Topical Oxygen Therapy

LCD Information Document Information Source LCD ID N/A LCD ID L37873 Original ICD-9 LCD ID Not Applicable LCD Title Topical Oxygen Therapy Proposed LCD in Comment Period N/A Source Proposed LCD DL37873 Opens in a new window Original Effective Date For services performed on or after 05/06/2019 Revision Effective Date For services performed on or after 04/16/2026 Revision Ending Date N/A Retirement Date N/A Notice Period Start Date 03/21/2019 Notice Period End Date 05/05/2019 CPT codes, descriptions, and other data only are copyright 2025 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Fee schedules, relative value units, conversion factors and/or related components are not assigned by the AMA, are not part of CPT, and the AMA is not recommending their use. The AMA does not directly or indirectly practice medicine or dispense medical services. The AMA assumes no liability for data contained or not contained herein. CPT is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association. Current Dental Terminology © 2025 American Dental Association. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2026, the American Hospital Association, Chicago, Illinois. Reproduced with permission. No portion of the AHA copyrighted materials contained within this publication may be copied without the express written consent of the AHA. AHA copyrighted materials including the UB‐04 codes and descriptions may not be removed, copied, or utilized within any software, product, service, solution, or derivative work without the written consent of the AHA. If an entity wishes to utilize any AHA materials, please contact the AHA at ub04@aha.org or 312‐422‐3366. Making copies or utilizing the content of the UB‐04 Manual, including the codes and/or descriptions, for internal purposes, resale and/or to be used in any product or publication; creating any modified or derivative work of the UB‐04 Manual and/or codes and descriptions; and/or making any commercial use of UB‐04 Manual or any portion thereof, including the codes and/or descriptions, is only authorized with an express license from the American Hospital Association. The American Hospital Association (the "AHA") has not reviewed, and is not responsible for, the completeness or accuracy of any information contained in this material, nor was the AHA or any of its affiliates, involved in the preparation of this material, or the analysis of information provided in the material. The views and/or positions presented in the material do not necessarily represent the views of the AHA. CMS and its products and services are not endorsed by the AHA or any of its affiliates. Issue Issue Description This LCD outlines noncoverage for this service with specific details under Coverage Indications, Limitations and/or Medical Necessity. Issue - Explanation of Change Between Proposed LCD and Final LCD CMS National Coverage Policy Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, §1862(a)(1)(A) allows coverage and payment for only those services that are considered to be reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member. Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, §1862(a)(1)(D) no payment may be made for any expenses incurred for items or services in the case of clinical care items and services provided with respect to research and experimentation. 42 CFR §410.26(a)(2) defines direct supervision. 42 CFR §410.74(b) and (c) Physician assistants' services 42 CFR §410.75(c)(1) Nurse practitioners' services 42 CFR §410.76(b)(1) Clinical nurse specialists' services CMS Internet-Only Manual, Pub. 100-02, Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 6, §20.5.2 Coverage of Outpatient Therapeutic Services Incident to a Physician's Service Furnished on January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2019 CMS Internet-Only Manual, Pub. 100-03, Medicare National Coverage Determinations (NCD) Manual, Chapter 1, Part 1, §20.29 Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity Background After examining the evidence, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) responded to a reconsideration request to remove the coverage exclusion of continuous diffusion of oxygen therapy (CDO) from the National Coverage Determination (NCD) Manual and decided that no NCD was appropriate concerning the use of topical oxygen for the treatment of chronic wounds. CMS amended NCD 20.29 by removing Section C. In their decision, CMS allowed coverage of topical application of oxygen for the treatment of chronic wounds to be determined by the local contractors and Medicare coverage of topical oxygen. Definitions and Scope This is a non-coverage local coverage determination (LCD) for topical oxygen therapy (TOT). TOT administered to the open wound in small limb-encasing devices is not typically hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy, and its efficacy has not been established due to the lack of controlled clinical trials. In addition, in vitro evidence suggests that TOT does not increase tissue oxygen tension beyond the superficial dermis. Examples of TOT devices are TOPOX portable HBO extremity and sacral chambers (Jersey City, NJ), Oxyboot and Oxyhealer from GWR Medical, L.L.P. (Chadds Ford, PA). This A/B MAC considers TOT to be a method whereby a local supply of oxygen is applied to a wound (Dissemond, Kroger, Storck, Risse, & Engels, 2015). It is delivered by 1 of 2 techniques (Woo, Coutts, & Sibbbald, 2012). In the first, oxygen may be delivered intermittently through an airtight chamber or soft sided ‘bag’ that is sealed around a wound present on the trunk or limb of the body. The bag or chamber is filled with 100% oxygen at high flow rates (e.g., 10L /min) from an external source to pressures slightly above atmospheric (e.g., 1.004 – 1.013 atm abs) and is delivered to the patient on an intermittent dosing schedule (Feldmeier et al., 2005; Howard et al., 2013). In the past, this type of oxygen delivery was known by some as topical HBO therapy, a term that is less commonly used today due to the low pressures delivered (Brimson & Nigam, 2013). Topical oxygen can also be delivered to a wound when applied continuously by a tube supplying pure oxygen at a normobaric pressure and low flow rate (3-12 ml/hour) under an occlusive dressing (Howard et al., 2013). These devices have been variously termed transcutaneous oxygen, transdermal continuous oxygen therapy (TCOT), low flow oxygen, topical continuous oxygen therapy, continuous topical oxygen and CDO (Dissemond, Kroger, Storck, Risse, & Engels, 2015; Howard et al., 2013; Lowell, Nicklas, Weily, Johnson, & Lyons, 2009; Orsted et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2012). Neither intermittent nor continuous provision of topical oxygen is dependent on the systemic circulation reaching the wound, as is the case with HBO. However, because these systems directly apply oxygen to the wound site, it is thought by some that the oxygen can penetrate directly into the injured area, and therefore, improve healing of cutaneous lesions (Brimson & Nigam, 2013; Howard et al., 2013; Orsted et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2012). Typically, intermittent TOT treatments would be administered 4 to 5 days a week for approximately 90 minutes per session (Howard et al., 2013), though there can be other variations of dosaging noted in the clinical protocols. HBO must be provided in medically supervised environments; however, intermittent TOT may be provided in the home setting by a well-trained patient or caregiver. Though infrequent, side effects of HBO can be significant and include the possibility of pneumothorax, ear and sinus barotrauma, pulmonary edema, worsening of congestive heart failure, seizures and retinal damage (Howard et al., 2013). There are also significant concerns among some in the wound care community regarding TOT administered intermittently. For example, some believe that intermittent TOT may impede arterial or capillary circulation, inhibit angiogenesis, and decrease collagen synthesis and fibroblast proliferation; all circumstances which would delay or inhibit healing of a wound (Mutluoglu, Cakkalkurt, Uzun, & Aktas, 2015). TOT may not be appropriate for wounds covered in eschar or those that are deep and penetrating. Moreover, when used on open, exposed wound surfaces, TOT may cause desiccation of the area (Howard et al., 2013). TOT has been proposed in the treatment of skin ulcerations resulting from diabetes, venous stasis, post-surgical infections, gangrenous lesions, pressure ulcers/decubitus ulcers, infected residual limbs, skin grafts, burns and frostbite. The goal of topical continuous oxygen therapy is to provide an uninterrupted and continuous supply of oxygen to a moist wound. The dressing is designed such that the oxygen is supplied in a manner that most closely approximates the normal diffusion of oxygen in moist tissues, yet a rate sufficient to fuel the increased oxygen demands required in healing tissues. With this therapy, the dressing helps provide an environment for optimal wound healing while managing wound exudate levels, protecting against wound dehydration and protecting against external contamination. Contraindications to this wound therapy includes wounds with inadequate perfusion to support healing; ulcers due to acute thrombophlebitis; ulcers due to Raynaud’s disease; necrotic wounds covered with eschar or slough; wounds with fistulae or deep sinus tracts with unknown depth. The following are Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-approved TOT devices: EPIFLO TCOT (Ogenix) consists of a small, silent, disposable, oxygen concentrator and a long sterile cannula (tube). It is used with any fully occlusive sterile wound dressing to continuously blanket the wound with near 100% oxygen. The patient is free to ambulate and can continue with normal daily living activities while being treated 24 hours per day. EPIFLO can be worn near the wound beneath clothing without impairing its operation. EPIFLO extracts oxygen from the air, concentrates it to near 100%, and “pumps” the oxygen through the cannula to blanket the wound. The wound is covered with a fully occlusive dressing of the provider’s choice. The dressing does not inflate and the patient has no sensation of air movement. EPIFLO provides a silent, continuous, slow flow of oxygen (3 ml/hr for 15 days) that will not dry out the wound. TransCu O2 wound care device or EO2 system (EO2 Concepts) is a portable oxygen delivery system that provides a continuous flow of oxygen to a wound. Through a dressing attached to the device, oxygen is provided directly to the wound for 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Oxygen is an important part in the wound healing process. The EO2 system employs a TransCu O2 device, which uses fuel cell technology to continuously generate pure humidified oxygen at adjustable flow rates from 3-15 ml/hr and delivers it directly to the wound bed environment within the OxySpur dressing. The OxySpur Oxygen Diffusion Dressing is an all-in-one dressing for medium to high exudating wounds. Its design allows distribution of oxygen over the entire wound. O2Boot and O2Sacral (GWR Medical, Inc) are portable and 1-time use devices applied and secured to the body by a hypo-allergenic adhesive seal. The area surrounding the wound receives 100% oxygen at 1.03 atm for 90 min for 4 consecutive days, followed by 3 days without treatment. The weekly treatment regimen is self-administered in the patient’s home and continued as directed by the healthcare provider. Summary of Evidence The Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society issued the following policy statement on topical oxygen, often referred to as "topical hyperbaric oxygen therapy" (Feldmeier et al., 2005): "1. Topical oxygen should not be termed HBO since doing so either intentionally or unintentionally suggests that TOT is equivalent or even identical to HBO. Published documents reporting experience with topical oxygen should clearly state that topical oxygen not HBO is being employed. 2. Mechanisms of action or clinical study results for HBO cannot and should not be co-opted to support topical oxygen since HBO therapy and topical oxygen have different routes and probably efficiencies of entry into the wound and their physiology and biochemistry are necessarily different. 3. The application of topical oxygen cannot be recommended outside of a clinical trial at this time based on the volume and quality of scientific supporting evidence available, nor does the Society recommend third party payor reimbursement. 4. Before topical oxygen can be recommended as therapy for non-healing wounds, its application should be subjected to the same intense scientific scrutiny to which systemic hyperbaric oxygen has been held". Limb-specific TOT entails sealing an individual's arm or leg into an air-tight plastic container that is sealed with pliable gaskets and exposing the limb to pure oxygen greater than 1 atm of pressure. Much of the research on this form of therapy has centered on chronic wounds arising in individuals with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). However, there is currently insufficient evidence from routine clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the effectiveness of limb-specific TOT. In 2008, Banks et al. examined the effectiveness of the EPIFLO device as an adjunct treatment modality in chronic wound management. This study included 3 men with spinal cord injury (SCI), who each presented with a stage IV pressure ulcer in the pelvic region. They were treated with the EPIFLO device as an adjunct therapy. In Case 1, the patient was monitored for 9 weeks, whereas in Cases 2 and 3, the patients were monitored for 5 weeks. Healing was determined on a weekly basis by wound dimensions and volume, which were compared before and after the intervention. Comparison of pre- and post-treatment outcome measurements showed significant improvement with EPIFLO in each case. The authors concluded that EPIFLO seems to have had a positive effect on the healing rate of chronic pressure ulcers in individuals with SCI. The findings of this small case-series study need to be validated by well-designed studies. In 2008, Bakri et al. tested the hypothesis that local transdermal delivery of oxygen improves oxygenation in sternotomy wounds after cardiac surgery; the secondary hypothesis was that supplemental inspired oxygen improves sternal wound PsqO(2). After undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass, a total of 30 patients randomly received EPIFLO oxygen generators that provided oxygen at 6 ml/hr into an occlusive wound dressing, or identical-appearing inactive generators. PsqO(2) and temperature were measured in the wound approximately 5 mm below the skin surface. PsqO(2) and arterial oxygen (Pao(2)) were measured 1 hr after intensive care unit admission (Fio(2) = 60%) and on the 1st and 2nd post-operative mornings at Fio(2) of both 30% and 50% in random order. Data from 4 patients were excluded for technical reasons. Patient characteristics were similar in each group, as were type of surgery and peri-operative management. Increasing Fio(2) from 30% to 50% improved Pao(2) from 99 [84 to 116] to 149 [128 to 174] mm Hg (p < 0.001, mean [95% CI]) and sternal wound PsqO(2) from 23 [16 to 33] to 27 [19 to 38] mm Hg (p < 0.001). In contrast, local oxygen delivery did not improve tissue oxygenation: 24 [14 to 41] versus 25 [16 to 41] mm Hg (p = 0.88). The authors concluded that additional inspired oxygen improved Pao(2) and sternal wound PsqO(2) after cardiopulmonary bypass surgery, and may, consequently, reduce infection risk. However, oxygen insufflated locally into an occlusive dressing did not improve wound PsqO(2) and, therefore, does not appear to be useful clinically in cardiac surgery patients to reduce sternal wound infections. In 2017, Purvis et al. performed a retrospective chart review of records collected between January 1, 2007, and July 18, 2016, from male and female patients ranging in age from 4 years to 105 years. All wounds were at least 1 cm2 and were treated with at least 1 separate modality before treatment with GWR Medical’s single-use, disposable O2Bootor O2Sacral device, and then treated with O2Boot or O2Sacral device for a minimum of 2 weeks in compliance with the FDA-approved indications. The treatment was associated with an overall rate of 59.4% for a reduction in chronic wound size, while 41.6% of wounds had no healing. The overall amputation rate was 2.4% for wounds in this study. In 2009, Gordillo et al. reviewed the evidence including in vitro, preclinical data and clinical data regarding the use of TOT in the treatment of lower extremity wounds. RCTs are not yet reported and clearly necessary. The authors concluded the current body of evidence suggests that TOT may be considered as a second line of therapy for refractory wounds. In 2010, Schreml et al. noted that oxygen is a pre-requisite for successful wound healing due to the increased demand for reparative processes, such as cell proliferation, bacterial defense, angiogenesis and collagen synthesis. The author stated that even though the role of oxygen in wound healing is not yet completely understood, many experimental and clinical observations have shown wound healing to be impaired under hypoxia. However, this review did not provide any clinical data to support the use of TCOT for wound healing. In 2010, Blackman et al. examined the clinical efficacy of a pressurized TOT (TWO2) device in outpatients (n = 28) with severe DFUs referred for care to a community wound care clinic and evaluated ulcer reoccurrence rates after 24 months. A total of 17 patients received TWO2 5 times per week (60-min treatment, pressure cycles between 5 and 50 mb) and 11 selected a silver-containing dressing changed at least twice per week (control). Patient demographics did not differ between treatment groups, but wounds in the treatment group were more severe, perhaps as a result of selection bias. Ulcer duration was longer in the treatment (mean of 6.1 months, SD 5.8) than in the control group (mean of 3.2 months, SD 0.4) and mean baseline wound area was 4.1 cm2 (SD 4.3) in the treatment and 1.4 cm2 (SD 0.6) in the control group (p = 0.02). Fourteen of 17 ulcers (82.4 %) in the treatment group and 5 of 11 ulcers (45.5 %) in the control group healed after a median of 56 and 93 days, respectively (p = 0.04). No adverse events were observed and there was no re-occurrence at the ulcer site after 24 months' follow-up in either group. The authors noted that although the absence of randomization and blinding may have under- or over-estimated the treatment effect of either group, the significant differences in treatment outcomes confirmed the potential benefits of TWO2 in the management of difficult-to-heal DFUs. Moreover, they stated that clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness studies, as well as studies to elucidate the mechanisms of action of TWO2 are needed. In 2012, Woo et al. evaluated the effectiveness of TCOT on chronic wound healing in 9 patients. After 4 weeks of treatment, mean wound surface area and wound infection check-list scores were significantly reduced. Signs of bacterial damage were also reduced. The authors concluded that findings from this study suggested TCOT may be beneficial in promoting chronic wound healing. These preliminary findings from a small pilot study need to be validated by well-designed studies. In 2014, Brannick et al. evaluated the diagnostic workup and treatment of a patient with a history of venous insufficiency and a large, painful non-healing ulcer and the use of CDO therapy to facilitate healing. This case study involved a 53-year-old female. The initial lower extremity physical exam revealed lower extremity hyperpigmentation and hemosiderin deposition in the bilateral gaiter area. Full thickness ulceration to the level of the dermis was present in the medial right ankle at the level of the medial malleolus. The ulcer measured 6.7 cm x 5.3 cm. Hypergranulation tissue was present at the wound base. The wound was well circumscribed and irregularly shaped with erythematous borders. Active serous drainage was present. There was no odor, no purulence and no gross signs of infection. CDO therapy as a treatment modality was implemented using TransCu O2 EO2 Concepts at 10ml/hr followed by a 4 layer compression dressing. The patient’s ulcer pain ranged from 3/10 to 8/10 on the visual analog scale (VAS) throughout the 5-month duration of the ulcer, requiring the patient to take pain medications when needed. The patient reported a pain level of only 2/10 after 20 days of CDO treatment and did not need additional pain medication at that time. At the 20-day mark, the CDO therapy was temporarily discontinued, as the patient was leaving town for a holiday. The patient returned to the clinic 6 days later (day 26 since beginning continuous therapy) and related 10/10 pain and difficulty sleeping. CDO treatment was resumed. Three days after restarting the therapy, the patient demonstrated adequate pain control and discontinued taking narcotic pain medications. The wound measurements taken at day 54 of treatment were 3.6 cm x 1.3 cm with mild hypergranulation. Complete wound closure occurred in 79 days with 100% epithelialization over the hypergranulation tissue. The authors concluded the treatment and management of chronic wounds can often be challenging. Oxygen is necessary for both cellular metabolism and host defense. CDO is capable of delivering continuous oxygen without pressure and at a low flow rate to a chronic wound. In addition, this device does not compromise the normal dressings or patient mobility. This case study concludes that it demonstrates a successful use of CDO in healing a chronic painful large wound. However, causality cannot be concluded from this study; therefore, RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness of this therapy. In 2015, Niederauer et al. assessed the use of CDO therapy to sham therapy in the treatment of DFUs in a prospective randomized double-blind multicenter study. One hundred subjects were enrolled and randomized with DFUs, 79% male aged 58.3 +/- 12.1 years were to receive either active CDO therapy using an active CDO device, or an otherwise fully operational sham device that provided moist wound therapy (MWT) without delivering oxygen. Patients were followed to closure or 12 weeks, whichever was sooner. Patients, treating physicians and independent evaluators were blinded to the study arm. All patients received identical offloading, dressings and follow-up. There were no significant differences in assessed descriptive characteristics between the treatment arms (P > 0.5 for all). A significantly higher proportion of people healed in the active arm compared to sham (46% vs 22%, P = 0.02). This relative effect became greater in more chronic wounds (42.5% vs 13.5%, P = 0.006). Patients randomized to the active device experienced significantly faster rates of closure relative to the sham (P < 0.001). The authors concluded a significantly greater percentage and rate of healing in patients receiving CDO therapy compared to a sham device providing standard wound therapy. The study revealed that CDO therapy appears to have a similar or greater effect as the wound size increases. Furthermore, the relative effect of CDO therapy on more chronic wounds appears to be more pronounced as the wounds become more chronic. These results appear to indicate that with more chronicity and size, the greater the apparent effect. We look forward to further works that may confirm or build on these data. Analysis of Evidence (Rationale for Determination) Level of evidence Quality - Poor quality Strength of Recommendation Strength – Weak This A/B MAC evaluated relevant clinical evidence to determine whether or not the evidence is of sufficient quality to support a finding that an item or service falling within a benefit category is reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member under §1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act. The critical appraisal of the evidence enables determination as to what degree we are confident that: 1) the specific assessment questions can be answered conclusively; and 2) the intervention will improve health outcomes for beneficiaries. An improved health outcome is 1 of several considerations in determining whether an item or service is reasonable and necessary. Based on review of the peer-reviewed medical literature, the evidence includes a randomized comparative controlled trial and other studies cited. Although these study results may be promising in regard to TOT, also known as TCOT or CDO therapy as a treatment modality for including, but not limited to, chronic non-healing wounds, further randomized comparative controlled studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of this therapy. Currently there are no society guidelines that provide recommendations regarding the use of TOT. Furthermore, we can find no standard definition describing the technology adopted by medical societies. Lastly, we have not been able to identify a population of patients or wound characteristics that respond to TOT. The evidence is insufficient in determining the effects of this technology on net health outcomes. This A/B MAC has rendered the LCD for TOT as non-covered.

Background After examining the evidence, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) responded to a reconsideration request to remove the coverage exclusion of continuous diffusion of oxygen therapy (CDO) from the National Coverage Determination (NCD) Manual and decided that no NCD was appropriate concerning the use of topical oxygen for the treatment of chronic wounds. CMS amended NCD 20.29 by removing Section C. In their decision, CMS allowed coverage of topical application of oxygen for the treatment of chronic wounds to be determined by the local contractors and Medicare coverage of topical oxygen. Definitions and Scope This is a non-coverage local coverage determination (LCD) for topical oxygen therapy (TOT). TOT administered to the open wound in small limb-encasing devices is not typically hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy, and its efficacy has not been established due to the lack of controlled clinical trials. In addition, in vitro evidence suggests that TOT does not increase tissue oxygen tension beyond the superficial dermis. Examples of TOT devices are TOPOX portable HBO extremity and sacral chambers (Jersey City, NJ), Oxyboot and Oxyhealer from GWR Medical, L.L.P. (Chadds Ford, PA). This A/B MAC considers TOT to be a method whereby a local supply of oxygen is applied to a wound (Dissemond, Kroger, Storck, Risse, & Engels, 2015). It is delivered by 1 of 2 techniques (Woo, Coutts, & Sibbbald, 2012). In the first, oxygen may be delivered intermittently through an airtight chamber or soft sided ‘bag’ that is sealed around a wound present on the trunk or limb of the body. The bag or chamber is filled with 100% oxygen at high flow rates (e.g., 10L /min) from an external source to pressures slightly above atmospheric (e.g., 1.004 – 1.013 atm abs) and is delivered to the patient on an intermittent dosing schedule (Feldmeier et al., 2005; Howard et al., 2013). In the past, this type of oxygen delivery was known by some as topical HBO therapy, a term that is less commonly used today due to the low pressures delivered (Brimson & Nigam, 2013). Topical oxygen can also be delivered to a wound when applied continuously by a tube supplying pure oxygen at a normobaric pressure and low flow rate (3-12 ml/hour) under an occlusive dressing (Howard et al., 2013). These devices have been variously termed transcutaneous oxygen, transdermal continuous oxygen therapy (TCOT), low flow oxygen, topical continuous oxygen therapy, continuous topical oxygen and CDO (Dissemond, Kroger, Storck, Risse, & Engels, 2015; Howard et al., 2013; Lowell, Nicklas, Weily, Johnson, & Lyons, 2009; Orsted et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2012). Neither intermittent nor continuous provision of topical oxygen is dependent on the systemic circulation reaching the wound, as is the case with HBO. However, because these systems directly apply oxygen to the wound site, it is thought by some that the oxygen can penetrate directly into the injured area, and therefore, improve healing of cutaneous lesions (Brimson & Nigam, 2013; Howard et al., 2013; Orsted et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2012). Typically, intermittent TOT treatments would be administered 4 to 5 days a week for approximately 90 minutes per session (Howard et al., 2013), though there can be other variations of dosaging noted in the clinical protocols. HBO must be provided in medically supervised environments; however, intermittent TOT may be provided in the home setting by a well-trained patient or caregiver. Though infrequent, side effects of HBO can be significant and include the possibility of pneumothorax, ear and sinus barotrauma, pulmonary edema, worsening of congestive heart failure, seizures and retinal damage (Howard et al., 2013). There are also significant concerns among some in the wound care community regarding TOT administered intermittently. For example, some believe that intermittent TOT may impede arterial or capillary circulation, inhibit angiogenesis, and decrease collagen synthesis and fibroblast proliferation; all circumstances which would delay or inhibit healing of a wound (Mutluoglu, Cakkalkurt, Uzun, & Aktas, 2015). TOT may not be appropriate for wounds covered in eschar or those that are deep and penetrating. Moreover, when used on open, exposed wound surfaces, TOT may cause desiccation of the area (Howard et al., 2013). TOT has been proposed in the treatment of skin ulcerations resulting from diabetes, venous stasis, post-surgical infections, gangrenous lesions, pressure ulcers/decubitus ulcers, infected residual limbs, skin grafts, burns and frostbite. The goal of topical continuous oxygen therapy is to provide an uninterrupted and continuous supply of oxygen to a moist wound. The dressing is designed such that the oxygen is supplied in a manner that most closely approximates the normal diffusion of oxygen in moist tissues, yet a rate sufficient to fuel the increased oxygen demands required in healing tissues. With this therapy, the dressing helps provide an environment for optimal wound healing while managing wound exudate levels, protecting against wound dehydration and protecting against external contamination. Contraindications to this wound therapy includes wounds with inadequate perfusion to support healing; ulcers due to acute thrombophlebitis; ulcers due to Raynaud’s disease; necrotic wounds covered with eschar or slough; wounds with fistulae or deep sinus tracts with unknown depth. The following are Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-approved TOT devices: EPIFLO TCOT (Ogenix) consists of a small, silent, disposable, oxygen concentrator and a long sterile cannula (tube). It is used with any fully occlusive sterile wound dressing to continuously blanket the wound with near 100% oxygen. The patient is free to ambulate and can continue with normal daily living activities while being treated 24 hours per day. EPIFLO can be worn near the wound beneath clothing without impairing its operation. EPIFLO extracts oxygen from the air, concentrates it to near 100%, and “pumps” the oxygen through the cannula to blanket the wound. The wound is covered with a fully occlusive dressing of the provider’s choice. The dressing does not inflate and the patient has no sensation of air movement. EPIFLO provides a silent, continuous, slow flow of oxygen (3 ml/hr for 15 days) that will not dry out the wound. TransCu O2 wound care device or EO 2 system (EO2 Concepts) is a portable oxygen delivery system that provides a continuous flow of oxygen to a wound. Through a dressing attached to the device, oxygen is provided directly to the wound for 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Oxygen is an important part in the wound healing process. The EO 2 system employs a TransCu O2 device, which uses fuel cell technology to continuously generate pure humidified oxygen at adjustable flow rates from 3-15 ml/hr and delivers it directly to the wound bed environment within the OxySpur dressing. The OxySpur Oxygen Diffusion Dressing is an all-in-one dressing for medium to high exudating wounds. Its design allows distribution of oxygen over the entire wound. O2Boot and O2Sacral (GWR Medical, Inc) are portable and 1-time use devices applied and secured to the body by a hypo-allergenic adhesive seal. The area surrounding the wound receives 100% oxygen at 1.03 atm for 90 min for 4 consecutive days, followed by 3 days without treatment. The weekly treatment regimen is self-administered in the patient’s home and continued as directed by the healthcare provider.