Lymphoedema Compression Garments Dr Gavin Hughes Deputy Director - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
lymphoedema compression garments
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Lymphoedema Compression Garments Dr Gavin Hughes Deputy Director - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 08, 2024 432 likes •877 views

Lymphoedema Compression Garments Dr Gavin Hughes Deputy Director Surgical Materials Testing Laboratory (SMTL) Princess of Wales Hospital gavin@smtl.co.uk Who are SMTL, and what do we do? Why test medical devices? Experience of

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Lymphoedema Compression Garments

Dr Gavin Hughes

Deputy Director

Surgical Materials Testing Laboratory (SMTL) Princess of Wales Hospital gavin@smtl.co.uk

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

 Who are SMTL, and what do we do?  Why test medical devices?  Experience of testing compression garments and share our information

demonstrating that there are potential problems with quality of lymphoedema garments – Testing for working groups – Contract test results – Adverse incidents

 Confusion with compression classes

– Different pressure classification systems in use – Incorrect national guidance documents – Incorrect best practise documents – Opportunities for ILF

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • Established in late 1970’s as a pharmaceutical QA laboratory
  • Part of the Welsh NHS hosted by NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership

(NWSSP) Health Board.

  • Provide testing and technical services on medical devices to the Welsh NHS,

Industry and the UK Health Service.

  • 25 members of staff including pharmacists, microbiologists, engineering

expertise, chemists, health technology researchers, IT and office staff

  • UKAS accredited to ISO 17025 International Standard Testing Laboratories
  • Independent, robust & traceable datasets
  • Mixed Economy

– Commercial Income

  • Medical device companies, Government agencies, Coroners, Police forces,

Legal representatives

– Welsh Government Funding

  • Testing and technical input on NHS working groups – NHS Wales

Procurement

  • Medical Device Adverse Incident Reporting (400+ per year) – Welsh

Government Guidance NHS

SMTL

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • 2011 - Welsh government funding to implement the Strategy for

Lymphoedema in Wales.

  • National Compression Garment Contract and Formulary for 1° & 2°

care

  • 2013 - Initial working group led by clinicians
  • Do we need to test compression garments?
  • Class 1 medical devices - self certification ; no third party involvement
  • Often suppliers do not have data to support claims
  • i. no data
  • ii. borrowed data (fraudulent test reports)
  • iii. old data (>10 years)
  • iv. manufactured to a standard does not mean that the device complies

with the standard

Lymphoedema Contract – 2013 – Medical Devices

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5
  • CE marking alone not robust enough to identify safety and functional

issues

  • Surgical tonsillectomy instruments 1
  • Misclassification of instruments
  • Fraudulent technical drawings
  • Wrong cutting angles of curettes
  • PIP breast implants 2
  • metal-metal joint implants 3
  • Previous experience with similar compression garments - Anti-

embolism hosiery

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

5

  • 1. Tomkinson A, et al. Clin Otolaryngol. 2005 Apr;30(2):135-42. A laboratory and clinical evaluation of single-use instruments for tonsil and

adenoid surgery

  • 2. Department of Health, Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) Breast Implants: Final Report of the Working Group

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214975/dh_134657.pdf

  • 3. MHRA, MDA/2012/036. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5485abf6ed915d4c10000273/con155767.pdf
slide-6
SLIDE 6

AWC – Anti-Embolism Hosiery 2000

Ankle Calf Lower Thigh Upper Thigh 5 10 15 20 25 2000

Leg Measurement position Pressure (mmHg)

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

AWC – Anti-Embolism Hosiery 2006/07 - lower ankle pressure

Ankle Calf Lower Thigh Upper Thigh 5 10 15 20 25 2000 2006

Leg Measurement Position Pressure (mmHg)

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

AWC – Anti-Embolism Hosiery 2010/11 – negative gradient

Ankle Calf Lower Thigh Upper Thigh 5 10 15 20 25 2000 2006 2011

Leg Measurement Position Pressure (mmHg)

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • User/Clinician queries
  • Garment consistency – difference in pressures between different

colours

  • i. Difference in garment lengths/pressures within packaging
  • clinicians reporting differences of 5-10cm between left and right leg

garments

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • User/Clinician queries
  • Garment consistency – difference in pressures between different

colours

  • i. Difference in garment lengths/pressures within packaging
  • ii. Difference in garment lengths/pressures between colours

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Beige vs Black – Haddenham Pertex Leicht CCL 1 same size garment

11

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Beige vs Black – Haddenham Pertex Leicht CCL 1 same size garment

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

CLASS 1 Ankle (mmHg) Calf (mmHg) Black 16.11 10.28 Beige 13.61 6.88

12

Ankle Calf 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Black Beige

Leg Measurement Points Pressure (mmHg)

slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • User/Clinician queries
  • Garment consistency – difference in pressures between different

colours

  • i. Difference in garment lengths/pressures within packaging
  • clinicians reporting differences of 5-10cm between left and right leg

garments

  • ii. Difference in garment lengths/pressures between colours
  • iii. Difference in garment pressures between 1° (prescription) and 2°

(hospital) sources.

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

1° (WP10 Prescription) vs 2° (Hospital) sourced garments – Medi UK Mediven Plus

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

Ankle Calf Thigh 2°

35.7 21.7 10.6

1°

27.8 19.1 9.4

Ankle Calf Thigh 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2° Hospital 1° FP10

Leg Measurement Points Pressure (mmHg)

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • User/Clinician queries
  • iv. Assess pressures of high usage lower limb garments
  • Uncontrolled oedema?
  • Patients like the garments
  • Good patient compliance
  • Easy to don, although clinicians often choose 1-2 smaller than
  • ptimum

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Haddenham Pertex Light RAL CCL 1 garments (18-21mmHg)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Ankle Calf

Hosiery Sample No. Pressure (mmHg)

mean 13.87 mmHg lowest 12.35 mmHg highest 16.00 mmHg 16

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2013

slide-17
SLIDE 17
  • Phased process driven by clinicians

(1) Working groups drafting specifications – clinician led (2) Supplier days to meet tendering companies and explain process (3) Bench-top assessment

  • Packaging, seams, stitching, welt, donning (patients) etc...

(4) Laboratory testing – functionality, safety, equivalence

  • Pre-contract Testing – Ensure that devices meet our stated

specification

(5) Clinical assessments (6) Contract Award

  • Archive samples when contract starts – LOCKED DESIGN
  • Contract Monitoring – Ensure that devices do not change during the

course of the contract

  • Address concerns with suppliers/MHRA at earliest opportunity.

NHS Wales Procurement Contracts

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18
  • 100's of contract lines.
  • Snap shot of quality of 11 main high volume contract lines.
  • 8 lower limb garments covering:
  • Circular and flat knit
  • Below knee and thigh length
  • Off the shelf and Made to measure
  • Pressure classes 1,2 & 3
  • 3 upper limb garments covering:
  • Circular and flat knit
  • Off the shelf and Made to measure
  • Pressure classes 1 & 2
  • Surrogate lymphoedema patient limb based on average patient size.
  • Patient limb sizes provided to companies
  • Companies supply product to fit the patient limb

All-Wales Lymphoedema Contract - Jan 2014

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • Defined graduated pressure requirements based on RAL pressure

classes:

  • Lower Limb
  • Class I – 18-21mmHg
  • Class II – 23-32mmHg
  • Class III – 34-46mmHg
  • Upper Limb
  • Circular Knit Class I – 14-21mmHg
  • Flat Knit Class I – 18-21mmHg
  • Class II – 23-32mmHg
  • Failures
  • Mean compression pressures fell outside of the limits listed above (plus

uncertainty of measurement of test method 13%)

  • Compression garments exhibit a negative gradient.

All-Wales Lymphoedema Contract - Jan 2014

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

HATRA Hosiery Tester – British Standard (BS 6612 superseded by BS 661210)

20

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Results = Lower limb 78% compliance

Category Pressure Class Pass / Samples Comments

Thigh, circular knit, light sheer 18 – 21 5 / 5 23 – 32 5 / 5 Thigh, circular knit, firmer denser 23 – 32 3 / 3 34 – 46 2 / 3 1 < ankle pressure (Sigvaris Traditional) Knee, flat knit 18 – 21 0 / 1 < ankle pressure (15mmHg Haddenham Goldpunkt) 23 – 32 0 / 1 < ankle pressure (18.6mmHg Haddenham Goldpunkt) 34 – 46 0 / 1 < ankle pressure (22.2mmHg Haddenham Goldpunkt) Thigh, flat knit, M2M 23 – 32 3 / 4 1 -ve gradient Haddenham Goldpunkt)

18 / 23 = 78% 21

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Results = Upper limb 50% compliance

  • Overall 71% compliance rate
  • Requirement to re-tender for a number of contract lines

Category Pressure Class Pass / Samples Comments Arm sleeve, circular knit 14 – 21 0 / 2

> wrist pressure (27.4 mmHg Medi Harmony) 1 -ve gradient (Sigvaris Advance)

23 – 32 1 / 2

> wrist pressure (42.7 mmHg Medi Harmony)

Arm sleeve, flat knit , M2M 23 – 32 3 / 4

1 -ve gradient (BSN Elvarex)

4 / 8 = 50% 22

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Results = Lower limb 81% compliance

Category Pressure Class Pass / Samples Comments Thigh, circular knit, firmer denser 23 – 32 4 / 4 34 – 46 2 / 3

1 < ankle pressure (Juzo Dynamic)

Knee, flat knit 18 – 21 1 / 1 23 – 32 2 / 2 34 – 46 2 / 2 Thigh, flat knit, M2M 23 – 32 2 / 4

1 -ve gradient (Haddenham Goldpunkt) 1 < ankle pressure (Juzo Expert)

13 / 16 = 81% 23

Lymphoedema Contract – Re-Tender 2014

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Results = Upper limb 86% compliance

  • Overall 83% compliance rate
  • We could tender for all of the categories tested

Category Pressure Class Pass / Samples Comments Arm sleeve, circular knit 14 – 21 2 / 3

  • ve gradient - Sigvaris Advance

23 – 32 3 / 3 Arm sleeve, flat knit , M2M 23 – 32 1 / 1 6 / 7 = 86% 24

Lymphoedema Contract – Re-Tender 2014

slide-25
SLIDE 25

2014 Lymphoedema Contracts Summary

  • i. A number of garments exert negative gradients which may cause

patient harm

  • ii. Only 75% of compression garments comply with pressure claims
  • iii. Experienced problems with Made to Measure garments
  • i. Poorly sized
  • ii. Low pressures
  • iv. Exerted pressures are usually at the lower end of the claimed

pressure range.

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Results Lower limb Class 2 23 mmHg 32 mmHg

Medi UK Haddenham BSN Juzo Sigvaris 26

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Results Lower limb Class 2 23 mmHg 32 mmHg

Goldpunkt 18.1mmHg Elvarex 24.7mmHg Goldpunkt 22.6mmHg Mediven Mondi 22.6 mmHg Traditional 22.2mmHg Expert 20.8 mmHg Dynamic 22.4mmHg Mediven Plus 22.6 mmHg

Medi UK Haddenham BSN Juzo Sigvaris 27

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2014

slide-28
SLIDE 28
  • New 4 year new contract ; Similar process to 2014 contract
  • SMTL testing of 10 contract lines
  • Issues identified during 2014 contract period
  • High volume contract lines
  • Surrogate lymphoedema patient limb based on average patient size.
  • Defined graduated pressure requirements with 20% tolerance from

the mid-point of the pressure range e.g.

  • Class 1 limits = 15.6 – 23.4mmHg
  • Class 2 limits = 22.0 – 33.0mmHg
  • Class 3 limits = 32.0 – 48mmHg

(Takes into account uncertainty of measurement and manufacturing variability)

  • Externally cross reference SMTL test results.
  • Sample sent to Hohenstein Institute for RAL compliance testing.

All-Wales Lymphoedema Contract - 2018

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Results = Overall 58% compliance

Lower limb Upper limb

Category Pressure Class Pass / Samples Circular Knit 18 – 21 7 / 9 23 – 32 8 / 12

Flat Knit

18 – 21 0 / 1 23 – 32 1 / 5 * 34 – 46 1 / 1 Product Pressure Class Pass / Samples Circular Knit 23 – 32 2 / 4 Flat Knit 23 – 32 0 / 1 29

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2018

Test requirements and test reports published on - www.medidex.com

slide-30
SLIDE 30

* Made to measure garments submitted for 2018 contract

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2018

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

* Made to Measure Lower Limb Below Knee Class 1 Flat Knit Garment Mean Ankle (mmHg) Mean Calf (mmHg) Pass / Fail

(15.6 – 23.4 mmHg)

Comments Sigvaris Optiform Hold 9.8 9.0 Fail

< Ankle pressures

Haddenham Goldpunkt 26.0 20.1 Fail

> Ankle pressures

BSN Jobst Elvarex 21.0 14.4 Pass

  • Mediven Mondi

13.8 9.5 Fail

< Ankle pressures

31

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2018

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Hohenstein HOSY RAL testing (2 garments tested)

Garment RAL Compliance Comments * Sigvaris Optiform Hold (Class 1) Fail

Ankle pressure failure

* Haddenham Goldpunkt (Class 1) Fail

Ankle pressure failure

* BSN Jobst Elvarex (Class 1) Fail

Ankle pressure failure

* Mediven Mondi (Class 1) Fail

Ankle pressure failure

Mediven Legance (Class 1) Fail

Ankle pressure failure

BSN Jobst Ultrasheer (Class 1) Fail

Ankle pressure failure and B1 ratio

BSN Jobst Opaque (Class 2) Pass Juzo Dynamic (Class 2) Pass 32

Lymphoedema Procurement Contract - 2018

Mediven Harmony (Class 2) Pass BSN Jobst Bella Lite (Class 2) Fail

Wrist pressure failure

Mediven Esprit (Class 2) Pass

slide-33
SLIDE 33
  • Independently assess the device to confirm the adverse incident.
  • Make sure that the company undertakes the appropriate corrective

action if there is an issue with the medical device.

  • Record and trend adverse incidents.
  • Take this information through to future procurement contracts.
  • 161 reported adverse incidents with lymphoedema compression

garments since Jan 2013.

  • 1331 reports received over this period
  • 12% of all NHS Wales medical device incidents

33

Reporting Adverse Incidents - Lymphoedema Garments

slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Manufacturer 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 TOTAL BSN 13 16 4 6 7 46 Haddenham 16 11 8 6 8 49 Juzo 3 4 2 9 Medi UK 7 9 11 7 4 38 Sigvaris 7 7 4 1 19 TOTAL 43 (12%) 36 (16%) 31 (12%) 21 (9%) 20 (8%) 161 (12%)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 BSN Haddenham Juzo Medi UK Sigvaris

Year No of Defect Reports

Reporting Adverse Incidents - Lymphoedema Garments

34

slide-35
SLIDE 35
  • Not necessarily the companies with the highest number of adverse incident

reports, but rather how the problem is investigated.

  • Investigations have also identified training requirements / not necessarily

garment anomalies.

GOOD EXAMPLE REPLY

“I have referred the stockings to the manufacturing facility. They have concluded their own investigation and they advise that, in this case, the tear at the grip top is a manufacturing error.” “They acknowledge that this should not have passed their quality control checks and they have installed additional control measures to avoid these problems in the future” “I am not clear if in this instance replacement garments have already been provided, but if such are required we would be happy to provide them free of charge”

35

Reporting Adverse Incidents - Lymphoedema Garments

slide-36
SLIDE 36

BAD EXAMPLE REPLY

“Sadly on checking the garment, it was found to have been produced in week 3, 2014 and is therefore too old to be assessed under our 6 month guarantee period.” “I therefore return the garment to you”

  • 6 month guarantee but from what date?
  • Date of manufacturer not date of donning
  • Made 2 measure and 'off the shelf' garments
  • These do not match our contract Ts & Cs

36

Reporting Adverse Incidents - Lymphoedema Garments

slide-37
SLIDE 37
  • Clinicians in general did not objectively assess the garments they

don.

  • Clinicians should trust own and patients assumptions.
  • Will question patients compliance but not the garment pressures.
  • Some devices on the market that exert negative gradients that have

the potential to cause patient injury.

  • Compliance and performance issues with some RAL accredited

companies.

  • Don't assume the pressures exerted on the patient are the same as

claimed on packaging.

  • Pressures exerted are likely to be at the lower end of the pressure range
  • Question the companies
  • Ask for independent evidence of claims

Lessons Learnt

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38
  • No current international agreement on the specification of compression

classes

  • Confusing for patients and clinicians
  • i. Differences in compression classes between countries

Confusion with Compression Classes

38

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Differences between countries

Confusion with Compression Classes

39 UK

(Elastic Hosiery BNF Drug Tariff)

France

(AFNOR)

Germany

(RAL)

Low compression

  • 7.5 – 12.8
  • Class 1

14 – 17 10 – 15 18 – 21 Class 2 18 – 24 15 – 20 23 – 32 Class 3 25 – 35 20 – 36 34 – 46 Class 4

  • 36+

49+

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Differences within the UK – 25 pressure classes for Lymphoedema garments!

Confusion with Compression Classes

40

UK (BNF / Drug Tariff)

Elastic Hosiery

  • Spec. 40

Elastic Hosiery Lymphoedema Garments Lower Limb Upper Limb

Class 1 14 – 19 14 – 17 10 – 15 10 – 17 14 – 17 14 – 18 (low comp) 15 – 20 15 – 21 18 – 21 12 – 16 (low comp) 14 – 18 (low comp) 15 – 20 15 – 21 18 – 21 Class 2 16 – 25 18 – 24 15 – 18 18 – 24 20 – 30 (light comp) 20 – 36 23 – 32 25 – 32 20 – 25 (med comp) 20 – 30 (light comp) 23 – 32 Class 3 24 – 35 25 – 35 33 – 46 34 – 46 30 – 40 (strong comp) 34 – 46 Class 4

  • > 46

> 49 49 – 59 49 – 70 Class 4 +

  • 69 – 90
slide-41
SLIDE 41
  • i. Differences in compression classes between countries
  • ii. Differences in compression classes within countries
  • iii. Subjective terminology (mild, light, moderate, medium, firm, strong, high, extra firm, very

strong, very high.....)

  • iv. Non-existent standards and pressure classifications

a) No European Standard

b) No pressure classes in British Standards for graduated compression hosiery

  • v. National Guidance Document errors
  • NICE (a & b)
  • British National Formulary Drug Tariff (b)
  • vi. Best Practise document errors
  • ILF [2006 BPmanagement of lymphoedema (b) ; 2006 Compression hosiery in lymphoedema (b)]
  • Wounds UK [2015 BPS Compression hosiery (a & b) ; 2016 BPS Holistic management of venous

leg ulcers (b)]

  • EWMA [2003 Understanding compression therapy RAL-GZ 387 quoted for bandages]

Confusion with Compression Classes

41

slide-42
SLIDE 42
  • i. Clarification

ii.Consensus on pressure classifications?

  • Could these cover a number of clinical conditions?
  • Lymphoedema, Woundcare, Vascular, Support garments etc...
  • iii. Garment Classification?
  • Based on primary intention of treatment – compression
  • Lower limb, Upper limb, Bandages, Compression Wraps etc...
  • Circular knit, Flat knit etc…

UK are taking steps on this but could there be an International solution?

Opportunities - Compression Classes

42

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Mel Thomas, Karen Morgan and the other lymphoedema clinicians in Wales Lymphoedema Network Wales (UK National Patient Safety award at the 2016 Patient Safety Awards) NWSSP Procurement Services Louise Barry (SMTL) Gavin Hughes e gavin@smtl.co.uk T +44 (0) 1656 752820

Acknowledgements