Clinical and cost-effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy versus usual care for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention: the SWHSI 2 pragmatic RCT
Expensive suction wound therapy doesn't heal diabetic foot wounds faster than standard dressings, freeing NHS resources for other care.
This large pragmatic NHS RCT (n=686, 80% diabetic foot wounds) found no significant difference in time to wound healing between NPWT and standard dressings, with NPWT being more expensive and below cost-effectiveness thresholds. The result supports discontinuing routine NPWT use for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention, with potential for significant NHS cost savings.
What the study was
- Study design
- Pragmatic two-arm parallel-group randomized controlled superiority trial
- Population
- Adult NHS patients with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (predominantly diabetic foot wounds, 28 UK centres)
- Sample size
- 686
- Category
- Public Health
- Maturity
- Potentially Practice-Changing
- Journal
- Health Technology Assessment
Why it surfaced
Large, NIHR-funded pragmatic RCT with definitive null result for widely-used (and expensive) wound therapy. Potentially practice-changing for wound care guidelines and NHS cost savings. Off primary watchlist but high clinical relevance.
A plain-language summary of published research — not medical advice. Talk to a clinician about your own care.