Effectiveness of Biofilm‐based Wound Care System on Wound Healing in Chronic Wounds
Yukie Mori RN  Gojiro Nakagami RN, PhD  Aya Kitamura RN, PhD  Takeo Minematsu PhD  Mikio Kinoshita MD  Hiraku Suga MD, PhD  Masakazu Kurita MD, PhD … See all authors
First published: 30 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12738
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/wrr.12738.
ePDFPDFTOOLS SHARE
ABSTRACT
A biofilm plays a crucial role in delaying wound healing. Sharp debridement, a possible effective method for eliminating biofilms, can only be applied to the wound with visible necrotic tissue; thus, no option has been available for eliminating biofilms that are not accompanied by necrotic tissue. Wound blotting was recently developed to visualize biofilm noninvasively and quickly, and ultrasonic debridement is available for biofilm removal. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of “biofilm‐based wound care system (BWCS),” a combination of wound blotting as a point‐of‐care testing and ultrasonic debridement, for promoting wound healing. Firstly, the cross‐sectional study was conducted to examine the proportion of biofilm removal by ultrasonic debridement in pressure ulcers [Study 1]. Subsequently, the retrospective cohort study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of BWCS for healing of chronic wounds [Study 2]. The proportions of wound healing between wounds treated with BWCS and those with standard care in the home‐visiting clinic were compared by Kaplan‐Meier curve, and the Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to assess the effect of BWCS on wound healing. In Study 1, the median of biofilm removal proportion was 38.9% (interquartile range, 12.9–68.0%) for pressure ulcers treated with standard care and 65.2% (41.1–78.8%) for those treated with ultrasonic debridement (p = 0.009). In Study 2, the proportion of wound healing within 90 days was significantly higher in wounds treated with BWCS than in those treated with standard care (p = 0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio of BWCS for wound healing was 4.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.3–15.0; p = 0.015). In conclusion, we demonstrated that our novel approach, BWCS, can be a promising therapeutic strategy for visualizing biofilms that are not accompanied by necrotic tissue and promoting healing in chronic wounds.