References

Abbas SM, Hill AG. Smoking is a major risk factor for wound dehiscence after midline abdominal incision; case-control study. ANZ J Surg.. 2009; 79:(4)247-250 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.04854.x

Agostinho AM, Hartman A, Lipp C, Parker AE, Stewart PS, James GA. An in vitro model for the growth and analysis of chronic wound MRSA biofilms. J Appl Microbiol.. 2011; 111:(5)1275-1282 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05138.x

Akers KS, Mende K, Cheatle KA Biofilms and persistent wound infections in United States military trauma patients: a case-control analysis. BMC Infect Dis.. 2014; 14:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-14-190

Atkin L, Bućko Z, Conde Montero E Implementing TIMERS: the race against hard-to-heal wounds. J Wound Care.. 2019; 23:S1-S50 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2019.28.Sup3a.S1

Attinger C, Wolcott R. Clinically addressing biofilm in chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care. 2012; 1:(3)127-132 https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2011.0333

Bala A, Kumar R, Harjai K. Inhibition of quorum sensing in Pseudomonas aeruginosa by azithromycin and its effectiveness in urinary tract infections. J Med Microbiol.. 2011; 60:(3)300-306 https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.025387-0

Bansal RC, Goyal M. Activated carbon adsorption, 1st edn. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2005

Becerra SC, Roy DC, Sanchez CJ, Christy RJ, Burmeister DM. An optimized staining technique for the detection of Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria within tissue. BMC Res Notes. 2016; 9:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-1902-0

Challenges in chronic wound care: the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. 2012. https://tinyurl.com/yyzfm9w8 (accessed 21 January 2020)

The foot in diabetes, 4th edn. In: Boulton A, Cavanagh P, Rayman G (eds). Chichester: Wiley; 2007

Broughton G, Janis JE, Attinger CE. A brief history of wound care. Plast Reconstr Surg.. 2006; 117:6S-11S https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000225429.76355.dd

Burnouf T, Goubran HA, Chen TM, Ou KL, El-Ekiaby M, Radosevic M. Blood-derived biomaterials and platelet growth factors in regenerative medicine. Blood Rev.. 2013; 27:(2)77-89 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.blre.2013.02.001

Craven M, Kasper SH, Canfield MJ Nitric oxide-releasing polyacrylonitrile disperses biofilms formed by wound-relevant pathogenic bacteria. J Appl Microbiol.. 2016; 120:(4)1085-1099 https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13059

Davey ME, O'Toole GA. Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev.. 2000; 64:(4)847-867 https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.64.4.847-867.2000

Davis SC, Ricotti C, Cazzaniga A, Welsh E, Eaglstein WH, Mertz PM. Microscopic and physiologic evidence for biofilm-associated wound colonization in vivo. Wound Repair Regen.. 2008; 16:(1)23-29 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00303.x

Demidova-Rice TN, Hamblin MR, Herman IM. Acute and impaired wound healing: pathophysiology and current methods for drug delivery, part 1: normal and chronic wounds: biology, causes, and approaches to care. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2012; 25:(7)304-314 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASW.0000416006.55218.d0

Dhall S, Do DC, Garcia M Generating and reversing chronic wounds in diabetic mice by manipulating wound redox parameters. J Diabetes Res.. 2014; 2014:1-18 https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/562625

Diefenbeck M, Haustedt N, Schmidt HGK. Surgical debridement to optimise wound conditions and healing. Int Wound J.. 2013; 10:43-47 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12187

Di Pippo F, Di Gregorio L, Congestri R, Tandoi V, Rossetti S. Biofilm growth and control in cooling water industrial systems. FEMS Microbiol Ecol.. 2018; 94:(5) https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiy044

Donelli G, Vuotto C. Biofilm-based infections in long-term care facilities. Future Microbiol.. 2014; 9:(2)175-188 https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb.13.149

Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev.. 2002; 15:(2)167-193 https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.15.2.167-193.2002

Edmiston CE, McBain AJ, Kiernan M, Leaper DJ. A narrative review of microbial biofilm in postoperative surgical site infections: clinical presentation and treatment. J Wound Care. 2016; 25:(12)693-702 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2016.25.12.693

Ennis WJ, Valdes W, Salzman S, Fishman D, Meneses P. Trauma and wound care.New York (NY): Mosby; 2004

Summary report on the prevalence of pressure ulcers.: EPUAP Review; 2002

Fernandez R, Griffiths R. Water for wound cleansing. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.. 2008; 2:(1) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003861.pub2

Fitzgerald DJ, Renick PJ, Forrest EC Cadexomer iodine provides superior efficacy against bacterial wound biofilms in vitro and in vivo. Wound Repair Regen.. 2017; 25:(1)13-24 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12497

Frykberg RG, Banks J. Challenges in the treatment of chronic wounds. Adv Wound Care. 2015; 4:(9)560-582 https://doi.org/10.1089/wound.2015.0635

Gabriel A, Shores J, Heinrich C Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation: a pilot study describing a new method for treating infected wounds. Int Wound J.. 2008; 5:(3)399-413 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2007.00423.x

Gjødsbøl K, Christensen JJ, Karlsmark T, Jørgensen B, Klein BM, Krogfelt KA. Multiple bacterial species reside in chronic wounds: a longitudinal study. Int Wound J.. 2006; 3:(3)225-231 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2006.00159.x

Gould L, Abadir P, Brem H Chronic wound repair and healing in older adults: current status and future research. Wound Repair Regen.. 2015; 23:(1)1-13 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12245

Guest JF, Ayoub N, McIlwraith T Health economic burden that wounds impose on the National Health Service in the UK. BMJ Open. 2015; 5:(12) https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009283

Gupta S, Gabriel A, Lantis J, Téot L. Clinical recommendations and practical guide for negative pressure wound therapy with instillation. Int Wound J.. 2016; 13:(2)159-174 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12452

Hill KE, Malic S, McKee R An in vitro model of chronic wound biofilms to test wound dressings and assess antimicrobial susceptibilities. J Antimicrob Chemother.. 2010; 65:(6)1195-1206 https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkq105

Hochbaum AI, Kolodkin-Gal I, Foulston L, Kolter R, Aizenberg J, Losick R. Inhibitory effects of D-amino acids on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm development. J Bacteriol.. 2011; 193:(20)5616-5622 https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.05534-11

James GA, Swogger E, Wolcott R Biofilms in chronic wounds. Wound Repair Regen.. 2008; 16:(1)37-44 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2007.00321.x

Jones RE, Foster DS, Longaker MT. Management of chronic wounds—2018. JAMA.. 2018; 320:(14)1481-1482 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12426

Jull AB, Cullum N, Dumville JC, Westby MJ, Deshpande S, Walker N. Honey as a topical treatment for wounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.. 2015; 6:(3) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005083.pub4

Kalan L, Zhou M, Labbie M, Willing B. Measuring the microbiome of chronic wounds with use of a topical antimicrobial dressing—a feasibility study. PLoS One. 2017; 12:(11) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187728

Kirshen C, Woo K, Ayello EA, Sibbald RG. Debridement. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2006; 19:(9)506-517 https://doi.org/10.1097/00129334-200611000–00011

Kolodkin-Gal I, Romero D, Cao S, Clardy J, Kolter R, Losick R. D-amino acids trigger biofilm disassembly. Science. 2010; 328:(5978)627-629 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188628

Lindholm C, Searle R. Wound management for the 21st century: combining effectiveness and efficiency. Int Wound J.. 2016; 13:5-15 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12623

Malone M, Bjarnsholt T, McBain AJ The prevalence of biofilms in chronic wounds: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published data. J Wound Care. 2017; 26:(1)20-25 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2017.26.1.20

Mendonca DA, Papini R, Price PE. Negative-pressure wound therapy: a snapshot of the evidence. Int Wound J.. 2006; 3:(4)261-71 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2006.00266.x

O'Meara S, Cullum N, Majid M, Sheldon T. Systematic reviews of wound care management: (3) antimicrobial agents for chronic wounds; (4) diabetic foot ulceration. Health Technol Assess.. 2000; 4:(21)1-237 https://doi.org/10.3310/hta4210

Biofilms and their potential role in wound healing. 2004. https://www.woundsresearch.com/article/2870 (accessed 21 January 2020)

Riou JPA, Cohen JR, Johnson H Factors influencing wound dehiscence. Am J Surg.. 1992; 163:(3)324-330 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(92)90014-I

Rodeheaver GT. Pressure ulcer debridement and cleansing: a review of current literature. Ostomy Wound Manage. 1999; 45:80S-87S

Sanchez CJ, Akers KS, Romano DR D-amino acids enhance the activity of antimicrobials against biofilms of clinical wound isolates of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother.. 2014; 58:(8)4353-4361 https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.02468-14

Schreml S, Szeimies RM, Prantl L, Karrer S, Landthaler M, Babilas P. Oxygen in acute and chronic wound healing. Br J Dermatol.. 2010; 163:(2)257-268 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09804.x

Sen CK, Roy S. Redox signals in wound healing. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 2008; 1780:(11)1348-1361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2008.01.006

Serra R, Grande R, Butrico L Chronic wound infections: the role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther.. 2015; 13:(5)605-613 https://doi.org/10.1586/14787210.2015.1023291

Thomsen K, Christophersen L, Bjarnsholt T, Jensen PØ, Moser C, Høiby N. Anti-Pseudomonas aeruginosa IgY antibodies induce specific bacterial aggregation and internalization in human polymorphonuclear neutrophils. Infect Immun.. 2015; 83:(7)2686-93 https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.02970-14

Tian G, Guo Y, Zhang L. Non-invasive treatment for severe complex pressure ulcers complicated by necrotizing fasciitis: a case report. J Med Case Reports. 2015; 9:(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-015-0703-8

Trengove NJ, Stacey MC, Macauley S Analysis of the acute and chronic wound environments: the role of proteases and their inhibitors. Wound Repair Regen.. 1999; 7:(6)442-452 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-475X.1999.00442

Vuerstaek JD, Vainas T, Wuite J, Nelemans P, Neumann MH, Veraart JC. State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: a randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg.. 2006; 44:(5)1029-1037 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2006.07.030

Vyas KS, Wong LK. Detection of biofilm in wounds as an early indicator for risk for tissue infection and wound chronicity. Ann Plast Surg.. 2016; 76:(1)127-131 https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000000440

Warriner R, Burrell R. Infection and the chronic wound: a focus on silver. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2005; 18:2-12 https://doi.org/10.1097/00129334-200510001-00001

Westby MJ, Dumville JC, Soares MO, Stubbs N, Norman G. Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.. 2017; 6:(6) https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011947.pub2

Wolcott RD, Hanson JD, Rees EJ Analysis of the chronic wound microbiota of 2,963 patients by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. Wound Repair Regen.. 2016; 24:(1)163-174 https://doi.org/10.1111/wrr.12370

Wolcott RD, Rumbaugh KP, James G. Biofilm maturity studies indicate sharp debridement opens a time-dependent therapeutic window. J Wound Care. 2010; 19:(8)320-328 https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2010.19.8.77709

Hard-to-heal wounds, biofilm and wound healing: an intricate interrelationship

12 March 2020
Volume 29 · Issue 5

Abstract

Hard-to-heal wounds are a major public health problem that incur high economic costs. A major source of morbidity, they can have an overwhelming impact on patients, caregivers and society. In contrast to acute wound healing, which follows an ‘orderly and timely reparative process', the healing of hard-to-heal wounds is delayed because the usual biological progression is interrupted. This article discusses hard-to-heal wounds, the impact they have on patients and healthcare systems, and how biofilms and other factors affect the wound-healing process. Controlling and preventing infection is of utmost importance for normal wound healing. Rational use of anti-infectious agents is crucial and is particularly relevant in the context of rising healthcare costs. Knowledge of the complex relationship between hard-to-heal wounds, biofilm formation and wound healing is vital for efficient management of hard-to-heal wounds.

Globally, hard-to heal wounds have become a major public health problem that incur significant economic costs. They place a huge burden on patients, caregivers and society in general and are a major cause of patient morbidity. In 2012/12, out of a total estimated cost to the NHS of £5.3 billion to manage patients with wounds, £3.2 billion was spent on hard-to-heal wounds (Guest et al, 2015). In the UK, the number of people with a wound managed by the NHS was estimated at 2.2 million patients for 2012/13 (Guest et al, 2015), with the number of people across Europe living with a hard-to-heal wound across Europe estimated at 1.5-2 million (Lindholm and Searle, 2016. Meanwhile, in the USA, diabetic foot ulcers and other chronic wounds affect around 6.5 million people, costing around $25 billion a year (Dhall et al, 2014).

Wounds can be described as dynamic environments in which a triad of dead tissue, exudate and microbial load interact in a complex circle between both themselves and with the host tissue (Vyas and Wong, 2016). They should be approached as a serious medical issue because they may be contaminated with a high number of microorganisms, which delay wound healing and skin proliferation. Ultimately, death can occur as a result of a devastating systemic infection (Tian et al, 2015).

This article highlights:

  • The economic costs associated with hard-to-heal wounds
  • Discusses the definition of hard-to-heal wounds
  • Examines the relationship between hard-to-heal wounds and biofilm formation
  • Looks at the impact of biofilms on wound healing
  • Discusses how patients' risk factors may complicate wound healing.
  • Economic costs associated with hard-to-heal wounds

    Wounds are a major cause of patient morbidity and high healthcare costs, which are increasing the stress on healthcare systems at a global level (Gupta et al, 2016). The reduction of infection associated with wounds could result in significant overall healthcare cost savings. According to the United Nations, chronic wounds account for 2% of the health budget in Europe, and 1-2% of the population in developed countries are expected to experience a hard-to-heal wound at some point in their lives (Böttrich, 2012).

    The number of patients with hard-to-heal wounds is rising worldwide because of the ageing population and an increase in the number of people who are obese, have type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, hard-to-heal wounds are related to psychosocial issues such as loss of mobility, decreased bodily function, social problems, poor quality of life and loss of participation in the workforce (Ennis et al, 2004).

    Managing such a critical condition requires quicker solutions results with scarcer resources. Hospitals are looking for novel, effective approaches to identify and integrate cost-effective wound therapies without compromising care quality. Consequently, cost-effectiveness analyses have become a critical instrument for hospital administrators (Gupta et al, 2016). The challenge arises when trying to balance the initial higher costs of advanced wound-healing technologies with overall direct and indirect costs involved in wound care.

    Hard-to-heal wounds

    For many years the classification of wounds termed ‘chronic’ has proved a challenge. In 2018, there was an attempt to make the classification of such wounds consistent at a meeting that also discussed how they should be described. There was consensus that the most appropriate description for wounds previously described as chronic, complex, non-healing or hard-to-heal should be hard-to-heal wounds. A consensus document published following the meeting has recommended that any wound that has not healed by 40–50% after 4 weeks of good standard of care should be considered a hard-to-heal wound (Atkin et al, 2019).

    In hard-to-heal wounds, the usual biological progression of inflammation, angiogenesis, matrix deposition and wound contraction followed by epithelialisation and scar remodelling is interrupted so healing is delayed (Jull et al, 2015). Delayed healing is usually related to microbial colonisation and/or infection, high levels of exudate, wide tissue loss or exposure of critical structures. Some features, such as the number of times that the wound is open and previous attempts to close it are useful when describing the timeline until closure. The most common hard-to-heal cutaneous wounds are venous, arterial and neuropathic leg ulcers and pressure ulcers (Gupta et al, 2016).

    The key factors in promoting wound healing are debridement (surgical or chemical), infection control (local application of antiseptics or antimicrobials versus systemic administration) and wound dressings. Skin grafting or skin substitutes and growth factors could be valuable in some hard-to-heal ulcers.

    A crucial step to treat any wound is debridement to remove all foreign material or necrotic tissue that may be harmful until the wound edges and base are formed of normal, healthy tissue. Debriding an acute wound enables it to go through the normal wound-healing phases, assuming that both systemic and local factors are working normally (Kirshen et al, 2006). Adequate surgical debridement is a prerequisite for the successful treatment of skin, soft tissue and bone infection (Diefenbeck et al, 2013). Aggressive debriding of a hard-to-heal wound aids its change into an acute wound so it can progress through the normal phases of wound healing. Recurrent debridement removes inhibitors of wound healing and allows growth factors to function more successfully (Trengove et al, 1999).

    Some studies have emphasised the central importance of wound irrigation to the process of wound healing. Wound irrigation involves the steady flow of a solution across an open wound to create an optimal environment for healing, improving hydration and facilitating the removal of deep debris, wound exudate and metabolic waste (Rodeheaver, 1999; Fernandez and Griffiths, 2008).

    Biofilms and hard-to-heal wound infection: a dynamic relationship

    Unfortunately, wounds are highly susceptible to bacterial infection (Becerra et al, 2016). Bacterial infection in a wound follows an ‘exponential progression’, with bacterial replication and production of a polymeric matrix. This matrix promotes adherence to any inert or living surface, allowing bacteria to thrive in hostile environments (Davey and O'Toole, 2000). This forms a structure called a biofilm (Donlan and Costerton, 2002), which is highly resistant to topical and systemic antibacterial compounds unless disrupted by debridement (Gabriel et al, 2008).

    Biofilms, which occur in nearly all environments around the world, are communities of independent cells with an extraordinary degree of organisation, linked by an extracellular polymeric matrix. All abiotic surfaces submerged in non-sterile water, such as seawater or fresh water, may develop bacterial biofilms. Within these surfaces, biofilm can cause major problems, disturbing pipelines and water supplies, and its adherence to ships' hulls reduces performance and increases fuel consumption. In respect to freshwater pipelines, this situation is worrying because Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Legionella pneumophila can easily multiply in water, becoming waterborne infectious agents (Di Pippo et al, 2018). Bacteria organised in a biofilm are particularly effective in promoting their own development by enhancing symbiotic relationships and granting survival in hostile environments.

    Biofilm capacity is an important factor in microbial survival and pathogenicity, with intricate implications for wound treatment; for instance, antimicrobial resistance mechanisms in biofilm may involve increased cell density and physical exclusion of antimicrobials. Moreover, each individual microbial cell in a biofilm may undergo changes that increase resistance to biocides (Edmiston et al, 2016), such as:

  • Promoted stress response by nutrient limitation with consequent slow growth
  • Increased expression of multidrug resistance pumps
  • Activation of quorum-sensing systems
  • Changes in the profile of outer membrane proteins.
  • The biofilm may also contribute to increased microbial resistance of the microorganism to the host immune system response by interfering with macrophage phagocytic activity (Wolcott et al, 2010) or by inactivating antibodies that mediate phagocytosis and the clearance of microbial cells (Thomsen et al, 2015).

    A study by Wolcott et al (2016) showed that 60–90% of hard-to-heal wounds have biofilms compared with 6% of acute wounds. Akers et al (2014), in a study of US military trauma patients, found that bacterial biofilms were responsible for approximately 80% of chronic skin infections.

    A systematic review of studies on biofilms in hard-to-heal wounds, including pressure ulcers, venous leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers, found that their prevalence was 78.2% (Malone et al, 2017).

    In clinical practice, bacterial biofilms are a considerable challenge for health professionals and are widely recognised as a key factor in increasing patient morbidity. In patients who are confined to bed, recurrent pressure ulcers are particularly prone to developing biofilm by both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria; for that reason, healing is difficult to achieve (Donelli and Vuotto, 2014). Patients with diabetes are also susceptible to developing hard-to-heal dermal and subdermal wounds, which can be colonised by a high number of diverse bacteria. Data from the literature stresses that bacterial biofilms are invariably found in hard-to-heal wounds (Attinger and Wolcott, 2012). Diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers and chronic venous ulcers usually contain Staphylococcus aureus biofilms. It is important to highlight that some chronic wounds do not heal despite successive therapeutic approaches, a fact that can be attributed to the presence of bacteria with a biofilm growth phenotype (Percival and Bowler, 2004; Davis et al, 2008).

    James et al (2008), using scanning electron microscopy, found microbial aggregates were higher in hard-to-heal wounds than acute wounds. The interaction between biofilm and chronic wounds has been investigated using several in vitro models (Hill et al, 2010; Agostinho et al, 2011). According to Akers et al (2014), biofilm production is associated with a prolonged persistence of wound infection. While debridement is accepted as the gold standard intervention to promote wound healing, bacterial biofilm can resist debridement and act as a resistance reservoir, leading to considerable delays in wound healing.

    The presence of bacteria in the wound bed can be divided into four categories based on the host response: contaminated; colonised; critically colonised; and infected. All wounds are contaminated at first, and progress up and down the wound bioburden in a continuum, depending upon the quantity and types of microorganisms present.

    The most frequently isolated species in hard-to-heal wounds in humans are Staph aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, coagulase-negative Staphylococci spp and Proteus spp (Gjødsbøl et al, 2006). Hard-to-heal wounds provide an ideal culture medium for bacteria and, among inpatients with chronic leg ulcers and burn wounds, Staph aureus and P aeruginosa can colonise up to 93.5% and 52.2% of cases respectively (Serra et al, 2015). Regarding pressure ulcers, a diversity of colonising bacteria is evident but aerobic organisms are cultured more often than anaerobes (O'Meara et al, 2000). The most common species recovered are Staph aureus, Streptococcus spp, Proteus spp, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas spp, Klebsiella spp and Citrobacter spp (Boulton et al, 2007). In the case of diabetic foot ulcers, P aeruginosa and anaerobes are frequently isolated, with anaerobes being commonly present in the discharge of chronic pilonidal sinuses.

    It is increasingly recognised that biofilms are the principal cause of wounds becoming chronic. Progress in treatments for wound biofilms will increase the range of hard-to-heal wounds that can be healed and possibly save many patients' lives.

    Wound healing management

    Historically, one of the most elementary and crucial practices of human civilisation is healing wounds; this can be seen from Egyptian civilisation papyri to the battlefields of Crimea. Civilisations in the remote past created bandages and homemade dressings made from honey, grease and lint (Broughton et al, 2006), among many other substances and compounds.

    The process of wound healing is complex, involving the reconstitution of several skin layers. This occurs through four overlapping phases: haemostasis; inflammation; proliferation; and remodelling. Haemostasis starts when blood components extravasate into the site of wound, with platelets being exposed to collagen and other extracellular components, leading to the release of clotting factors, growth factors and cytokines (Burnouf et al, 2013). During the inflammatory phase, blood cells such as neutrophils and macrophages infiltrate the wound bed, remove pathogenic organisms and secrete cytokines to promote the production of fibroblasts, endothelial cells and keratinocytes. Two days later, these factors penetrate the wound massively and increase phagocytic activity. This constitutes a critical phase leading to the next steps in the healing process.

    Thereafter, the proliferation phase when new tissue is formed takes place, which includes stages such as fibroplasia, wound matrix deposition, angiogenesis and re-epithelialisation. The granulation tissue formed by this provides volume to the wound and facilitates closure by driving wound contraction. This phase also enables healing by promoting re-epithelialisation. Substantial angiogenesis is required for the healing process to occur within this tissue. At the same time, granulation tissue produces growth factors that favour proliferation and differentiation of epithelial cells, which restore epithelial barrier integrity. When the wound is filled, angiogenesis finishes and many newly formed blood vessels may undergo apoptosis. In the remodelling phase, a constant alteration occurs, such as collagen degradation and deposition in an equilibrium-producing manner.

    In hard-to-heal wounds, the steps of this process are not complete and the tissue remains under oxidative stress owing to the production of reactive oxygen species, leading to DNA damage, gene dysregulation, cell death and the development of an aggressive proteolytic environment (Sen and Roy, 2008). Sen and Roy (2008) induced oxidative stress by inhibiting two antioxidant enzymes (catalase and glutathione peroxidase) in a diabetic mouse model (the db/db mouse model) at the time of injury. This mechanism was enough to cause wounds to become chronic.

    As mentioned above, wounds may be colonised by a polymicrobial community with biofilm-producing bacteria becoming dominant. The expression of several genes is impaired when reactive oxygen species increases, which makes bacteria more able to produce virulent attributes involved in biofilm formation. After treatment with antioxidants such as α-tocopherol and N-acetylcysteine, oxidative stress may be reduced, with biofilms recovering at least partial sensitivity to antibiotics (Dhall et al, 2014).

    Prevention and effective management and control of infection are critical for the normal wound-healing process. When bacteria on the wound surface start replication and increase their metabolic activity, the byproducts formed, such as endotoxins and metalloproteinases, all negatively affect every phase described above (Warriner and Burrell, 2005). Wound pathogens such as Staph aureus, P aeruginosa and ß-haemolytic streptococci cause delayed healing. Causing further direct damage to the host, bacteria attract leukocytes, with subsequent amplification of inflammatory cytokines, proteases and reactive oxygen species, thus both initiating and maintaining inflammatory cascades (Schreml et al, 2010). The resulting proteases and reactive oxygen species from both host and bacteria degrade the extracellular matrix and growth factors, disrupting cell migration and inhibiting wound closure (Demidova-Rice et al, 2012).

    Data from the literature show that numerous risk factors can complicate wound healing and consequently increase healthcare costs; these include, in particular, patient age, pulmonary and vascular disease, haemodynamic instability, hypoalbuminemia, obesity, uraemia, ascites, nutritional deficiencies, malignancy, hypertension, the length and depth of wound, the presence of foreign bodies in the wound, anaemia, diabetes and smoking, with radiation therapy, steroid use among several possible iatrogenic factors (Riou et al, 1992; Abbas and Hill, 2009).

    Options to manage and treat hard-to-heal wounds are invariably intended to:

  • Identify the risk factors that could make a wound hard to heal and address these
  • Provide optimal management of the wound bed
  • Contribute to progression through the normal phases of the wound-healing process.
  • Possible treatments for hard-to-heal wounds

    Dressings/advanced dressings

    Dressing selection is important and the market is vast (Frykberg and Banks, 2015; Westby et al, 2017). This includes dressings that deliver debriding or antimicrobial agents (Gould et al, 2015), maintain a moist wound environment and minimise skin irritation or friction (Jones et al, 2018).

    Many advanced wound dressings are available, including those containing alginates, foams, hydrocolloids and hydrogels. These should be chosen carefully according to the wound type. Alginate and foam dressings are used to absorb excess exudate.

    Silver dressings decrease microbial contamination to enable a normal healing course (Kalan et al, 2017). Dressings incorporating iodide and carbon can also reduce the microbial bioburden (Bansal and Goyal, 2005; Fitzgerald et al, 2017).

    Negative pressure wound therapy

    Negative pressure wound therapy, which is also called vacuum-assisted wound closure, is a wound dressing system that continuously or intermittently applies subatmospheric pressure to the surface of the wound. It is a suggested treatment for the management of hard-to-heal wounds such as leg ulcers because its application is thought to promote the healing process (Vuerstaek et al, 2006). However, the evidence is lacking as to its benefits in treating other wound types (Mendonca et al, 2006).

    Biofilm inhibitors

    Exogenous delivery of nitric oxide with a prodrug vehicle is effective against clinically relevant multispecies biofilm (Craven et al, 2016). Recent studies have examined other biofilm inhibitors, such as antimicrobial peptides, metal chelators, quorum-sensing inhibitors and amino acids (Bala et al, 2011; Sanchez et al, 2014) and nitric oxide (Craven et al, 2016).

    D-amino acids were described as inhibiting bacterial biofilm growth of Gram-positive species such as Bacillus subtilis and Staph aureus (Kolodkin-Gal et al, 2010; Hochbaum et al, 2011).

    Conclusion

    The number of patients with hard-to-heal wounds continues to increase worldwide, mainly because the population is ageing and an increasing number of people are obese, or have type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease. Preventing or controlling infections is essential for the normal wound-healing process to occur.

    In hard-to-heal wounds, the usual biological progression is interrupted so healing is delayed. Delayed healing is usually related to severe microbial colonisation or infection, high levels of exudate, wide tissue loss or exposure of critical structures. The extent of biofilm formation is an important factor in microbial survival and pathogenicity, with complex implications for wound treatment; for instance, antimicrobial resistance mechanisms in biofilm may include increased cell density and physical exclusion of antimicrobials. It is therefore essential to prevent wounds from becoming chronic and this may involve many approaches and strategies.

    KEY POINTS

  • If the normal biological progress of wound healing is interrupted, for example by infection, the wound can become chronic
  • Wounds constitute a key cause of patient morbidity at a global level, placing a great burden on healthcare systems
  • Wound healing can be complicated by risk factors such as patient age, pulmonary and vascular disease, haemodynamic instability, hypoalbuminaemia, obesity, uraemia, ascites, nutritional deficiencies, malignancy, hypertension, length/depth of wound, presence of foreign bodies, anaemia, diabetes and smoking
  • Biofilm formation is implicated in microbial survival/pathogenicity, increasing resistance to antibacterial compounds with implications for wound treatment
  • Prevention and effective management of infection are critical for normal wound healing
  • CPD reflective questions

  • What can you do to prevent chronic wounds and associated diseases?
  • How can health professionals contribute to infection control?
  • Are hospital facilities' hygiene conditions adequate to prevent the spread of infections?