» Articles » PMID: 24725034

Evaluation of Wound Care and Health-care Use Costs in Patients with Diabetic Foot Ulcers Treated with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Advanced Moist Wound Therapy

Overview
Date 2014 Apr 15
PMID 24725034
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: We conducted a post-hoc retrospective analysis of patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial to evaluate overall costs of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT; V.A.C. Therapy; KCI USA, Inc, San Antonio, Texas) versus advanced moist wound therapy (AMWT) in treating grade 2 and 3 diabetic foot wounds during a 12-week therapy course.

Methods: Data from two study arms (NPWT [n = 169] or AMWT [n = 166]) originating from Protocol VAC2001-08 were collected from patient records and used as the basis of the calculations performed in our cost analysis.

Results: A total of 324 patient records (NPWT = 162; AMWT = 162) were analyzed. There was a median wound area reduction of 85.0% from baseline in patients treated with NPWT compared to a 61.8% reduction in those treated with AMWT. The total cost for all patients, regardless of closure, was $1,941,472.07 in the NPWT group compared to $2,196,315.86 in the AMWT group. In patients who achieved complete wound closure, the mean cost per patient in the NPWT group was $10,172 compared to $9,505 in the AMWT group; the median cost per 1 cm(2) of closure was $1,227 with NPWT and $1,695 with AMWT. In patients who did not achieve complete wound closure, the mean total wound care cost per patient in the NPWT group was $13,262, compared to $15,069 in the AMWT group. The median cost to close 1 cm(2) in wounds that didn't heal using NPWT was $1,633, compared to $2,927 with AMWT.

Conclusions: Our results show greater cost effectiveness with NPWT versus AMWT in recalcitrant wounds that didn't close during a 12-week period, due to lower expenditures on procedures and use of health-care resources.

Citing Articles

Polymicrobial Infections and Biofilms: Clinical Significance and Eradication Strategies.

Anju V, Busi S, Imchen M, Kumavath R, Mohan M, Salim S Antibiotics (Basel). 2022; 11(12).

PMID: 36551388 PMC: 9774821. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11121731.


Consensus on the application of negative pressure wound therapy of diabetic foot wounds.

Ji S, Liu X, Huang J, Bao J, Chen Z, Han C Burns Trauma. 2021; 9:tkab018.

PMID: 34212064 PMC: 8240517. DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkab018.


Low-frequency ultrasound increase effectiveness of silver nanoparticles in a purulent wound model.

Myronov P, Bugaiov V, Holubnycha V, Sikora V, Deineka V, Lyndin M Biomed Eng Lett. 2020; 10(4):621-631.

PMID: 33194252 PMC: 7655885. DOI: 10.1007/s13534-020-00174-5.


Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Zens Y, Barth M, Bucher H, Dreck K, Felsch M, Gross W Syst Rev. 2020; 9(1):238.

PMID: 33038929 PMC: 7548038. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01476-6.


Preoperative irrigation and vacuum sealing drainage with antibiotic-containing drainage fluid of foot and ankle wounds improves outcome of reconstructive skin flap surgery.

Gao X, Yin H, Sun J J Orthop Surg Res. 2019; 14(1):374.

PMID: 31747959 PMC: 6869274. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1418-0.