• Like

3M™ Tegaderm™ High Performance Foam Dressings | In Vitro and Health Human Studies

  • 1,561 views
Uploaded on

Learn more at http://go.3M.com/Shop3M_SlideShare …

Learn more at http://go.3M.com/Shop3M_SlideShare

Recently, a foam dressing was redesigned to allow it to be more responsive to the degree of moisture present in the wound. This dressing (Dressing A)* differs from its predecessor and other marketed foam dressings** in that it incorporates a new moisture control layer that modulates moisture vapor permeability through the backing under varying wound conditions.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,561
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
19
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 3M Skin & Wound Care In Vitro and Healthy Human Studies Assess Foam Adhesive Dressing Breathability and Fluid Handling PropertiesDavid Holm, PhD, Cindy Zehrer, RN, MS, and Shelley-Ann Walters, MS , 3M Health Care, St. Paul, MN, USA © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 2. 3M Skin & Wound Care Background  Recently, a foam dressing was redesigned to allow it to be more responsive to the degree of moisture present in the wound. This dressing (Dressing A)* differs from its predecessor and other marketed foam dressings** in that it incorporates a new moisture control layer that modulates moisture vapor permeability through the backing under varying wound conditions.  Objective: To assess breathability and fluid handling properties of several marketed foam adhesive wound dressings under simulated high moisture conditions using two in vitro (laboratory) methods and one in vivo (human) test method. **Data reflects the dressings on the market at the time the studies were completed between November, 2009 and March, 2010.2 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 3. 3M Skin & Wound Care Laboratory Moisture Vapor Transmission Rates (MVTR)  The in vitro MVTR of seven test dressings* were determined per European Standard EN 13726-2. This in vitro method determined both the “wet” and “dry” MVTR of seven test dressings.*  During the “wet” procedure, the apparatus was inverted and the dressings were in contact with the test fluid, thus determining the MVTR of the dressings when placed over highly exudating wounds.  During the “dry” method, the apparatus was left upright and the dressings were in contact with only the water vapor above the test fluid, thus determining the MVTR of the dressings on dry or low-exudating wounds.  For all seven test dressings, three lots of each dressing, with a minimum of 5 replicates per lot, were tested. Additional replicates of Dressings A and C were performed as internal controls within the various tests.3 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 4. 3M Skin & Wound Care4 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 5. 3M Skin & Wound Care Laboratory Fluid Handling  Fluid handling performance of foam adhesive dressings C,* D,* and E* were compared to Dressing A* with a novel in vitro procedure.  Using time lapse photography, side by side comparisons were made hourly in the weights gains of Dressing A and three comparator dressings, as the dressings were continuously fed 0.75 ml/hour of an isotonic test fluid (EN 13726-1) over the course of 7 days.  The test was conducted at 23 ± 2 °C and 50% ± 5% relative humidity.  For each dressing type, a minimum of three dressings from three different manufacturing lots were tested.5 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 6. 3M Skin & Wound Care6 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 7. 3M Skin & Wound Care Sample Daily Photo Sequence of Dressings A and D7 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 8. 3M Skin & Wound Care Human Fluid Handling  Artificial wounds were constructed on the lower backs of healthy human subjects and the test dressings were placed over the artificial wounds.  Twelve 1.0 ml injections of artificial wound fluid (AWF) were infused into the artificial wounds at intervals no more than 1 hour apart.  This dose of AWF was chosen to model a highly exudating wound.  A paired design was utilized with each subject receiving two test dressings alternately placed on the left and right sides of the lumbar region.8 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 9. 3M Skin & Wound Care Human Fluid Handling  Six individual studies with 12 to 24 subjects each were performed, with Dressing A serving as a control in each of the studies.  The dressings were worn continuously for up to 7 days (plus 3 injections on day 8) or until failure of the dressing.  Dressing A absorbed significantly more AWF prior to failure (p<0.001) and had significantly longer wear times (p<0.01) than each of the other test dressings, based on a Cox regression model.  The median time to failure for Dressing A ranged from 6.1 to >7 days, whereas the other test dressings ranged from 1.0 to 3.5 days.9 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 10. 3M Skin & Wound Care Artificial Wound Model10 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 11. 3M Skin & Wound Care11 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 12. 3M Skin & Wound Care Conclusions  Manufacturers continuously seek to improve performance of medical products. Dressing A is an adhesive foam dressing redesigned to improve patient outcomes and decrease complications associated with exudate management. It has an innovative moisture control layer that allows the dressing to effectively respond to changing exudate levels within the wound.  Standard laboratory MVTR tests show that Dressing A is highly breathable under simulated high-exudate conditions, yet moisture retentive under simulated low-exudate conditions. Additionally, a novel laboratory test with continuous flowing fluid demonstrates the capacity of Dressing A to evaporate large amounts of fluid through the backing material.12 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 13. 3M Skin & Wound Care Conclusions  The fluid handling studies on healthy human subjects challenged the dressings in ways that are not possible in the laboratory or on patient wounds. Results showed that Dressing A has significantly higher fluid handling and wear time capabilities than the other adhesive foam dressings tested.  These studies demonstrate the high breathability and fluid handling properties of Dressing A. These performance attributes may result in the reduced risk of maceration and desiccation, longer clinical wear times, and more cost-effective wound management outcomes.13 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 14. 3M Skin & Wound Care Dressing Footnotes  Dressing A: 3M™ Tegaderm™ High Performance Foam Adhesive Dressing  Dressing B: Coloplast Biatain® Foam Adhesive Dressing  Dressing C: Smith & Nephew Allevyn™ Adhesive Dressing  Dressing D: Medline Optifoam® Adhesive Dressing  Dressing E: Mölnlycke Mepilex® Border Dressing  Dressing F: ConvaTec Versiva® XC® Adhesive Dressing  Dressing G: Smith & Nephew Allevyn™ Gentle Border Dressing Data reflects the dressings on the market at the time the studies were completed between November, 2009 and March, 2010.14 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.
  • 15. 3M Skin & Wound Care Learn more at 3M.com/Tegaderm-Foam15 © 3M 2010. All Rights Reserved.