A person running down the street mid-stride seen from the waist down

Microlyte Matrix in DFUs and Article Highlight: “STRIDE Protocol”

At Imbed Biosciences, patient stories are our most prized possession. In the following story, 8 patients with stalled diabetic foot ulcers were treated with Microlyte® Matrix, and all eight patients experienced favorable outcomes.


In a pilot study of Microlyte® Matrix in complex chronic wounds conducted at Mission Hospital (Asheville, NC), six patients with a total of 8 non-healing diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) were evaluated. Over an average period of 53 weeks, an estimated $132,000 was spent to unsuccessfully treat these 8 DFUs. In this report, we discuss the clinical and economic advantages of Microlyte Matrix treatment on 3 representative DFU cases.

Patient Presentation:

Patient 1: 68 y/o previously treated with a cast, Endoform®, Silvadene® Cream, and Silver Foam, non-healing for 48 weeks, costing approx. $13,000. Patient 2: 47 y/o male previously treated with Antibiotics, Medipore™, non-healing for 41 weeks, costing approx. $11,000. Patient 3: 56 y/o previously treated with Promogran® Prisma, Iodoflex*, non-healing for 61 weeks, costing approx. $17,000

Procedure & Treatment:

Microlyte® Matrix was applied weekly after debridement and followed by standard wound care protocol.

Clinical Outcome:

After Microlyte® Matrix treatment for an average of 5 weeks, approximately $12,000 was spent to treat all 8 DFU and resulted in average closure of almost 80%. This reflects a 90% reduction in cost-of-care to accomplish varying, but substantial, degrees of closure in non-healing wounds. Treatment for patients 1, 2 and 3 cost $2,400, $705 and $3,019, respectively. Furthermore, no pain during application or secondary dressing change was reported.


In addition to improving patient outcomes and quality of life, faster healing of DFUs will allow clinics to generate higher revenues through increased patient volume while decreasing the risk for nosocomial infections in the at-risk diabetic patient population. Furthermore, the Matrix is compatible with other adjunctive wound care therapies and traditional wound care regimens, which makes it easily adoptable by wound care clinics, thereby increasing overall treatment.

Article highlight:

Schmidt, Brian M., et al. “Strategies to reduce severe diabetic foot infections and complications during epidemics (STRIDE).” Journal of diabetes and its complications 34.11 (2020): 107691.

In just one week, Schmidt et al developed a triage system (S.T.R.I.D.E) to prevent an increase in DFU-mediated amputations despite logistical complications imposed by Covid-19. First, clinicians determined if patients were high risk (ex; infected DFU) medium risk (foot deformity) or low risk (diabetics actively in rehab). Second, clinicians were organized into groups conducting inpatient, outpatient or virtual visits with built-in rest/isolation periods. Third, patients identified as at-risk via telemedicine were sent to the in-patient or out-patient clinician depending on their risk category. Altogether, DFU amputation rates did not increase compared to similar time periods in pre-pandemic times. Good job, Michigan Medicine!

Link to full article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32883566/