Back to all available

Therapeutic use of highly concentrated CO₂ for wound healing: bathing and non-bathing modalities in a systematic review and meta-analysis

dermatology
evidence-based-medicine
nursing
public-health

Abstract

Background:

Wound healing poses a persistent clinical challenge, especially in chronic wounds like diabetic foot ulcers and pressure injuries. Highly concentrated carbon dioxide (CO₂) therapy has emerged as a non-invasive approach to promote healing, but its effectiveness remains uncertain.

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of highly concentrated CO₂ therapy, via bathing and non-bathing methods, on wound healing outcomes.

Methods:

This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251035698). Six databases were searched, identifying 10,348 records. Five randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, involving participants with wounds treated using highly concentrated CO₂ through bathing or non-bathing methods. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Meta-analyses were conducted with fixed- or random-effects models, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

Results:

Five trials (N = 127 wounds/participants) were included. Meta-analysis of two trials indicated that CO₂ therapy increased the likelihood of complete ulcer healing (RR = 5.33; 95% CI 0.23–126.05; I² = 81.3%), though the evidence was very uncertain due to heterogeneity and imprecision. Another meta-analysis of two trials found moderate improvement in microvascular perfusion (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI 0.23–0.99; I² = 0%), rated as low certainty. Individual studies reported improvements in skin temperature, VEGF, TNF-α, and wound area reduction.

Conclusion:

Highly concentrated CO₂ therapy shows promise in enhancing wound healing. However, further large-scale, high-quality trials across diverse settings are needed to validate its clinical applicability.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].