BackgroundThe evidence on prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy on primary closed incisional wounds (iNPWT) for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) is confusing and... Show moreBackgroundThe evidence on prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy on primary closed incisional wounds (iNPWT) for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI) is confusing and ambiguous. Implementation in daily practice is impaired by inconsistent recommendations in current international guidelines and published meta-analyses. More recently, multiple new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been published. We aimed to provide an overview of all meta-analyses and their characteristics; to conduct a new and up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment; and to explore the additive value of new RCTs with a trial sequential analysis (TSA).MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from database inception to October 24, 2022. We identified existing meta-analyses covering all surgical specialties and RCTs studying the effect of iNPWT compared with standard dressings in all types of surgery on the incidence of SSI, wound dehiscence, reoperation, seroma, hematoma, mortality, readmission rate, skin blistering, skin necrosis, pain, and adverse effects of the intervention. We calculated relative risks (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. We assessed publication bias with a comparison-adjusted funnel plot. TSA was used to assess the risk of random error. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2) tool and GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022312995.FindingsWe identified eight previously published general meta-analyses investigating iNPWT and compared their results to present meta-analysis. For the updated systematic review, 57 RCTs with 13,744 patients were included in the quantitative analysis for SSI, yielding a RR of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.59–0.76, I2 = 21%) for iNPWT compared with standard dressing. Certainty of evidence was high. Compared with previous meta-analyses, the RR stabilised, and the confidence interval narrowed. In the TSA, the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, confirming the robustness of the summary effect estimate from the meta-analysis.InterpretationIn this up-to-date meta-analysis, GRADE assessment shows high-certainty evidence that iNPWT is effective in reducing SSI, and uncertainty is less than in previous meta-analyses. TSA indicated that further trials are unlikely to change the effect estimate for the outcome SSI; therefore, if future research is to be conducted on iNPWT, it is crucial to consider what the findings will contribute to the existing robust evidence. Show less
Aims The COMPARE trial showed a small but significant beneficial effect of 3-year losartan treatment on aortic root dilatation rate in adults with Marfan syndrome (MFS). However, no significant... Show moreAims The COMPARE trial showed a small but significant beneficial effect of 3-year losartan treatment on aortic root dilatation rate in adults with Marfan syndrome (MFS). However, no significant effect was found on clinical endpoints, possibly due to a short follow-up period. The aim of the current study was therefore to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes after losartan treatment.Methods and In the original COMPARE study (inclusion 2008-2009), adult patients with MFS (n=233) were randomly allocated results to either the angiotensin-II receptor blacker losartan on top of regular treatment (beta-blockers in 71% of the patients) or no additional medication. After the COMPARE trial period of 3 years, study subjects chose to continue their losartan medication or not. In a median follow-up period of 8 years, 75 patients continued losartan medication, whereas 78 patients, originally allocated to the control group, never used losartan after inclusion. No differences existed between baseline characteristics of the two groups except for age at inclusion [losartan 34 (interquartile range, IQR 26-43) years, control 41 (IQR 30-52) years; P=0.031], and beta-blacker use (losartan 81%, control 64%; P=0.022). A pathological FBN1 mutation was present in 76% of patients and 58% of the patients were male. Clinical endpoints, defined as all-cause mortality, aortic dissection/rupture, elective aortic root replacement, reoperation, and vascular graft implantation beyond the aortic root, were compared between the two groups. A per-patient composite endpoint was also analysed. Five deaths, 14 aortic dissections, 23 aortic root replacements, 3 reoperations, and 3 vascular graft implantations beyond the aortic root occurred during follow-up. Except for aortic root replacement, all endpoints occurred in patients with an operated aortic root. Patients who used losartan during the entire follow-up period showed a reduced number of events compared to the control group (death: 0 vs. 5, P=0.014; aortic dissection: 3 vs. 11, P=0.013; elective aortic root replacement: 10 vs. 13, P=0.264; reoperation: 1 vs. 2, P=0.463; vascular graft implantations beyond the aortic root 0 vs. 3, P=0.071; and composite endpoint: 14 vs. 26, P=0.019). These results remained similar when corrected for age and beta-blocker use in a multivariate analysis.Conclusion: These results suggest a clinical benefit of combined losartan and beta-blocker treatment in patients with MFS. Show less
Introduction The pathophysiology and natural course of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are insufficiently understood. In order to improve our understanding, it is imperative to carry out... Show moreIntroduction The pathophysiology and natural course of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are insufficiently understood. In order to improve our understanding, it is imperative to carry out longitudinal research that combines biomarkers with clinical and imaging data measured over multiple time points. Therefore, a multicentre biobank, databank and imagebank has been established in the Netherlands: the 'Pearl Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm' (AAA bank).Methods and analysis The AAA bank is a prospective multicentre observational biobank, databank and imagebank of patients with an AAA. It is embedded within the framework of the Parelsnoer Institute, which facilitates uniform biobanking in all university medical centres (UMCs) in the Netherlands. The AAA bank has been initiated by the two UMCs of Amsterdam UMC and by Leiden University Medical Center. Participants will be followed during AAA follow-up. Clinical data are collected every patient contact. Three types of biomaterials are collected at baseline and during follow-up: blood (including DNA and RNA), urine and AAA tissue if open surgical repair is performed. Imaging data that are obtained as part of clinical care are stored in the imagebank. All data and biomaterials are processed and stored in a standardised manner. AAA growth will be based on multiple measurements and will be analysed with a repeated measures analysis. Potential associations between AAA growth and risk factors that are also measured on multiple time points can be assessed with multivariable mixed-effects models, while potential associations between AAA rupture and risk factors can be tested with a conditional dynamic prediction model with landmarking or with joint models in which linear mixed-effects models are combined with Cox regression.Ethics and dissemination The AAA bank is approved by the Medical Ethics Board of the Amsterdam UMC (University of Amsterdam).Trial registration number NCT03320408. Show less
