Prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy reduces the risk of surgical site infection after caesarean section in obese women: a pragmatic randomised clinical trial

N Hyldig, C A Vinter, M Kruse, O Mogensen, C Bille, J A Sorensen, R F Lamont, C Wu, L N Heidemann, M H Ibsen, J B Laursen, P G Ovesen, C Rorbye, M Tanvig, J S Joergensen, N Hyldig, C A Vinter, M Kruse, O Mogensen, C Bille, J A Sorensen, R F Lamont, C Wu, L N Heidemann, M H Ibsen, J B Laursen, P G Ovesen, C Rorbye, M Tanvig, J S Joergensen

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the reduction of surgical site infections by prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard postoperative dressings in obese women giving birth by caesarean section.

Design: Multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Five hospitals in Denmark.

Population: Obese women (prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 ) undergoing elective or emergency caesarean section.

Method: The participants were randomly assigned to incisional negative pressure wound therapy or a standard dressing after caesarean section and analysed by intention-to-treat. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was surgical site infection requiring antibiotic treatment within the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included wound exudate, dehiscence and health-related quality of life.

Results: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy was applied to 432 women and 444 women had a standard dressing. Demographics were similar between groups. Surgical site infection occurred in 20 (4.6%) women treated with incisional negative pressure wound therapy and in 41 (9.2%) women treated with a standard dressing (relative risk 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.84; number needed to treat 22; P = 0.007). The effect remained statistically significant when adjusted for BMI and other potential risk factors. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy significantly reduced wound exudate whereas no difference was found for dehiscence and quality of life between the two groups.

Conclusion: Prophylactic use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy reduced the risk of surgical site infection in obese women giving birth by caesarean section.

Tweetable abstract: RCT: prophylactic incisional NPWT versus standard dressings postcaesarean in 876 women significantly reduces the risk of SSI.

Keywords: Caesarean section; incisional negative pressure wound therapy; obesity; surgical site infection.

© 2018 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT diagram for study participation. *Women assessed for eligibility were not accounted for.

References

    1. Robinson HE, O'Connell CM, Joseph KS, McLeod NL. Maternal outcomes in pregnancies complicated by obesity. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:1357–64.
    1. Wloch C, Wilson J, Lamagni T, Harrington P, Charlett A, Sheridan E. Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in England: results from a multicentre cohort study. BJOG 2012;119:1324–33.
    1. Ward VP, Charlett A, Fagan J, Crawshaw SC. Enhanced surgical site infection surveillance following caesarean section: experience of a multicentre collaborative post‐discharge system. J Hosp Infect 2008;70:166–73.
    1. Opoien HK, Valbo A, Grinde‐Andersen A, Walberg M. Post‐cesarean surgical site infections according to CDC standards: rates and risk factors. A prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007;86:1097–102.
    1. Ye J. Adipose tissue vascularization: its role in chronic inflammation. Curr Diab Rep 2011;11:203–10.
    1. Allen DB, Maguire JJ, Mahdavian M, Wicke C, Marcocci L, Scheuenstuhl H, et al. Wound hypoxia and acidosis limit neutrophil bacterial killing mechanisms. Arch Surg 1997;132:991–6.
    1. Malmsjo M, Huddleston E, Martin R. Biological effects of a disposable, canisterless negative pressure wound therapy system. Eplasty 2014;14:e15.
    1. Hyldig N, Birke‐Sorensen H, Kruse M, Vinter C, Joergensen JS, Sorensen JA, et al. Meta‐analysis of negative‐pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions. Br J Surg 2016;103:477–86.
    1. Kilpadi DV, Cunningham MR. Evaluation of closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy (CIM): hematoma/seroma and involvement of the lymphatic system. Wound Repair Regen 2011;19:588–96.
    1. Wilkes RP, Kilpad DV, Zhao Y, Kazala R, McNulty A. Closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy (CIM): biomechanics. Surg Innov 2012;19:67–75.
    1. Smid MC, Dotters‐Katz SK, Grace M, Wright ST, Villers MS, Hardy‐Fairbanks A, et al. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy for obese women after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:969–78.
    1. Yu L, Kronen RJ, Simon LE, Stoll CRT, Colditz GA, Tuuli MG, et al. Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy for obese women after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;218:200–10 e1.
    1. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ‐5D‐5L compared to the EQ‐5D‐3L across eight patient groups: a multi‐country study. Qual Life Res 2013;22:1717–27.
    1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ‐5D‐5L: mapping the EQ‐5D‐5L to EQ‐5D‐3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15.
    1. Bliddal M, Broe A, Pottegard A, Olsen J, Langhoff‐Roos J. The Danish Medical Birth Register. Eur J Epidemiol 2018;33:27–36.
    1. Schmidt M, Schmidt SA, Sandegaard JL, Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Sorensen HT. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 2015;7:449–90.
    1. Pottegard A, Schmidt SAJ, Wallach‐Kildemoes H, Sorensen HT, Hallas J, Schmidt M. Data Resource Profile: The Danish National Prescription Registry. [1464‐3685 (Electronic)].
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:e1–37.
    1. Groenwold RH, Moons KG, Vandenbroucke JP. Randomized trials with missing outcome data: how to analyze and what to report. CMAJ 2014;186:1153–7.
    1. Neumayer L, Hosokawa P, Itani K, El‐Tamer M, Henderson WG, Khuri SF. Multivariable predictors of postoperative surgical site infection after general and vascular surgery: results from the patient safety in surgery study. J Am Coll Surg 2007;204:1178–87.
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, Hilden J, Brorson S. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub‐studies. Int J Epidemiol 2014;43:1272–83.
    1. Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non‐blinded outcome assessors. BMJ 2012;344:e1119.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley Online Library; 2008.
    1. World Health O rganization. Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
    1. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–40.
    1. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:271–4.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence . Surgical Site Infection: Prevention and Treatment of Surgical Site Infection. London: National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health; 2008.
    1. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committe. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:97–132; quiz 3‐4; discussion 96.
    1. Costantine MM, Rahman M, Ghulmiyah L, Byers BD, Longo M, Wen T, et al. Timing of perioperative antibiotics for cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199:301e1–6.
    1. Tita AT, Szychowski JM, Boggess K, Saade G, Longo S, Clark E, et al. Adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1231–41.
    1. Tuuli MG, Liu J, Stout MJ, Martin S, Cahill AG, Odibo AO, et al. A randomized trial comparing skin antiseptic agents at cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2016;374:647–55.
    1. Greif R, Akca O, Horn EP, Kurz A, Sessler DI. Supplemental perioperative oxygen to reduce the incidence of surgical‐wound infection. N Engl J Med 2000;342:161–7.
    1. Swift SH, Zimmerman MB, Hardy‐Fairbanks AJ. Effect of single‐use negative pressure wound therapy on postcesarean infections and wound complications for high‐risk patients. J Reprod Med 2015;60:211–8.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться