Cost, Efficacy, Efficiency and Tolerability of Collagenase Ointment versus Hydrocolloid Occlusive Dressing in the Treatment of Pressure Ulcers
- 46 Downloads
Objective: Pressure ulcers are a common and costly healthcare problem. It is imperative to devise treatment methods that are simultaneously efficacious and cost effective. The efficacy and tolerability of collagenase ointment and hydrocolloid occlusive dressing have been proven in the treatment of pressure ulcers, but no comparative cost-efficacy studies have been reported. The present study was carried out to compare the cost, efficacy, efficiency and tolerability of these two methods.
Design and Setting: This was a multicentre, randomised, nonblind, parallel group study conducted at seven hospitals in Spain.
Patients: 37 evaluable patients of either gender aged 55 years or over having had stage III pressure ulcers for <1 year.
Methods: Reduction of ulcer area assessed at 1-week intervals was the primary outcome measure. Pain, granulation tissue, exudate and odour were also evaluated, as were nutrition state and occurrence of adverse reactions.
Results: No statistically significant differences in cost, efficacy or efficiency were detected between collagenase ointment and hydrocolloid dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers, although a trend for better efficacy and efficiency of collagenase treatment was observed. The tolerability of both therapeutic regimens was good.
Conclusions: These findings indicate that collagenase ointment and hydrocolloid dressing produced similar healing effects in patients with pressure ulcers.
KeywordsCollagenase Pressure Ulcer Ulcer Area Exudate Sample Pressure Ulcer Development
This study was supported by Laboratorios Knoll, SA, Madrid.
- 2.Pressure ulcers. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service/US Department of Health and Human Services, AHCPR Publication no. 95-0652, 1994Google Scholar
- 5.Ranzati C, Zahn W, Thorn H. Bacterial collagenase and collagen breakdown products exert chemotactic effects in vitro: implication for wound débridement and wound healing [abstract no. 37]. 4th Annual Meeting of the European Tissue Repair Society, 1994 Aug 25–28: Oxford, England, 1994Google Scholar
- 6.Herman IM. Stimulation of human keratinocyte migration and proliferation in vitro: insights into the cellular responses to injury and wound healing. Wounds 1996; 8: 33Google Scholar
- 7.Cortivo R, Radice M, Brun P, et al. Biological activity of human collagen breakdown products of fibroblasts. Wounds 1995; 7: 38AGoogle Scholar
- 9.Cohen IK, Diegelmann RF, Lindblad WJ, editors. Wound healing: biochemical and clinical aspects. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1992Google Scholar
- 10.Peacocke M, Gilchrest B. Cutaneous aging: cellular and molecular studies. In: Abatangelo G, Davidson JM, editors. Cutaneous development, aging and repair. Fidia Research Series. Padova: Liviana Press, 1989; 118: 263Google Scholar
- 12.Alfisi M, Ferrante A, Veneziani A, et al. Kollagenasehaltiges enzympräparat für die wundreinigune bei ulzera unterschiedlicher genese. Der Kassenarzt 1986; 42: 44–50Google Scholar
- 13.Garcia J. Desbridamiento y curación de úlceras por presión [abstract no. 48]. I Congreso Internacional de Enfermería Geriátrica. 1997 May 28–31: Barcelona, 1997Google Scholar
- 14.Helaly P, Vogt E, Schneider G. Wundheilungsstörungen und ihre enzmatische therapie eine multizentrische doppelblinstudie. Schwz Rundsch Med Praxis 1988; 77: 1428–34Google Scholar
- 15.Van Leen MWF. Collagenase treatment of chronic ulcers. 46th Congresso Nazionale delia Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Plastica Ricostruttiva ed Estetica & the European Tissue Repair Society Focus Meeting. 1997 Sep 30–Oct 3: Venezia, 1997Google Scholar
- 17.Stotts NA. Impaired wound healing. In: Carried Kholman V, Lindsay AM, editors. Pathophysiological phenomena in nursing: human response to illness. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1993: 443–69Google Scholar