BACKGROUND: Studies show that anode and cathode electrical stimulation (ES) promotes the healing of wounds, but specific protocols for both electrodes are not available. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cathodal versus cathodal+anodal ES in the treatment of category II to IV pressure ulcers (PrUs). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical study. SETTING: Three nursing and care centers. PATIENTS: Sixty-three participants with PrUs were randomly formed into a cathodal ES group (CG: n = 23; mean age of 79.35; SD 8.48), a cathodal+anodal ES group (CAG: n = 20; mean age of 79.65; SD 11.44) and a placebo ES group (PG: n = 20; mean age of 76.75; SD 12.24). INTERVENTION: All patients were treated with standard wound care and high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC; twin-peak impulses; 154 mus; 100 pps; 0.25 A; 250 muC/s) for 50 minutes per day, 5 times a week, for 6 weeks. The CG, CAG, and PG received, respectively, cathodal, cathodal+anodal, and sham ES through electrodes placed on a moist gauze pad. The treatment electrode was placed on the wound, and the return electrode was positioned on healthy skin at least 20 cm from the PrU. MEASUREMENTS: Measurements were made at baseline, and after each of the 6 weeks of treatment. Primary outcome was percentage wound surface area reduction at week 6. RESULTS: Wound surface area decreased in the CG by 82.34% (95% confidence interval (CI) 70.06 to 94.63) and in the CAG by 70.77% (95% CI 53.51 to 88.04). These reductions were significantly greater than in the PG (40.53%; 95% CI 23.60 to 57.46). The CG and CAG were not statistically significantly different regarding treatment results. LIMITATIONS: The time of treatment proved insufficient for PrUs to close. CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal and cathodal+anodal HVMPC similarly reduced the area of category II to IV PrUs.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help

• DOI
• PubMed
• PDF locator
• publisher