Weller Carolina D, Buchbinder Rachelle, Johnston Renea V
Dept of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 3004.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 6(9):CD008378. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008378.pub2.
Chronic venous ulcer healing is a complex clinical problem that requires intervention from skilled, costly, multidisciplinary wound-care teams. Compression therapy has been shown to help heal venous ulcers and to reduce the risk of recurrence. It is not known which interventions help people adhere to compression treatments.
To assess the benefits and harms of interventions designed to help people adhere to venous leg ulcer compression therapy, and thus improve healing of venous leg ulcers and prevent their recurrence after healing.
In May 2013 we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL; trial registries, and reference lists of relevant publications for published and ongoing trials. There were no language or publication date restrictions.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that help people with venous leg ulcers adhere to compression treatments compared with usual care, or no intervention, or another active intervention. Our main outcomes were number of people with ulcers healed, recurrence, time to complete healing, quality of life, pain, adherence to compression therapy and number of people with adverse events.
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias of each included trial, and assessed overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes in 'Summary of findings' tables.
Low quality evidence from one trial (67 participants) indicates that, compared with home-based care, a community-based Leg Club® clinic that provided mechanisms for peer-support, assistance with goal setting and social interaction did not result in superior healing rates at three months (12/28 people healed in Leg Club clinic group versus 7/28 in home-based care group; risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 3.71); or six months (15/33 healed in Leg Club group versus 10/34 in home-based care group; RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.93); or in improved quality of life outcomes at six months (MD 0.85 points, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.83; 0 to 10 point scale). However, the Leg Club resulted in a statistically significant reduction in pain at six months (MD -12.75 points, 95% CI -24.79, -0.71; 0 to 100 point scale), although this was not considered a clinically important difference. Time to complete healing, recurrence of ulcers, adherence and adverse events were not reported.Low quality evidence from another trial (184 participants) indicates that, compared with usual care in a wound clinic, a community-based and nurse-led self-management programme of six months' duration promoting physical activity (walking and leg exercises) and adherence to compression therapy via counselling and behaviour modification (Lively Legs®) may not result in superior healing rates at 18 months (51/92 healed in Lively Legs group versus 41/92 in usual care group; RR 1.24 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.67)); may not result in reduced rates of recurrence of venous leg ulcers at 18 months (32/69 with recurrence in Lively Legs group versus 38/67 in usual care group; RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.14)); and may not result in superior adherence to compression therapy at 18 months (42/92 people fully adherent in Lively Legs group versus 41/92 in usual care group; RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.41)). Time to complete healing, quality of life, pain and adverse events were not reported. We found no studies that investigated other interventions to promote adherence to compression therapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of trials of interventions that promote adherence to compression therapy for venous ulcers. Low quality evidence from two trials was identified: one promoting adherence via socialisation and support (Leg Club®), and the other promoting adherence to compression, leg exercises and walking via counselling and behaviour modification (Lively Legs®).These trials did not reveal a benefit of community-based clinics over usual care in terms of healing rates, prevention of recurrence of venous leg ulcers, or quality of life. One trial indicated a small, but possibly clinically unimportant, reduction in pain, while adverse events were not reported. The small number of participants may have a hidden real benefit, or an increase in harm. Due to the lack of reliable evidence, at present it is not possible either to recommend or discourage nurse clinic care interventions over standard care.
慢性静脉溃疡的愈合是一个复杂的临床问题,需要专业、费用高昂的多学科伤口护理团队进行干预。已有研究表明,加压治疗有助于静脉溃疡的愈合,并降低复发风险。目前尚不清楚哪些干预措施有助于患者坚持加压治疗。
评估旨在帮助患者坚持下肢静脉溃疡加压治疗的干预措施的益处和危害,从而促进下肢静脉溃疡的愈合并防止愈合后复发。
2013年5月,我们检索了Cochrane伤口小组专业注册库;Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)(Cochrane图书馆);Ovid MEDLINE;Ovid MEDLINE(在研及其他非索引引文);Ovid EMBASE;EBSCO CINAHL;试验注册库以及相关出版物的参考文献列表,以查找已发表和正在进行的试验。检索无语言或出版日期限制。
我们纳入了与常规护理、无干预措施或其他积极干预措施相比,有助于下肢静脉溃疡患者坚持加压治疗的干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们的主要结局包括溃疡愈合的人数、复发情况、完全愈合时间、生活质量、疼痛、对加压治疗的依从性以及发生不良事件的人数。
两位综述作者独立选择纳入研究、提取数据、评估每项纳入试验的偏倚风险,并在“结果总结”表中评估主要结局的总体证据质量。
一项试验(67名参与者)的低质量证据表明,与居家护理相比,提供同伴支持、目标设定协助和社交互动机制的社区腿部俱乐部诊所,在三个月时的愈合率并无优势(腿部俱乐部诊所组28人中有12人愈合,居家护理组28人中有7人愈合;风险比(RR)1.71,95%置信区间(CI)0.79至3.71);六个月时也是如此(腿部俱乐部组33人中有15人愈合,居家护理组34人中有10人愈合;RR 1.55,95%CI 0.81至2.93);六个月时生活质量结局也未改善(MD 0.85分,95%CI -0.13至1.83;0至10分制)。然而,腿部俱乐部在六个月时疼痛有统计学显著降低(MD -12.75分,95%CI -24.79,-0.71;0至100分制),尽管这在临床上不被认为是重要差异。未报告完全愈合时间、溃疡复发、依从性和不良事件情况。另一项试验(184名参与者)的低质量证据表明,与伤口诊所的常规护理相比,为期六个月的社区护士主导的自我管理项目,通过咨询和行为改变促进身体活动(步行和腿部锻炼)以及坚持加压治疗(活力腿部项目),在18个月时愈合率可能并无优势(活力腿部组92人中有51人愈合,常规护理组92人中有41人愈合;RR 1.24(95%CI 0.93至1.67));18个月时下肢静脉溃疡复发率可能未降低(活力腿部组69人中有32人复发,常规护理组67人中有38人复发;RR 0.82(95%CI 0.59至1.14));18个月时对加压治疗的依从性可能也无优势(活力腿部组92人中有42人完全依从,常规护理组92人中有41人完全依从;RR 1.02(95%CI 0.74至1.41))。未报告完全愈合时间、生活质量、疼痛和不良事件情况。我们未发现研究其他促进加压治疗依从性干预措施的研究。
促进下肢静脉溃疡加压治疗依从性的干预措施试验较少。确定了两项试验的低质量证据:一项通过社交和支持促进依从性(腿部俱乐部项目),另一项通过咨询和行为改变促进对加压治疗、腿部锻炼和步行的依从性(活力腿部项目)。这些试验在愈合率、预防下肢静脉溃疡复发或生活质量方面,未显示社区诊所相对于常规护理有优势。一项试验表明疼痛有轻微但可能在临床上不重要的降低,且未报告不良事件。参与者数量较少可能隐藏着实际益处或危害增加。由于缺乏可靠证据,目前无法推荐或不推荐护士诊所护理干预措施优于标准护理。