A randomized clinical trial evaluating negative pressure therapy to decrease vascular groin incision complications.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular groin incision complications contribute significantly to patients' morbidity and rising health care costs. Negative pressure therapy over the closed incision decreases the infection rate in cardiac and orthopedic procedures. This study prospectively evaluated negative pressure therapy as a means to decrease wound complications and associated health care costs. METHODS: This was a randomized, prospective, single-institution study of 119 femoral incisions closed primarily after elective vascular surgery including both inflow (eg, aortofemoral) and outflow (eg, femoral-popliteal bypass) procedures. Incisions were categorized as high risk for wound complications on the basis of body mass index >30 kg/m2, pannus, reoperation, prosthetic graft, poor nutrition, immunosuppression, or hemoglobin A1c >8% and randomized 1:1 to standard gauze (n = 60) dressing vs negative pressure therapy (Prevena [Acelity, San Antonio, Tex], n = 59). Wound complication rate, length of stay (LOS), reoperation, readmission, and variable hospital costs were determined during 30 days. Statistical analysis was performed using χ2 test along with a two-sample unpaired t-test for continuous variables. RESULTS: There were no significant demographic differences (age, sex, risk factors for wound complication) between the two high-risk groups. In low-risk controls, the major wound complication rate was 4.8% (involving one infection in 21 incisions), resulting in a 3.8-day LOS, 4.8% reoperation, 4.8% readmission rate, and $17,599 in average variable cost. For high-risk controls, there was a significant increase in major wound complications to 25% (including all 12 infections in 60 incisions), LOS (10.6 days), reoperation (18.3%), readmission (16.7%), and costs ($36,537). Finally, negative pressure therapy significantly reduced major wound complications to 8.5% (including five of six infections in 59 incisions; P < .001), reoperation (8.5%; P < .05), and readmission (6.8%; P < .04) but not LOS (10.6 days). The average variable cost was reduced ($30,492), yielding an average savings of $6045 per patient (P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that negative pressure therapy significantly reduces the major wound complication, reoperation, and readmission rates for patients at high risk for groin wound complications. Furthermore, this therapy may lead to a reduction in hospital costs. Negative pressure therapy for all groin incisions considered at high risk for wound complications is recommended.

A new low-cost negative-pressure wound therapy versus a commercially available therapy device widely used to treat complex traumatic injuries: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES: Negative-pressure wound therapy has been widely adopted to reduce the complexity of treating a broad range of acute and chronic wounds. However, its cost is high. The objective of this study was to evaluate the following two different methods of negative-pressure wound therapy in terms of healing time: a low-cost method of negative-pressure wound therapy (a pressure stabilizer device connected to a hospital wall-vacuum system with a gauze-sealed dressing, USP) and the standard of care (vacuum-assisted closure, VAC). METHODS: This is a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority, unblinded trial. Patients admitted with complex injuries to a trauma center in a public referral hospital who were indicated for orthopedic surgery were randomized to a USP or VAC group. The primary outcome was the time required to achieve a "ready for surgery condition", which was defined as a wound bed with healthy granulation tissue and without necrosis or purulent secretion. Wound bed area contraction, granulation tissue growth and the direct costs of the dressings were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Variation in area and granulation tissue growth were essentially the same between the systems, and healing time was equal between the groups (p=0.379). In both systems, serial debridement increased wound area (p=0.934), and granulation tissue was also increased (p=0.408). The mean treatment cost was US$ 15.15 in the USP group and US$ 872.59 in the VAC group. CONCLUSIONS: For treating complex traumatic injuries, USP was non-inferior to and less expensive than VAC.

A new low-cost negative-pressure wound therapy versus a commercially available therapy device widely used to treat complex traumatic injuries: a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: Negative-pressure wound therapy has been widely adopted to reduce the complexity of treating a broad range of acute and chronic wounds. However, its cost is high. The objective of this study was to evaluate the following two different methods of negative-pressure wound therapy in terms of healing time: a low-cost method of negative-pressure wound therapy (a pressure stabilizer device connected to a hospital wall-vacuum system with a gauze-sealed dressing, USP) and the standard of care (vacuum-assisted closure, VAC). METHODS: This is a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority, unblinded trial. Patients admitted with complex injuries to a trauma center in a public referral hospital who were indicated for orthopedic surgery were randomized to a USP or VAC group. The primary outcome was the time required to achieve a "ready for surgery condition", which was defined as a wound bed with healthy granulation tissue and without necrosis or purulent secretion. Wound bed area contraction, granulation tissue growth and the direct costs of the dressings were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Variation in area and granulation tissue growth were essentially the same between the systems, and healing time was equal between the groups (p=0.379). In both systems, serial debridement increased wound area (p=0.934), and granulation tissue was also increased (p=0.408). The mean treatment cost was US$ 15.15 in the USP group and US$ 872.59 in the VAC group. CONCLUSIONS: For treating complex traumatic injuries, USP was non-inferior to and less expensive than VAC.

Bronchial fistula closure with negative pressure wound therapy: a feasible and cost-effective treatment.

Treatment of bronchial fistula (BF) after pulmonary lobectomy is a challenge. Often, patients require long hospital stay, have recurrent empyema and pneumonia, are susceptible to sepsis, often need broad-spectrum antibiotics, as well as various surgical approaches. With the advent and growing evidence of the benefits of negative pressure therapy (NPT), its use in some patients with BF has been reported with encouraging results concerning its feasibility and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the application of NPT as a resource for BF treatment and comparatively analyze the overall cost of treatment. RESUMO O tratamento de fístula brônquica (FB) após lobectomia pulmonar é um desafio. Muitas vezes, o paciente demanda longo tempo de internação, apresenta recidivas de empiema e pneumonia, pode evoluir para sepse, frequentemente necessita de antibioticoterapia de amplo espectro, bem como de várias abordagens cirúrgicas. Com o advento e acúmulo de evidências dos benefícios da terapia por pressão negativa (TPN), seu uso em alguns pacientes com FB tem sido relatado com resultados animadores relativos à sua viabilidade e ao seu custo-efetividade. O objetivo deste estudo foi demonstrar a aplicação de TPN como recurso para tratamento da FB e analisar comparativamente o custo global do seu tratamento.

Modern wound care for the poor: a randomized clinical trial comparing the vacuum system with conventional saline-soaked gauze dressings.

BACKGROUND: A clinical randomized trial was performed to determine whether a simple homemade wound vacuum-dressing system (HM-VAC) is a feasible alternative to the use of conventional saline-soaked gauze dressings (WET) for the treatment of complex wounds in a resource-poor hospital. METHODS: Forty patients were analyzed to compare the HM-VAC and the WET dressings. The HM-VAC was assembled with tools available in most operating room worldwide. The primary outcome measure was the time of complete wound healing. Additionally, the costs of both methods were calculated. RESULTS: The time required to achieve complete healing was 16 days in the HM-VAC group compared with 25 days in the WET group (P = .013). The HM-VAC costs US $360 per case, and the WET technique costs US $271 per case (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: The HM-VAC should be considered in underdeveloped countries to provide modern management for complex wounds because healing is significantly faster compared with conventional wound care. Although the HM-VAC is more costly than the conventional approach, it is probably affordable for most resource-poor hospitals.