Wounds1.com: Great Information, Real Community, Better Living.
 Main Page
 Wound News
Feature Story
Wounds Technology
Real Life Recoveries
 Education Center
Wound Assessment
Pressure Ulcer Center
Skin Care Guide
Nutrition Guide
Dr. Wayne Caputo  Uterus

Dr. Wayne Caputo:
Revolutionizing Treatment of Ulcers.
About Heroes
 Join the Discussion in  Our Forums
Wounds1 Forums
Ask an Expert
Locate a Burn Center
Reference Library
Video Library
 Bookmark Us
Search the Body1 Network
October 16, 2021  
FORUMS: Read-Only

Topic Title: Vacuum Therapy Approved For Medicare Reimbursement
Created On: 11/26/2002 11:47 AM
 02/20/2007 02:24 PM

Author Icon

Is anyone out there familiar with the new V1sta product from BlueSky? There is lots of buzz; however, i do not think that it passes the smell test to be "infringement free" from violating one or some of the KCI patents. I am afraid that the ALARM, as well as the digital display will cause litigation. It would not be fair to train my staff as well as other nurses on a product that will ultimately be pulled from circulation.

Is anyone using it? have you had success?

Any advice out there?
 05/28/2005 07:03 PM

Author Icon

Doctor Seagull:

As I understand, The Clevland Clinic is currently conducting a clinical trial of the Blue Sky V1 NPWT vacuum. It is also my understanding that they may be comparing the two systems (KCI/Blue Sky) in this trial. As the results will soon be available, the answers to your arguments will be available for everyone's review.

As to current evidence of the efficacy of the Blue Sky dressing system and advantages of the Blue Sky therapy:

1. Hundreds of case studies document its efficacy. (You can e-mail me for these studies in Powerpoint format.)
2. The July/August issue of the WOCN Journal documents major problems with sponge dressings and granulating tissue.
3. The much lower cost of the Blue Sky therapy enables patients (with orders for NPWT) who were "unplaceable" in nursing facilities to ACTUALLY receive this therapy.
4. Major insurance companies are adding the V1 to their approval lists so quickly it would be foolish to post a list that would be outdated in 2 weeks.
5. Contrary to your assertion, the FDA has cleared the V1 as a machine that: "is indicated for patients who would benefit from a suction device particularly as the device may promote wound healing..."

Considering that most of your observations are anecdotal and seem (frankly) emotional, I doubt that any of this will convince you. It is my hope that the clinicians at the Clevland Clinic and the market as a whole will provide you with the experiential objectivity you are looking for.

Finally, your anecdotal approach to this discussion piqued my interest in your professional credentials. If I might offer you some advice you may want to update your signatory credentials on your March posting here. As of todays date, neither the AMA, nor the American College of Surgeons has ever heard of you.

As this is a KCI sponsored site I doubt this post will remain here long. If my assumption is true, I will tell you now that I enjoyed our brief discussion.
AMA Search

American College of Surgeons
 04/30/2005 01:14 AM

Author Icon

It may SEEM to work as good as the KCI vac to you but in reality it does not. In addition I will not use the Bluesky product because no data currently exist that is compelling. Oh, I'm sorry do they not know about Class I evidence. You see sir, I don't have to try it because two other physicians bought the line of crap saying that it does not matter what you put inside the wound and as a result I got to wonderful consults. Horrible wounds that had been on this peice of crap Gomco rip off (Bluesky). Double Blind study, HA! They (Bluesky) would never be stupid enough to do a head to head study with the KCI product because it would conclude as the current class I evidence concludes that it is the only product that meets the Medicare/Medicaid guidelines as NPWT and is superior as it has been and will continue to be. I don't have to evaluate your product you see because nothing is wrong with the KCI vac. If I did have trouble I surely would not lower myself and subject my patients to the low levels of using a portable Gomco Suction Pump. You better save the money you are willing to spend on an evaluation (like it is coming out of your pocket, HA!)and spend on something more useful, like stock in KCI. I am sure if you contact KCI and ask them for a side by side comarison they would be more than happy to accomodate you however this Bluesky is to scared because they can not ignore the overwhelming evidence when it comes to true NPWT. Oh and by the way I don't drink Koolaid but if you don't believe that the foam plays an important role in the granulation of new tissue perhaps you need to go back to basic Biology and read up on Cell Division and what cells do under stress (Mitosis and Meiosis)because this is exactly what that Koolaid would prove to you. Oh, I forgot I'm sure you work for Bluesky so this is probably a bit over your head. Listen, weather we agree or disagree really does not matter. KCI and the vac system we use is here to stay. It is becoming standard of care in many institutions across the world not just in the US. If you like this Bluesky and it works for you, Great for you, but I know that as for the Surgeons and Physicians in my area we are happy with the KCI vac and do not want to change. Until this Bluesky can get a dressing that proves to be effective with the system than quite honestly it is not going to fly. Best of luck as we all face the challenges of treating complicated wounds. Dr. Greg Seagull, MD, FACS
 04/26/2005 09:51 PM

Author Icon

Dr. I have actually used this product and it seems to work just as good as The VAC. Have you used this product?, It doesn't sound like you have. I think maaybe you drank the Koolaid about the foam like many other physicians that have received Stock (falling Stock) from KCI. If you would like an evaluation or if you would like to perform a double blind study, I will call the company and pay for the products and one of there reps to control the Versatile side and you can get KCI to provide their unit and someone to control their side. Oh I forgot KCI will not do it!!!!! Because you are WRONG and they know it. Dan
 03/19/2005 04:07 AM

Author Icon

It figures that these comments would come from a rep. of this BlueSky. Ok! If you believe what this guy is telling you then I have some swampland to sell you in Florida. First of all you can modify how you suction the wound with the KCI wound vac. "That's real wound closure” What does he mean by this? The closure of a wound is the closure of a wound. Real??? . Are the results similar to the KCI Wound Vac? No they are not. As a matter of fact they don't have 1 single randomized controlled trial that proves it. The vac has more than 150 peer-reviewed articles, multiple randomized trials and over 40 textbook references. The Kremlin papers for the V1 are a joke. I hope everyone goes and reads them. If this is the best data they have I feel sorry for them. It took an extremely long time for these wounds to improve. Heck, moist gauze could have healed them in the time that it took this (V1) to work. Poor nutrition and just staring at the wound everyday would have probably been as effective. The problem I have with the comments that this gentleman has made is that he has only anecdotal evidence not scientific evidence to back up what he says. The case studies you have just are not compelling. I'm sorry! So is the V1 cost effective? I don't think it is because you see the most expensive solution is the one that does NOT work. This does not work like the KCI wound vac. NPWT? Look at Medicare’s definition. Yeah you don’t see it listed on the Bluesky website do you. Is the (V1) considered to be NPWT by Medicare? It is because they do not used a resilient open cell foam surface dressing that contains the sub atmospheric pressure at the wound site thereby promoting wound healing (www.cms.hhs.gov) Only the VAC has been verified by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as NPWT. If you want wound drainage then use the (V1). If you want NPWT, which actually promotes the healing of a wound, then use the VAC. The VAC is clinically effective and has been proven to decrease your length of stay, repetitive costly procedures and hospital readmits. This product has proven itself over and over again. I encourage anyone who is doubtful of what I am saying to do one thing. Go to your closest University Medical Center where all of our physicians of today and tomorrow are training and ask then what they use. (The VAC by KCI or the V1 by BlueSky) As far as patent infringements I thought this guy was a rep. not a lawyer. You have no idea what you are talking about. This product has numerous patens on it and the courts will decide this matter. By the way look up KCI's record in lawsuits. They have never lost and have been very successful in protecting their patents in the past. So you might be careful what you say since you did admit you are a rep for BlueSky. (I don’t work for them but I’m a rep) OK Dude! (The KCI wound vac -- real Negative Pressure Wound Therapy) Dr. Greg Seagull, MD, FACS
 05/27/2004 10:11 PM

Author Icon

It's kinda funny, when people talk about the BS-V1, wound vac literature, studies and clinical data is/are always used to support the claims of wound healing. Then as a clinician you're told that it doesn't matter what goes into the wound (4X4's, gauze, etc), to deliver the suction. Have you ever used the wound vac pack? Have you used both white sponge and black sponge? Have the noticed the different healing rates between those two sponges? Personally I think it does matter what goes into the wound. I'm no lawyer but I wouldn't think it infringes upon patents because it's wound suction, not wound healing. It doesn't infringe on a patent any more than an Ohio Suction or a wall suction setup does. What is the difference between the V1 and wall suction? kci gets a bad rap for whatever reason, but their product works and it's been proven over and over again. I'm tired of reading posts from people that say the V1 works as well. If that's truly the case I'd like to see an article, ANY article or study that supports that. Let me back up.....an article that it isolated to the V1, not the wound vac. It's just not out there. thank you.
 05/26/2004 11:40 AM

Author Icon

I can definitely help you obtain vacuum assisted wound therapy comparable to KCI's but at a much better cost. Please contact me regarding your needs.
 05/26/2004 11:38 AM

Author Icon

Vacuum assisted closure pressure reduction mattresses
 04/13/2004 11:19 PM

Author Icon

From what I know and have seen, the Versatile One (V1) is truly a device that allows a wound to close. The ability to modify how you suction the wound will actually let you close the wound without guaze or sponges inside the wound. That's real wound closure. The V1 will also become more cost effective as wound care nurses become comfortable with creating the suction chamber with in-house wound care dressings, therefore eliminating expensive wound kits. Does it work?- Absolutely. Are the results similar to the KCI Wound Vac?- Yes they are. Does it infringe on any patent laws?- No it does not. The V1 is a great product, contact Blue Sky Medical for your local representatives. (I do not work for Blue Sky but am a rep for them.)
 08/14/2003 05:13 PM

Author Icon

Has anyone used the new Bluesky device? Does it work? How does it compare to the VAC?
Home About Us Press Jobs Advertise With Us Contact Us
© 2021 Body1 All rights reserved.
Disclaimer: The information provided within this website is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for consultation with your physician or healthcare provider. The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the Owners and Sponsors of this site. By using this site you agree to indemnify, and hold the Owners and Sponsors harmless, from any disputes arising from content posted here-in.