Economic Impact of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With Instillation Compared With Standard Negative Pressure Wound...

Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell time has demonstrated clinical benefits in complex wounds, but data regarding its economic impact in traumatic wounds remain limited. This study evaluated differences in overall hospitalisation costs and wound-related inpatient costs among patients with acute traumatic wounds treated with negative pressure wound therapy with instillation compared with standard negative pressure wound therapy and gauze dressings. Hospitalisation costs and inputs for a wound-related economic model were obtained from a single-centre randomised controlled trial including patients treated with negative pressure wound therapy with instillation, standard negative pressure wound therapy or gauze dressings for acute traumatic wounds. Wound-related cost per patient was estimated as the sum of costs associated with wound-related inpatient stay, surgical procedures and wound therapy products. Total overall hospitalisation cost was lower for patients treated with negative pressure wound therapy with instillation ($7814) compared with standard negative pressure wound therapy ($7890) and gauze dressing ($9735), although these differences were not statistically significant. Modelled wound-related costs were lower in the instillation therapy group ($3390) compared with standard negative pressure wound therapy ($4149) and gauze dressing ($4275). These differences were primarily driven by shorter time to wound closure and fewer surgical procedures. Using randomised controlled trial-derived inputs, negative pressure wound therapy with instillation was associated with lower modelled wound-related costs than standard negative pressure wound therapy and gauze dressing in patients with acute traumatic wounds. These differences were primarily driven by shorter time to wound closure and fewer wound-related surgical procedures. Because overall hospitalisation costs and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between groups, these findings should be interpreted as modelled wound-related cost differences rather than demonstrated reductions in total hospitalisation expenditure.