Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Continuously Diffused Oxygen Therapy Compared with Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mercurio Matthew, Lavery Lawrence A, Agarwal Animesh, Oropallo Alisha
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Continuous diffusion of oxygen (CDO) to wounds has demonstrated better effectiveness in healing wounds than negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT). However, there is limited evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of CDO therapy and its comparison with NPWT.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this analysis is to report on the cost-effectiveness of CDO and NPWT using published clinical results as well as real-world clinical outcomes and cost information. The objectives included analyzing the cost-effectiveness of CDO therapy across multiple wound types and anatomical locations, testing the data for robustness, and comparing the cost-effectiveness using results from controlled clinical studies for CDO and NPWT.
METHODS: A prospective patients database using real-world clinical results of 764 patients treated using CDO therapy in a broad range of clinical practices across a wide range of wound types and wound locations was analyzed. The clinical data were combined with real world billing data to draw statistically valid cost comparisons. Using 3 methodologies, the cost savings were demonstrated across 2 healthcare systems.
RESULTS: In the US, the average cost savings of CDO was US $14 238 vs NPWT to heal a wound. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CDO use in clinical practice had 79.2% full closure in 112 days compared with NPWT, which has 43.2% full closure in the same timeframe for similar wound sizes and severity.
DISCUSSION: There are two primary reasons for the significant cost savings. First, CDO therapy is much easier to apply and maintain than traditional NPWT, as CDO dressings can easily be changed by patients at home without the assistance of a nurse. The second reason is the substantially higher efficacy of CDO therapy.
CONCLUSION: CDO is highly efficacious in clinical practice and cost-effective compared with NPWT and other therapies such as moist wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this analysis is to report on the cost-effectiveness of CDO and NPWT using published clinical results as well as real-world clinical outcomes and cost information. The objectives included analyzing the cost-effectiveness of CDO therapy across multiple wound types and anatomical locations, testing the data for robustness, and comparing the cost-effectiveness using results from controlled clinical studies for CDO and NPWT.
METHODS: A prospective patients database using real-world clinical results of 764 patients treated using CDO therapy in a broad range of clinical practices across a wide range of wound types and wound locations was analyzed. The clinical data were combined with real world billing data to draw statistically valid cost comparisons. Using 3 methodologies, the cost savings were demonstrated across 2 healthcare systems.
RESULTS: In the US, the average cost savings of CDO was US $14 238 vs NPWT to heal a wound. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that CDO use in clinical practice had 79.2% full closure in 112 days compared with NPWT, which has 43.2% full closure in the same timeframe for similar wound sizes and severity.
DISCUSSION: There are two primary reasons for the significant cost savings. First, CDO therapy is much easier to apply and maintain than traditional NPWT, as CDO dressings can easily be changed by patients at home without the assistance of a nurse. The second reason is the substantially higher efficacy of CDO therapy.
CONCLUSION: CDO is highly efficacious in clinical practice and cost-effective compared with NPWT and other therapies such as moist wound therapy and hyperbaric oxygen.