We have located links that may give you full text access.
A Retrospective Study to Evaluate Use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Patients Undergoing Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Grafting.
Ostomy/wound Management 2015 December
Bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting may be associated with a higher risk of postoperative deep sternal wound infection than monolateral internal thoracic artery grafting due to a limited blood supply to the thoracic chest wall. Because preliminary studies suggest negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) may reduce the risk of infection, a retrospective chart review of 129 patients who underwent BITA between February 2003 and October 2014 was conducted. Of those, 21 patients received NPWT for 5 days immediately following surgery and the incisions of 108 patients were covered with a conventional gauze dressing. Patient demographic and history variables as well as surgical procedure and outcome variables were abstracted. Outcome variables assessed included infection, need for transfusion, and length of hospital stay. The NPWT group was significantly younger (average age 55.9 ± 7.6 versus 60 ± 10.5 years, P = 0.049), had fewer urgent/emergent surgeries (4 [19%] versus 36 [33.3%], P = 0.247), and had significantly lower surgical risk scores (2.0 ± 2.3 versus 3.8 ± 2.8, P = 0.010). The rate of deep sternal wound infections was lower in the NPWT than in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (0% versus 5.6%, P = 0.336). Sternal instability was noted in 4 control patients, requiring wound re-exploration versus 0 in the NPWT group (3.7% versus 0%, P = 0.487). One (1) patient in the NPWT group had postoperative bleeding that required removal of the device. The rates of re-thoracotomy due to bleeding were 9.3% in the control compared to 4.8% in the NPWT group (P = 0.435), which translated into a greater need for blood transfusions (1.77 ± 3.4 units versus 0.3 3± 0.7 units, P = 0.056) and larger chest drainage volume (997.8 ± 710 mL versus 591.2 ± 346 mL, P = 0.012) in the control group. Hospital stay was longer in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (12 ± 8.8 days versus 9.4 ± 4.2 days, P = 0.184). These preliminary results are encouraging, and prospective, randomized, controlled clinical studies to compare the efficacy, effectiveness, and costeffectiveness of NPWT to other wound management modalities following cardiac surgery are warranted.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app