Autologous platelet-rich plasma for treating chronic wounds.

BACKGROUND: Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a treatment that contains fibrin and high concentrations of growth factors with the potential to improve the healing of chronic wounds. This is the first update of a review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether autologous PRP promotes the healing of chronic wounds. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2015, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds 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; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished clinical trials in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched January 2015). We did not impose any restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared autologous PRP with placebo or alternative treatments for any type of chronic wound in adults. We did not apply any date or language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology, including two reviewers independently selecting studies for inclusion, extracting data, and assessing risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified one new RCT, making a total of 10 included RCTs (442 participants, 42% women). The median number of participants per RCT was 29 (range 10 to 117). Four RCTs recruited people with a range of chronic wounds; three RCTs recruited people with venous leg ulcers, and three RCTs considered foot ulcers in people with diabetes. The median length of treatment was 12 weeks (range 8 to 40 weeks).It is unclear whether autologous PRP improves the healing of chronic wounds generally compared with standard treatment (with or without placebo) (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.50; I(2) = 27%, low quality evidence, 8 RCTs, 391 participants). Autologous PRP may increase the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes compared with standard care (with or without placebo) (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.49; I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence, 2 RCTs, 189 participants). It is unclear if autologous PRP affects the healing of venous leg ulcers (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.27; I(2) = 0% ). It is unclear if there is a difference in the risk of adverse events in people treated with PRP or standard care (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.88; I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence from 3 trials, 102 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PRP may improve the healing of foot ulcers associated with diabetes, but this conclusion is based on low quality evidence from two small RCTs. It is unclear whether PRP influences the healing of other chronic wounds. The overall quality of evidence of autologous PRP for treating chronic wounds is low. There are very few RCTs evaluating PRP, they are underpowered to detect treatment effects, if they exist, and are generally at high or unclear risk of bias. Well designed and adequately powered clinical trials are needed.

Autologous platelet-rich plasma for treating chronic wounds.

BACKGROUND: Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a treatment that contains fibrin and high concentrations of growth factors and has the potential to aid wound healing. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether autologous PRP promotes the healing of chronic wounds. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 August 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to August Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, August 14, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 32); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 10 August 2012) and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)(accessed 22 August 2012). No date or language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared autologous PRP with placebo or alternative treatments for any type of chronic wound in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed each study against the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and time to wound healing was analysed as survival data using the hazard ratio (HR). We considered heterogeneity as significant when I(2) was >75%. MAIN RESULTS: Nine eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 325 participants of whom 44% were women. The median number of participants per RCT was 26 (range 10 to 86). Four RCTs recruited people with mixed chronic wounds (there were participants with wounds caused by more than one aetiology and participants who had wounds of several aetiologies in the same trial), three RCTs recruited people with venous leg ulcers and two RCTs considered foot ulcers in people with diabetes. The median length of treatment was 12 weeks (range eight to 40 weeks).One study was at low risk of bias, three studies were at high risk of bias with the remainder being at overall unclear risk of bias. The proportion of completely healed chronic wounds was reported in seven RCTs that compared PRP with standard treatment or placebo, with no statistically significant difference between the groups, in diabetic foot ulcers (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.57 to 2.35), in venous leg ulcers (pooled RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.27; I(2)=0% ) and in mixed chronic wounds (pooled RR 1.85; 95% CI 0.76 to 4.51; I(2)=42%). The total area epithelialised at the end of the intervention was reported in three RCTs of mixed chronic wounds, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (pooled MD -1.94 cm(2); 95% CI -4.74 to 0.86; I(2)=47%). The percentage of wound area healed was reported in two RCTs of mixed chronic wounds, and results were statistically significant in favour of the PRP group (RR 51.78%; 95% CI 32.70 to 70.86; I(2)= 0%). Wound complications like infection or necrosis were reported by three RCTs, and there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.31 to 3.73). Adverse effects were reported by three studies and there was no statistically significant difference between people treated with PRP and those not given PRP (pooled RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.58; I(2)=0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence to suggest that autologous PRP is of value for treating chronic wounds. However, current evidence is based on a small number of RCTs, most of which are either at high or unclear risk of bias. Well-designed and adequately powered clinical trials are needed.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: In patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema noninvasive ventilation may reduce intubation rate, but the impact on mortality and the superiority of one technique over another have not been clearly established. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the short-term effect of noninvasive ventilation on major clinical outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE (from inception to October 2005) and Cochrane databases (library issue 4, 2005) were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published from January 1, 1988, to October 31, 2005. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Included trials were all parallel studies comparing noninvasive ventilation to conventional oxygen therapy in patients with acute pulmonary edema. Comparisons of different techniques, either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel noninvasive pressure support ventilation (NIPSV), were also included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen trials were selected. Overall, noninvasive ventilation significantly reduced the mortality rate by nearly 45% compared with conventional therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.78; P = .72 for heterogeneity). The results were significant for CPAP (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P = .44 for heterogeneity) but not for NIPSV (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.05; P = .76 for heterogeneity), although there were fewer studies in the latter. Both modalities showed a significant decrease in the "need to intubate" rate compared with conventional therapy: CPAP (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.58; P = .21 for heterogeneity), NIPSV (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.30-0.76; P = .24 for heterogeneity), and together (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P = .20 for heterogeneity). There were no differences in intubation or mortality rates in the analysis of studies comparing the 2 techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Noninvasive ventilation reduces the need for intubation and mortality in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Although the level of evidence is higher for CPAP, there are no significant differences in clinical outcomes when comparing CPAP vs NIPSV.