Cost‐effectiveness analysis of single‐use negative pressure wound therapy dressings (sNPWT) to reduce surgical site complications (SSC) in routine primary hip and knee replacements

• Published in: Wound repair and regeneration Vol. 25; no. 3; pp. 474 - 482
• Main Authors: Nherera, Leo M., Trueman, Paul, Karlakki, Sudheer L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.05.2017
• Subjects: Aged; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - economics; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - economics; Bandages - economics; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy - economics; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy - utilization; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Surgical Wound Infection - economics; Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing - physiology
• ISSN: 1067-1927; 1524-475X
• DOI: 10.1111/wrr.12530

We sought to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of single‐use negative pressure wound therapy in patients undergoing primary hip and knee replacements using effectiveness data from a recently completed non‐blinded randomized controlled trial. A decision analytic model was developed from UK National Health Service perspective using data from a single‐centre trial. 220 patients were randomized to treatment with either single‐use negative pressure wound therapy or standard care i.e., film dressings of clinician choice and followed for 6 weeks. Outcomes included dressing changes, length of stay, surgical site complications, cost and quality adjusted life years. The randomized controlled trial reported a reduction in dressing changes (p = 0.002), SSC (p = 0.06) and LOS (p = 0.07) in favor of single‐use negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard care. The model estimated 0.116 and 0.115 QALY gained, 0.98 and 0.92 complications avoided for single‐use negative pressure wound therapy and standard care, respectively. The cost/patient was £5,602 ($7,954) and £6,713 ($9,559) for single‐use negative pressure wound therapy and standard care respectively resulting in cost‐saving of £1,132 ($1,607) in favor of single‐use negative pressure wound therapy. Greater savings were observed in subgroups of higher risk patients with BMI ≥ 35 and ASA ≥ 3 i.e., £7,955 ($11,296) and £7,248 ($10,293), respectively. The findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, single‐use negative pressure wound therapy can be considered a cost saving intervention to reduce surgical site complications following primary hip and knee replacements compared with standard care. Providers should consider targeting therapy to those patients at elevated risk of surgical site complications to maximize efficiency.