Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Compression versus bridge negative pressure wound therapy combined with compression in non-healing venous ulcers: A randomized controlled trial with quality-of-life assessment and cost effectiveness
Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a useful adjunct to optimization of wound healing. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of NPWT in the management of refractory non-healing venous leg ulcers (VLU), in conjunction with compression therapy (CT).
Methods
A randomised controlled trial where 50 patients with chronic VLU were randomised to either NPWT with CT, or to CT alone, on a 1:1 ratio, for 12 weeks. Sample size was calculated to detect a minimum of 19 days with a standard deviation of 12 days and a power of 95% (α = 5%). Patients were followed-up for 1 year. Patients with mixed aetiology were excluded.
Results
Demographics, risk factors were similar in both groups. All ulcers were CEAP C6,s.Mean time to full healing was 64.3 days ±4.2 days in NPWT + CT patients and 83.2 days ±8.4 days in compression patients (p < .001). At 12 weeks, 80% of NPWT + CT managed ulcers (n = 20/25) were completely healed, compared to 36% of CCD ulcers (n = 9/25) (p < .001). Mean reduction in ulcer surface area at 12 weeks was 79% in NPWT + CT patients, compared to 58% in the compression group (p < .001). At 12 months follow-up, one recurrence occurred in the NPWT group, compared to two of the compression healed ulcers (p = .375). No local or systemic complications were encountered in either treatment group. NPWT + CT participants experienced an improvement in their physical functioning component. Total cost was 80,187.50 euros for NPWT + CT as opposed to 88,135.00 euros for CT participants.
Conclusions
NPWT reduces healing time, improves wound size reduction, reduce bacterial colonization in VLUs and enhances patient quality of life compared to compression alone. It achieves this while being cost-neutral compared to compression therapy alone with better quality of life by reducing complications and hospital stays.
O’mearaSCullumNNelsonEA, et al.Compression for venous leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2012, Epub ahead of print 14 November 2012.
2.
ErtlP. The multiple benefits of accurate assessment. Effective management of leg ulcers. Prof Nurse1993; 9: 139–144.
3.
LalBK. Venous ulcers of the lower extremity: definition, epidemiology, and economic and social burdens. Semin Vasc Surg2015; 28: 3–5.
4.
RaynerRCarvilleKKeatonJ, et al.Leg ulcers: atypical presentations and associated comorbidities. Wound Pract Res2009; 17: 168–185.
5.
MargolisDJBilkerWSantannaJ, et al.Venous leg ulcer: incidence and prevalence in the elderly. J Am Acad Dermatol2002; 46: 381–386.
6.
WoodburyMGHoughtonPE. Prevalence of pressure ulcers in Canadian healthcare settings. Ostomy/Wound Management2004; 50: 22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15509880/ (accessed 19 October 2020).
7.
AbbadeLPFLastóriaS. Venous ulcer: epidemiology, physiopathology, diagnosis and treatment. Int J Dermatol2005; 44: 449–456.
PhillipsTJ. Chronic cutaneous ulcers: etiology and epidemiology. In: Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Nature Publishing Group. Epub ahead of print 1994.
10.
PersoonAHeinenMMVan Der VleutenCJM, et al.Leg ulcers: a review of their impact on daily life. J Clin Nurs2004; 13: 341–354.
11.
AnandSCDeanCNettletonR, et al.Health-related quality of life tools for venous-ulcerated patients. Br J Nurs2003; 12: 48–59.
12.
BremHTomic-CanicMTarnovskayaA, et al.Healing of elderly patients with diabetic foot ulcers, venous stasis ulcers, and pressure ulcers. Surg Technol Int2003; 11: 161–167.
13.
HoddeJPJohnsonCE. Extracellular matrix as a strategy for treating chronic wounds. Am J Clin Dermatol2007; 8: 61–66.
14.
GuestJFFullerGWVowdenP. Venous leg ulcer management in clinical practice in the UK: costs and outcomes. Int Wound J2018; 15: 29–37.
15.
MoffattCKommalaDDourdinN, et al.Venous leg ulcers: patient concordance with compression therapy and its impact on healing and prevention of recurrence. Int Wound J2009; 6: 386–393.
16.
SasankaC. Venous ulcers of the lower limb: where do we stand. Indian J Plast Surg2012; 45: 266–274.
VowdenKviabilityPV. The prevalence, management and outcome for patients with lower limb ulceration identified in a wound care survey within one English health care district. Elsevier, 2009. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965206X08000478 (accessed 19 October 2020).
19.
RenaudJ. Postoperative drainage of wounds by means of negative pressure. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd1959; 103: 1845–1847.
20.
FleischmannWStreckerWBombelliM, et al.Vacuum sealing as treatment of soft tissue damage in open fractures. Unfallchirurg1993; 96: 488–492.
21.
ArgentaLCMorykwasMJ. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: clinical experience. Ann Plast Surg1997; 38: 563–577.
22.
VuerstaekJDVeraartJCWuiteJ, et al.Un nouveau concept de cicatrisation active des ulcères rebelles veineux ou mixtes: le Vacuum Assisted Closure. Trois ans d’expérience clinique. undefined.
23.
DumvilleJCLandLEvansD, et al.Negative pressure wound therapy for treating leg ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2015, Epub ahead of print 14 July 2015.
24.
VuerstaekJDDVainasTWuiteJ, et al.State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: a randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg2006; 44: 1029–1038.
25.
SchultzGSSibbaldRGFalangaV, et al.Wound bed preparation: a systematic approach to wound management. Wound Repair Regen; 11: S1–S28, Epub ahead of print March 2003.
26.
MorykwasMJArgentaLCShelton-BrownEI, et al.Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg1997; 38: 553–562.
27.
SaxenaVHwangCWHuangS, et al.Vacuum-assisted closure: microdeformations of wounds and cell proliferation. Plast Reconstr Surg2004; 114: 1086–1098.
28.
ShiBChenSZhangP, et al.Effects of vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) on the expressions of MMP-1, 2, 13 in human granulation wound. Zhonghua Zhengxing Waike Zazhi2003; 19: 279–281.
29.
McNultyAKSchmidtMFeeleyT, et al.Effects of negative pressure wound therapy on fibroblast viability, chemotactic signaling, and proliferation in a provisional wound (fibrin) matrix. Wound Repair Regen2007; 15: 838–846.
30.
McNultyAKSchmidtMFeeleyT, et al.Effects of negative pressure wound therapy on cellular energetics in fibroblasts grown in a provisional wound (fibrin) matrix. Wound Repair Regen2009; 17: 192–199.
31.
BorgquistOIngemanssonRMalmsjöM. The effect of intermittent and variable negative pressure wound therapy on wound edge microvascular blood flow. Ostomy Wound Manage2010; 56: 60–67.
32.
TimmersMSLe CessieSBanwellP, et al.The effects of varying degrees of pressure delivered by negative-pressure wound therapy on skin perfusion. Ann Plast Surg2005; 55: 665–671.
33.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline Good Clinical Practice E6(R2)2018; 6: 1–68.
34.
World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, J Am Med Assoc2013; 310: 2191–2194.
35.
SchulzKFAltmanDGMoherD. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ2010; 340: c332–c702.
36.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol2005; 5: 13.
37.
EklöfBRutherfordRBBerganJJ, et al.Revision of the CEAP classification for chronic venous disorders: consensus statement. Journal of Vascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg, pp. 1248–1252.
AnnaP. Chmielewska Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego im Jergo Kukuczki Katowicach D. Early and long-term results of physical methods in the treatment of venous leg ulcers: randomized controlled trial. Phlebology2011; 26: 237–245.
Rahmanian-SchwarzAWillkommLMGonserP, et al.A novel option in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for chronic and acute wound care. Burns2012; 38: 573–577.
49.
ArmstrongDGMarstonWAReyzelmanAM, et al.Comparative effectiveness of mechanically and electrically powered negative pressure wound therapy devices: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Wound Repair Regen2012; 20: 332–341.
50.
PerezDBramkampMExeC, et al.Modern wound care for the poor: a randomized clinical trial comparing the vacuum system with conventional saline-soaked gauze dressings. Am J Surg2010; 199: 14–20.
51.
BraakenburgAObdeijnMCFeitzR, et al.The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuum-assisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg2006; 118: 390–400.
52.
JosephE. A prospective randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure versus standard therapy of chronic nonhealing wounds. Wounds2000; 12: 60–67.
53.
MaHO’DonnellTFJRosenNA, et al.The real cost of treating venous ulcers in a contemporary vascular practice. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord2014; 2: 355–361.
