Table 2.

Results of treatment with HVPC electrical stimulation in controlled clinical studies

Reference	Wound Type	Groups	Number of Patients	Average Wound Area Before Therapy (cm2)	Healed Area (%)	Closed Ulcers (%)
Kloth et al.18	PU	HVPC	9	4.08	100	100
		Sham HVPC	7	5.2	0 (ulcers increased by 8.9%)	0
Griffin et al.19	PU	HVPC	8	2.34	80	25
		Sham HVPC	9	2.71	52	22
Polak et al.21	VLU	HVPC+wet dressing	22	15.5	73.4	n/a
		SWC	20	12.2	46.9
Franek et al.22	VLU	HVPC+wet dressing	33	22.7	59.03	n/a
		SWC	32	23.9	34.73
		Unna's boot	14	10.5	24.76
Peters et al.23	DFU	HVPC+SWC	20	n/a	86.2	65
		Sham HVPC+SWC	20		71.4	35
Houghton et al.24	Leg ulcers	HVPC+SWC	14	6.39	44.3	n/a
		Sham HVPC+SWC	13	5.53	16.0
Franek et al.25	VLU	VS+HVPC	30	25.85	59.63	20.00
		VS+SWC	30	25.27	60.01	23.33
Franek et al.26	VLU	VS+HVPC	28	21.4	87.11	21.42
		VS+SWC	27	19.7	85.67	25.92
		CT+HVPC	28	18.6	61.54	21.42
		CT+SWC	27	19.3	44.11	7.40
Houghton et al.27	PU	HVPC+SWC	16	3.38	70.0	II stage—100%
						III–IV stage—33.3%
						At least 50% smaller—80%
		SWC	18	2.73	36.0	II stage—100%
						III–IV stage—7.1%
						At least 50% smaller—36%
Franek et al.28	PU	HVPC+SWC	26	4.54	88.90	n/a
		SWC	24	3.97	44.40	n/a

VLU, venous leg ulcer; DFU, diabetic foot ulcer.