Does Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Impact the Outcome for Patients With Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection Infected With Anaerobic Bacteria?

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES Surgical infections Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.1089/sur.2023.300
Hussain Afzal, Erin Dawson, Ricardo Fonseca, Melissa Canas, Leonardo Diaz, Alejandro De Filippis, Kelly M Bochicchio, Grant V Bochicchio
{"title":"Does Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Impact the Outcome for Patients With Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection Infected With Anaerobic Bacteria?","authors":"Hussain Afzal, Erin Dawson, Ricardo Fonseca, Melissa Canas, Leonardo Diaz, Alejandro De Filippis, Kelly M Bochicchio, Grant V Bochicchio","doi":"10.1089/sur.2023.300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> A notable improvement in the treatment of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) is the development of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Clinicians are still debating whether NPWT is as successful as conventional wet-to-dry dressings at removing bacteria. Recent research has revealed potential oxygen deprivation effects of NPWT in underlying wound tissues, although clinical trials regarding the effects of reduced oxygen on anaerobic bacterial soft tissue infections remain noticeably lacking. <b><i>Hypothesis:</i></b> We hypothesized that NPWT-treated patients with NSTIs who were solely infected by anaerobic bacteria would have worse outcomes than those who were infected with other bacterial species<b>.</b> <b><i>Patients and Methods:</i></b> Our study included a retrospective examination of the 2008-2022 period of our Acute and Critical Care Surgery database. Patients who had been identified as having necrotizing fasciitis, Fournier gangrene, or gas gangrene and who had their conditions verified by positive wound cultures acquired during the initial debridement and subsequently received NPWT made up the study cohort. Comorbidities, surgical techniques, and clinical results were all covered by the data. Based on their wound infections, patients were divided into two groups: those with exclusively anaerobic NSTIs and those with different bacterial groups (such as polymicrobial and aerobic). Multiple regression, χ<sup>2</sup> analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were among the analytical methods used. <b><i>Results:</i></b> One hundred twelve patients with NSTI who had received NPWT comprised the study cohort. Sixteen of these patients (14.3%) had NSTIs that were exclusively anaerobic, whereas the remaining 96 (85.7%) had NSTIs that were mixed aerobic, facultative, or polymicrobial. Between the two groups, there was no difference in the initial wound size. Patients with anaerobic NSTI who underwent NPWT showed a statistically significant increase in the number of debridements (3 [interquartile range {IQR},1-9] vs. 2 [IQR, 1-4]; p = 0.012) and an increased 100-day re-admission rate (37.5% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.012) when compared with patients with non-anaerobic NSTI. The 100-day re-admission rate increased three-fold in NPWT-treated anaerobic NSTIs, according to a logistic regression analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-12.44; p = 0.04). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> In contrast to patients with other bacterial strains, our data show that patients with NSTI treated with NPWT who only have anaerobic bacterial infections have a larger number of debridements and are much more likely to require re-admission within 100 days. We call for additional prospective studies to be conducted to identify additional risk factors and consider alternate treatment options for individuals with exclusively anaerobic NSTIs in light of these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":22109,"journal":{"name":"Surgical infections","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical infections","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2023.300","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A notable improvement in the treatment of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) is the development of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). Clinicians are still debating whether NPWT is as successful as conventional wet-to-dry dressings at removing bacteria. Recent research has revealed potential oxygen deprivation effects of NPWT in underlying wound tissues, although clinical trials regarding the effects of reduced oxygen on anaerobic bacterial soft tissue infections remain noticeably lacking. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that NPWT-treated patients with NSTIs who were solely infected by anaerobic bacteria would have worse outcomes than those who were infected with other bacterial species. Patients and Methods: Our study included a retrospective examination of the 2008-2022 period of our Acute and Critical Care Surgery database. Patients who had been identified as having necrotizing fasciitis, Fournier gangrene, or gas gangrene and who had their conditions verified by positive wound cultures acquired during the initial debridement and subsequently received NPWT made up the study cohort. Comorbidities, surgical techniques, and clinical results were all covered by the data. Based on their wound infections, patients were divided into two groups: those with exclusively anaerobic NSTIs and those with different bacterial groups (such as polymicrobial and aerobic). Multiple regression, χ2 analysis, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were among the analytical methods used. Results: One hundred twelve patients with NSTI who had received NPWT comprised the study cohort. Sixteen of these patients (14.3%) had NSTIs that were exclusively anaerobic, whereas the remaining 96 (85.7%) had NSTIs that were mixed aerobic, facultative, or polymicrobial. Between the two groups, there was no difference in the initial wound size. Patients with anaerobic NSTI who underwent NPWT showed a statistically significant increase in the number of debridements (3 [interquartile range {IQR},1-9] vs. 2 [IQR, 1-4]; p = 0.012) and an increased 100-day re-admission rate (37.5% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.012) when compared with patients with non-anaerobic NSTI. The 100-day re-admission rate increased three-fold in NPWT-treated anaerobic NSTIs, according to a logistic regression analysis (odds ratio [OR], 3.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-12.44; p = 0.04). Conclusions: In contrast to patients with other bacterial strains, our data show that patients with NSTI treated with NPWT who only have anaerobic bacterial infections have a larger number of debridements and are much more likely to require re-admission within 100 days. We call for additional prospective studies to be conducted to identify additional risk factors and consider alternate treatment options for individuals with exclusively anaerobic NSTIs in light of these findings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
负压伤口疗法会影响厌氧菌感染的坏死性软组织感染患者的治疗效果吗?
背景:伤口负压疗法(NPWT)的发展是坏死性软组织感染(NSTI)治疗方面的一个显著进步。临床医生仍在争论负压疗法在清除细菌方面是否与传统的干湿敷料一样成功。最近的研究揭示了负压疗法对伤口下层组织的潜在缺氧效应,但有关氧气减少对厌氧菌软组织感染影响的临床试验仍明显不足。假设:我们假设,经 NPWT 治疗的 NSTI 患者如果仅受厌氧菌感染,其预后会比受其他细菌感染的患者更差。患者和方法:我们的研究包括对急诊和重症监护外科数据库 2008-2022 年期间的回顾性检查。研究对象包括被确认为患有坏死性筋膜炎、富尼耶坏疽或气性坏疽的患者,这些患者在初次清创时伤口培养呈阳性,随后接受了 NPWT 治疗。研究数据涵盖了合并症、手术技术和临床结果。根据患者的伤口感染情况,将其分为两组:纯厌氧性 NSTI 和不同细菌群(如多菌性和需氧性)的患者。分析方法包括多元回归、χ2分析和方差分析(ANOVA)。结果研究队列中有 112 名接受过 NPWT 治疗的 NSTI 患者。其中 16 名患者(14.3%)的 NSTI 完全为厌氧菌感染,而其余 96 名患者(85.7%)的 NSTI 为需氧菌、兼性菌或多微生物混合感染。两组患者的初始伤口大小没有差异。与非厌氧性 NSTI 患者相比,接受 NPWT 的厌氧性 NSTI 患者清创次数显著增加(3 [四分位数间距{IQR},1-9] vs. 2 [IQR, 1-4];P = 0.012),100 天再入院率也有所增加(37.5% vs. 12.5%;P = 0.012)。根据逻辑回归分析,经 NPWT 治疗的厌氧性 NSTI 100 天再入院率增加了三倍(几率比 [OR],3.63;95% 置信区间 [CI],1.06-12.44;P = 0.04)。结论与感染其他细菌菌株的患者相比,我们的数据显示,接受 NPWT 治疗的 NSTI 患者如果仅有厌氧菌感染,清创次数会更多,在 100 天内再次入院的可能性也更大。我们呼吁开展更多的前瞻性研究,以确定更多的风险因素,并根据这些研究结果考虑对仅感染厌氧菌的 NSTI 患者采取其他治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical infections
Surgical infections INFECTIOUS DISEASES-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Infections provides comprehensive and authoritative information on the biology, prevention, and management of post-operative infections. Original articles cover the latest advancements, new therapeutic management strategies, and translational research that is being applied to improve clinical outcomes and successfully treat post-operative infections. Surgical Infections coverage includes: -Peritonitis and intra-abdominal infections- Surgical site infections- Pneumonia and other nosocomial infections- Cellular and humoral immunity- Biology of the host response- Organ dysfunction syndromes- Antibiotic use- Resistant and opportunistic pathogens- Epidemiology and prevention- The operating room environment- Diagnostic studies
期刊最新文献
Spectrum of Pathogens in Surgical Site Infections after Sarcoma Resection in the Peri-Pelvic and Pelvic Region. Distinct Location, Distinct Infection? Surgical Management of Complicated Thoracic Fungal Infections: A Case Series from a Tertiary Referral Center. A Retrospective Exploration of Pre-operative Antibiotic Prophylaxis with Cefazolin in Cesarean Sections: Implications for Obstetrics and Gynecologic Surgery. Adherence to Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Guidelines in Endourologic Procedures: Frequency and Related Outcomes. Ampicillin-Sulbactam for Carbapenem-Susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii Pneumonia: A Case for High-Dose, Continuous Infusion Dosing Strategy in the Trauma ICU.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1