Let’s Heal® is the result of 75 years experience in developing our products to help you test, protect, promote and comfort the wound towards healing.
WOUNDCHEK™ Protease Status
Why test for EPA?
Chronic wounds with elevated protease activity (EPA)
have a 90% probability they won’t heal1 (without appropriate intervention)
But
only 28% of non-healing wounds have EPA1
And
there are no visual cues to detect EPA2,3
Non-healing wounds cost billions to the healthcare system4,5
So, how do you know which wounds have EPA?
Developed to aid wound assessment and help clinicians target advanced wound care therapies more effectively, WOUNDCHEK™ Protease Status is able to detect EPA. As there are no clinical signs for EPA, wounds with EPA have so far gone undetected2,3. WOUNDCHEK™ Protease Status will help clinicians establish within minutes which wounds may most benefit from a protease modulating therapy, ensuring appropriate and targeted use of these therapies.
Please refer in full to the Instructions for use leaflet provided in the product packaging, specific to your region.
The image shown depicts a test result for a wound with EPA
Systagenix is not responsible for the content of external websites.
Disclaimer
The product information on this page is not intended for, or to be used by health care professionals or users in the United States
WOUNDCHEK™ Protease Status
1. Serena T. et al. Protease activity levels associated with healing status of chronic wounds. Poster, Wounds UK 2011.
2. Snyder R. et al. A survey: The importance of proteases in wound healing and wound assessment. Poster, Wounds UK 2011.
3. International consensus. The role of proteases in wound diagnostics. An expert working group review. London: Wounds International, 2011.
4. Gordois A, Scuffham P, Shearer A, Oglesby A, Tobian JA. The healthcare costs of diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the US. Diabetes Care.
2003;26(6):1790–1795.
5. Shearer A, Scuffham P, Gordois A, Oglesby A. Predicted costs and outcomes from reduced vibration detection in people with diabetes in
the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(8):2305–2310.
United Kingdom