Southern Arizona Limb Salvage Alliance, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tuscon, Arizona, USA.
Wound Repair Regen. 2011 Mar-Apr;19(2):173-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2010.00658.x.
The purpose of this study was to compare the ultraportable mechanically powered Smart Negative Pressure (SNaP(®)) Wound Care System to the traditional electrically powered Vacuum-Assisted Closure (VAC(®)) Therapy System in the treatment of chronic lower extremity wounds. This 12-center randomized-controlled trial of patients with noninfected, nonischemic, nonplantar lower extremity wounds had enrolled 65 patients, as of January 5, 2010, at the time of a planned interim analysis. Subjects were randomly assigned to treatment with either the SNaP(®) or VAC(®) Systems. The trial evaluated treatment for up to 16 weeks or till complete closure was achieved. Fifty-three patients (N=27 SNaP(®), N=26 VAC(®)) completed at least 4 weeks of therapy. Thirty-three patients (N=18 SNaP(®), N=15 VAC(®)) completed the study with either healing or 16 weeks of therapy. At the time of planned interim analysis, no significant differences (p=0.99) in the proportion of subjects healed between the two devices evaluated were found. In addition, the percent wound size reduction between treatment groups was not significantly different at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks, with noninferiority analysis at 4 weeks of treatment reaching the p-value <0.05 significance level (*p=0.019). These interim data suggest no difference in wound closure between the SNaP(®) System and the VAC(®) System in the population studied. We look forward to the final analysis results.
本研究旨在比较超便携机械动力 Smart Negative Pressure(SNaP(®))伤口护理系统与传统电动 Vacuum-Assisted Closure(VAC(®))治疗系统在治疗慢性下肢伤口方面的疗效。截至 2010 年 1 月 5 日,该 12 中心、随机对照试验共纳入 65 例非感染、非缺血、非足底下肢伤口患者,当时正在进行计划中的中期分析。受试者随机分配接受 SNaP(®)或 VAC(®)系统治疗。试验评估了长达 16 周的治疗,或直至完全愈合。53 例患者(N=27 SNaP(®),N=26 VAC(®))完成至少 4 周的治疗。33 例患者(N=18 SNaP(®),N=15 VAC(®))完成了研究,或愈合,或治疗 16 周。在计划的中期分析时,未发现两种设备评估的愈合患者比例有显著差异(p=0.99)。此外,治疗组之间的伤口面积减少百分比在 4、8、12 和 16 周时没有显著差异,在治疗 4 周时的非劣效性分析达到了 p 值<0.05 的显著性水平(*p=0.019)。这些中期数据表明,在所研究的人群中,SNaP(®)系统与 VAC(®)系统在伤口闭合方面没有差异。我们期待最终分析结果。