.png)
Case Series/Study
Chronic wounds constitute a serious threat to public health worldwide. In the United States, it is estimated that chronic wounds affect about 8.5 million patients, with a high annual cost for treatment. In addition, chronic wounds are often delayed in the inflammatory stage of healing due to the compromised immune system of the patient and/or a biofilm-related infection. Bioburden and biofilm are proven to be barriers to the successful treatment and healing of chronic wounds. At least 80% of chronic wounds are colonized with obstructive levels of clinically relevant bacteria, often within mature biofilms. Biofilm-induced changes to the wound and peri-wound area promote ongoing inflammatory responses that are recalcitrant to debridement and traditional wound treatments. Topical antimicrobials are a significant component of chronic wound therapy, yet current antimicrobials therapies vary in efficacy against biofilm-forming pathogens and impact the healing process. Topical antimicrobials that reduce the bacterial bioburden within a chronically infected wound may benefit or harm the healing process. We report 3 chronic wound cases using Biofilm Dispersing Wound Gel (BDWG) technology that alters wound biofilm matrix to decrease inflammation and promote healing.
Methods: Retrospective analysis
Results: 3 patients with chronic wounds are presented
Discussion:
BDWG technology uses a non-toxic material science mechanism to disrupt the biofilm's protective structure (the EPS), which exposes the bacteria within the biofilm. The combination of ingredients reduces wound alkalinity, chelates structural components to solubilize the protective structure, and produces a high osmotic imbalance exposing the bacterial cell walls to lysis and destruction. Interim analysis of 3 complex wound cases unresponsive to multiple treatment modalities demonstrated a positive response to BDWG therapy. Further studies of complex cases with non-healing wounds are indicated.
Trademarked Items:
References: Wolcott R. Disrupting the biofilm matrix improves wound healing outcomes. JoWC August 2015;24(8)
Kim D, et al. Clinical Assessment of a Biofilm-disrupting Agent for the Management of Chronic Wounds Compared With Standard of Care: A Therapeutic Approach. Wounds Epub 2018 January 26
Myntti MF, et al. The effect of a biofilm-disrupting wound gel vs. a broad-spectrum antimicrobial ointment on a chronic wound microbiome: a secondary analysis associating clinic and laboratory findings. Wounds 2022:34(12):E141-E146
Schultz G, et al. Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds. Wound Rep Reg (2017) 25 744–757.
B. Tuckey, et al. Impaired Lymphatic Drainage and Interstitial Inflammatory Stasis in Chronic Musculoskeletal and Idiopathic Pain Syndromes: Exploring a Novel Mechanism. Front. Pain Res. 2:691740. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2021.691740.
J Breslin, et al. Lymphatic Vessel Network Structure and Physiology. Compr Physiol. 2019; 9(1): 207–299. doi:10.1002/cphy.c180015 M. Aldrich, et al. Cytokines are systemic effectors of lymphatic function in acute inflammation. Cytokine. 2013 October ;64(1): 362–369. doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2013.05.015
Eriksson E, et al. Chronic Wounds: treatment consensus. Wound Rep Reg. 2022;30:156–171. Ead Jk, et al. Is PASH syndrome a biofilm disease?: a case series and review of the literature. Wounds 2018;30(8):216-223