Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT07050667

Treatment of Chronic Wounds With Cold Plasma -Plasma Care® vs. Placebo

Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the wound healing effects of plasma care®, a cold atmospheric plasma device, in patients with chronic wounds.

Method: A prospective, multicenter, two-arm, randomized, single-blind clinical trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of plasma care® versus placebo, both combined with best practice wound care.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–95 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

LKH Bregenz, Bregenz, Austria

Loading trial locations.

About this study

Chronic wounds present a growing global health challenge, significantly affecting patients' quality of life and imposing high treatment costs. Despite advances in wound care, such as bioactive dressings and specialized medical personnel, effective treatment remains difficult due to the complexity of the wounds and underlying conditions.

Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) has recently emerged as a promising treatment. CAP is created by ionizing gas with strong electric fields, producing reactive species that stimulate human cell regeneration while also exhibiting strong antibacterial and antifungal effects-even against antibiotic-resistant strains. This dual action makes CAP especially useful for chronic wounds, which are prone to infections.

CAP also benefits wound healing by lowering wound pH. Chronic wounds often have an alkaline environment conducive to bacterial growth, but CAP shifts the pH toward more acidic levels, supporting cell function and antibacterial activity.

Clinical studies have shown CAP significantly improves wound healing by promoting granulation tissue formation, reducing wound size and infection, and alleviating symptoms like redness and itching. CAP has also proven safe, with no mutagenic effects on healthy cells.

Different technologies exist to generate CAP, including Dielectric Barrier Discharge (DBD), Plasma Jet, and Surface Micro Discharge (SMD). The plasma care® device used in this study is based on SMD technology, allowing mobile, gas-free use to treat areas up to 13 cm², with treatment dose determined by application duration.

This study aims to evaluate whether plasma care® provides significantly better healing outcomes in chronic wounds of various types compared to placebo treatment. It also seeks to understand the impact of CAP on wound healing factors such as infection control, pH reduction, and exudate management, alongside patient experiences like pain and tolerability. If successful, this study could establish plasma care® as a valuable new option in chronic wound therapy.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age between 18 and 95 years at the time of consent
  • Presence of chronic wounds of any origin and wound phase (Includes locally infected wounds)
  • Wound size up to 20 x 10 cm (If multiple wounds are present, one wound is designated as the study wound)

Exclusion criteria

  • Pregnant and breastfeeding women
  • Patients on ongoing systemic antibiotic therapy or who received antibiotics within 1 week prior to study start
  • Patients who participated in another study within one month prior to this study
  • Patients with acute wounds
  • Wounds with visible tendons and bones
  • Wounds with more than 30% dry necrosis
  • Allergy or intolerance to cold plasma
  • Patients with wounds covered by primary or secondary dressings

Treatment and study plan

Cold Atmospheric Plasma

Device

Treatment of chronic wounds with cold plasma

Placebo treatment

Device

Treatment of chronic wounds with the placebo device

Primary outcomes

  1. Wound area at the end of the study

    Time frame: 42 days

    Size of the wound area (absolute) in cm2

  2. Size and time course of the wound area at the end of the study

    Time frame: 42 days

    Average time course in size (absolute) of the wound area in cm2 per visit

  3. Percentage change in wound area at the end of the study

    Time frame: 42 days

    Wound area as a percentage (from baseline)

  4. Dynamics of the percentage change in wound area from baseline

    Time frame: 42 days

    Average time course of the percentage in wound area (compared to the initial value)

Secondary outcomes

  1. pH value

    Time frame: 42 days

    pH measurement by pH meter

  2. Pain Score

    Time frame: 42 days

    Pain as measured by the VAS Score (1 - 10)

  3. Infection Score

    Time frame: 42 days

    Infection, measured by the PGA - Physician Global Assessment Score ranging from 0 (no signs of infection) to 4 (maximal signs of infection); 1-4 is considered infected

  4. Tolerability of treatment

    Time frame: 42 days

    no problem (e.g. no maceration, deterioration of the wound, blisters) new development/intensification of erythema (maceration, blisters, exudate congestion)

  5. Subjective sensation

    Time frame: 42 days

    Subjective sensation as given by the patient: 1 (pleasant feeling), 2 (no specific sensation), 3 (unpleasant), 4 (very unpleasant)

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Terraplasma Medical GmbH

Industry

Registry information

Official study title

Treatment of Chronic Wounds With Cold Plasma -Plasma Care® vs. Placebo: a Multicenter, Two-arm, Randomized, Single-blind, Prospective, Clinical Study

Acronym: SUPCAP

Important dates

Study start
2023
Primary completion
2024
Study completion
2024
First posted
Jul 3, 2025
Registry last updated
Jul 3, 2025

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.