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
IMPORTANCE\nSelective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) are prophylactic antibiotic regimens used in intensive care units (ICUs) and... Show moreIMPORTANCE\nSelective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) are prophylactic antibiotic regimens used in intensive care units (ICUs) and associated with improved patient outcome. Controversy exists regarding the relative effects of both measures on patient outcome and antibiotic resistance.\nOBJECTIVE\nTo compare the effects of SDD and SOD, applied as unit-wide interventions, on antibiotic resistance and patient outcome.\nDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS\nPragmatic, cluster randomized crossover trial comparing 12 months of SOD with 12 months of SDD in 16 Dutch ICUs between August 1, 2009, and February 1, 2013. Patients with an expected length of ICU stay longer than 48 hours were eligible to receive the regimens, and 5881 and 6116 patients were included in the clinical outcome analysis for SOD and SDD, respectively.\nINTERVENTIONS\nIntensive care units were randomized to administer either SDD or SOD.\nMAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES\nUnit-wide prevalence of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. Secondary outcomes were day-28 mortality, ICU-acquired bacteremia, and length of ICU stay.\nRESULTS\nIn point-prevalence surveys, prevalences of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria in perianal swabs were significantly lower during SDD compared with SOD; for aminoglycoside resistance, average prevalence was 5.6% (95% CI, 4.6%-6.7%) during SDD and 11.8% (95% CI, 10.3%-13.2%) during SOD (P < .001). During both interventions the prevalence of rectal carriage of aminoglycoside-resistant gram-negative bacteria increased 7% per month (95% CI, 1%-13%) during SDD (P = .02) and 4% per month (95% CI, 0%-8%) during SOD (P = .046; P = .40 for difference). Day 28-mortality was 25.4% and 24.1% during SOD and SDD, respectively (adjusted odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.88-1.06]; P = .42), and there were no statistically significant differences in other outcome parameters or between surgical and nonsurgical patients. Intensive care unit-acquired bacteremia occurred in 5.9% and 4.6% of the patients during SOD and SDD, respectively (odds ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65-0.91]; P = .002; number needed to treat, 77).\nCONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE\nUnit-wide application of SDD and SOD was associated with low levels of antibiotic resistance and no differences in day-28 mortality. Compared with SOD, SDD was associated with lower rectal carriage of antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria and ICU-acquired bacteremia but a more pronounced gradual increase in aminoglycoside-resistant gram-negative bacteria.\nTRIAL REGISTRATION\ntrialregister.nlIdentifier: NTR1780. Show less
