Mosher B A, Cuddigan J, Thomas D R, Boudreau D M
Kay-Rem Associates, Clinton, WA, USA.
Adv Wound Care. 1999 Mar;12(2):81-8.
To compare the clinical efficacy of 4 debridement alternatives in pressure ulcer management.
Nonexperimental design combining computer modeling and a decision analysis methodology. Data input into the model were derived from a literature review of the MEDLINE database for the years 1985 to 1995 (indexing terms: pressure ulcer, decubitus, economics, cost-effectiveness, and outcome) and a Delphi consensus process with an independent panel of 9 specialists in geriatric care.
Long-term care.
Hypothetical elderly female resident with a new full-thickness pressure ulcer (mild odor, minimal draining, no undermining, intact periulcer skin).
The study patient underwent 1 month of therapy with each of 4 debridement methods: autolysis, wet-to-dry dressings, collagenase (Santyl) or fibrinolysin (Elase).
Specific clinical outcomes (time to clean wound bed, risk of infection) and relative cost-effectiveness of each debridement method were calculated.
The likelihood of achieving a clean wound bed at 2 weeks was 70% for collagenase, 57% for fibrinolysin, 50% for autolysis, and 30% for wet-to-dry dressings. The total cost for 1 month of treatment was $610.96 for collagenase, $920.73 for autolysis, $986.38 for fibrinolysin, and $1,008.72 for wet-to-dry dressings.
The study patient was most likely to have a clean wound bed after 2 and 4 weeks of treatment, less likely to need to switch debridement methods, and of equal or less likelihood of experiencing and infection and subsequent hospitalization when her wound was debrided with collagenase. Treatment with collagenase also resulted in the lowest total cost of treatment. Longer term, prospective studies using actual utilization data are needed to refine these estimates of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of each product.
比较4种清创方法在压疮处理中的临床疗效。
结合计算机建模和决策分析方法的非实验性设计。输入模型的数据来自对1985年至1995年MEDLINE数据库的文献综述(索引词:压疮、褥疮、经济学、成本效益和结果)以及与一个由9名老年护理专家组成的独立小组进行的德尔菲共识过程。
长期护理机构。
假设的患有新发全层压疮(轻度异味、少量渗液、无潜行、溃疡周围皮肤完整)的老年女性居民。
研究患者分别接受4种清创方法各1个月的治疗:自溶法、湿-干敷料法、胶原酶(Santyl)或纤维蛋白溶酶(Elase)。
计算每种清创方法的特定临床结局(伤口床清洁时间、感染风险)和相对成本效益。
胶原酶组在2周时伤口床清洁的可能性为70%,纤维蛋白溶酶组为57%,自溶法组为50%,湿-干敷料法组为30%。1个月治疗的总成本:胶原酶组为610.96美元,自溶法组为920.73美元,纤维蛋白溶酶组为986.38美元,湿-干敷料法组为1008.72美元。
用胶原酶清创时,研究患者在治疗2周和4周后最有可能拥有清洁的伤口床,更换清创方法的可能性较小,发生感染及随后住院的可能性相同或更小。用胶原酶治疗还使治疗总成本最低。从长远来看,需要使用实际使用数据进行前瞻性研究,以完善对每种产品临床和成本效益的这些估计。