Ravi K Bashyal, Richard Searle, Leo M Nherera, Adam Wright
{"title":"Effects of single-use negative pressure wound therapy on healthcare use: US analysis of a large claims database.","authors":"Ravi K Bashyal, Richard Searle, Leo M Nherera, Adam Wright","doi":"10.12968/jowc.2024.0339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the effect of two single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) devices on healthcare resource use (HCRU) and surgical site complications (SSCs) after orthopaedic and cardiovascular surgery.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patient data were collected from the US-based Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database between January 2017 and June 2022. Adult patients upon whom the -80mmHg or -125mmHg sNPWT device was used within predefined orthopaedic and cardiovascular surgical categories were included. The HCRU endpoints measured were index encounter length of stay (LoS), and cost at index encounter and at 30 and 90 days post-surgery. Clinical endpoints were also assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean index encounter LoS, and mean cost at index admission and at 30 and 90 days post-surgery were all significantly lower when the -80mmHg device was used, compared with the -125mmHg device, across orthopaedic and cardiovascular wounds (all p<0.0001). The odds ratio (OR) for dehiscence (30 days) was significantly lower when the -80mmHg device was used versus the -125mmHg device in orthopaedic (OR: 0.361; p≤0.05) and cardiovascular (OR: 0.422; p≤0.01) wounds. Differences between the devices were not found in superficial and deep surgical site infections or seroma for either orthopaedic or cardiovascular incisions (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The -80mmHg device was associated with significantly lower HCRU and likelihood of dehiscence after orthopaedic and cardiovascular surgery versus the -125mmHg device and there were no differences in other SSCs.</p>","PeriodicalId":17590,"journal":{"name":"Journal of wound care","volume":"34 8","pages":"555-562"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of wound care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/jowc.2024.0339","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To assess the effect of two single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) devices on healthcare resource use (HCRU) and surgical site complications (SSCs) after orthopaedic and cardiovascular surgery.
Method: Patient data were collected from the US-based Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database between January 2017 and June 2022. Adult patients upon whom the -80mmHg or -125mmHg sNPWT device was used within predefined orthopaedic and cardiovascular surgical categories were included. The HCRU endpoints measured were index encounter length of stay (LoS), and cost at index encounter and at 30 and 90 days post-surgery. Clinical endpoints were also assessed.
Results: The mean index encounter LoS, and mean cost at index admission and at 30 and 90 days post-surgery were all significantly lower when the -80mmHg device was used, compared with the -125mmHg device, across orthopaedic and cardiovascular wounds (all p<0.0001). The odds ratio (OR) for dehiscence (30 days) was significantly lower when the -80mmHg device was used versus the -125mmHg device in orthopaedic (OR: 0.361; p≤0.05) and cardiovascular (OR: 0.422; p≤0.01) wounds. Differences between the devices were not found in superficial and deep surgical site infections or seroma for either orthopaedic or cardiovascular incisions (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The -80mmHg device was associated with significantly lower HCRU and likelihood of dehiscence after orthopaedic and cardiovascular surgery versus the -125mmHg device and there were no differences in other SSCs.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Wound Care (JWC) is the definitive wound-care journal and the leading source of up-to-date research and clinical information on everything related to tissue viability. The journal was first launched in 1992 and aimed at catering to the needs of the multidisciplinary team. Published monthly, the journal’s international audience includes nurses, doctors and researchers specialising in wound management and tissue viability, as well as generalists wishing to enhance their practice.
In addition to cutting edge and state-of-the-art research and practice articles, JWC also covers topics related to wound-care management, education and novel therapies, as well as JWC cases supplements, a supplement dedicated solely to case reports and case series in wound care. All articles are rigorously peer-reviewed by a panel of international experts, comprised of clinicians, nurses and researchers.
Specifically, JWC publishes:
High quality evidence on all aspects of wound care, including leg ulcers, pressure ulcers, the diabetic foot, burns, surgical wounds, wound infection and more
The latest developments and innovations in wound care through both preclinical and preliminary clinical trials of potential new treatments worldwide
In-depth prospective studies of new treatment applications, as well as high-level research evidence on existing treatments
Clinical case studies providing information on how to deal with complex wounds
Comprehensive literature reviews on current concepts and practice, including cost-effectiveness
Updates on the activities of wound care societies around the world.