• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

负压伤口治疗与先进湿性伤口治疗对糖尿病足溃疡患者伤口护理及医疗费用的评估。

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.

作者信息

Driver Vickie R, Blume Peter A

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs New England Health Care Division, Providence, RI.

出版信息

J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2014 Mar;104(2):147-53. doi: 10.7547/0003-0538-104.2.147.

DOI:10.7547/0003-0538-104.2.147
PMID:24725034
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.

摘要

背景

我们对一项随机对照试验中的患者进行了事后回顾性分析,以评估负压伤口治疗(NPWT;V.A.C. 治疗系统;美国KCI公司,得克萨斯州圣安东尼奥)与先进湿性伤口治疗(AMWT)在为期12周的治疗过程中治疗2级和3级糖尿病足伤口的总体成本。

方法

从患者记录中收集来自方案VAC2001 - 08的两个研究组(NPWT [n = 169]或AMWT [n = 166])的数据,并将其用作我们成本分析中计算的基础。

结果

共分析了324份患者记录(NPWT = 162;AMWT = 162)。接受NPWT治疗的患者伤口面积较基线中位数减少了85.0%,而接受AMWT治疗的患者减少了61.8%。NPWT组所有患者(无论伤口是否愈合)的总成本为1,941,472.07美元,而AMWT组为2,196,315.86美元。在实现伤口完全愈合的患者中,NPWT组每位患者的平均成本为10,172美元,而AMWT组为9,505美元;NPWT组每闭合1平方厘米伤口的中位数成本为1,227美元,AMWT组为1,695美元。在未实现伤口完全愈合的患者中,NPWT组每位患者的平均总伤口护理成本为13,262美元,而AMWT组为15,069美元。使用NPWT未能愈合的伤口每闭合1平方厘米的中位数成本为1,633美元,而AMWT组为2,927美元。

结论

我们的结果表明,在12周内未闭合的顽固性伤口中,与AMWT相比,NPWT具有更高的成本效益,原因是手术费用和医疗资源使用较低。

相似文献

1
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.负压伤口治疗与先进湿性伤口治疗对糖尿病足溃疡患者伤口护理及医疗费用的评估。
J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2014 Mar;104(2):147-53. doi: 10.7547/0003-0538-104.2.147.
2
Comparison of negative pressure wound therapy using vacuum-assisted closure with advanced moist wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.负压伤口治疗(使用真空辅助闭合)与先进湿性伤口治疗在糖尿病足溃疡治疗中的比较:一项多中心随机对照试验
Diabetes Care. 2008 Apr;31(4):631-6. doi: 10.2337/dc07-2196. Epub 2007 Dec 27.
3
Cost-effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy for postsurgical patients in long-term acute care.负压伤口治疗对长期急性护理中术后患者的成本效益
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2009 Mar;22(3):122-7. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000305452.79434.d9.
4
Comparison of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Using Vacuum-Assisted Closure with Advanced Moist Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcers.采用负压封闭引流的负压伤口治疗与高级湿性伤口治疗在糖尿病足溃疡治疗中的比较
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015 Nov;25(11):789-93.
5
Resource utilization and economic costs of care based on a randomized trial of vacuum-assisted closure therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds.基于负压封闭引流疗法治疗糖尿病足伤口随机试验的资源利用与护理经济成本
Am J Surg. 2008 Jun;195(6):782-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.06.023. Epub 2008 Mar 26.
6
Early intervention of negative pressure wound therapy using Vacuum-Assisted Closure in trauma patients: impact on hospital length of stay and cost.创伤患者使用负压封闭引流技术进行负压伤口治疗的早期干预:对住院时间和费用的影响。
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2009 Mar;22(3):128-32. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000305451.71811.d5.
7
Providing cost-effective treatment of hard-to-heal wounds in the community through use of NPWT.通过使用负压伤口治疗技术在社区中提供具有成本效益的难愈合伤口治疗。
Br J Community Nurs. 2015 Jun;Suppl Community Wound Care:S14, S16-20. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2015.20.Sup6.S14.
8
Comparison of health care costs and hospital readmission rates associated with negative pressure wound therapies.负压伤口治疗相关的医疗保健成本与医院再入院率的比较。
Wounds. 2015 Mar;27(3):63-72.
9
Negative pressure wound therapy compared with standard moist wound care on diabetic foot ulcers in real-life clinical practice: results of the German DiaFu-RCT.负压伤口疗法与标准湿性伤口护理在真实临床实践中对糖尿病足溃疡的比较:德国 DiaFu-RCT 的结果。
BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 24;10(3):e026345. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026345.
10
Early versus late initiation of negative pressure wound therapy: examining the impact on home care length of stay.负压伤口治疗的早期启动与晚期启动:探讨对家庭护理住院时间的影响。
Ostomy Wound Manage. 2008 Nov;54(11):48-53.

引用本文的文献

1
Polymicrobial Infections and Biofilms: Clinical Significance and Eradication Strategies.多重微生物感染与生物膜:临床意义及根除策略
Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Dec 1;11(12):1731. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11121731.
2
Consensus on the application of negative pressure wound therapy of diabetic foot wounds.糖尿病足伤口负压伤口治疗应用的共识
Burns Trauma. 2021 Jun 21;9:tkab018. doi: 10.1093/burnst/tkab018. eCollection 2021.
3
[National expert consensus on the application of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot wounds (2021 version)].
《负压伤口治疗在糖尿病足创面治疗中应用的全国专家共识(2021版)》
Zhonghua Shao Shang Za Zhi. 2021 Jun 10;37(6):508-518. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn.501120-20210107-00010.
4
Low-frequency ultrasound increase effectiveness of silver nanoparticles in a purulent wound model.低频超声提高了银纳米颗粒在化脓性伤口模型中的有效性。
Biomed Eng Lett. 2020 Oct 17;10(4):621-631. doi: 10.1007/s13534-020-00174-5. eCollection 2020 Nov.
5
Negative pressure wound therapy in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.负压伤口疗法在二期愈合伤口患者中的应用:一项随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 10;9(1):238. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01476-6.
6
Preoperative irrigation and vacuum sealing drainage with antibiotic-containing drainage fluid of foot and ankle wounds improves outcome of reconstructive skin flap surgery.足部和踝部伤口术前使用含抗生素的引流液进行冲洗和封闭负压引流可改善皮瓣重建手术的效果。
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Nov 20;14(1):374. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1418-0.
7
Chronic wound biofilms: diagnosis and therapeutic strategies.慢性创面生物膜:诊断与治疗策略。
Chin Med J (Engl). 2019 Nov 20;132(22):2737-2744. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000523.
8
Hydrogen-Peroxide-Generating Electrochemical Scaffold Eradicates Methicillin-Resistant Biofilms.产生过氧化氢的电化学支架可根除耐甲氧西林生物膜。
Glob Chall. 2019 Mar 6;3(6):1800101. doi: 10.1002/gch2.201800101. eCollection 2019 Jun.
9
Qingre Baidu mixture-induced effect of AI-2 on and biofilms in chronic and refractory wounds.清热败毒合剂对慢性难愈创面中AI-2及生物膜的影响
Exp Ther Med. 2019 May;17(5):3343-3350. doi: 10.3892/etm.2019.7391. Epub 2019 Mar 13.
10
Negative pressure wound therapy for treating foot wounds in people with diabetes mellitus.负压伤口治疗在糖尿病患者足部伤口治疗中的应用
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 17;10(10):CD010318. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010318.pub3.