Background Incisional negative pressure wound therapy has been described as an effective method to prevent wound infections after open heart surgery in several publications. However, most studies have examined relatively small patient groups, only a few were randomized, and some have manufacturer-sponsorship. Most of the studies have utilized Prevena; there are only a few reports describing the PICO incisional negative pressure wound therapy system. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study involving a propensity score-matched analysis to evaluate the effect of PICO incisional negative pressure wound therapy after coronary artery bypass grafting. A total of 180 high-risk patients with obesity or diabetes were included in the study group. The control group included 772 high-risk patients operated before the initiation of the study protocol. Results The rates of deep sternal wound infections in the PICO group and in the control group were 3.9 and 3.1%, respectively. The rates of superficial wound infections needing operative treatment were 3.1 and 0.8%, respectively. After propensity score matching with two groups of 174 patients, the incidence of both deep and superficial infections remained slightly elevated in the PICO group. None of the infections were due to technical difficulties or early interruption of the treatment. Conclusion It seems that incisional negative pressure wound therapy with PICO is not effective in preventing wound infections after coronary artery bypass grafting. The main difference in this study compared with previous reports is the relatively low incidence of infections in our control group.

No abstract

Background and objective: Deep sternal wound infection is a feared complication of open-heart surgery. Negative pressure wound therapy has gained an important role in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy has been introduced as a method to prevent wound complications after sternotomy, and lately, after flap reconstructions in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection. We aimed to study if incisional negative pressure wound therapy with PICO™ had similar beneficial effect described earlier with competing commercial devices. Methods: This study included 82 patients treated with pectoralis major muscle flap for deep sternal wound infection during the years 2006–2020. PICO group consisted of 24 patients treated with preoperative negative pressure wound therapy and postoperative incisional negative pressure wound therapy (PICO™). Two control groups included 48 patients with conventional treatment and 10 patients with preoperative negative pressure wound therapy only. Results: In the PICO group, the complication rate declined from 50.0% to 33.30%, major complication rate from 29.2% to 12.5%, and need for an additional flap from 14.6.% to 4.2% when compared to conventional treatment. The length of hospital stay decreased as well. Preoperative negative pressure wound therapy alone was associated with moderate decline in the complication rates. In addition, we described the use of split pectoralis major muscle flap reconstruction in 57 patients. To our knowledge, this is the largest published patient series describing this method in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection. Conclusions: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy with PICO™ seems beneficial after flap reconstruction. Split pectoralis major muscle flap is a versatile reconstruction option suitable to be used as a workhorse in the treatment of deep sternal wound infection.