Clinical and economic benefit of enzymatic debridement of pressure ulcers compared to autolytic debridement with a hydrogel dressing

Abstract

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of enzymatic debridement using collagenase relative to autolytic debridement with a hydrogel dressing for the treatment of pressure ulcers.

Methods:

A 3-stage Markov model was used to determine the expected costs and outcomes of wound care for collagenase and hydrogel dressings. Outcome data used in the analysis were taken from a randomized clinical trial that directly compared collagenase and hydrogel dressings. The primary outcome in the clinical trial was the proportion of patients achieving a closed epithelialized wound. Transition probabilities for the Markov states were estimated from the clinical trial. A 1-year time horizon was used to determine the expected number of closed wound days and the expected costs for the two alternative debridement therapies. Resource utilization was based on the wound care treatment regimen used in the clinical trial. Resource costs were derived from standard cost references and medical supply wholesalers. The economic perspective taken was that of the long-term care facility. No cost discounting was performed due to the short time horizon of the analysis. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to analyze economic uncertainty.

Results:

The number of expected wound days for the collagenase and hydrogel cohorts are estimated at 48 and 147, respectively. The expected direct cost per patient for pressure ulcer care was $2003 for collagenase and $5480 for hydrogel debridement. The number of closed wound days was 1.5-times higher for collagenase (317 vs 218 days) than with the hydrogel. The estimated cost/closed wound day was 4-times higher for the hydrogel ($25) vs collagenase ($6).

Conclusions:

In this Markov model based on a randomized trial of pressure ulcer care in a long-term care setting collagenase debridement was economically dominant over autolytic debridement, yielding better outcomes at a lower total cost. Since it was a single institution study with a small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution. Specifically, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to other hydrogel dressings, healthcare settings, age groups, or to wounds of other etiologies.