ciNPT in Autologous DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction
Primary Purpose
Breast Cancer, Wound Dehiscence, Surgical
Status
Not yet recruiting
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
ciNPT
Conventional Tape Dressings
DIEP Breast Reconstruction
Sponsored by
About this trial
This is an interventional treatment trial for Breast Cancer
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: adult female patients (≥ 18 years old) consent to elective immediate (i.e. performed at the time of mastectomy) or delayed (i.e. performed following mastectomy) breast reconstruction using the DIEP flap Exclusion Criteria: patients who are pregnant have a documented/reported allergy to adhesive dressings Body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2
Sites / Locations
Arms of the Study
Arm 1
Arm 2
Arm Type
Experimental
Active Comparator
Arm Label
ciNPT
Conventional tape dressings
Arm Description
Outcomes
Primary Outcome Measures
Percentage of participants with Abdominal Wall Dehiscence
the between-group difference in the incidence of abdominal wound dehiscence- 'wound dehiscence' will be defined as the partial or full-thickness separation of the abdominal wound incision necessitating routine dressing changes, surgical debridement, or revision of the abdominal incision
Secondary Outcome Measures
Percentage of participants with Seroma Formation
defined by the presence of a symptomatic, subcutaneous fluid collection (diagnosed clinically or by ultrasound per clinician judgement)
Percentage of participants with Surgical Site Infection
necessitating antibiotic administration (diagnosed clinically or by wound swab)
5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L) - Patient Quality of Life
The EQ-5D-5L essentially consists of 2 pages: the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). This scale is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure overall health status. The EQ-5D measures 5 health states measured from 1-5, with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. An overall score can be generated from this with the best health at the minimum score of 5, and the worst health state at the maximum score of 25. The EQ VAS is an analogue scale from 0-100, with 100 being the best health and 0 being the worst health that you can imagine
BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen - Patient Quality of Life
The BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the negative physical sequelae of the abdomen following autologous tissue reconstruction. Total scores are converted to an equivalent Rasch transformed score from 0 to 100. 0 represents the worst outcome and 100 represents the best outcome.
SCAR-Q - Patient Quality of Life
The BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the the appearance, symptoms, and psychosocial impact of scars. Total scores are converted to an equivalent Rasch transformed score from 0 to 100. 0 represents the worst outcome and 100 represents the best outcome.
Incidence of myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS)
MINS is defined by the presence of abnormally elevated postoperative high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) levels within the first 3 days after surgery
Full Information
NCT ID
NCT05907941
First Posted
June 8, 2023
Last Updated
June 8, 2023
Sponsor
McMaster University
Collaborators
Western University
1. Study Identification
Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT05907941
Brief Title
ciNPT in Autologous DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction
Official Title
Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy Compared to Conventional Dressing Following Autologous Abdominal Tissue Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Control Trial
Study Type
Interventional
2. Study Status
Record Verification Date
June 2023
Overall Recruitment Status
Not yet recruiting
Study Start Date
July 2023 (Anticipated)
Primary Completion Date
September 2025 (Anticipated)
Study Completion Date
March 2026 (Anticipated)
3. Sponsor/Collaborators
Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
McMaster University
Collaborators
Western University
4. Oversight
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
Yes
Product Manufactured in and Exported from the U.S.
Yes
5. Study Description
Brief Summary
In women who undergo mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer, autologous reconstruction using the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is a common surgical procedure that aims to restore both the appearance and texture of the breast(s).Specifically, this requires the transfer of skin, fat, and perforator vessels from the abdomen to a recipient artery and vein in the chest to create a viable breast mound. Post-operatively, the abdominal donor site is routinely monitored for wound dehiscence, which has a reported incidence of up to 39% in this patient population; however, this incidence typically varies from 3.5% to 14%.
At our academic institution, patients who undergo DIEP breast reconstruction typically have ciNPT or traditional tape dressings applied to the closed abdominal donor site. These dressings are selected according to surgeon preference and typically remain in-situ until hospital discharge. As there remains clinical equipoise regarding the ability of ciNPT to reduce abdominal wound dehiscence, further research in the form of a parallel, two-arm RCT is warranted.
We propose a randomized controlled superiority trial with the primary objective of comparing the incidence of wound dehiscence at 1 month in patients undergoing autologous DIEP breast reconstruction with ciNPT versus standard tape dressings for the abdominal donor site incision. The design and conduct of the proposed study will mirror the methodology of the recently completed pilot trial (NCT04985552) including randomization, interventions, and clinical outcomes.
The secondary objective of this study is to evaluate other clinical outcomes comparing ciNPT to standard tape dressings applied to the abdominal donor site incision. Secondary clinical outcomes will include: 2) the incidence of seroma formation and surgical site infection at 1 month; 2) quality of life as measured by BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen and EQ-5D-5L pre-operatively, 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months postoperatively; 3) Scar appearance as measured by the SCAR-Q at 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months postoperatively.
As an adjunct to the main study, another secondary clinical outcome will include the overall incidence of MINS as diagnosed by postoperative abnormally elevated troponin levels (as per site-specific laboratory assay thresholds) and electrocardiograms (ECG) at 6-12 hours and 1, 2, and 3 days after surgery.
6. Conditions and Keywords
Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Breast Cancer, Wound Dehiscence, Surgical
7. Study Design
Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Outcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
114 (Anticipated)
8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions
Arm Title
ciNPT
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Title
Conventional tape dressings
Arm Type
Active Comparator
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
ciNPT
Intervention Description
Following closure of the abdominal donor site, the closed incision will be dressed with the ciNPT system [V.A.C.ULTA™ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (KCI, USA)] applied by the operating surgeon in a sterile fashion (Figure 2). The ciNPT device will be set at -125mmHg of continuous negative pressure for a period of 7 days or until patient discharge from hospital. Removal of the ciNPT dressing will be performed by the surgical team at the time of discharge. Following removal, no additional dressings will be applied to the abdominal incision unless clinically indicated secondary to dehiscence.
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
Conventional Tape Dressings
Intervention Description
Following closure of the abdominal donor site, the closed abdominal incision will be dressed with 1-inch Micropore™ Surgical Tape (3M, USA) with an alcohol swab applied to the tape for additional adhesion, by the operating surgeon in a sterile fashion. This dressing will remain in-situ for up to 7 days or until patient discharge from hospital. Removal of the traditional tape dressing will be performed by the surgical team at the time of discharge. Following removal, no additional dressings will be applied unless clinically indicated secondary to dehiscence.
Intervention Type
Procedure
Intervention Name(s)
DIEP Breast Reconstruction
Intervention Description
All patients enrolled in the study will undergo DIEP breast reconstruction and have their abdominal incision sutured according to routine clinical practice. At the Hamilton sites, we will use 3-0 VICRYL ® suture (Ethicon, USA) for deep fascia closure, 4-0 MONOCRYL® suture (Ethicon, USA) for deep dermal closure, and 5-0 MONOCRYL® suture (Ethicon, USA) for subcuticular closure. At the London sites, we will use 2-0 VICRYL ® suture (Ethicon, USA) for deep fascia closure, 3-0 MONOCRYL® suture (Ethicon, USA) for deep dermal closure, and 4-0 MONOCRYL® suture (Ethicon, USA) for subcuticular closure.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percentage of participants with Abdominal Wall Dehiscence
Description
the between-group difference in the incidence of abdominal wound dehiscence- 'wound dehiscence' will be defined as the partial or full-thickness separation of the abdominal wound incision necessitating routine dressing changes, surgical debridement, or revision of the abdominal incision
Time Frame
4-8 weeks
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percentage of participants with Seroma Formation
Description
defined by the presence of a symptomatic, subcutaneous fluid collection (diagnosed clinically or by ultrasound per clinician judgement)
Time Frame
2 weeks, 4-8 weeks
Title
Percentage of participants with Surgical Site Infection
Description
necessitating antibiotic administration (diagnosed clinically or by wound swab)
Time Frame
2 weeks, 4-8 weeks
Title
5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L) - Patient Quality of Life
Description
The EQ-5D-5L essentially consists of 2 pages: the EQ-5D descriptive system and the EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). This scale is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure overall health status. The EQ-5D measures 5 health states measured from 1-5, with 1 being the best and 5 being the worst. An overall score can be generated from this with the best health at the minimum score of 5, and the worst health state at the maximum score of 25. The EQ VAS is an analogue scale from 0-100, with 100 being the best health and 0 being the worst health that you can imagine
Time Frame
1 month, 3 month, 6 months
Title
BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen - Patient Quality of Life
Description
The BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the negative physical sequelae of the abdomen following autologous tissue reconstruction. Total scores are converted to an equivalent Rasch transformed score from 0 to 100. 0 represents the worst outcome and 100 represents the best outcome.
Time Frame
1 month, 3 month, 6 months
Title
SCAR-Q - Patient Quality of Life
Description
The BREAST-Q physical well-being abdomen is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) designed to measure the the appearance, symptoms, and psychosocial impact of scars. Total scores are converted to an equivalent Rasch transformed score from 0 to 100. 0 represents the worst outcome and 100 represents the best outcome.
Time Frame
1 month, 3 month, 6 months
Title
Incidence of myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS)
Description
MINS is defined by the presence of abnormally elevated postoperative high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) levels within the first 3 days after surgery
Time Frame
6-12 hours, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days
10. Eligibility
Sex
Female
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
adult female patients (≥ 18 years old)
consent to elective immediate (i.e. performed at the time of mastectomy) or delayed (i.e. performed following mastectomy) breast reconstruction using the DIEP flap
Exclusion Criteria:
patients who are pregnant
have a documented/reported allergy to adhesive dressings
Body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2
Central Contact Person:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name or Official Title & Degree
Christopher J Coroneos, MD MSc FRCSC
Phone
905-521-2100
Ext
44369
Email
coronec@mcmaster.ca
12. IPD Sharing Statement
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
29369109
Citation
Leyngold MM. Is Unipedicled Transverse Rectus Abdominis Myocutaneous Flap Obsolete Owing to Superiority of DIEP Flap? Ann Plast Surg. 2018 Jun;80(6S Suppl 6):S418-S420. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001319.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29794640
Citation
Chang EI, Liu J. Prospective Evaluation of Obese Patients Undergoing Autologous Abdominal Free Flap Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Aug;142(2):120e-125e. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004550.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30126630
Citation
Muller-Sloof E, de Laat HEW, Hummelink SLM, Peters JWB, Ulrich DJO. The effect of postoperative closed incision negative pressure therapy on the incidence of donor site wound dehiscence in breast reconstruction patients: DEhiscence PREvention Study (DEPRES), pilot randomized controlled trial. J Tissue Viability. 2018 Nov;27(4):262-266. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2018.08.005. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
31538064
Citation
Lindenblatt N, Gruenherz L, Farhadi J. A systematic review of donor site aesthetic and complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2019 Aug;8(4):389-398. doi: 10.21037/gs.2019.06.05.
Results Reference
background
Citation
World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) Consensus Document. Surgical wound dehiscence: improving prevention and outcomes. Wounds International2018.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
29910106
Citation
Thacoor A, Kanapathy M, Torres-Grau J, Chana J. Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap: Impact of drain free donor abdominal site on long term patient outcomes and duration of inpatient stay. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018 Aug;71(8):1103-1107. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.04.019. Epub 2018 May 22.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
25557724
Citation
Nelson JA, Chung CU, Fischer JP, Kanchwala SK, Serletti JM, Wu LC. Wound healing complications after autologous breast reconstruction: a model to predict risk. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015 Apr;68(4):531-9. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2014.11.017. Epub 2014 Nov 28.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26447018
Citation
Sandy-Hodgetts K, Watts R. Effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy/closed incision management in the prevention of post-surgical wound complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):253-303. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1687.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21868417
Citation
Wilkes RP, Kilpad DV, Zhao Y, Kazala R, McNulty A. Closed incision management with negative pressure wound therapy (CIM): biomechanics. Surg Innov. 2012 Mar;19(1):67-75. doi: 10.1177/1553350611414920. Epub 2011 Aug 25.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26994715
Citation
Hyldig N, Birke-Sorensen H, Kruse M, Vinter C, Joergensen JS, Sorensen JA, Mogensen O, Lamont RF, Bille C. Meta-analysis of negative-pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions. Br J Surg. 2016 Apr;103(5):477-86. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10084.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
31009887
Citation
Tran BNN, Johnson AR, Shen C, Lee BT, Lee ES. Closed-Incision Negative-Pressure Therapy Efficacy in Abdominal Wall Reconstruction in High-Risk Patients: A Meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2019 Sep;241:63-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.03.033. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
33201541
Citation
Siegwart LC, Sieber L, Fischer S, Maraka S, Kneser U, Kotsougiani-Fischer D. Influence of closed incision negative-pressure therapy on abdominal donor-site morbidity in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Microsurgery. 2022 Jan;42(1):32-39. doi: 10.1002/micr.30683. Epub 2020 Nov 17.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
30985328
Citation
Smilowitz NR, Redel-Traub G, Hausvater A, Armanious A, Nicholson J, Puelacher C, Berger JS. Myocardial Injury After Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cardiol Rev. 2019 Nov/Dec;27(6):267-273. doi: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000254.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
28444280
Citation
Writing Committee for the VISION Study Investigators; Devereaux PJ, Biccard BM, Sigamani A, Xavier D, Chan MTV, Srinathan SK, Walsh M, Abraham V, Pearse R, Wang CY, Sessler DI, Kurz A, Szczeklik W, Berwanger O, Villar JC, Malaga G, Garg AX, Chow CK, Ackland G, Patel A, Borges FK, Belley-Cote EP, Duceppe E, Spence J, Tandon V, Williams C, Sapsford RJ, Polanczyk CA, Tiboni M, Alonso-Coello P, Faruqui A, Heels-Ansdell D, Lamy A, Whitlock R, LeManach Y, Roshanov PS, McGillion M, Kavsak P, McQueen MJ, Thabane L, Rodseth RN, Buse GAL, Bhandari M, Garutti I, Jacka MJ, Schunemann HJ, Cortes OL, Coriat P, Dvirnik N, Botto F, Pettit S, Jaffe AS, Guyatt GH. Association of Postoperative High-Sensitivity Troponin Levels With Myocardial Injury and 30-Day Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery. JAMA. 2017 Apr 25;317(16):1642-1651. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.4360.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
31095334
Citation
Devereaux PJ, Szczeklik W. Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery: diagnosis and management. Eur Heart J. 2020 May 1;41(32):3083-3091. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz301.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
26978655
Citation
Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Thabane L, Hopewell S, Coleman CL, Bond CM. Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: Development of a Conceptual Framework. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 15;11(3):e0150205. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150205. eCollection 2016.
Results Reference
background
Citation
EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L User Guide, 2019. Available from: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides.
Results Reference
background
Citation
BREAST-Q Version 2.0 A Guide for Researchers and Clinicians [Internet]. Qportfolio.org. 2017 [cited 18 January 2021]. Available from: http://qportfolio.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/BREAST-Q-USERS-GUIDE-V2.pdf.
Results Reference
background
Citation
SCAR-Q USER'S GUIDE VERSION 1.0 [Internet]. Qportfolio.org. 2018 [cited 18 January 2021]. Available from: http://qportfolio.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/SCAR-Q-USERS-GUIDE-V1.pdf.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
21479777
Citation
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. Epub 2011 Apr 9.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
33173657
Citation
Thoma A, Avram R, Dal Cin A, Murphy J, Duku E, Xie F. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Abdominal-based Autogenous Tissue and Tissue-expander Implant following Mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Apr 11;8(10):e2986. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002986. eCollection 2020 Oct.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
33173691
Citation
Thoma A, Avram R, Dal Cin A, Murphy J, Duku E, Xie F. Comparing the Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Abdominal-based Autogenous Tissue and Tissue-Expander Implant: A Feasibility Study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2020 Apr 11;8(10):e3179. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003179. eCollection 2020 Oct.
Results Reference
background
Citation
2019 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report [Internet]. Plasticsurgery.org. 2019 [cited 8 December 2020]. Available from: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2019/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2019.pdf.
Results Reference
background
Learn more about this trial
ciNPT in Autologous DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction
We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs