Closed-incision negative pressure therapy (CINPT) with the Prevena system has been used and clinically evaluated in high-risk groin incisions to reduce the risk of postoperative complications. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis evaluating CINPT in femoral-popliteal bypass with prosthetic graft.
Methods
A literature review looking at prospective randomized trials determined the probabilities and outcomes for femoral-popliteal bypass with and without CINPT. Reported utility scores were used to estimate the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with a successful procedure and postoperative complications. Medicare current procedure terminology and diagnosis-related group codes were used to assess the costs for a successful surgery and associated complications. A decision analysis tree was constructed with rollback analysis to highlight the more cost-effective strategy. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) analysis was performed with a willingness to pay at $50,000. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the results, and to accommodate for the uncertainty in the literature.
Results
Femoral-popliteal bypass with CINPT is less costly ($40,138 vs $41,774) and more effective (6.14 vs 6.13) compared to without CINPT. This resulted in a negative ICER of −234,764.03, which favored CINPT, indicating a dominant strategy. In one-way sensitivity analysis, surgery without CINPT was more cost-effective if the probability of successful surgery falls below 84.9% or if the cost of CINPT exceeds $3139. Monte Carlo analysis showed a confidence of 99.07% that CINPT is more cost-effective.
Conclusions
Despite the added device cost of CINPT, it is cost-effective in vascular surgical operations using groin incisions.
De LissovoyGFraemanKHutchinsV, et al.Surgical site infection: Incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(5):387-397.
3.
LeeESSantilliSMOlsonMM, et al.Wound infection after infrainguinal bypass operations: Multivariate analysis of putative risk factors. Surg Infect. 2000;1:257-263.
4.
ExtonRJGallandRB. Major groin complications following the use of synthetic grafts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;34:188-190.
5.
BandykDF. Vascular surgical site infection: Risk factors and preventive measures. Semin Vasc Surg. 2008;21:119-123.
6.
EnginCPosaciogluHAyikGApaydinA. Management of vascular infection in the groin. Tex Heart Inst J. 2005;32:529-534.
7.
MatatovTReddyKNDoucetLD, et al.Experience with a new negative pressure incision management system in prevention of groin wound infection in vascular surgery patients. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(3):791-795.
MasdenDGoldsteinJEndaraM, et al.Negative pressure wound therapy for at-risk surgical closures in patients with multiple co-morbidities: A prospective randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2012;255:1043-1047.
10.
AnglimBO’ConnorHDalyS. Prevena, negative pressure wound therapy applied to closed Pfannenstiel incisions at time of cesarean section in patients deemed at high risk for wound infection. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2014;35:255-258.
11.
VargoD. Negative pressure wound therapy in the prevention of wound infection in high risk abdominal wound closures. Am J Surg. 2012;204:1021-1023.
12.
PloegAJLargenoyeJPVrancken PeetersMFV, et al.Wound complications at the groin after peripheral arterial surgery sparing the lymphatic tissue: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Clinical Surgery-International. 2009;197(6):747-751.
13.
SextonFHealyDKeelanS, et al.A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of negative-pressure wound therpay to standard therapy in the prevention of complications after vascular surgery. Int J Surg. 2020;76:94-100.
14.
LiHZXuXHWangDW, et al.Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25(11):1328-1338.
15.
Svensson-BjorkRZarroukMAsciuttoG, et al.Meta-analysis of negative pressure wound therapy of closed groin incisions in arterial surgery. Br J Surg. 2019;106:310-318. doi:10.1002/bjs.11100
16.
ForoutanjaziSJonczykMChenL, et al.Closed incision negative pressure therapy: Indications and adherence to protocol. Am Surg. 2021;87(5):760-764.
17.
SilvermanRPApostolidesJChatterjeeA, et al.The use of closed incision negative pressure therapy for incision and surrounding soft tissue management: Expert panel consensus recommendations. Int Wound J. 2021;19(3):643-655.
18.
SchererSPietramaggioriGMathewsJ, et al.The mechanism of action of vacuum-assisted closure device. Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery. 2008;122:786-797.
19.
SaxenaVHwangCHuangS, et al.Vacuum-assisted closure: Microdeformation of wounds and cell proliferation. Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery. 2004;114:1086-1096.
20.
KairinosNSolomonsMHudsonDA. The paradox of negative pressure wound therapy – in vitro studies. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2010;62:174-179.
21.
KwonJStaleyCMcCulloughM, et al.A randomized clinical trial evaluating negative pressure therapy to decrease vascular groin incision complications. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68(6):1744-1752.
22.
Svensson-BjorkRSahaSAcostaS, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis of negative pressure wound therapy dressings after open inguinal vascular surgery – the randomized INVIPS-Trial. J Tissue Viability. 2020;30(1):95-101.
23.
ClarkeREmbersonJFletcherA, et al.Life expectancy in relation to cardiovascular risk factors: 38 year follow-up of 19,000 men in the Whitehall study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3513.
24.
GombertABabilonMBarbatiME, et al.Closed incision negative pressure therapy reduces surgical site infections in vascular surgery: A prospective randomized trial (AIMS trial). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56:442-448.
25.
EngelhardtMRashadNAWillyC, et al.Closed-incision negative pressure therapy to reduce groin wound infections in vascular surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Int Wound J. 2018;15:327-332.
26.
LeeKMurphyPBIngvesMV, et al.A randomized clinical trial of negative pressure wound therapy for high-risk groin wounds in lower extremity revascularization. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:1814-1819.
27.
PlegerSPNinkNElzienM, et al.Reduction of groin wound complications in vascular surgery patients using closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT): A prospective, randomised, single-institution study. Int Wound J. 2018;15:75-83.
28.
SabatJTyagiSSroujiA, et al.Prophylactic negative-pressure therapy for femoral incision in vascular surgery: Preliminary results of a prospective, randomized trial. J Vasc Surg. 2016;63(6):94S-95S.
29.
ChatterjeeAMacariosDGriffinL, et al.. Cost-utility analysis: Sartorius flap versus negative pressure therapy for infected vascular groin graft management. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2015;3:e566.
30.
BlankMMPapageorgeMChenL, et al.Hidden bias in cost-analysis research: What is the prevalence of under-reporting cost perspective in the general surgical literature?J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(6):823-828
31.
BlankMMChenLPapageorgeM, et al.The underreporting of cost perspective in cost-analysis research: a systematic review of the plastic surgery literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2018;71(3):366-376.
32.
ChatterjeeAKosowskiTPyferB, et al.A cost-utility analysis comparing the sartorius versus the rectus femoris flap in the treatment of the infected vascular groin graft wound. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1707-1714.
33.
HusereauDDrummondMPetrouS, et al.Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BJOG. 2013;120:765-770.
34.
ScaliseACalamitaRTartaglioneC, et al.Improving wound healing and preventing surgical site complications of closed surgical incisions: A possible role of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. A systematic review of the literature. Int Wound J. 2016;13:1260-1281.
35.
RezkFAstraandHAcostaS. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy for the prevention of surgical site infection after open lower limb revascularization – Rationale and design of a multi-center randomized controlled trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications. 2019;16:100469.
Svensson-BjorkRZarroukMAsciuttoG, et al.Meta-analysis of negative pressure wound therapy of closed groin incisions in arterial surgery. BJS. 2019;106:310-318.
38.
HasselmannJBjorkJSvensson-BjorkRAcostaS. Inguinal vascular surgical wound protection by incisional negative pressure wound therapy. Ann Surg. 2020;271(1):48-53.
39.
BloomJAAsbanATianT, et al.A cost-utility analysis comparing immediate oncoplastic surgery to delayed oncoplastic surgery in smoking breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:2579-2588.
40.
KilicAArnaoutakisDJReifsnyderT, et al.Management of infected vascular grafts. Vasc Med. 2016;21(1):53-60.
41.
AsbanAHomsyCChenL, et al.A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with single stage implant reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer. Breast. 2018;41:159-164.
42.
ChatterjeeAAsbanAJonczykM, et al.A cost-utility analysis comparing large volume displacement oncoplastic surgery to mastectomy with free flap reconstruction in the treatment of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2019;218(3):597-604.
43.
ChatterjeeAIiAOAsbanA, et al.A cost-utility analysis comparing oncoplastic breast surgery to standard lumpectomy in large breasted women. Adv Breast Cancer Res. 2018;7(02):14.
44.
ChatterjeeAKrishnanNMRosenJM. Complex ventral hernia repair using components separation with or without biologic mesh: A cost-utility analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74(4):471-478.
45.
ChatterjeeAKrishnanNMRosenJM. Complex ventral hernia repair using components separation with or without synthetic mesh: A cost-utility analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(1):137-146.
46.
SekigamiYCharSMullenC, et al.Cost-effectiveness analysis: Lymph node transfer vs lymphovenous bypass for breast cancer-related lymphedema. J Am Coll Surg. 2021;232(6):837-845.
47.
JohnsonARAsbanAGranoffMD, et al.Is immediate lymphatic reconstruction cost-effective?Ann Surg. 2021;274(6):e581-e588.
