Project description:Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been used to promote wound healing in a variety of settings, including as an adjunct to silver-impregnated dressings in the acute management of paediatric burns. Fluid aspirated by the NPWT system represents a potentially insightful research matrix for understanding the burn wound microenvironment and the biochemical mechanisms of action of NPWT. The aim of this study was to characterise the proteome of wound fluid collected using NPWT from children with small-area thermal burns. Samples were obtained as part of a randomised controlled trial investigating the clinical efficacy of adjunctive NPWT. They were compared with blister fluid specimens from paediatric burn patients matched according to demographic and injury characteristics. Protein identification and quantification were performed via liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and sequential window acquisition of all theoretical mass spectra (SWATH) data-independent acquisition. Proteins and biological pathways which were unique or enriched in negative pressure fluid samples were evaluated using principal components, partial least squares-discriminant, and gene ontology enrichment analyses. Eight viable samples of NPWT fluid were collected and analysed with eight matched blister fluid samples. A total of 502 proteins were quantitatively profiled in the NPWT fluid, of which 444 (88.4%) were shared with blister fluid. Several proteins exhibited significant abundance differences between fluid types, with NPWT fluid showing a higher abundance of proteases matrix metalloprotease-9 and arginase-1, immune cell surface molecule low affinity immunoglobulin gamma Fc region receptor III-A, actin-binding protein filamin-A, plasma protein alpha-2-macroglobulin, and haemoglobin subunit alpha. The results lend support to the hypothesis that NPWT augments wound healing through the modulation of factors involved in the inflammatory response, granulation tissue synthesis, and extracellular matrix maintenance.

Project description:ImportanceNegative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an established treatment option, but there is no evidence of benefit for subcutaneous abdominal wound healing impairment (SAWHI).ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NPWT for SAWHI after surgery in clinical practice.Design, setting, and participantsThe multicenter, multinational, observer-blinded, randomized clinical SAWHI study enrolled patients between August 2, 2011, and January 31, 2018. The last follow-up date was June 11, 2018. The trial included 34 abdominal surgical departments of hospitals in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and 539 consecutive, compliant adult patients with SAWHI after surgery without fascia dehiscence were randomly assigned to the treatment arms in a 1:1 ratio stratified by study site and wound size using a centralized web-based tool. A total of 507 study participants (NPWT, 256; CWT, 251) were assessed for the primary end point in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population.InterventionsNegative pressure wound therapy and conventional wound treatment (CWT).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time until wound closure (delayed primary closure or by secondary intention) within 42 days. Safety analysis comprised the adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included wound closure rate, quality of life (SF-36), pain, and patient satisfaction.ResultsOf the 507 study participants included in the modified ITT population, 287 were men (56.6%) (NPWT, 155 [60.5%] and CWT, 132 [52.6%]) and 220 were women (43.4%) (NPWT, 101 [39.5%] and CWT 119 [47.4%]). The median (IQR) age of the participants was 66 (18) years in the NPWT arm and 66 (20) years in the CWT arm. Mean time to wound closure was significantly shorter in the NPWT arm (36.1 days) than in the CWT arm (39.1 days) (difference, 3.0 days; 95% CI 1.6-4.4; P < .001). Wound closure rate within 42 days was significantly higher with NPWT (35.9%) than with CWT (21.5%) (difference, 14.4%; 95% CI, 6.6%-22.2%; P < .001). In the therapy-compliant population, excluding study participants with unauthorized treatment changes (NPWT, 22; CWT, 50), the risk for wound-related AEs was higher in the NPWT arm (risk ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.99-2.35).Conclusions and relevanceNegative pressure wound therapy is an effective treatment option for SAWHI after surgery; however, it causes more wound-related AEs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01528033.

Project description:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) devices and NPWT with and without simultaneous irrigation in patients admitted to hospital with moderate and severe foot infections. Ninety patients were randomized in a 12-week prospective, randomized noninferiority trial to compare wound healing in patients with moderate and severe infected foot wounds treated with NPWT after surgery. Inclusion criteria included ABI > 0.5 or toe pressures >30 PVR/mmHg, >18 years of age and exclusion included active Charcot arthropathy, collagen vascular disease, HIV, and hypercoagulable state. We compared two different traditional devices, NPWT-K (KCI, VAC Ulta) and NPWT-C (Cardinal, PRO), and NPWT-I with saline irrigation (Cardinal, PRO). All patients had therapy delivered at 125 mmHg continuous pressure. In patients who received simultaneous saline irrigation (NPWT-I), the administration rate was 15 ml per hour. The primary outcome was the proportion of healed wounds in 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included surgical wound closure, number of surgeries, length of stay, and time to wound healing. Continuous data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Analysis of variance was used to compare continuous variables and chi-square to compare dichotomous variables with an alpha of 0.05. There were no differences in outcomes among NPWT-I, NPWT-C, and NPWT-K groups in proportion of healed wounds (63.3%, 50.0%, 46.7% p = 0.39), surgical wound closure (83.3%, 80.0%, 63.3%, p = 0.15), number of surgeries (2.0 ± 0.49, 2.4 ± 0.77, 2.4 ± 0.68, p = 0.06), length of stay (16.3 ± 15.7, 14.7 ± 7.4, 15.3 ± 10.5 days, p = 0.87), time to wound healing (46.2 ± 22.8, 40.9 ± 18.8, 45.9 ± 28.3 days, p = 0.78). We did not identify any significant differences in clinical outcomes or adverse events between patients treated with different NPWT devices or NPWT with and without irrigation.

Dataset Information

The Patient's Conceptions of Wound Treatment with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy.

Publications

The Patient's Conceptions of Wound Treatment with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets