Chronic wounds include pressure ulcers, venous leg ulcers, arterial ulcers, neurotrophic ulcers and foot ulcers in people with diabetes. Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a potential wound-healing treatment because it contains fibrin and high concentrations of growth factors that are thought to help healing. This review evaluated the effectiveness and safety of PRP and included nine randomised clinical trials, with a total of 325 participants. There were no differences between the autologous PRP and the control groups in terms of healing. However, these results require confirmation in adequately powered, well conducted RCTs.
There is currently no evidence to suggest that autologous PRP is of value for treating chronic wounds. However, current evidence is based on a small number of RCTs, most of which are either at high or unclear risk of bias. Well-designed and adequately powered clinical trials are needed.
Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a treatment that contains fibrin and high concentrations of growth factors and has the potential to aid wound healing.
To determine whether autologous PRP promotes the healing of chronic wounds.
We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 August 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to August Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, August 14, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 32); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 10 August 2012) and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)(accessed 22 August 2012). No date or language restrictions were applied.
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared autologous PRP with placebo or alternative treatments for any type of chronic wound in adults.
Two review authors independently assessed each study against the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and time to wound healing was analysed as survival data using the hazard ratio (HR). We considered heterogeneity as significant when I2 was >75%.
Nine eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 325 participants of whom 44% were women. The median number of participants per RCT was 26 (range 10 to 86). Four RCTs recruited people with mixed chronic wounds (there were participants with wounds caused by more than one aetiology and participants who had wounds of several aetiologies in the same trial), three RCTs recruited people with venous leg ulcers and two RCTs considered foot ulcers in people with diabetes. The median length of treatment was 12 weeks (range eight to 40 weeks).
One study was at low risk of bias, three studies were at high risk of bias with the remainder being at overall unclear risk of bias. The proportion of completely healed chronic wounds was reported in seven RCTs that compared PRP with standard treatment or placebo, with no statistically significant difference between the groups, in diabetic foot ulcers (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.57 to 2.35), in venous leg ulcers (pooled RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.27; I2=0%) and in mixed chronic wounds (pooled RR 1.85; 95% CI 0.76 to 4.51; I2=42%). The total area epithelialised at the end of the intervention was reported in three RCTs of mixed chronic wounds, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (pooled MD -1.94 cm2; 95% CI -4.74 to 0.86; I2=47%). The percentage of wound area healed was reported in two RCTs of mixed chronic wounds, and results were statistically significant in favour of the PRP group (RR 51.78%; 95% CI 32.70 to 70.86; I2= 0%). Wound complications like infection or necrosis were reported by three RCTs, and there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.31 to 3.73). Adverse effects were reported by three studies and there was no statistically significant difference between people treated with PRP and those not given PRP (pooled RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.58; I2=0%).