Does Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Impact the Outcome for Patients With Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection Infected With Anaerobic Bacteria?

Background: A notable improvement in the treatment of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) is the development of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Clinicians are still debating whether NPWT is as successful as conventional wet-to-dry dressings at removing bacteria. Recent research has revealed potential oxygen deprivation effects of NPWT in underlying wound tissues, although clinical trials regarding the effects of reduced oxygen on anaerobic bacterial soft tissue infections remain noticeably lacking. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that NPWT-treated patients with NSTIs who were solely infected by anaerobic bacteria would have worse outcomes than those who were infected with other bacterial species. Patients and Methods: Our study included a retrospective examination of the 2008-2022 period of our Acute and Critical Care Surgery database. Patients who had been identified as having necrotizing fasciitis, Fournier gangrene, or gas gangrene and who had their conditions verified by positive wound cultures acquired during the initial debridement and subsequently received NPWT made up the study cohort. Comorbidities, surgical techniques, and clinical results were all covered by the data. Based on their wound infections, patients were divided into two groups: those with exclusively anaerobic NSTIs and those with different bacterial groups (such as polymicrobial and aerobic). Multiple regression, χ2 analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were among the analytical methods used. Results: One hundred twelve patients with NSTI who had received NPWT comprised the study cohort. Sixteen of these patients (14.3%) had NSTIs that were exclusively anaerobic, whereas the remaining 96 (85.7%) had NSTIs that were mixed aerobic, facultative, or polymicrobial. Between the two groups, there was no difference in the initial wound size. Patients with anaerobic NSTI who underwent NPWT showed a statistically significant increase in the number of debridements (3 [interquartile range {IQR},1-9] vs. 2 [IQR, 1-4]; p = 0.012) and an increased 100-day re-admission rate (37.5% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.012) when compared with patients with non-anaerobic NSTI. The 100-day re-admission rate increased three-fold in NPWT-treated anaerobic NSTIs, according to a logistic regression analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-12.44; p = 0.04). Conclusions: In contrast to patients with other bacterial strains, our data show that patients with NSTI treated with NPWT who only have anaerobic bacterial infections have a larger number of debridements and are much more likely to require re-admission within 100 days. We call for additional prospective studies to be conducted to identify additional risk factors and consider alternate treatment options for individuals with exclusively anaerobic NSTIs in light of these findings.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With and Without Instillation in Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections.

Background: Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are rare but deadly infections that require early and often extensive surgical debridement. After debridement, patients frequently have substantial morbidity because of large, open wounds. Hypothesis: Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation (NPWTi) results in higher wound closure rates compared with traditional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or wet to dry dressings (moist wound care dressing). Patients and Methods: A prospectively maintained Acute and Critical Care Surgery database spanning 2008-2018 was queried for patients with a diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis, Fournier gangrene, or gas gangrene. Data were collected on patient comorbidities, operative management, and clinical outcomes. Patients were stratified by use of moist wound care dressing, traditional NPWT, or NPWTi. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), χ2, and logistic regression. Results: During the 10-year study period, patients were treated for NSTI; 173 were managed with moist wound care dressing, 150 with NPWT, and 48 with NPWTi. Patients were similar in terms of demographics, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, and smoking rates. Overall, complication rates were not substantially different, but mortality was higher in the moist wound care dressing group (16.2% vs. 10.7% NPWT vs. 2.1% NPWTi; p = 0.02). In the moist wound care dressing group, 81.5% of patients had an open wound at discharge compared with 52.7% of the NPWT group and only 14.6% of the NPWTi group (p < 0.001). On multivariable regression, NPWTi was associated with closure rates five times higher than the NPWT group (odds ratio [OR], 5.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.40-11.61; p < 0.001) after controlling for smoking status, intravenous drug use, number of operations, and involvement of the most common region of the body. Conclusions: Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation is associated with higher rates of wound closure without increasing complication rates in patients with NSTI compared with traditional NPWT or moist wound care dressing. Although prospective studies are needed, this indicates the potential to improve patient quality of life through reduced pain and outpatient home health needs.

Immunohistochemistry as a reliable method for detection of BRAF-V600E mutation in melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current published literature.

BACKGROUND: The BRAF-V600E mutation is associated with tumor aggressiveness and poor prognosis in melanoma patients. Identification of this mutation is clinically important as we now have Food and Drug Administration-approved targeted therapies, such as BRAF and MEK inhibitors, which have been shown to retard disease progression in these patients. Detection of BRAF-V600E by genetic analysis using polymerase chain reaction is the gold standard method for melanoma cases. However, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using a VE1 antibody is rapidly emerging as a trustworthy method for the determination of mutation status in patients' specimens. Our objective in this study was to assess the reliability of IHC compared with genetic methods for successful identification of BRAF-V600E mutation in melanoma tissue specimens. METHODS: A literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for studies comparing IHC with genetic analysis for the detection of BRAF in melanoma patients published through May 28, 2015. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive, and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using a bivariate model. Logit estimates of sensitivity and specificity with their respective variances were used to plot a hierarchical receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q- and I-squared statistics. RESULTS: An initial literature search resulted in 287 articles. After two independent reviews and consensus-based discussion to resolve disparities, 21 studies involving a total of 1687 cases met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity of IHC for BRAF-V600E detection was 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI, 0.94-0.98), specificity 1.00; 95% CI (0.97-1.00), positive likelihood ratio 194.2; 95% CI (37.6-1003.3), negative likelihood ratio 0.04; 95% CI (0.02-0.07), and diagnostic odds ratio 5503 (1199-25,263), as compared with genetic analysis. A high heterogeneity was observed between these studies (Q value of 40.17 & I(2) = 95%; 95% CI (91-99, P < 0.001) which may be explained by studies using different cutoff values for labeling IHC as positive. High accuracy of IHC was depicted by area under the curve in the receiver operating characteristic curve which was 0.99; 95 % CI (0.98-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis demonstrates that IHC is highly sensitive and specific for the detection of BRAF-V600E in melanoma cases. IHC is likely to be useful in BRAF mutation detection because it is highly comparable with the genetic methods. Any negative or low staining cases may be selected to undergo genetic analysis based on other clinical and histopathologic features.