Premium
Domiciliary application of CryoCuff in severe haemophilia: qualitative questionnaire and clinical audit
Author(s) -
D’YOUNG A. I.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
haemophilia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.213
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 1365-2516
pISSN - 1351-8216
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2516.2008.01701.x
Subject(s) - medicine , haemophilia , physical therapy , ankle , hemarthrosis , invoice , haemophilia a , cryotherapy , pediatrics , surgery , world wide web , computer science
. The acute management of haemophilic bleeding episodesin the home setting is based on the concept of immediate factor replacement therapy and the PRICE regime – an acronym representing the concepts of Protection, Rest, Ice, Compression and Elevation [1,2]. Integral to this regime is the application of cold therapy, and yet little is known regarding the safe periods of application, or the relative safety of cryotherapy devices such as the CryoCuff™ when used in the home setting by patients suffering from severe haemophilia and related bleeding disorders. This study examines the subjective patient response to the application of the CryoCuff™ device in the home setting in terms of the effect on pain, joint swelling and the return to ‘pre‐bleed status’ of the knee, ankle or elbow in patients with severe haemophilia A/B or type III von Willebrand’s disease (VWD) immediately following haemarthrosis, and any potential adverse effects related to the device or recommended duration of application as stated in the PRICE guideline ( Fig. 1). Twelve patients, either with severe haemophilia A/B or with VWD were recruited and asked to use the CryoCuff™ device as part of the PRICE regime immediately following the onset of knee‐, ankle‐ or elbow bleeds for the next one year. Each subject was then sent a qualitative questionnaire to determine subjective responses to the device. All patients reported that the application protocol was easy to follow, they were able to apply the device as per the PRICE regime and they were able to tolerate it for the recommended period. Whereas, all the patients felt that the device had a significant impact on alleviation of pain and return to pre‐bleed status, 78% of the patients felt that the device led to a significant reduction in swelling around the affected joint. There was no conclusive evidence that the device resulted in any reduction in the amount of factor used to treat the acute bleeding episode, however, no patients reported any perceived delay in achieving haemostasis or required extra factor replacement therapy consequent to the usage of the device. No other adverse effects were reported by participants in this study. 1 The qualitative participant questionnaire, given following 1 year of unsupervised use in the home setting immediately following the onset of the symptoms of haemarthroses.