A pilot study exploring quality of life experienced by patients undergoing negative pressure wound therapy as part of their wound care treatment compared to patients receiving standard wound care

The use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) has been widely documented as a technique to help heal complex wounds. This paper presents the findings of a preliminary study which aimed to explore quality of life experienced by patients undergoing negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) as part of their wound care treatment in comparison to that of patients with a wound using traditional (standard) wound care therapies. A quasi-experimental study was undertaken, with patients treated in wound care/vascular clinics with chronic/acute wounds. Quality of life impact was measured using the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule and administered post consent at timed intervals. Our results identified that there were no real differences in quality of life scores recorded by patients over the 12 week period. Although there was no overall interaction between the therapies used for wound healing, NPWT did have an effect on social life: during the first 2 weeks of the application of therapy, patients in the NPWT group reported an increase in the social life domain. The authors conclude that true QoL can only be elicited if an accurate baseline is established or if data is collected over a long enough period to allow comparison of scores over time

Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds

BACKGROUND: Traumatic wounds (wounds caused by injury) range from abrasions and minor skin incisions or tears, to wounds with extensive tissue damage or loss as well as damage to bone and internal organs. Two key types of traumatic wounds considered in this review are those that damage soft tissue only and those that involve a broken bone, that is, open fractures. In some cases these wounds are left open and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used as a treatment. This medical device involves the application of a wound dressing through which negative pressure is applied and tissue fluid drawn away from the area. The treatment aims to support wound management, to prepare wounds for further surgery, to reduce the risk of infection and potentially to reduce time to healing (with or without surgical intervention). There are no systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of NPWT for traumatic wounds. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of NPWT for treating open traumatic wounds in people managed in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that used NPWT for open traumatic wounds involving either open fractures or soft tissue wounds. Wound healing, wound infection and adverse events were our primary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment and rated the certainty of the evidence. Data were presented and analysed separately for open fracture wounds and other open traumatic wounds (not involving a broken bone). MAIN RESULTS: Seven RCTs (1377 participants recruited) met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study sample sizes ranged from 40 to 586 participants. One study had three arms, which were all included in the review. Six studies compared NPWT at 125 mmHg with standard care: one of these studies did not report any relevant outcome data. One further study compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and NPWT 125mmHg with NPWT 75 mmHg.Open fracture wounds (four studies all comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care)One study (460 participants) comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care reported the proportions of wounds healed in each arm. At six weeks there was no clear difference between groups in the number of participants with a healed, open fracture wound: risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.27); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision.We pooled data on wound infection from four studies (596 participants). Follow-up varied between studies but was approximately 30 days. On average, it is uncertain whether NPWT at 125 mmHg reduces the risk of wound infection compared with standard care (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.13; I2 = 56%); very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Data from one study shows that there is probably no clear difference in health-related quality of life between participants treated with NPWT 125 mmHg and those treated with standard wound care (EQ-5D utility scores mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 364 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; physical component summary score of the short-form 12 instrument MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.08 to 3.08; 329 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision).Moderate-certainty evidence from one trial (460 participants) suggests that NPWT is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for open fractures in the UK. On average, NPWT was more costly and conferred few additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when compared with standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was GBP 267,910 and NPWT was shown to be unlikely to be cost effective at a range of cost-per-QALYs thresholds. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision.Other open traumatic wounds (two studies, one comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care and a three-arm study comparing NPWT 125 mmHg, NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care)Pooled data from two studies (509 participants) suggests no clear difference in risk of wound infection between open traumatic wounds treated with NPWT at 125 mmHg or standard care (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.One trial with 463 participants compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and with NPWT at 125 mmHg. Data on wound infection were reported for each comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.10; 463 participants) and uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and 125 mmHg (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.51; 251 participants. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence for no clear difference between NPWT and standard care on the proportion of wounds healed at six weeks for open fracture wounds. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT is not a cost-effective treatment for open fracture wounds. Moderate-certainty evidence means that the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in risk of wound infection, adverse events, time to closure or coverage surgery, pain or health-related quality of life between NPWT and standard care for any type of open traumatic wound

Major bleeding during negative pressure wound/V.A.C.® - therapy for postsurgical deep sternal wound infection - a critical appraisal

Negative-pressure wound therapy, commercially known as vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.®) therapy, has become one of the most popular (and efficacious) interim (prior to flap reconstruction) or definite methods of managing deep sternal wound infection. Complications such as profuse bleeding, which may occur during negative-pressure therapy but not necessarily due to it, are often attributed to a single factor and reported as such. However, despite the wealth of clinical experience internationally available, information regarding certain simple considerations is still lacking. Garnering information on all the factors that could possibly influence the outcome has become more difficult due to a (fortunate) decrease in the incidence of deep sternal wound infection. If more insight is to be gained from fewer clinical cases, then various potentially confounding factors should be fully disclosed before complications can be attributed to the technique itself or improvements to negative-pressure wound therapy for deep sternal wound infection can be accepted as evidence-based and the guidelines for its use adapted. The authors propose the adoption of a simple checklist in such cases

Predictive modelling of a novel anti-adhesion therapy to combat bacterial colonisation of burn wounds

As the development of new classes of antibiotics slows, bacterial resistance to existing antibiotics is becoming an increasing problem. A potential solution is to develop treatment strategies with an alternative mode of action. We consider one such strategy: anti-adhesion therapy. Whereas antibiotics act directly upon bacteria, either killing them or inhibiting their growth, anti-adhesion therapy impedes the binding of bacteria to host cells. This prevents bacteria from deploying their arsenal of virulence mechanisms, while simultaneously rendering them more susceptible to natural and artificial clearance. In this paper, we consider a particular form of anti-adhesion therapy, involving biomimetic multivalent adhesion molecule 7 coupled polystyrene microbeads, which competitively inhibit the binding of bacteria to host cells. We develop a mathematical model, formulated as a system of ordinary differential equations, to describe inhibitor treatment of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa burn wound infection in the rat. Benchmarking our model against in vivo data from an ongoing experimental programme, we use the model to explain bacteria population dynamics and to predict the efficacy of a range of treatment strategies, with the aim of improving treatment outcome. The model consists of two physical compartments: the host cells and the exudate. It is found that, when effective in reducing the bacterial burden, inhibitor treatment operates both by preventing bacteria from binding to the host cells and by reducing the flux of daughter cells from the host cells into the exudate. Our model predicts that inhibitor treatment cannot eliminate the bacterial burden when used in isolation; however, when combined with regular or continuous debridement of the exudate, elimination is theoretically possible. Lastly, we present ways to improve therapeutic efficacy, as predicted by our mathematical model

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers

Background Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a treatment option for pressure ulcers; a clear, current overview of the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding its use. Objectives To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. Search methods For this review, we searched the following databases in May 2015: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. Selection criteria Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Main results The review contains four studies with a total of 149 participants. Two studies compared NPWT with dressings; one study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments and one study compared NPWT with ’moist wound healing’. One study had a 24-week followup period, and two had a six-week follow-up period, the follow-up time was unclear for one study. Three of the four included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias from one or more ’Risk of bias’ domains and all evidence was deemed to be of very low quality. Only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing), but this had only 12 participants and there were very few events (only one participant healed in the study). There was little other useful data available from the included studies on positive outcomes such as wound healing or negative outcomes such as adverse events