A chronic wound fails to complete an orderly and timely reparative process and places patients at increased risk for wound complications that negatively impact quality of life and require greater health care expenditure. The role of extracellular matrix (ECM) is critical in normal and chronic wound repair. Not only is ECM the largest component of the dermal skin layer, but also ECM proteins provide structure and cell signalling that are necessary for successful tissue repair. Chronic wounds are characterised by their inflammatory and proteolytic environment, which degrades the ECM. Human acellular dermal matrices, which provide an ECM scaffold, therefore, are being used to treat chronic wounds. The ideal human acellular dermal wound matrix (HADWM) would support regenerative healing, providing a structure that could be repopulated by the body's cells. Experienced wound care investigators and clinicians discussed the function of ECM, the evidence related to a specific HADWM (Graftjacket(®) regenerative tissue matrix, Wright Medical Technology, Inc., licensed by KCI USA, Inc., San Antonio, TX), and their clinical experience with this scaffold. This article distills these discussions into an evidence-based and practical overview for treating chronic lower extremity wounds with this HADWM.

Chronic wound treatment currently relies heavily on visual assessment by clinicians; however, the clinical signs and symptoms of infection and inflammation are unreliable in chronic wounds. The specialty of wound care has witnessed the advent of advanced interventions, such as cellular and/or tissue based products (CTP). The success of advanced therapies relies on preparing the wound bed by reducing bacterial burden and inflammation. The lack of diagnostics in chronic wound care leads to uncertainty in the adequacy of wound bed preparation. Recent research suggests that two novel point-of-care diagnostic tests can assist in the detection of chronic inflammation known as elevated neutrophil derived protease activity (EPA) and bacterial pathogenesis known as bacterial protease activity(BPA) in chronic wounds. Despite the evidence, however, clinicians report that incorporating diagnostics into every day practice is challenging and across the globe, they have requested guidance on their use. Methods and Recommendations: A panel of wound care experts, experienced with these tests, met to develop guidelines on their use in wound care practice. The consensus panel concluded that the clinician should test for BPA first. The panel maintained that the risk of invasive infection resulting from the presence of pathogenic bacteria was the greatest threat to the patient’s health. If the BPA test is negative, the panel recommended testing for EPA. In addition, it was suggested that if the wound failed to progress after the elevated BPA was treated and subsequent testing was negative for BPA, the clinician should consider testing for EPA. Conclusions: In this manuscript, the consensus panel suggests pathways for testing, treating, and retesting for EPA and BPA. The panel expects that following the algorithm has the potential to improve healing outcomes, result in more cost-effective use of advanced therapies, and improve antimicrobial stewardship by guiding antimicrobial use.