Validation of a Manual Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Device (PragmaVAC) for Acute and Chronic Wounds: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is an alternative to the standard gauze dressings for wound treatment. Due to limited health resources, poor electrical supply, and high costs, NPWT in resource-constrained settings is inaccessible. In conflict-affected settings, civilian injuries typically involve traumatic wounds or chronic wound infections that affect the extremities. METHODS: PragmaVAC® is a manually operated NPWT device designed to increase accessibility to NPWT without the need of electrical power. We aimed to determine the clinical efficacy of PragmaVAC through a controlled, non-blinded open-label clinical trial in a resource-constrained locality. The endpoint was formation of granulation tissue sufficient for wound closure. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients qualified for analysis (19 Gauze; 40 PragmaVAC). The mean age of participants was 49.25 years, 55.9% were male, and 42.4% were diabetic. Forty three wounds (72.9%) were acute, 44 wounds (74.6%) were clean-contaminated, and 34 wounds (57.6%) were localized to the lower limb. The average duration of treatment was 15.3 days in PragmaVAC vs 36.5 days in control, p = 0.013. Similarly, PragmaVAC required fewer number of dressing changes 2.7 vs 23.2 times, p < 0.0001, at a lower frequency of dressings 0.22/day vs 0.73/day, in the control group, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: PragmaVAC is associated with accelerated healing and less frequent requirement of dressing changes. The introduction of a manually operated, low-cost device in resource-constrained settings presents an opportunity to improve wound care outcomes, decrease interventions, and optimize usage of material and human resources.

Conflict-related excess mortality and disability in Northwest Syria.

INTRODUCTION: The Syrian conflict that started in 2011 has been ongoing for over a decade without an end in sight. Estimates regarding excess mortality and conflict-related disability vary widely, and little field research has been done to address this topic. METHODS: A population-based field survey was conducted from 10 to 18 November 2020 in Northwest Syria. Forty-nine clusters were selected using staged sampling based on predefined population distribution maps. Data were collected for the period from 2000 to 2020 and were divided into pre-conflict (2000-2010) and conflict (2011-2020) periods. Mortality rates were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 1483 households were surveyed, for a population of 12 268 people. The crude mortality rate increased 3.55 times between the two periods (p>0.001). In total, 54.3% of war-related deaths were caused by aerial attacks. Despite the continued increase in mortality rates during the conflict period, most deaths from 2017 onwards were related to non-violent causes. Overall, directly and indirectly, the conflict seems to have caused approximately 874 000 excess deaths. A total of 14.9% of households reported having at least one substantial violence-related disability since 2011. CONCLUSION: The conflict caused the tripling of mortality rates in Syria. The estimated excess mortality in our study is higher than previous estimates. From 2017 onwards, most conflict-related deaths were due to non-violent causes. There is a high prevalence of violence-related disabilities in the studied communities. Our data could prove useful for health policymakers.