Cost-effectiveness of an electroceutical device in treating non-healing venous leg ulcers: results of an RCT

Guest, Julian F.; Singh, Heenal; Rana, Karan; Vowden, Peter

doi:10.12968/jowc.2018.27.4.230

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[6][7][8][9] During this period, we reported on unwarranted variation in wound care arising in part from inconsistencies in staff involvement and dressing choice and in many instances a lack of a coherent treatment plan. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Hence, it is reasonable to assume that not all patients with equal need have always had access to, or received, the same continuous levels of healthcare. However, patients should be afforded the best care available (within the context of limited resources) in order to obtain maximum health gains.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health Service in 2017/2018: update from 2012/2013

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence of wounds managed by the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) in 2017/2018 and associated health outcomes, resource use and costs.DesignRetrospective cohort analysis of the electronic records of patients from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database.SettingPrimary and secondary care sectors in the UK.ParticipantsRandomly selected cohort of 3000 patients from the THIN database who had a wound in 2017/2018.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPatients’ characteristics, wound-related health outcomes, healthcare resource use and total NHS cost of patient management.ResultsThere were an estimated 3.8 million patients with a wound managed by the NHS in 2017/2018, of which 70% healed in the study year; 89% and 49% of acute and chronic wounds healed, respectively. An estimated 59% of chronic wounds healed if there was no evidence of infection compared with 45% if there was a definite or suspected infection. Healing rate of acute wounds was unaffected by the presence of infection. Smoking status appeared to only affect the healing rate of chronic wounds. Annual levels of resource use attributable to wound management included 54.4 million district/community nurse visits, 53.6 million healthcare assistant visits and 28.1 million practice nurse visits. The annual NHS cost of wound management was £8.3 billion, of which £2.7 billion and £5.6 billion were associated with managing healed and unhealed wounds, respectively. Eighty-one per cent of the total annual NHS cost was incurred in the community.ConclusionThe annual prevalence of wounds increased by 71% between 2012/2013 and 2017/2018. There was a substantial increase in resource use over this period and patient management cost increased by 48% in real terms. There needs to be a structural change within the NHS in order to manage the increasing demand for wound care and improve patient outcomes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health Service in 2017/2018: update from 2012/2013

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, 20% of ulcers attained complete healing in the microcurrents group versus none in the sham, although statistical significance was not reached ( p = 0.22), possibly due to a short follow-up. A trial with a longer follow-up observed greater and more significant differences [ 29 ]. A case study reported the complete healing of a pressure ulcer on the sacral area 6 weeks after delivering microcurrents with the same device employed in the current trial [ 30 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Microcurrent Therapy for Treating Pressure Ulcers in Older People: A Double-Blind, Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial

Avendaño‐Coy

Martín-Espinosa

Ladriñán-Maestro³

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of microcurrent therapy for healing pressure ulcers in aged people. A multicentric, randomized clinical trial was designed with a sham stimulation control. The experimental group received an intervention following a standardized protocol for curing ulcers combined with 10 h of microcurrent therapy daily for 25 days. The sham group received the same curing protocol plus a sham microcurrent stimulation. The studied healing-related variables were the Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) and the surface, depth, grade, and number of ulcers that healed completely. Three evaluations were conducted: pre-intervention (T1), 14 days following the start of the intervention (T2), and 1 day after the intervention was completed (T3). In total, 30 participants met the inclusion criteria (n = 15 in each group). The improvement in the PUSH at T2 and T3 was 16.8% (CI95% 0.5–33.1) and 25.3% (CI95% 7.6–43.0) greater in the experimental group versus the sham control, respectively. The reduction in the wound area at T2 and T3 was 20.1% (CI95% 5.2–35.0) and 28.6% (CI95% 11.9–45.3) greater in the experimental group versus the control, respectively. Microcurrent therapy improves the healing of pressure ulcers in older adults, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

show abstract

“…This form of the device delivers an automatic program of low voltage biphasic and monophasic pulsed current (LVBMPC) for 48 h, starting when the device is switched on. Until now, use of the device has predominantly focussed on venous leg ulcers 23,24 . The EST is subsensory, does not trigger muscle contraction and is pain free and rarely detectable in conditions of adequate patient hydration.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Until now, use of the device has predominantly focussed on venous leg ulcers. 23 , 24 The EST is subsensory, does not trigger muscle contraction and is pain free and rarely detectable in conditions of adequate patient hydration. The program of LVBMPC therapy, which lasts for approximately 30 minutes, is automatically applied every two hours in the first 24 h and every four hours during the next 24 h. The current is applied in a fixed pattern with biphasic components changing from 50 to 500 microamps (μA) at pulse frequencies of between 50 and 900 Hz and a monophasic component operating at 40 μA.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Activation of healing and reduction of pain by single‐use automated microcurrent electrical stimulation therapy in patients with hard‐to‐heal wounds

Kurz¹,

Danner²,

Lembelembe³

et al. 2023

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence shows that Electrical Stimulation Therapy (EST) accelerates healing and reduces pain, but EST has yet to become widely used. One reason is the historical use of complex, clinic-based EST devices. This evaluation assessed the early response of different hard-to-heal wounds to a simple, wearable, single-use, automated microcurrent EST device (Accel-Heal, Accel-Heal Technologies Limited -Hever, UK). Forty wounds (39 patients: 18 female -21 male), mean age 68.9 ± 14.0 years comprised of: seven post-surgical, three trauma, 12 diabetic foot (DFU), 10 venous (VLU), four pressure injuries (PI), four mixed venous or arterial ulcers (VLU/arterial) received automated microcurrent EST for 12 days. Early clinical responses were scored on a 0-5 scale(5-excellent-0-no response). Pain was assessed at 48 h, seven days, and 14 days on a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS). Overall, 78% of wounds showed a marked positive clinical response (scores of 5 and 4). Sixty eight percent of wounds were painful with a mean VAS score of 5.5. Almost every patient (96%) with pain experienced reduction within 48 h. All patients with painful wounds experienced pain reduction after seven days: 2.50 VAS (45% reduction) and further pain reduction after 14 days: 1.83 VAS (33%).electrical stimulation, hard-to-heal wounds, pain reduction, single-use medical device, wound healing Key Messages• this evaluation assessed the early response of 40 hard-to-heal wounds to a simple, patient-friendly, single-use automated microcurrent EST device used for 12 days in clinic or home settings. Sixty eight percent of patients had painful wounds (mean VAS score 5.5) • seventy eight percent of wounds showed a marked positive clinical response to EST. Almost every patient (96%) experienced some pain reduction within

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness of an electroceutical device in treating non-healing venous leg ulcers: results of an RCT

Cited by 14 publications

References 16 publications

Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health Service in 2017/2018: update from 2012/2013

Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health Service in 2017/2018: update from 2012/2013

Effectiveness of Microcurrent Therapy for Treating Pressure Ulcers in Older People: A Double-Blind, Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial

Activation of healing and reduction of pain by single‐use automated microcurrent electrical stimulation therapy in patients with hard‐to‐heal wounds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About