intra-arterial pressure measurements were obtained in the aorta at multiple locations 5.8 cm apart. PWV was determined regionally over the aortic arch and locally in the proximal descending aorta. Subsequently, patients underwent a CMR examination to measure aortic PWV and aortic distention. Distensibility was determined locally from the aortic distension at the proximal descending aorta and the pulse pressure measured invasively during catheterization and non-invasively from brachial cuff-assessment. PWV was determined regionally in the aortic arch using through-plane and in-plane velocity-encoded CMR, and locally at the proximal descending aorta using in-plane velocity-encoded CMR. Validity of the Bramwell-Hill model was tested by evaluating associations between distensibility and PWV. Also, theoretical PWV was calculated from distensibility measurements and compared with pressure-assessed PWV.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In-plane velocity-encoded CMR provides stronger correlation (p = 0.02) between CMR and pressure-assessed PWV than through-plane velocity-encoded CMR (r = 0.69 versus r = 0.26), with a non-significant mean error of 0.2 ± 1.6 m/s for in-plane versus a significant (p = 0.006) error of 1.3 ± 1.7 m/s for through-plane velocity-encoded CMR. The Bramwell-Hill model shows a significantly (p = 0.01) stronger association between distensibility and PWV for local assessment (r = 0.8) than for regional assessment (r = 0.7), both for CMR and for pressure-assessed PWV. Theoretical PWV is strongly correlated (r = 0.8) with pressure-assessed PWV, with a statistically significant (p = 0.04) mean underestimation of 0.6 ± 1.1 m/s. This theoretical PWV-estimation is more accurate when invasively-assessed pulse pressure is used instead of brachial cuff-assessment (p = 0.03).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>CMR with in-plane velocity-encoding is the optimal approach for studying Bramwell-Hill associations between local PWV and aortic distensibility. This approach enables non-invasive estimation of local pulse pressure and distensibility.</p

Doppler ultrasound in the measurement of pulse wave velocity: agreement with the Complior method

Aortic stiffness is an independent predictor factor for cardiovascular risk. Different methods for determining pulse wave velocity (PWV) are used, among which the most common are mechanical methods such as SphygmoCor or Complior, which require specific devices and are limited by technical difficulty in obtaining measurements. Doppler guided by 2D ultrasound is a good alternative to these methods. We studied 40 patients (29 male, aged 21 to 82 years) comparing the Complior method with Doppler. Agreement of both devices was high (R = 0.91, 0.84-0.95, 95% CI). The reproducibility analysis revealed no intra-nor interobserver differences. Based on these results, we conclude that Doppler ultrasound is a reliable and reproducible alternative to other established methods for the measurement of aortic PWV