Aquacel

Proven
Clinical Efficacy

Demonstrated Wound Healing

Aquacel

Aquacel

Demonstrated Improved Wound Healing41
In a multi-site evaluation of 113 cases of challenging at-risk or infected wounds, Advantage Technology in combination with Hydrofiber® Technology demonstrated:*

Aquacel

Percentage increase or decrease in wound size
over the average 4.1 week evaluation period


Aquacel

Demonstrated Wound Healing in a Clinical Study42

In a prospective, multi-site, non-comparative clinical trial on 42^
chronic venous leg ulcer patients with at-risk or infected wounds
where biofilm is highly likely, Advantage Technology in combination
with Hydrofiber® Technology demonstrated:*

Aquacel Aquacel Aquacel


CLINICAL EXPERIENCES
WITH AQUACEL® AG ADVANTAGE

Aquacel



DFU static 6+months, previously treated with antibiotics and silver dressing prior to management with AQUACEL® Ag Advantage dressing.
Aquacel



15 days later
Aquacel



Evidence of granulation tissue, autolytic debridement of non-viable tissue, surrounding skin in healthy condition, ulcer healed.
^10 infected and 32 at-risk wounds
*Dressing did not contain strengthening yarn or have the additional absorptive capacity of AQUACEL® Ag Advantage dressing.
In combination with Hydrofiber® Technology

Back to AQUACEL® Ag Advantage

* From a 2009 study of 723,490 surgical hospitalizations in which 6,891 cases of surgical site infection were identified. 1. World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS). Principles of best practice: wound exudate and the role of dressings. A consensus document. London: MEP Ltd; 2007. 2. Bishop SM, Walker M, Rogers AA, Chen WYJ. Importance of moisture balance at the wound dressing interface. J Wound Care. 2003; 12(4):125-128. 3. Hurlow J, Bowler PG. Potential implications of biofilm in chronic wounds: a case series. J Wound Care 2012; 21:38–49. 4. Lenselink E, Andriessen A. A cohort study on the efficacy of a polyhexanide-containing biocellulose dressing in the treatment of biofilms in wounds. J Wound Care 2011; 20:534–539. 5. Leaper D, Ossadian O, Edmiston CE. Approach to chronic wound infections. Brit J Dermatol. 2015; DOI 10.1111/bjd.13677 (Infection delays healing claim). 6. de Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Hutchins V, Murphy D, Song D, Vaughn BB. Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(5):387-397. 7. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Battle of the bugs: fighting antibiotic resistance. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143568.htm. Accessed May 6, 2016. 8. Wolcott RD, Rumbaugh KP, James G, Schultz G, Phillips P, Yang O, et al, 2010. Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a time dependent therapeutic window. J Wound Care; 19: 320- 328. 9. Wolcott RD, Kennedy JP, Dowd SE, 2009. Regular debridement is the main tool for maintaining a healthy wound bed in most chronic. J Wound Care; 18: 54-56. 10. Bjarnsholt T, 2013. The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. APMIS. 121. 1-51. 11. James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R, Pulcini EL, Secor P, Sestrich J, et al, 2008. Biofilms in Chronic Wounds. Wound Rep Regen; 16: 37-44. 12. Metcalf D, Bowler P, 2013. Biofilm delays wound healing: A review of the evidence. Burns & Trauma. 1: 5-12. 13. Percival SL, Bowler PG, 2004. Biofilms and their potential role in wound healing. WOUNDS, 16: 234-240. 14. Hurlow, J., Couch, K., Laforet, K., Bolton, L., Metcalf, D., Bowler, P. Clinical Biofilms: A Challenging Frontier in Wound Care. Advances in Wound Care, DOI: 10.1089/wound.2014.0567. 15. Barnea Y, Armir A, Leshem D, Zaretski A, Weiss J, Shafir R, et al, 2004. Clinical comparative study of Aquacel and paraffin gauze dressing for split-skin donor site treatment. Ann Plast Surg; 53: 132-136. 16. Kogan L, Moldavsky M, Szvalb S, Govrin-Yehudain J, 2004. Comparative study of Aquacel and Silverol treatment in burns. Ann Burns Fire Disasters; 17: 201-207. 17. Brunner U, Eberlein T, 2000. Experiences with hydrofibers in the moist treatment of chronic wounds, in particular of diabetic foot. VASA; 29: 253-257. 18. Newman GR, Walker M, Hobot JA, Bowler PG, 2006. Visualization of bacterial sequestration and bacterial activity within hydrating Hydrober™ wound dressings. Biomaterials; 27:1129-1139. 19. Walker M, Hobot JA, Newman GR, Bowler PG, 2003. Scanning electron microscopic examination of bacterial immobilization in a carboxymethyl cellulose (AQUACEL™) and alginate dressing. Biomaterials; 24: 883-890. 20. Bowler PG, Jones SA, Davies BJ, Coyle E, 1999. Infection control properties of some wound dressings. J. Wound Care; 8: 499-502. 21. Walker M, Bowler PG, Cochrane CA, 2007. In vitro studies to show sequestration of matrix metalloproteinases by silver-containing wound care products. Ostomy/Wound Management. 2007; 53: 18-25. 22. Walker M and Parsons D, 2010. Hydrofiber Technology: its role in exudate management. Wounds UK; 6: 31-38. 23. Parsons D, Bowler PG, Myles V, Jones SA, 2005. Silver antimicrobial dressings in wound management: A comparison of antibacterial, physical and chemical characteristics. WOUNDS; 17: 222-232. 24. Jones SA, Bowler PG, Walker M, 2005. Antimicrobial activity of silver-containing dressings is influenced by dressing conformability with a wound surface. WOUNDS; 17: 263-270. 25. Bowler P, Jones S, Towers V, Booth R, Parsons D, Walker M, 2010. Dressing conformability and silver-containing wound dressings. Wounds UK; 6: 14-20. 26. Walker M, Jones S, Parsons D, Booth R, Cochrane C, Bowler P, 2011. Evaluation of low-adherent antimicrobial dressings. Wounds UK; 7: 32-45. 27. Assessment of the in vitro physical properties of AQUACEL Ag, AQUACEL Ag EXTRA and AQUACEL Ag+ Dressings, Scientific Background Report. WHRI3817 TA297, 2013, Data on file, ConvaTec Inc. 28. Harding K, Ivans N, Cains J, An opened randomized comparative study to evaluate the clinical and economic performance of two absorbent dressings in venus leg ulcers. Poster presented at EWMA; May 15-17 2013; Copenhagen, Denmark. 29. Parsons D, Mustoe T, Seth A. A new anti-biofilm Hydrofiber™ dressing: an in vivo investigation. Poster presented at Wounds UK; Nov 11-13 2013; Harrogate, UK. 30. WHRI5446 MA304: The antimicrobial activity of AQUACEL Ag+ Extra wound dressing using an in vitro direct inoculation simulated wound fluid model. 31. Antimicrobial activity against CA-MRSA and prevention of biofilm reformation by AQUACEL™ Ag+ EXTRA Dressing and Acticoat 7 Dressing. Scientific Background Report. WHRI3876 MA240, 2013, Data on file, ConvaTec Inc. 32. Antimicrobial Activity and Prevention of Biofilm Reformation by AQUACEL® Ag+ EXTRA Dressing and Acticoat 7 Dressing. WHRI3858 MA237, 2013, Data on file, ConvaTec Inc. 33. Antimicrobial activity and prevention of biofilm reformation by AQUACEL™ Ag+ EXTRA dressing. Scientific Background Report. WHRI3857 MA236, 2013, Data on file, ConvaTec Inc. 34. Antimicrobial activity against CA-MRSA and prevention of biofilm reformation by AQUACEL™ Ag+ EXTRA dressing. Scientific Background Report. WHRI3875 MA239, 2013, Data on file, ConvaTec Inc. 35. Bowler PG, Welsby S, Towers V, Booth V, Hogarth A, Rowlands V, Joseph A, et al, 2012. Multidrug-resistant organisms, wounds and topical antimicrobial protection. Int Wound J. 9: 387-396. 36. Composition comprising antimicrobial metal ions and a quaternary cationic surfactant WO12136968 ‐ Parsons World patent application ‐ 11th October 2012. 37. Banin E., Brady K.M. & Greenberg E.P. (2006). Chelator‐Induced Dispersal and Killing of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Cells in Biofilm. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72. 2064‐2069. 38. Chen X, Stewart PS, 2000. Biofilm removal caused by chemical treatments. Wat. Res.,34: 4229‐4233. 39. Seth AK, Zhong A, Nguyen KT, Hong SJ, Leung KP, Galiano RD, Mustoe TA. Impact of a novel, antimicrobial dressing on in vivo, Pseudomonas aeruginosa wound biofilm: quantitative comparative analysis using a rabbit ear model. Wound Repair Regen. 2014; 22: 712–719. DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12232. 40. Said J, Walker M, Parsons D, Stapleton P, Beezer AE, Gaisford S. An in vivo test of the efficacy of an anti-biofilm wound dressing. Int J Pharmaceutics. 2014; 474: 177–181. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2014.08.034. 41. Walker M.; Metcalf D.; Parsons, D.; Bowler P. A real-life clinical evaluation of a next-generation antimicrobial dressing on acute and chronic wounds. Journal of Wound Care 2015; 24:1, 11-22. 42. Harding KG, Szczepkowski M, Mikosi ski J, Twardowska-Saucha K, Blair S, Ivins NM, Saucha W, Cains J, Peters K, Parsons D, Bowler P. Safety and performance evaluation of a next-generation antimicrobial dressing in patients with chronic venous leg ulcers. Int Wound J 2015; doi: 10.1111/iwj.12450