Three wound-dressing strategies to reduce surgical site infection after abdominal surgery: the Bluebelle feasibility study and pilot RCT.
Abdomen
/ surgery
Adult
Aged
Bandages
/ classification
Cesarean Section
/ adverse effects
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pilot Projects
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Reproducibility of Results
Surgical Procedures, Operative
/ adverse effects
Surgical Wound Infection
/ microbiology
Surveys and Questionnaires
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PILOT RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
SURGERY
SURGICAL SITE INFECTION
VALUE OF INFORMATION
WOUND DRESSINGS
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2019
08 2019
Historique:
entrez:
9
8
2019
pubmed:
9
8
2019
medline:
9
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 20% of people with a primary closed wound after surgery. Wound dressings may reduce SSI. To assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dressing types or no dressing to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds. Phase A - semistructured interviews, outcome measure development, practice survey, literature reviews and value-of-information analysis. Phase B - pilot RCT with qualitative research and questionnaire validation. Patients and the public were involved. Usual NHS care. Patients undergoing elective/non-elective abdominal surgery, including caesarean section. Phase A - none. Phase B - simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing (tissue adhesive) or 'no dressing'. Phase A - pilot RCT design; SSI, patient experience and wound management questionnaires; dressing practices; and value-of-information of a RCT. Phase B - participants screened, proportions consented/randomised; acceptability of interventions; adherence; retention; validity and reliability of SSI measure; and cost drivers. Phase A - interviews with patients and health-care professionals (HCPs), narrative data from published RCTs and data about dressing practices. Phase B - participants and HCPs in five hospitals. Phase A - we interviewed 102 participants. HCPs interpreted 'dressing' variably and reported using available products. HCPs suggested practical/clinical reasons for dressing use, acknowledged the weak evidence base and felt that a RCT including a 'no dressing' group was acceptable. A survey showed that 68% of 1769 wounds (727 participants) had simple dressings and 27% had glue-as-a-dressing. Dressings were used similarly in elective and non-elective surgery. The SSI questionnaire was developed from a content analysis of existing SSI tools and interviews, yielding 19 domains and 16 items. A main RCT would be valuable to the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Phase B - from 4 March 2016 to 30 November 2016, we approached 862 patients for the pilot RCT; 81.1% were eligible, 59.4% consented and 394 were randomised (simple, Multiple activities, often in parallel, were challenging to co-ordinate. An amendment took 4 months, restricting recruitment to the pilot RCT. Only 67% of participants completed the SSI questionnaire. We could not implement photography in theatres. A main RCT of dressing strategies is feasible and would be valuable to the NHS. The SSI questionnaire is sufficiently accurate to be used as the primary outcome. A main trial with three groups (as in the pilot) would be valuable to the NHS, using a primary outcome of SSI at discharge and patient-reported SSI symptoms at 4-8 weeks. Phase A - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06792113; Phase B - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49328913. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Wound infections are common after surgery. Some are cured with simple treatment, but others may lead to serious problems. Reducing the risk of a wound infection is important. We do not know if the type of dressing, or not using a dressing, influences the risk of infection. A study that allocated patients to receive different dressings (or no dressing) would answer this question. We did preliminary research to explore whether or not such a study is possible. We interviewed doctors, nurses and patients about their views on dressings and a future study. We also described dressings currently being used in the NHS and found that simple dressings and tissue adhesive (glue) ‘as-a-dressing’ are used most frequently. We studied existing evidence and interviewed experts to develop a questionnaire, completed by patients, to identify wound infections after patients leave hospital and tested its accuracy. We also explored taking photographs of wounds. We investigated whether or not a major study would be worth the cost and designed a pilot study to test its feasibility. The pilot study recruited 394 patients undergoing abdominal operations in five NHS hospitals. These patients were allocated to have a simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing or no dressing, and 92% received the allocated dressing method. Patients and their doctors and nurses found the dressing methods to be acceptable. We showed that the new patient questionnaire accurately identified infections. Patients or their carers also found it acceptable to photograph their wounds. Our research suggests that a future large study would be worth the investment and is possible.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 20% of people with a primary closed wound after surgery. Wound dressings may reduce SSI.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dressing types or no dressing to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds.
DESIGN
Phase A - semistructured interviews, outcome measure development, practice survey, literature reviews and value-of-information analysis. Phase B - pilot RCT with qualitative research and questionnaire validation. Patients and the public were involved.
SETTING
Usual NHS care.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients undergoing elective/non-elective abdominal surgery, including caesarean section.
INTERVENTIONS
Phase A - none. Phase B - simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing (tissue adhesive) or 'no dressing'.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Phase A - pilot RCT design; SSI, patient experience and wound management questionnaires; dressing practices; and value-of-information of a RCT. Phase B - participants screened, proportions consented/randomised; acceptability of interventions; adherence; retention; validity and reliability of SSI measure; and cost drivers.
DATA SOURCES
Phase A - interviews with patients and health-care professionals (HCPs), narrative data from published RCTs and data about dressing practices. Phase B - participants and HCPs in five hospitals.
RESULTS
Phase A - we interviewed 102 participants. HCPs interpreted 'dressing' variably and reported using available products. HCPs suggested practical/clinical reasons for dressing use, acknowledged the weak evidence base and felt that a RCT including a 'no dressing' group was acceptable. A survey showed that 68% of 1769 wounds (727 participants) had simple dressings and 27% had glue-as-a-dressing. Dressings were used similarly in elective and non-elective surgery. The SSI questionnaire was developed from a content analysis of existing SSI tools and interviews, yielding 19 domains and 16 items. A main RCT would be valuable to the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Phase B - from 4 March 2016 to 30 November 2016, we approached 862 patients for the pilot RCT; 81.1% were eligible, 59.4% consented and 394 were randomised (simple,
LIMITATIONS
Multiple activities, often in parallel, were challenging to co-ordinate. An amendment took 4 months, restricting recruitment to the pilot RCT. Only 67% of participants completed the SSI questionnaire. We could not implement photography in theatres.
CONCLUSIONS
A main RCT of dressing strategies is feasible and would be valuable to the NHS. The SSI questionnaire is sufficiently accurate to be used as the primary outcome. A main trial with three groups (as in the pilot) would be valuable to the NHS, using a primary outcome of SSI at discharge and patient-reported SSI symptoms at 4-8 weeks.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Phase A - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06792113; Phase B - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49328913.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Wound infections are common after surgery. Some are cured with simple treatment, but others may lead to serious problems. Reducing the risk of a wound infection is important. We do not know if the type of dressing, or not using a dressing, influences the risk of infection. A study that allocated patients to receive different dressings (or no dressing) would answer this question. We did preliminary research to explore whether or not such a study is possible. We interviewed doctors, nurses and patients about their views on dressings and a future study. We also described dressings currently being used in the NHS and found that simple dressings and tissue adhesive (glue) ‘as-a-dressing’ are used most frequently. We studied existing evidence and interviewed experts to develop a questionnaire, completed by patients, to identify wound infections after patients leave hospital and tested its accuracy. We also explored taking photographs of wounds. We investigated whether or not a major study would be worth the cost and designed a pilot study to test its feasibility. The pilot study recruited 394 patients undergoing abdominal operations in five NHS hospitals. These patients were allocated to have a simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing or no dressing, and 92% received the allocated dressing method. Patients and their doctors and nurses found the dressing methods to be acceptable. We showed that the new patient questionnaire accurately identified infections. Patients or their carers also found it acceptable to photograph their wounds. Our research suggests that a future large study would be worth the investment and is possible.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Wound infections are common after surgery. Some are cured with simple treatment, but others may lead to serious problems. Reducing the risk of a wound infection is important. We do not know if the type of dressing, or not using a dressing, influences the risk of infection. A study that allocated patients to receive different dressings (or no dressing) would answer this question. We did preliminary research to explore whether or not such a study is possible. We interviewed doctors, nurses and patients about their views on dressings and a future study. We also described dressings currently being used in the NHS and found that simple dressings and tissue adhesive (glue) ‘as-a-dressing’ are used most frequently. We studied existing evidence and interviewed experts to develop a questionnaire, completed by patients, to identify wound infections after patients leave hospital and tested its accuracy. We also explored taking photographs of wounds. We investigated whether or not a major study would be worth the cost and designed a pilot study to test its feasibility. The pilot study recruited 394 patients undergoing abdominal operations in five NHS hospitals. These patients were allocated to have a simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing or no dressing, and 92% received the allocated dressing method. Patients and their doctors and nurses found the dressing methods to be acceptable. We showed that the new patient questionnaire accurately identified infections. Patients or their carers also found it acceptable to photograph their wounds. Our research suggests that a future large study would be worth the investment and is possible.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31392958
doi: 10.3310/hta23390
pmc: PMC6698727
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN06792113', 'ISRCTN49328913']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-166Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S001751/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : G0802413
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K025643/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : NIHR300175
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 12/200/04
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Chris A Rogers reports grants from the British Heart Foundation to April 2017, outside the submitted work. Chris A Rogers is a member of Clinical Trials Units funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Commissioning Board. Melanie J Calvert reports personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals (Saint-Prex, Switzerland), outside the submitted work. Rhiannon C Macefield has a patent Wound Healing Questionnaire pending to the University of Bristol. Stephen O’Brien reports grants from Saving Lives at Birth Partners, outside the submitted work. Tim Draycott reports personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Barnaby C Reeves reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Board (up to 31 March 2016), the Systematic Reviews Programme Advisory Group (up to 5 July 2017) and Interventional Procedures Panel Methods Group, the HTA Efficient Study Designs Board, SRP – Cochrane Programme Grant Funding Meeting and Systematic Reviews NIHR Cochrane Incentive Awards (all current).