Comparison of Effectiveness of Hydropobic Cutimed Sorbact Versus Cadexomer Iodine 0.9% on Healing of Diabetic Foot Ulcer: A Randomized Control Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70196/jwrt.v1i1.5Keywords:
sorbact, cadexomer iodine 0.9%, wound care, wound healingAbstract
Background: Diabetic foot ulcers have risen with DM. The IDF reports 15-25% of diabetics get foot ulcers, rising to 25% over time. Due to biofilm and bacteria growth, diabetic ulcers need advanced wound therapy using antimicrobial dressings. Modern antibacterial treatments include sorbact hydrophobic and 0.9% cadexomer iodine.
Purpose: Analyse the effectiveness of cutimed sorbact hydrophobic with cadexomer iodine 0.9% on diabetic ulcer infection.
Methods: A single-blind, fold-over, randomised controlled study. Patients with diabetes who developed foot ulcers between September 1 and December 1, 2023. One hundred sixty-two participants were randomly assigned to receive cutimed sorbact hydrophobic or cadexomer iodine 0.9%. After 120 days, both groups.
Results: It was found that the two groups had similar body mass index (0.364), wound size (0.317), and baseline age (p=0.432). The mean difference in confidence value of -0.16 (OR -2.54 to 1.29; p=0.058) showed that diabetic foot ulcers in both groups had similar wound size on the thirtyth day. On day 60 of treatment, Sorbact Hydropobic showed a difference of 22.56±9.87 compared to Cadexomer Iodine 0.9%, with an MD-CI value of -6.75 (OR 5.19 to -0.34; p=0.039 At 90 days of treatment, cadexomer iodine showed a significant difference from sorbact hydropobic (9.73±2.14), with an MD-CI value of -12.29 (OR -9.19 to -4.26; p=0.016; R2=-0.417).
Conclusion: Sorbact Hydropobic reduces wound size, infection, and bacterial resistance, speeding chronic wound healing. On chronic wounds, hydropobic sorbact can be used as a primary dressing.
References
Afonso, A. C., Oliveira, D., Saavedra, M. J., Borges, A., & Simões, M. (2021). Biofilms in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Impact, Risk Factors and Control Strategies. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(15), 8278. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22158278
Akash, M. S. H., Rehman, K., Fiayyaz, F., Sabir, S., & Khurshid, M. (2020). Diabetes-associated infections: Development of antimicrobial resistance and possible treatment strategies. Archives of Microbiology, 202(5), 953–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-020-01818-x
Armstrong, D. G., Boulton, A. J. M., & Bus, S. A. (2017). Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Their Recurrence. New England Journal of Medicine, 376(24), 2367–2375. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1615439
Baltzis, D., Eleftheriadou, I., & Veves, A. (2014). Pathogenesis and Treatment of Impaired Wound Healing in Diabetes Mellitus: New Insights. Advances in Therapy, 31(8), 817–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-014-0140-x
Burhan, A., Ali Khusein, N. bin, & Sebayang, S. M. (2022). Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy on chronic wound healing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Belitung Nursing Journal, 8(6), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.33546/bnj.2220
Burhan, A., & Arofiati, F. (2021). Effect of Compression Bandage on the Healing of Diabetic Foot Ulcers: A Scooping Review: 4th International Conference on Sustainable Innovation 2020–Health Science and Nursing (ICoSIHSN 2020), Yogyakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.2991/ahsr.k.210115.110
Burhan, A., Arofiati, F., Abreu Da Silva, V., & Mixrova Sebayang, S. (2023). Effect of ankle brachial index (abi) and compression therapy on diabetic foot ulcer healing. Current Diabetes Reviews, 19. https://doi.org/10.2174/1573399819666230331083420
Burhan, A., & Sebayang, S. M. (2022). The Combination of Polyhexamethylene Biguanide and Cadexomer Iodine in Healing Chronic Venous Leg Ulcers: A Case Report. Viva Medika: Jurnal Kesehatan, Kebidanan Dan Keperawatan, 16(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.35960/vm.v16i1.832
Clarys, P., Clijsen, R., Taeymans, J., & Barel, A. O. (2012). Hydration measurements of the stratum corneum: Comparison between the capacitance method (digital version of the Corneometer CM 825®) and the impedance method (Skicon-200EX®). Skin Research and Technology, 18(3), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0846.2011.00573.x
Cutting, K. (2015). In vitro and clinical experience of Cutimed Sorbact: The evidence base. Journal of Wound Care, 24(1), S6–S30. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2015.24.Sup5a.S6
Fitzgerald, D. J., Renick, P. J., Forrest, E. C., Tetens, S. P., Earnest, D. N., McMillan, J., Kiedaisch, B. M., Shi, L., & Roche, E. D. (2017). Cadexomer iodine provides superior efficacy against bacterial wound biofilms in vitro and in vivo. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 25(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12497
Gupta, S., Shinde, S., & Shinde, R. K. (2022). Topical Management of Wound: A Narrative Review of Cadexomer Iodine Ointment Versus Povidone Iodine Ointment. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24598
Homaeigohar, S., & Boccaccini, A. R. (2020). Antibacterial biohybrid nanofibers for wound dressings. Acta Biomaterialia, 107, 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2020.02.022
IDF. (2021). IDF Diabetes Atlas 2021 (10th ed.). International Diabetes Federation. https://diabetesatlas.org/idfawp/resource-files/2021/07/IDF_Atlas_10th_Edition_2021.pdf
Kim, J. H. (2023). Investigating Diabetic Foot Pathophysiology and Amputation Prevention Strategies through Behavioral Modification. Journal of Wound Management and Research, 19(3), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.22467/jwmr.2023.02747
Kolimi, P., Narala, S., Nyavanandi, D., Youssef, A. A. A., & Dudhipala, N. (2022). Innovative Treatment Strategies to Accelerate Wound Healing: Trajectory and Recent Advancements. Cells, 11(15), 2439. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11152439
Kusu-Orkar, T.-E., Islam, U., Hall, B., Araia, E., & Allorto, N. (2019). The use of a non-medicated dressing for superficial-partial thickness burns in children: A case series and review. Scars, Burns & Healing, 5, 205951311989695. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059513119896954
Lin, C., Liu, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Risk factors for lower extremity amputation in patients with diabetic foot ulcers: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0239236. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239236
Malone, M., Johani, K., Jensen, S. O., Gosbell, I. B., Dickson, H. G., McLennan, S., Hu, H., & Vickery, K. (2017). Effect of cadexomer iodine on the microbial load and diversity of chronic non-healing diabetic foot ulcers complicated by biofilm in vivo. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 72(7), 2093–2101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx099
Morilla‐Herrera, J. C., Morales‐Asencio, J. M., Gómez‐González, A. J., Díez‐De Los Ríos, A., Lupiáñez‐Pérez, I., Acosta‐Andrade, C., Aranda‐Gallardo, M., Moya‐Suárez, A. B., Kaknani‐Uttumchandani, S., & García‐Mayor, S. (2020). Effectiveness of a hydrophobic dressing for microorganisms’ colonization of vascular ulcers: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (CUCO‐UV Study). Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(8), 2191–2197. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14412
Ndosi, M., Wright-Hughes, A., Brown, S., Backhouse, M., Lipsky, B. A., Bhogal, M., Reynolds, C., Vowden, P., Jude, E. B., Nixon, J., & Nelson, E. A. (2018). Prognosis of the infected diabetic foot ulcer: A 12-month prospective observational study. Diabetic Medicine, 35(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13537
Ogurtsova, K., Da Rocha Fernandes, J. D., Huang, Y., Linnenkamp, U., Guariguata, L., Cho, N. H., Cavan, D., Shaw, J. E., & Makaroff, L. E. (2017). IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates for the prevalence of diabetes for 2015 and 2040. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 128, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabres.2017.03.024
Pouget, C., Dunyach-Remy, C., Pantel, A., Schuldiner, S., Sotto, A., & Lavigne, J.-P. (2020). Biofilms in Diabetic Foot Ulcers: Significance and Clinical Relevance. Microorganisms, 8(10), 1580. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8101580
Riskesdas. (2018). Main Results of Basic Health Research. Republic of Indonesia: Ministry of Health 2018. (4th ed.). Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia. https://kesmas.kemkes.go.id/assets/upload/dir_519d41d8cd98f00/files/Hasil-riskesdas-2018_1274.pdf
Roche, E. D., Woodmansey, E. J., Yang, Q., Gibson, D. J., Zhang, H., & Schultz, G. S. (2019). Cadexomer iodine effectively reduces bacterial biofilm in porcine wounds ex vivo and in vivo. International Wound Journal, 16(3), 674–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13080
Rosana, Y., Dewi, B. E., & Tjampakasari, C. R. (2009). Microbiology aspect of wound infection: In-vitro test for efficacy of hydrophobic dressing in microorganism binding. Medical Journal of Indonesia, 155. https://doi.org/10.13181/mji.v18i3.356
Sood, A., Granick, M. S., & Tomaselli, N. L. (2014). Wound Dressings and Comparative Effectiveness Data. Advances in Wound Care, 3(8), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2012.0401
Tottoli, E. M., Dorati, R., Genta, I., Chiesa, E., Pisani, S., & Conti, B. (2020). Skin Wound Healing Process and New Emerging Technologies for Skin Wound Care and Regeneration. Pharmaceutics, 12(8), 735. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12080735
Totty, J. P., Bua, N., Smith, G. E., Harwood, A. E., Carradice, D., Wallace, T., & Chetter, I. C. (2017). Dialkylcarbamoyl chloride (DACC)-coated dressings in the management and prevention of wound infection: A systematic review. Journal of Wound Care, 26(3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.3.107
Westby, M. J., Dumville, J. C., Soares, M. O., Stubbs, N., & Norman, G. (2017). Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011947.pub2
Woo, K., Dowsett, C., Costa, B., Ebohon, S., Woodmansey, E. J., & Malone, M. (2021). Efficacy of topical cadexomer iodine treatment in chronic wounds: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative clinical trials. International Wound Journal, 18(5), 586–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13560
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Septian Mixrova Sebayang, Asmat Burhan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.