Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 19 March 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b773
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b773
Jo C Dumville, research fellow1, Gill Worthy, trial statistician1, J Martin Bland, professor of health statistics1, Nicky Cullum, professor, deputy head of department1, Christopher Dowson, professor2, Cynthia Iglesias, senior research fellow1, Joanne L Mitchell, research scientist3, E Andrea Nelson, reader in wound healing and director of research4, Marta O Soares, research fellow1, David J Torgerson, professor, director of York trials unit1, on behalf of the VenUS II team
1 Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD, 2 Biological Sciences, University of Warwick, 3 Micropathology Ltd, Coventry, 4 School of Healthcare, University of Leeds
Correspondence to: Jo C Dumville jd34{at}york.ac.uk
Design Pragmatic, three armed randomised controlled trial.
Setting Community nurse led services, hospital wards, and hospital outpatient leg ulcer clinics in urban and rural settings, United Kingdom.
Participants 267 patients with at least one venous or mixed venous and arterial ulcer with at least 25% coverage of slough or necrotic tissue, and an ankle brachial pressure index of 0.6 or more.
Interventions Loose larvae, bagged larvae, and hydrogel.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was time to healing of the largest eligible ulcer. Secondary outcomes were time to debridement, health related quality of life (SF-12), bacterial load, presence of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, adverse events, and ulcer related pain (visual analogue scale, from 0 mm for no pain to 150 mm for worst pain imaginable).
Results Time to healing was not significantly different between the loose or bagged larvae group and the hydrogel group (hazard ratio for healing using larvae v hydrogel 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.68; P=0.54). Larval therapy significantly reduced the time to debridement (2.31, 1.65 to 3.2; P<0.001). Health related quality of life and change in bacterial load over time were not significantly different between the groups. 6.7% of participants had MRSA at baseline. No difference was found between larval therapy and hydrogel in their ability to eradicate MRSA by the end of the debridement phase (75% (9/12) v 50% (3/6); P=0.34), although this comparison was underpowered. Mean ulcer related pain scores were higher in either larvae group compared with hydrogel (mean difference in pain score: loose larvae v hydrogel 46.74 (95% confidence interval 32.44 to 61.04), P<0.001; bagged larvae v hydrogel 38.58 (23.46 to 53.70), P<0.001).
Conclusions Larval therapy did not improve the rate of healing of sloughy or necrotic leg ulcers or reduce bacterial load compared with hydrogel but did significantly reduce the time to debridement and increase ulcer pain.
Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN55114812 [controlled-trials.com] and National Research Register N0484123692.
© Dumville et al 2009
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Twitter What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses