search
Back to results

Cost-effectiveness of Laser Doppler Imaging in Burn Care

Primary Purpose

Burns

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Netherlands
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
laser Doppler imager (Moor)
Sponsored by
Association of Dutch Burn Centres
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional diagnostic trial for Burns focused on measuring Burn, Depth, Diagnosis, Laser Doppler Imaging

Eligibility Criteria

undefined - undefined (Child, Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria:

  • Patients with acute burns of indeterminate depth (=intermediate depth, not obviously superficial or full thickness) at presentation
  • Outpatient treatment or admission in one of the three Dutch burn centres
  • Presentation within 5 days post burn

Exclusion criteria

  • A presence of both burns of indeterminate depth and full thickness at presentation
  • Patients with peri-orbital facial burns, in which the eyes are unable to shield
  • Patients or their next of kin if they are under aged or temporary incompetent who can not be expected to give informed consent e.g. because of cognitive dysfunction or poor Dutch proficiency.
  • Patients with a TBSA burned > 20%

Sites / Locations

  • Red Cross Hospital
  • Maasstad Hospital
  • Martini Hospital

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Active Comparator

No Intervention

Arm Label

new diagnostic strategy

current diagnostic strategy

Arm Description

Combination of laser Doppler imaging and clinical assessment of burn depth

Clinical assessment of burn depth

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Wound healing time
Time to complete wound healing (>95 % reepithelialisation) and rate of wound healing (% reepithelialisation) at day 14 post burn will be assessed clinically (Bloemen et al., 2011)

Secondary Outcome Measures

The effect of LDI on patient outcomes: quality of life and scar quality
Quality of life is measured with the EuroQol-5D in patient ≥ 5 years old (Bouillon et al., 2002) or the ItQol-47 in patients <5 years old (Raat et al., 2007): Baseline measurement within one month post burn Second measurement within 3 months post burn Scar quality is measured after 3 months: Scar elasticity with the Cutometer® Skin Elasticity Meter 575 (Draaijers et al., 2004) Vascularity and pigmentation with the Dermaspectometer (Draaijers et al., 2004) Self-reported scar quality: Patients Observer Scar Assessment Scale (van der Wal et al., 2011)
The effect of LDI on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions
Effect of the introduction of the LDI will be assessed by comparing diagnostic decisions of burn clinicians, before and after the use of LDI. Possible diagnostic decisions are (Monstrey et al., 2011): Superficial dermal burn, will heal (within 14 days) Intermediate burn (possible will heal, or needs grafting) Deep dermal or subdermal (full thickness) burn, needs grafting (will not heal within 21 days) The possible therapeutic decisions are: Surgery Postponement of decision No surgery
The effect of LDI on total (medical and non medical) costs
Costs from a societal perspective are calculated (following the Dutch guidelines from Oostenbrink et al., 2004): Costs during hospital stay Outpatient costs Non-hospital and non-medical costs
The cost-effectiveness of LDI compared to the standard diagnostic strategy
In case of differences in patient outcome (wound healing time and scar quality) between both diagnostic strategies, cost-effectiveness will be calculated by dividing the difference in average costs by the difference in average time of wound healing or scar quality. In case of difference in quality of life between both diagnostic strategies, cost-utility will be calculated by dividing the difference in average costs by the difference in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY's).

Full Information

First Posted
November 30, 2011
Last Updated
September 18, 2013
Sponsor
Association of Dutch Burn Centres
Collaborators
Dutch Burns Foundation, Stichting Nuts Ohra
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01489540
Brief Title
Cost-effectiveness of Laser Doppler Imaging in Burn Care
Official Title
Cost-effectiveness of Laser Doppler Imaging in Burn Care in the Netherlands
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
December 2011
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
December 2011 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
December 2012 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
March 2013 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Association of Dutch Burn Centres
Collaborators
Dutch Burns Foundation, Stichting Nuts Ohra

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
Accurate early burn depth assessment is important to determine the optimal treatment. The most applied method to asses burn depth is clinical assessment. This method is the least expensive, but not very accurate. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) has been shown to accurately assess burn depth. The clinical effects, the costs and cost-effectiveness of this device however, are unknown. The hypothesis is that an eary accurate diagnosis will lead to an earlier therapeutic decision: surgery or no surgery. Earlier excision and grafting probably leads to a decrease in wound healing time, in length of hospital stay and in costs. Before the investigators decide to implement LDI in Dutch burn care a study of the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of LDI is necessary. Therefore a multicenter randomized controlled trial will be conducted, including all patients with burns of indeterminate depth (burns that are not obviously superficial or full thickness) treated in the Dutch burn centres. In total 200 patients will be included in an 18 months period. The patients are randomly divided in two groups: 'new diagnostic strategy' versus 'current diagnostic strategy'. Burn depth will be diagnosed both by clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging in all patients. The results of the LDI-scan will be provided to the treating clinician in the 'new diagnostic strategy' group only. Time to wound healing, diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, and costs are observed.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Burns
Keywords
Burn, Depth, Diagnosis, Laser Doppler Imaging

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Diagnostic
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
200 (Anticipated)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
new diagnostic strategy
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Arm Description
Combination of laser Doppler imaging and clinical assessment of burn depth
Arm Title
current diagnostic strategy
Arm Type
No Intervention
Arm Description
Clinical assessment of burn depth
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
laser Doppler imager (Moor)
Other Intervention Name(s)
Laser Doppler Imager, Moor Instruments, Moor LDI Burn Imager
Intervention Description
The laser Doppler imager measures the blood flow of the skin/burn
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Wound healing time
Description
Time to complete wound healing (>95 % reepithelialisation) and rate of wound healing (% reepithelialisation) at day 14 post burn will be assessed clinically (Bloemen et al., 2011)
Time Frame
14 days post burn
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
The effect of LDI on patient outcomes: quality of life and scar quality
Description
Quality of life is measured with the EuroQol-5D in patient ≥ 5 years old (Bouillon et al., 2002) or the ItQol-47 in patients <5 years old (Raat et al., 2007): Baseline measurement within one month post burn Second measurement within 3 months post burn Scar quality is measured after 3 months: Scar elasticity with the Cutometer® Skin Elasticity Meter 575 (Draaijers et al., 2004) Vascularity and pigmentation with the Dermaspectometer (Draaijers et al., 2004) Self-reported scar quality: Patients Observer Scar Assessment Scale (van der Wal et al., 2011)
Time Frame
3 months post burn
Title
The effect of LDI on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions
Description
Effect of the introduction of the LDI will be assessed by comparing diagnostic decisions of burn clinicians, before and after the use of LDI. Possible diagnostic decisions are (Monstrey et al., 2011): Superficial dermal burn, will heal (within 14 days) Intermediate burn (possible will heal, or needs grafting) Deep dermal or subdermal (full thickness) burn, needs grafting (will not heal within 21 days) The possible therapeutic decisions are: Surgery Postponement of decision No surgery
Time Frame
Until wound healing, circa 2-6 weeks
Title
The effect of LDI on total (medical and non medical) costs
Description
Costs from a societal perspective are calculated (following the Dutch guidelines from Oostenbrink et al., 2004): Costs during hospital stay Outpatient costs Non-hospital and non-medical costs
Time Frame
From injury until 3 months post burn
Title
The cost-effectiveness of LDI compared to the standard diagnostic strategy
Description
In case of differences in patient outcome (wound healing time and scar quality) between both diagnostic strategies, cost-effectiveness will be calculated by dividing the difference in average costs by the difference in average time of wound healing or scar quality. In case of difference in quality of life between both diagnostic strategies, cost-utility will be calculated by dividing the difference in average costs by the difference in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY's).
Time Frame
From injury until 3 months post burn

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria: Patients with acute burns of indeterminate depth (=intermediate depth, not obviously superficial or full thickness) at presentation Outpatient treatment or admission in one of the three Dutch burn centres Presentation within 5 days post burn Exclusion criteria A presence of both burns of indeterminate depth and full thickness at presentation Patients with peri-orbital facial burns, in which the eyes are unable to shield Patients or their next of kin if they are under aged or temporary incompetent who can not be expected to give informed consent e.g. because of cognitive dysfunction or poor Dutch proficiency. Patients with a TBSA burned > 20%
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Margriet E Baar, PhD
Organizational Affiliation
Associaton of Dutch Burns Centres
Official's Role
Study Chair
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Red Cross Hospital
City
Beverwijk
State/Province
Noord-Holland
ZIP/Postal Code
1940 EB
Country
Netherlands
Facility Name
Maasstad Hospital
City
Rotterdam
State/Province
Zuid-Holland
ZIP/Postal Code
3079 DZ
Country
Netherlands
Facility Name
Martini Hospital
City
Groningen
ZIP/Postal Code
9700 RM
Country
Netherlands

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
20182369
Citation
Kim LH, Ward D, Lam L, Holland AJ. The impact of laser Doppler imaging on time to grafting decisions in pediatric burns. J Burn Care Res. 2010 Mar-Apr;31(2):328-32. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e3181d0f572.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
18511202
Citation
Monstrey S, Hoeksema H, Verbelen J, Pirayesh A, Blondeel P. Assessment of burn depth and burn wound healing potential. Burns. 2008 Sep;34(6):761-9. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2008.01.009. Epub 2008 Jun 3.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
14556723
Citation
Jeng JC, Bridgeman A, Shivnan L, Thornton PM, Alam H, Clarke TJ, Jablonski KA, Jordan MH. Laser Doppler imaging determines need for excision and grafting in advance of clinical judgment: a prospective blinded trial. Burns. 2003 Nov;29(7):665-70. doi: 10.1016/s0305-4179(03)00078-0.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
6355500
Citation
Engrav LH, Heimbach DM, Reus JL, Harnar TJ, Marvin JA. Early excision and grafting vs. nonoperative treatment of burns of indeterminant depth: a randomized prospective study. J Trauma. 1983 Nov;23(11):1001-4. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198311000-00007.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
2650643
Citation
Herndon DN, Barrow RE, Rutan RL, Rutan TC, Desai MH, Abston S. A comparison of conservative versus early excision. Therapies in severely burned patients. Ann Surg. 1989 May;209(5):547-52; discussion 552-3. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198905000-00006.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21388743
Citation
Bloemen MC, van Zuijlen PP, Middelkoop E. Reliability of subjective wound assessment. Burns. 2011 Jun;37(4):566-71. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.02.004. Epub 2011 Mar 8.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
12454361
Citation
Bouillon B, Kreder HJ, Eypasch E, Holbrook TL, Kreder HJ, Mayou R, Nast-Kolb D, Pirente N, Schelling G, Tiling T, Yates D; MI Consensus Group. Quality of life in patients with multiple injuries--basic issues, assessment, and recommendations. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2002;20(3-4):125-34.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
17111231
Citation
Raat H, Landgraf JM, Oostenbrink R, Moll HA, Essink-Bot ML. Reliability and validity of the Infant and Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire (ITQOL) in a general population and respiratory disease sample. Qual Life Res. 2007 Apr;16(3):445-60. doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-9134-8. Epub 2006 Nov 17.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15019116
Citation
Draaijers LJ, Botman YA, Tempelman FR, Kreis RW, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen PP. Skin elasticity meter or subjective evaluation in scars: a reliability assessment. Burns. 2004 Mar;30(2):109-14. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2003.09.003.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
15019115
Citation
Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Kreis RW, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen PP. Colour evaluation in scars: tristimulus colorimeter, narrow-band simple reflectance meter or subjective evaluation? Burns. 2004 Mar;30(2):103-7. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2003.09.029.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21598065
Citation
van der Wal MB, Tuinebreijer WE, Bloemen MC, Verhaegen PD, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen PP. Rasch analysis of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) in burn scars. Qual Life Res. 2012 Feb;21(1):13-23. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9924-5. Epub 2011 May 20.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21084164
Citation
Monstrey SM, Hoeksema H, Baker RD, Jeng J, Spence RS, Wilson D, Pape SA. Burn wound healing time assessed by laser Doppler imaging. Part 2: validation of a dedicated colour code for image interpretation. Burns. 2011 Mar;37(2):249-56. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2010.08.013. Epub 2010 Nov 16.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26710049
Citation
Hop MJ, Stekelenburg CM, Hiddingh J, Kuipers HC, Middelkoop E, Nieuwenhuis MK, Polinder S, van Baar ME; LDI Study Group. Cost-Effectiveness of Laser Doppler Imaging in Burn Care in The Netherlands: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Jan;137(1):166e-176e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001900.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
23369360
Citation
Hop MJ, Hiddingh J, Stekelenburg C, Kuipers HC, Middelkoop E, Nieuwenhuis MK, Polinder S, van Baar ME; LDI study group. Cost-effectiveness of laser Doppler imaging in burn care in the Netherlands. BMC Surg. 2013 Feb 1;13:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-13-2.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

Cost-effectiveness of Laser Doppler Imaging in Burn Care

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs