Aetna considers negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) pumps medically necessary, when either of the following criteria (I or II) is met:
Ulcers and Wounds in the Home Setting
The member has a chronic Stage III or IV pressure ulcer (see Appendix below), neuropathic ulcer (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology, present for at least 30 days. A complete wound therapy program described by criterion A and criterion B, C, or D below, as applicable depending on the type of wound, has been tried or considered and ruled out prior to application of NPWT.
For all ulcers or wounds, the following components of a wound therapy program must include a minimum of all of the following general measures, which should either be addressed, applied, or considered and ruled out prior to application of NPWT:
For Stage III or IV pressure ulcers:
For neuropathic (e.g., diabetic) ulcers:
For venous insufficiency ulcers:
Ulcers and Wounds Encountered in an Inpatient Setting
The member has complications of a surgically created wound (e.g., dehiscence) or a traumatic wound (e.g., pre-operative flap or graft) where there is documentation of the medical necessity for accelerated formation of granulation tissue which can not be achieved by other available topical wound treatments (e.g., other conditions of the member that will not allow for healing times achievable with other topical wound treatments).
In either situation, II-A or II-B, NPWT will be considered medically necessary when treatment continuation is ordered beyond discharge to the home setting.
Note: NPWT pumps must be capable of accommodating more than 1 wound dressing set for multiple wounds on a member. Therefore, more than 1 NPWT pump billed per member for the same time period is considered not medically necessary. See specifications of equipment and supplies in the Appendix.
An NPWT pump and supplies is considered not medically necessary if one or more of the following contraindications are present:
Continued Medical Necessity
For wounds and ulcers described in sections I and II above, once placed on an NPWT pump and supplies, in order to document continued medical necessity, a licensed medical professional must do the following:
On at least a monthly basis, document changes in the ulcer's dimensions and characteristics.
For wounds and ulcers described in sections I and II above, an NPWT pump and supplies will be considered as not medically necessary with any of the following, whichever occurs earliest:
Up to a maximum of 10 canister sets per month is considered medically necessary unless there is documentation showing a large volume of drainage (greater than 90 ml of exudate per day). For high volume exudative wounds, a stationary pump with the largest capacity canister must be used. Excess utilization of canisters related to equipment failure (as opposed to excessive volume drainage) is not considered medically necessary.
See specifications of equipment and supplies in the Appendix.
Note: Staging of pressure ulcers used in this policy is as follows:
|Suspected Deep Tissue Injury||Purple or maroon localized are of discolored intact skin or blood-filled blister due to damage of underlying soft tissue from pressure and/or shear. The area may be preceded by tissue that is painful, firm, mushy, boggy, warmer or cooler as compared to adjacent tissue.|
|Stage I||Intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have visible blancing; its color may differ from the surrounding area.|
|Partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with red or pink wound bed, without slough. May also present as an intact or open/ruptured serum-filled blister.|
|Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle are not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining or tunneling.|
|Stage IV||Full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often include undermining and tunneling.|
|Unstageable||Full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough (yellow, tan, gray, green or brown) and/or eschar (tan, brown, or black) in the wound bed.|
Aetna considers NPWT experimental and investigational for the treatment of deep sternal wound infection, partial-thickness burns, tibial fractures, for use following surgical excision of pilonidal sinus disease and for recurrent pilonidal disease, and all other indications (e.g., prophylactic use after cesarean delivery, prevention of complications in surgical wounds of the abdomen based upon presence of diabetes or obesity as risk factors) other than those noted in Sections I and II above because its effectiveness for these indications has not been established.
Aetna considers the use of chemotherapeutic agents (e.g. doxycycline and insulin) in continuous-instillation NPWT experimental and investigational because its effectiveness has not been established.
Aetna considers the use of non-powered (mechanical) NPWT devices (e.g., the Smart Negative Pressure [SNaP] Wound Care System) experimental and investigational because their effectiveness has not been established.
Aetna considers the use of single-use NPWT devices (e.g., PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System; Prevena Incision Management System) experimental and investigational for all indications (e.g., wound care and keloid scarring) because of insufficient evidence of their effectiveness.
See also CPB 0244 - Wound Care.Background
This policy is based in part upon Medicare DME MAC medical necessity criteria for negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) pumps.
Negative pressure wound therapy is the controlled application of subatmospheric pressure to a wound using an electrical pump to intermittently or continuously convey subatmospheric pressure through connecting tubing to a specialized wound dressing which includes a resilient, open-cell foam surface dressing, sealed with an occlusive dressing that is meant to contain the subatmospheric pressure at the wound site and thereby promote wound healing. Drainage from the wound is collected in a canister.
Negative pressure wound therapy has been used to promote healing of chronic wounds and pressure ulcers (decubitus ulcers) by creating controlled negative pressure over the wound that is thought to increase local vascularity and oxygenation of the wound bed, reduce edema by evacuating wound fluid, and remove exudate and bacteria.
More than a dozen systematic evidence reviews produced by independent organizations have questioned the quality of the evidence supporting the use of NPWT, including systematic evidence reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration (Evans and Land, 2001; Wasiak and Cleland, 2007; Ubbink et al, 2008), Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (2003), Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (Fisher and Brady, 2003), Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures -- Surgical (Pham et al, 2003), NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS, 2003), Centre for Clinical Effectiveness (Higgins, 2003), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Samson et al, 2004), Technology Assessment Unit of McGill University Health Centre (Costa et al, 2005), Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG, 2006), Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MAS, 2004; MAS, 2006), Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AVALIA-T, 2005), and BMJ Clinical Evidence (Nelson and Jones, 2006; Nelson and Penthrick, 2007).
Control of intra-abdominal fluid secretion, facilitation of abdominal exploration, and preservation of the fascia for abdominal wall closure is a major challenge in the management of patients with an open abdomen. Vacuum-assisted therapy has been reported to help meet the challenges of managing the open abdomen and may be useful in patients with abdominal compartment syndromes, traumatic injuries, and severe intra-abdominal sepsis. In a review on the management of patients with open abdomen, Kaplan (2004) concluded that controlled clinical studies are needed to establish the safety and effectiveness of this treatment approach and to facilitate the development of treatment guidelines to help manage an increasingly common group of patients who might benefit from this treatment approach. A systematic evidence review by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2009) found inadequate evidence for the use of NPWT in open abdominal wounds. The NICE assessment concluded that "[c]urrent evidence on the safety and efficacy of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for the open abdomen is inadequate in quality and quantity. There has been concern about the occurrence of intestinal fistulae associated with this procedure but there is currently no evidence about whether NPWT is the cause."
Schimmer and colleagues (2007) stated that there are many primary modalities for managing deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) following cardiac surgery, namely surgical debridement with primary re-closure in conjunction with irrigation, VAC, and primary or delayed flap closure. These researchers examined if there is consensus on the primary management of DSWI using one method as a single line therapy or a combination of these procedures. Therefore, a questionnaire with regards to the primary treatment modalities of DSWI was distributed to all 79 German heart surgery centers. All replied to the questionnaire -- VAC is used in 28/79 (35 %) heart centers as the 'first-line' treatment, 22/79 (28 %) perform primary reclosure in conjunction with a double-tube irrigation/suction system, and in 29/79 (37 %) clinics both treatment options were used according to intra-operative conditions. Mostly, as a primary management of DSWI two treatment modalities are mainly in use: primary reclosure coupled with a double-tube suction/irrigation system and VAC. The current understanding is based purely on retrospective studies, not evidence-based medicine. Since prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not yet been performed, controlled clinical trials comparing these treatment modalities are pivotal to define evidence for patients presenting with DSWI.
Morris et al (2007) noted that although NPWT appears effective, it remains unknown if it is more effective than other wound closure techniques. In addition, although many uncontrolled, non-randomized studies describing the effectiveness of this therapy have been published, few prospective RCTs have been conducted. Small sample sizes, variable outcome measures across studies, and significant methodological problems in the available RCTs further limit the conclusions that can be drawn regarding the relative effectiveness of vacuum-assisted wound closure. Analysis of these data provided weak evidence to suggest that NPWT is superior to saline gauze dressings in healing chronic wounds. The authors concluded that RCTs comparing healing, costs of care, patient pain, and quality-of-life outcomes of this treatment to non-gauze type dressings and other treatment modalities are needed.
Gregor et al (2008) examined the clinical effectiveness and safety of negative NPWT compared with conventional wound therapy; RCTs and non-RCTs comparing NPWT and conventional therapy for acute or chronic wounds were included in this review. The main outcomes of interest were wound-healing variables. After screening 255 full-text articles, 17 studies remained. In addition, 19 unpublished trials were found, of which 5 had been prematurely terminated. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality in a standardized manner. Seven RCTs (n = 324) and 10 non-RCTs (n = 278) met the inclusion criteria. The overall methodological quality of the trials was poor. Significant differences in favor of NPWT for time to wound closure or incidence of wound closure were shown in 2 of 5 RCTs and 2 of 4 non-RCTs. A meta-analysis of changes in wound size that included 4 RCTs and 2 non-RCTs favored NPWT (standardized mean difference: RCTs, -0.57; non-RCTs, -1.30). The authors concluded that although there is some indication that NPWT may improve wound healing, the body of evidence available is insufficient to clearly prove an additional clinical benefit of NPWT. Furthermore, the large number of prematurely terminated and unpublished trials is reason for concern.
Vikatmaa et al (2008) conducted a systematic review of the literature on the safety and effectiveness of NPWT for problematic wounds. A total of 14 RCTs were included. Trials included patients with: (i) pressure wounds, (ii) post-traumatic wounds, (iii) diabetic foot ulcers, and (iv) miscellaneous chronic ulcers. Only 2 trials were classified as high quality studies, whereas the remaining were classified as having poor internal validity. The authors concluded that (i) reliable evidence on the effectiveness of NPWT is scarce, (ii) tentative evidence indicates that the effectiveness of NPWT is at least as good as or better than current local treatment for wounds, and (iii) the need for large high-quality randomized studies is apparent.
Blume et al (2008) evaluated the safety and clinical efficacy of NPWT compared with advanced moist wound therapy (AMWT) (predominately hydrogels and alginates) to treat foot ulcers in diabetic patients in a multi-center randomized controlled trial (n = 342). The mean age was 58 years and 79 % of subjects were male. Complete ulcer closure was defined as skin closure (100 % re-epithelization) without drainage or dressing requirements. Patients were randomly assigned to either NPWT or AMWT (predominately hydrogels and alginates) and received standard off-loading therapy as needed. The trial evaluated treatment until day 112 or ulcer closure by any means. Patients whose wounds achieved ulcer closure were followed at 3 and 9 months. Each study visit included closure assessment by wound examination and tracings. A greater proportion of foot ulcers achieved complete ulcer closure with NPWT (73 of 169, 43.2 %) than with AMWT (48 of 166, 28.9 %) within the 112-day active treatment phase (p = 0.007). The Kaplan-Meier median estimate for 100 % ulcer closure was 96 days (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 75.0 to 114.0) for NPWT and not determinable for AMWT (p = 0.001). Patients who received NPWT experienced significantly (p = 0.035) fewer secondary amputations. The proportion of home care therapy days to total therapy days for NPWT was 9,471 of 10,579 (89.5 %) and 12,210 of 12,810 (95.3 %) for AMWT. In assessing safety, no significant difference between the groups was observed in treatment-related complications such as infection, cellulitis, and osteomyelitis at 6 months. The authors concluded that NPWT appears to be as safe as and more efficacious than AMWT for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers.
A technology assessment report on NPWT (Sullivan et al, 2009) prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that systematic reviews of NPWT reveal the following important points about the current state of the evidence on this technology: (i) all of the systematic reviews noted the lack of high-quality clinical evidence supporting the advantages of NPWT compared to other wound treatments; the lack of high-quality NPWT evidence resulted in many systematic reviewers relying on low-quality retrospective studies to judge the efficacy of this technology, (ii) no studies directly comparing different NPWT components (e.g., foam versus gauze dressings) were identified by any of the reviewers, and (iii) NPWT must be evaluated according to wound type; wound healing varies according to the type of wound being treated and NPWT benefits described for one wound type cannot be assumed to apply to other wound types.
The assessment stated that the available evidence cannot be used to determine a significant therapeutic distinction of a NPWT system. In addition, due to the lack of studies comparing one NPWT system to another NPWT system the severity of adverse events for 1 NPWT system compared to another could not be determined. The report concluded, "Clinical research on NPWT capable of indicating if any one NPWT system or component provides a significant therapeutic distinction requires study design and conduct that will minimize the possibilities for bias. Important study design features that were not typically reported such as concealment of allocation, reporting of randomization methods, use of power analysis to ensure adequate study size, blinding wound assessors, and reporting of complete wound healing data will improve the internal validity and the informativeness of the studies."
More recently, the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center prepared a comprehensive technology assessment for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) on the effectiveness of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) on the treatment of chronic wounds in the home care setting (Rhee, et al., 2014). The goal of the assessment was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of NPWT for treatment of chronic wounds in the home setting. The authors included studies examining the use of NPWT in patients with chronic wounds, including venous leg ulcers, arterial leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers, and mixed etiology chronic wounds. They retrieved 5,912 citations, and found seven studies which met the criteria for inclusion. Six of the studies compared NPWT devices to other wound care methods. One study compared two different NPWT devices. Ultimately the assessment's authors were unable to draw any firm conclusions about the efficacy or safety of NPWT for the treatment of chronic wounds in the home setting due to insufficient evidence. The authors stated "Though NPWT has been used across the wound care spectrum, significant research gaps remain. Standardization of wound care research protocols, such as providing consistency in comparator groups, robust randomized study designs, larger trials, and common definitions of outcomes, would be helpful in providing evidence to inform decisions about the use of NPWT."
Negative pressure wound therapy uses a reticulated sponge and subatmospheric pressure to facilitate healing of a variety of wounds. The therapy appears to assist wound healing by decreasing wound bacterial burden and edema while facilitating granulation tissue formation. The latest development in NPWT allows clinicians to instill continuously a treatment solution and suspension into the wound. A variety of wound chemo-therapeutic agents such as insulin, which acts as a growth factor, may prove helpful in this aspect. Scimeca and colleagues (2010a) presented a case report in which insulin was used as a chemo-therapeutic agent in continuous-instillation NPWT. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report in the literature describing this method of delivery. Furthermore, Scimeca et al (2010b) described a real-time streaming therapy of a variety of wound chemo-therapeutic agents through NPWT. Doxycycline, which acts as a competitive inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases and tumor necrosis factor alpha and further decreases inflammation through the reduction of nitrous oxide production, may prove helpful when delivered in this manner. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report in the literature describing this method of delivery of doxycycline. The clinical value of chemo-therapeutic agents in continuous-instillation NPWT nees to be ascertained in randomized, controlled clinical trials.
A non-powered (mechanical) NPWT device, the Smart Negative Pressure (SNaP) Wound Care System from Spiracur, is a class II device that received 510(k) marketing clearance from the Food and Drug Administration in 2010 and is designed to remove small amounts of exudate from chronic, traumatic, dehisced, acute, subacute wounds and diabetic and pressure ulcers. The lack of well-designed comparative studies with large number of individuals using the non-powered NPWT system is insufficient to draw conclusions about its impact on health outcomes with the device and in comparison with current care.
Armstrong, et al. (2012) compared the portable mechanically powered Smart Negative Pressure (SNaP) Wound Care System (Spiracur, Sunnyvale, CA) with the electrically powered Vacuum-Assisted Closure (VAC) Therapy System (Kinetic Concepts, Inc. [KCI], San Antonio, TX) in a multicenter, comparative efficacy, noninferiority-powered, randomized controlled trial. Investigators enrolled 132 people with noninfected, nonischemic, nonplantar lower extremity diabetic and venous wounds. Each subject was randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either system in conjunction with appropriate off-loading and compression therapy. The trial evaluated treatment for up to 16 weeks or complete wound closure (defined as complete reepithelialization without drainage). Primary end point analysis of wound size reduction found that SNaP-treated subjects demonstrated noninferiority to the VAC-treated subjects at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks (p = 0.0030, 0.0130, 0.0051, and 0.0044, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in complete wound closure between SNaP- and VAC-treated subjects at all time points. Device related adverse events and complications such as infection were also similar between treatment groups. An AHRQ assessment (Rhee, et al.., 2014) noted study limitations including lack of blinding, imbalanced study groups particularly in terms of wound size, and lack of reporting of intervention details. The ARHQ assessment downgraded study limitations to “high” for the outcome of pain because of limited reporting of statistical details. All of the outcomes were direct, but the results were imprecise. The AHRQ assessment stated that they were unable to assess consistency or reporting bias. The AHRQ assessment noted that the study was funded by the manufacturer of one of the devices (SNaP) and two of the investigators reported receiving funding from manufacturers of both devices being evaluated.
The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel's clinical practice guideline on pressure ulcer treatment (2009) recommended conventional NPWT therapy, but did not mention non-powered NPWT.
In a systematic review, Roberts et al (2012) determined the comparative safety and effectiveness of NPWT versus alternate temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques in critically ill adults with open abdominal wounds. These researchers reviewed published and unpublished comparative studies. They searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, the Center for Reviews and Dissemination, clinical trials registries, and bibliographies of included articles. Two authors independently abstracted data on study design, methodological quality, patient characteristics, and outcomes. Among 2,715 citations identified, 2 RCTs and 9 cohort studies (3 prospective/6 retrospective) met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of included prospective studies was moderate. One RCT observed an improved fascial closure rate (relative risk [RR], 2.4; 95 % CI: 1.0 to 5.3) and length of hospital stay after addition of retention sutured sequential fascial closure to the Kinetic Concepts Inc. (KCI) vacuum-assisted closure (VAC). Another reported a trend toward enhanced fascial closure using the KCI VAC versus Barker's vacuum pack (RR, 2.6; 95 % CI: 0.95 to 7.1). A prospective cohort study observed improved mortality (RR, 0.48; 95 % CI: 0.25 to 0.92) and fascial closure (RR, 1.5; 95 % CI: 1.1 to 2.0) for patients who received the ABThera versus Barker's vacuum pack. Another noted a reduced arterial lactate, intra-abdominal pressure, and hospital stay for those fitted with the KCI VAC versus Bogotá bag. Most included retrospective studies exhibited low methodological quality and reported no mortality or fascial closure benefit for NPWT. The authors concluded that limited prospective comparative data suggested that NPWT versus alternate TAC techniques may be linked with improved outcomes. Moreover, they stated that the clinical heterogeneity and quality of available studies precluded definitive conclusions regarding the preferential use of NPWT over alternate TAC techniques.
Guidance from tne National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2013) stated that current evidence on the safety and efficacy of NPWT for the open abdomen is adequate to support the use of this procedure provided that normal arrangements are in place for consent, audit and clinical governance. The guidance stated that NPWT for the open abdomen may be used to manage open abdominal wounds in which the gut and other intraperitoneal organs are exposed.
In a Cochrane review, Dumville and Munson (2012) evaluated the effectiveness of NPWT for people with partial-thickness burns. For this third update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched May 18, 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to week 2 of May 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (in-process & other non-indexed citations May 17, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to week 19 of 2012); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to May 16, 2012). All RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that evaluated the safety and effectiveness of NPWT for partial-thickness burns were selected for analysis. Two review authors used standardized forms, and extracted the data independently. They assessed each trial for risk of bias, and resolved differences by discussion. One RCT, that was an interim report, satisfied the inclusion criteria. These investigators undertook a narrative synthesis of results, as the absence of data and poor reporting precluded them from carrying out any formal statistical analysis. The trial was at high-risk of bias. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence available to permit any conclusions to be drawn regarding the use of NPWT for treatment of partial-thickness burn wounds.
The PICO single-use negative pressure wound therapy device (Smith & Nephew, Inc., Andover, MA) is a single-use, canister-free, negative pressure wound therapy device. It is marketed for use in the following types of wounds: chronic; acute; traumatic; subacute and dehisced wounds; partial-thickness burns; ulcers (e.g., diabetic or pressure); flaps and grafts; and closed surgical incisions. The PICO system contains a disposable, 1-button pump, coupled with an advanced dressing that negates the need for a canister. The pump is pocket-sized and the dressing can be worn up to 7 days.
Fraccalvieri et al (2013) stated that keloid scarring represents a pathological healing where primary healing phenomenon is deviated from normal. PICO is a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system originally introduced to manage open or just closed wounds. PICO dressing is made of silicone, and distributes an 80 mmHg negative pressure across wound bed. Combination of silicon layer and continuous compression could be a valid method to manage keloid scarring. Since November 2011, 3 patients were enrolled and evaluated before negative pressure treatment, at end of treatment (1 month) and 2 months later, through Vancouver scar scale (VSS), visual analog scale (VAS) and a scoring system for itching. Ultrasound (US) and color-power-Doppler (CPD) examination was performed to evaluate thickness and vascularization of the scar. One patient was discharged from study after 1 week. In last 2 patients, VSS, VAS and itching significantly improved after 1 month therapy and the results were stable after 2 months without any therapy. At end of therapy, the appearance of palisade vessels disappeared in both cases at CPD exam; US showed a thickness reduction (average of 43.8 %). The authors proposed a well-tolerated, non-invasive treatment to manage keloid scarring. They stated that prospective studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
Bendewald et al (2007) stated that complex pilonidal disease, an uncommon manifestation of an anorectal condition, is characterized by chronic or recurrent abscesses with extensive, branching sinus tracts. Definitive treatment requires wide excision of all involved tissue followed by secondary intention healing or reconstructive surgery. All treatment options have unique advantages and disadvantages. Following recent reports that negative pressure wound therapy after surgery for complex pilonidal disease may be a useful alternative to moist saline dressing treatments, 5 patients (3 men and 2 women, median age of 21 years [range of 16 to 63 years]) with complex pilonidal disease (symptom duration range of 6 months to 30 years) were treated on an outpatient basis. Following wide excision under general anesthesia, a portable negative pressure wound therapy device was applied. Mean wound defect size after excision was 11 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm, or 205 cm(3) (range of 90 cm(3) to 410 cm(3)). Negative pressure wound therapy was used for an average of 6 weeks (range of 4 to 9 weeks) and mean time to complete epithelialization was 12 weeks (range of 9 to 22 weeks), including use of moist saline dressings post-negative pressure wound therapy. Treatment was discontinued in 1 patient due to skin irritation. No other complications were observed. The authors concluded that long-term follow-up is needed to assess the risk of recurrent pilonidal disease or wound failure following negative pressure wound therapy. They stated that additional studies of negative pressure wound therapy in the management of pilonidal disease are warranted.
Farrell and Murphy (2011) noted that pilonidal disease arises from hair follicles of the gluteal cleft and may result in a chronic exudative disorder. The management of pilonidal disease following surgical excision remains controversial, despite an abundance of research into different treatment options. Negative pressure wound therapy is an emerging treatment option for complex or recurrent pilonidal disease. These investigators performed a comprehensive literature search, using the electronic databases MEDLINE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Knowledge. All studies, case reports, and multiple case series evaluating the use of negative pressure wound therapy for treatment of pilonidal disease were included. Despite the breadth of the search parameters, these researchers identified limited studies addressing this issue; all were published between 2003 and 2007. Findings of 5 case reports or multiple case series tentatively suggested that negative pressure wound therapy may be an emerging treatment option for pilonidal disease management. However, the authors recommended that more rigorous research, including randomized controlled trials, be conducted before implications can be drawn for evidence-based practice.
Ousey et al (2013) stated that the management of post-operative spinal wound complication remains a challenge, with surgical site infection (SSI) incidence rates ranging from 0.4 % to 20 % after spinal surgery. Negative pressure wound therapy has been highlighted as an intervention that may stimulate healing and prevent SSI. However, the wound healing mechanism by NPWT and its effectiveness in spinal wounds still remain unclear. These researchers systematically searched, critically appraised, and summarized RCTs and non-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of NPWT in patients with a spinal wound. A systematic review based on search strategies recommended by the Cochrane Back and Wounds Review Groups was undertaken using Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases. Any publications between 1950 and 2011 were included. A total of 10 retrospective studies and 4 case studies of patients with spinal wound complication were included in this systematic review. No RCTs were found; only 1 study described more than 50 patients. Generally, a pressure of -125 mm Hg was used in adults. Duration of NPWT in-situ ranged from 3 to 186 days. Wound healing was assessed every 2 to 3 days and generally completed between 7 days and 16 months. Negative pressure wound therapy is contraindicated in the presence of active cerebrospinal fluid leak, metastatic or neoplastic disease in the wound or in patients with an allergy to the NPWT dressing and in those with a bleeding diathesis. The authors concluded that published reports were limited to small retrospective and case studies, with no reports of NPWT being used as a prophylactic treatment. They stated that larger prospective RCTs of NPWT are needed to support the current evidence that it is effective in treating spinal wound complications. In addition, future studies should investigate its use as a prophylactic treatment to prevent infection and report data relating to safety and health economics.
Karlakki et al (2013) stated that the period of post-operative treatment before surgical wounds are completely closed remains a key window, during which one can apply new technologies that can minimize complications. One such technology is the use of NPWT to manage and accelerate healing of the closed incisional wound (incisional NPWT). These investigators undertook a literature review of this emerging indication to identify evidence within orthopedic surgery and other surgical disciplines. Literature that supports the current understanding of the mechanisms of action was also reviewed in detail. A total of 33 publications were identified, including 9 clinical study reports from orthopedic surgery; 4 from cardiothoracic surgery and 12 from studies in abdominal, plastic and vascular disciplines. Most papers (26 of 33) had been published within the past 3 years. Thus far, 2 RCTs -- 1 in orthopedic and 1 in cardiothoracic surgery -- showed evidence of reduced incidence of wound healing complications after between 3 and 5 days of post-operative NPWT of 2- and 4-fold, respectively. Investigations showed that reduction in hematoma and seroma, accelerated wound healing and increased clearance of edema are significant mechanisms of action. The authors concluded that there is a rapidly emerging literature on the effect of NPWT on the closed incision. Initiated and confirmed first with a RCT in orthopedic trauma surgery, studies in abdominal, plastic and vascular surgery with high rates of complications have been reported recently. They stated that the evidence from single-use NPWT devices is accumulating. There are no large randomized studies yet in reconstructive joint replacement.
Selvaggi et al (2014) noted that surgical site complications (SSC) negatively affect costs of care and prolong length of stay. Crohn's disease (CD) is a risk factor for SSC; CD patients often need surgery, sometimes requiring stoma. These researchers compared the effects on SSC of a portable device for NPWT (PICO) with gauze dressings after elective surgery for CD. Secondary aims were manageability and safety of PICO and its feasibility as home therapy. Between 2010 and 2012, a total of 50 patients were assigned to treatment with either PICO (n = 25) or conventional dressings (n = 25). Each patient completed 12-month follow-up. Parameters of interests for primary aim were SSC, surgical complications, and re-admission rates. Data on difficulties in managing PICO and device-related complications were also collected. Patients receiving PICO had less SSC, resulting in shorter hospital stay. At last follow-up, re-admission rates were lower with PICO. No differences were observed in surgical complications between groups. No patients reported difficulties in managing the device. Among patients discharged with PICO, none needed to come back to the hospital for device malfunctioning or inability to manage it. PICO reduces SSC and length of stay in selected CD patients compared with conventional dressings. This was a small study (n = 25 for PICO); its findings need to be validated by well-designed studies.
In a Cochrane review, Webster et al (2014) evaluated the effects of NPWT on surgical wounds (primary closure, skin grafting or flap closure) that are expected to heal by primary intention. These investigators searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant RCTs: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched January 28, 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2013, issue 12); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (2013, issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2011 to January 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations January 24, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2011 to Week 44 of January 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (2011 to January 2014). These researchers conducted a separate search to identify economic evaluations. They included trials if they allocated patients to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with a different type of NPWT. They assessed trials for their appropriateness for inclusion and for their quality. This was done by 3 review authors working independently, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria. In this first update, these investigators included an additional 4 trials, taking the total number of trials included to 9 (785 participants) -- 3 trials involved skin grafts, 4 included orthopedic patients and 2 included general surgery and trauma surgery patients; all the included trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more of the quality indicators we assessed. A total of 7 trials compared NPWT with a standard dressing (2 of these were 'home-made' NPWT devices), 1 trial compared one 'home-made' NPWT with a commercially available device. In trials where the individual was the unit of randomization, there were no differences in the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI); wound dehiscence, re-operation (in incisional wounds); seroma/hematoma; or failed skin grafts. Lower re-operation rates were observed among skin graft patients in the 'home-made' NPWT group (7/65; 10.8 %) compared to the standard dressing group (17/66; 25.8 %) (RR 0.42; 95 % CI: 0.19 to 0.92). The mean cost to supply equipment for VAC® therapy was US$ 96.51/day compared to US$ 4.22/day for one of the 'home-made' devices (p value 0.01); labor costs for dressing changes were similar for both treatments. Pain intensity score was also reported to be lower in the 'home-made' group when compared with the VAC® group (p value 0.02). One of the trials in orthopedic patients was stopped early because of a high incidence of fracture blisters in the NPWT group (15/24; 62.5 %) compared with the standard dressing group (3/36; 8.3 %) (RR 7.50; 95 % CI: 2.43 to 23.14). The authors concluded that the evidence for the effects of NPWT for reducing SSI and wound dehiscence remains unclear, as does the effect of NPWT on time to complete healing. Rates of graft loss may be lower when NPWT is used, but hospital-designed and built products are as effective in this area as commercial applications. There were clear cost benefits when non-commercial systems were used to create the negative pressure required for wound therapy, with no evidence of a negative effect on clinical outcome. In 1 study, pain levels were also rated lower when a 'home-made' system was compared with a commercial counterpart. The high incidence of blisters occurring when NPWT is used following orthopedic surgery suggested that the therapy should be limited until safety in this population is established. They stated that given the cost and widespread use of NPWT, there is an urgent need for suitably powered, high-quality trials to evaluate the effects of the newer NPWT products that are designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should focus initially on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.
Kostaras et al (2014) stated that NPWT has been suggested to have a positive impact on the healing of sternal or extremity wounds. However, few data deriving from breast surgery have been published. These researchers evaluated the available literature regarding the effectiveness of NPWT systems in the healing of breast tissues. The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched systematically, and all studies that provided relevant data were considered eligible for inclusion in the review. A total of 20 studies (154 female patients) met the inclusion criteria (4 cohort studies, 1 case series, and 15 case reports). The NPWT system was used alone in 17 patients and in combination with other techniques in the remaining 137. The lesion was secondary to plastic surgery in 107 women, other operations in 40 women (38 of them for breast cancer), and primary breast infection in 7 women. Infections (including necrotizing fasciitis), pyoderma gangrenosum, and necrosis were among the most common complications for which NPWT was used. In total, 150 of 154 patients receiving NPWT healed completely. Two patients died before complete closure for reasons unrelated to the wound, and NPWT failed in 2 patients who healed later with muscle flap coverage. The authors concluded that the scant published evidence suggested that NPWT systems might be useful in the healing of complicated breast wounds. However, they stated that larger studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of this system further before it is established in breast surgery.
The literature on the use of NPWT in surgical wounds has focused on its use in wound complications. There is only scant literature on the use of NPWT in preventing complications in surgical wounds of the abdomen based upon presence of diabetes or obesity as risk factors.
In a pilot study, Mark et al (2013) assessed the effectiveness of incisional negative pressure therapy in decreasing post-operative wound complications when placed prophylactically over clean, closed incisions following cesarean section in obese patients. This was a retrospective cohort study comparing rates of wound complications following Cesarean sections in morbidly obese women prior to and following the institution of standard use of prophylactic incisional negative pressure therapy. All women with a body mass index (BMI) greater than 45 kg/m2 undergoing cesarean section in a 2-year period in a single institution were included. The exposure was incisional negative pressure therapy, which began in September 2009, versus standard wound dressing used in the previous year. The main outcome was wound complication identified by ICD-9 codes. Demographic and wound outcomes were compared with χ2 and t tests. Stata version 11.0 was used for all analysis. A total of 63 women met the inclusion criteria, 21 of whom received NPWT. The historical comparison and exposure groups were similar in all characteristics studied with the exceptions of length of surgery (64 versus 76 minutes, p = 0.03), length of labor (78 versus 261 minutes, p = 0.02), scheduled versus non-scheduled (77 % versus 52 %, p = 0.04), and mean age (29.5 versus 26.1 years, p = 0.04), respectively. There were 5 wound complications in the control group (10.4 %) and none (0 %) in the study group (p = 0.15). The authors concluded that the findings of this pilot study suggested a decrease in wound complications in morbidly obese women receiving incisional negative pressure therapy following Cesarean section. The main drawbacks of this study were its retrospective nature and its small sample size (n = 21 for women receiving NPWT). These preliminary findings need to be validated by well-designed studies.
Schlatterer et al (2015) stated that evidence-based practice guidelines are limited for use of NPWT in Grade IIIB tibia fractures (by definition required soft tissue procedures). These investigators performed a systematic literature review of NPWT in Grade IIIB tibia fractures in an attempt to substantiate current use and guide future studies. They sought to answer the following: (i) Does the use of NPWT compared with gauze dressings lead to fewer infections? (ii) Does it allow flap procedures to be performed safely beyond 72 hours without increased infection rates? And (iii) Is it associated with fewer local or free flap procedures? These researchers conducted a systematic review of 6 large databases (through September 1, 2013) for studies reporting use of NPWT in Grade IIIB open tibia fractures, including information regarding infection rates and soft tissue reconstruction. The systematic review identified 1 RCT and 12 retrospective studies: 4 studies compared infection rates between BPWT and gauze dressings, 10 addressed infection rates with extended use, and 6 reported on flap coverage rates in relation to NPWT use beyond 72 hours. None of the 13 studies was eliminated owing to lack of study quality. Negative pressure wound therapy showed a decrease in infection rates over rates for gauze dressings in 2 of 4 studies (5.4 % [2 of 35] versus 28 % [7 of 25], and 8.4 % [14 of 166] versus 20.6 % [13 of 63]), an equivalent infection rate in 1 study (15 % [8 of 53] versus 14 % [5 of 16]), and an increased infection rate in the 4th study (29.5 % [23 of 78] versus 8 % [2 of 25]). In terms of the second question regarding infection rates with NPWT beyond 72 hours, 8 of 10 studies concluded there was no increase in infection rates, whereas 2 of 10 reported an increase in infection rates associated with NPWT use beyond 72 hours. Infection rates varied from 0 % to 57 % in these 10 studies. Five studies reported low infection rates of 0 % to 7 % and 5 reported rates of 27 % to 57 %. The third question (addressed by 6 studies) regarded the potential decreased use of a soft tissue flap in patients treated with extended NPWT. Flap rates were reduced by 13 % to 60 %, respectively compared with those of historical controls. The patients in these 6 studies had Grade IIIB tibia fractures after the first debridement. However, after extended NPWT, fewer patients required flaps than grading at the first debridement would have predicted. The authors concluded that there is an increasing body of data supporting NPWT as an adjunctive modality at all stages of treatment for Grade IIIB tibia fractures. There is an association between decreased infection rates with NPWT compared with gauze dressings. There is evidence to support NPWT beyond 72 hours without increased infection rates and to support a reduction in flap rates with NPWT. However, they stated that NPWT use for Grade IIIB tibia fractures requires extensive additional study.
Echebiri et al (2015) evaluated the economic benefit of prophylactic NPWT on a closed laparotomy incision after cesarean delivery in comparison with standard post-operative dressing. These researchers designed a decision-analytic model from a third-party payer's perspective to determine the cost-benefit of prophylactic application of NPWT compared with standard post-operative dressing on a closed laparotomy incision after cesarean delivery. The primary outcome measure was the expected value of the cost per strategy. Baseline probabilities and cost assumptions were derived from published literature. These investigators conducted sensitivity analyses using both deterministic and probabilistic models. Cost estimates reflect 2014 U.S. dollars. Under the baseline parameters, standard post-operative dressing was the preferred strategy. Standard post-operative dressing and prophylactic NPWT cost $547 and $804 per strategy, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed that prophylactic NPWT can be cost-beneficial if it is priced below $192; standard post-operative dressing is the preferred strategy among patients with surgical site infection rate of 14 % or less. If surgical site infection rates are greater than 14 %, prophylactic NPWT could be cost-beneficial depending on the degree of reduction in surgical site infections. At a surgical site infection rate of 30 %, the rate must be reduced by 15 % for NPWT to become the preferred strategy. Monte Carlo simulation of 1,000 patients in 1 million trials showed that standard post-operative dressing was the preferred cost-beneficial strategy with a frequency of 85 %. The authors concluded that their cost-benefit analysis provided economic evidence suggesting that NPWT should not be used on closed laparotomy incisions of patients with low risk of post-cesarean delivery surgical site infections. However, among patients with a high risk of surgical site infections, prophylactic NPWT is potentially cost-beneficial. Moreover, the authors stated that “additional studies, including RCTs, are needed to establish the effectiveness of NPWT on incisions intended to heal by primary intention”.
In an editorial that accompanied the afore-mentioned study, Rouse (2015) stated that “The question that needs to be answered first is whether negative pressure therapy has any efficacy; that is, does it reduce the rate of surgical site infection or improve other important health outcomes when applied as a primary wound dressing to women who have undergone cesarean delivery? Right now, there is no way to answer this question. We therefore should not assume, however conditionally, that among patients with a high risk of surgical site infections, prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy is potentially cost-effective …. Absent compelling trial results, it is baffling why any insurance company would or should pay for such therapy”.
Specifications of Equipment and Supplies:
NPWT is provided with an integrated system of components. This system contains a pump, dressing sets and a separate collection canister. Wound suction systems that do not contain all of the required components are not classified as NPWT. See below for component specifications.
For purposes of this policy, a NPWT pump describes a stationary or portable Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) electrical pump which provides controlled subatmospheric pressure that is designed for use with NPWT dressings and canisters to promote wound healing. The NPWT pump must be capable of being selectively switched between continuous and intermittent modes of operation and is controllable to adjust the degree of subatmospheric pressure conveyed to the wound in a range of 40-80 mm Hg subatmospheric pressure. The system must contain sensors and alarms to monitor pressure variations and exudate volume in the collection canister.
A NPWT dressing kit describes an allowance for a dressing set which is used in conjunction with a stationary or portable NPWT pump. A single dressing kit is used for each single, complete dressing change, and contains all necessary components, including but not limited to any separate, non-adherent porous dressing(s), drainage tubing, and an occlusive dressing(s) which creates a seal around the wound site for maintaining subatmospheric pressure at the wound.
A NPWT collection cannister describes a canister set which is used in conjunction with a stationary or portable NPWT pump and contains all necessary components, including but not limited to a container to collect wound exudate. Canisters may be various sizes to accommodate stationary or portable NPWT pumps.
Contraindications for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT):
NPWT is contraindicated in the presence of any the following:
List of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) Devices*
ActiV.A.C.® Therapy Unit
Engenex® Advanced NPWT System
Exusdex® wound drainage pump
EZCARE Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
Genadyne A4 Wound Vacuum System
InfoV.A.C.® Therapy Unit
Invia Liberty Wound Therapy
Invia Vario 18 ci Wound Therapy
Medela® Invia Liberty pump
NPD 1000 Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System
Prodigy™ NPWT System (PMS-800 and PMS-800V)
RENASYS™ EZ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
SVEDMAN™ and SVED™ Wound Treatment Systems
V.A.C.® Instill Device
V.A.C.® Therapy Unit
V.A.C.® (Vacuum Assisted Closure™)
V1STA Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
Venturi™ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
* These devices have U.S. Food and Drug Administration 510(k) clearance for marketing in the United States. This list is not all-inclusive.
Information describing the history, previous treatment regimens (if applicable), and current wound management for which an NPWT pump is being billed must be present in the member’s medical record and be available for review upon request. This documentation must include such elements as length of sessions of use, dressing types and frequency of change, and changes in wound conditions, including precise measurements, quantity of exudates, presence of granulation and necrotic tissue and concurrent measures being addressed relevant to wound therapy (debridement, nutritional concerns, support surfaces in use, positioning, incontinence control, etc.).
Information describing the wound evaluation and treatment, recorded in the member’s medical record, must indicate regular evaluation and treatment of the beneficiary’s wounds, as detailed in the Policy Section. Documentation of quantitative measurements of wound characteristics including wound length and width (surface area), and depth, and amount of wound exudate (drainage), indicating progress of healing must be entered at least monthly. The supplier of the NPWT equipment and supplies must obtain from the treating clinician, an assessment of wound healing progress, based upon the wound measurement as documented in the member’s medical record, in order to determine whether the equipment and supplies continue to be medically necessary. (The supplier need not view the medical records in order to bill for continued use of NPWT. Whether the supplier ascertains that wound healing is occurring from month to month via verbal or written communication is left to the discretion of the supplier. However, the member’s medical records may be requested in order to corroborate that wound healing is/was occurring as represented on the supplier’s claims for reimbursement.)
When billing for NPWT, an ICD-9-CM diagnosis code (specific to the 5th digit or narrative diagnosis), describing the wound being treated by NPWT, must be included on each claim for the equipment and related supplies.
The medical record must include a statement from the treating physician describing the initial condition of the wound (including measurements) and the efforts to address all aspects of wound care listed in the Policy Section. For each subsequent month, the medical record must include updated wound measurements and what changes are being applied to effect wound healing. Month-to-month comparisons of wound size must compare like measurements i.e. depth compared to depth or surface area compared to surface area.
If the initiation of NPWT occurs during an inpatient stay, in order to accurately account for the duration of treatment, the initial inpatient date of service must be documented. This date must be available upon request.
When NPWT therapy exceeds 4 months on the most recent wound, individual consideration for one additional month at a time may be sought using the appeals process. Information from the treating physician’s medical record, contemporaneous with each requested one-month treatment time period extension, must be submitted with each appeal explaining the special circumstances necessitating the extended month of therapy. Note, this policy provides coverage for the use of NPWT limited to initiating healing of the problem wounds described in the Policy Section section of this CPB rather than continuation of therapy to complete healing since there is no published medical literature demonstrating evidence of a clinical benefit for the use of NPWT to complete wound healing. Therefore, general, vague or nonspecific statements in the medical record such as “doing well, want to continue until healed” provide insufficient information to justify the need for extension of treatment. The medical record must provide specific and detailed information to explain the continuing problems with the wound, what additional measures are being undertaken to address those problems and promote healing and why a switch to alternative treatments alone is not possible.
When billing for quantities of canisters greater than those described in the Policy Section as the usual maximum amounts, there must be clear and explicit information in the medical record that justifies the additional quantities.
|CPT Codes /HCPCS Codes/ICD-10 Codes|
|Information in the [brackets] below has been added for clarification purposes.  Codes requiring a 7th character are represented by "+":|
|ICD-10 codes will become effective as of October 1, 2015 :|
|CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:|
|97605||Negative pressure wound therapy (eg, vacuum assisted drainage collection), including topical application(s), wound assessment, and instruction(s) for ongoing care, per session; total wound(s) surface area less than or equal to 50 square centimeters|
|97606||total wound(s) surface area greater than 50 square centimeters|
|CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:|
|97607||Negative pressure wound therapy, (eg, vacuum assisted drainage collection), utilizing disposable, non-durable medical equipment including provision of exudate management collection system, topical application(s), wound assessment, and instructions for ongoing care, per session; total wound(s) surface area less than or equal to 50 square centimeters|
|97608||total wound(s) surface area greater than 50 square centimeters|
|Other CPT codes related to the CPB:|
|11000 - 11047||Excision - debridement of skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and/or fascia, bone|
|97597 - 97598||Debridement (eg, high pressure waterjet with/without suction, sharp selective debdridement with scissors, scalpel and forceps), open wound, (eg, fibrin, devitalized epidermis and/or dermis, exudate, debris, biofilm), including topical application(s), wound assessment, use of a whirlpool, when performed and instruction(s) for ongoing care, per session, total wound(s) surface area|
|97602||Removal of devitalized tissue from wound(s), non-selective debridement, without anesthesia (e.g., wet-to-moist dressings, enzymatic, abrasion), including topical application(s), wound assessment, and instruction(s) for ongoing care, per session|
|HCPCS codes covered if selection criteria are met:|
|A6550||Wound care set, for negative pressure wound therapy electrical pump, includes all supplies and accessories|
|A9272||Wound suction, disposable, includes dressing, all accessories and components, any type, each|
|E2402||Negative pressure wound therapy electrical pump, stationary or portable|
|K0743||Suction pump, home model, portable, for use on wounds|
|K0744||Absorptive wound dressing for use with suction pump, home model, portable pad size 16 square inches or less|
|K0745||Absorptive wound dressing for use with suction pump, home model, portable pad size more than 16 square inches but less than or equal to 48 square inches|
|K0746||Absorptive wound dressing for use with suction pump, home model, portable, pad size greater than 48 square inches|
|HCPCS codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:|
|G0456 - G0457||Negative pressure wound therapy, (e.g. vacuum assisted drainage collection) using a mechanically-powered device, not durable medical equipment, including provision of cartridge and dressing(s), topical application(s), wound assessment, and instructions for ongoing care, per session|
|Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:|
|A7000||Canister, disposable, used with suction pump, each|
|ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:|
|E10.40 - E10.49
E11.40 - E11.49
E13.40 - E13.29
|Diabetes with neurological manifestations [chronic Stage III or IV neuropathic ulcers (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology present for at least 30 days meeting specific criteria] [not covered for prophylactic use of NPWT in preventing complications in surgical wounds of the abdomen based upon presence of diabetes or obesity as risk factors]|
|E10.51 - E10.59
E11.51 - E11.59
E13.51 - E13.59
|Diabetes with peripheral circulatory disorders [chronic Stage III or IV neuropathic ulcers (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology present for at least 30 days meeting specific criteria] [not covered for prophylactic use of NPWT in preventing complications in surgical wounds of the abdomen based upon presence of diabetes or obesity as risk factors]|
|E10.610 - E10.69
E11.610 - E11.69
E13.610 - E11.69
|Diabetes with other specified manifestations [chronic Stage III or IV neuropathic ulcers (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology present for at least 30 days meeting specific criteria] [not covered for prophylactic use of NPWT in preventing complications in surgical wounds of the abdomen based upon presence of diabetes or obesity as risk factors]|
|I70.231 - I70.25||Atherosclerosis of native arteries of extremities with ulceration [chronic Stage III or IV neuropathic ulcers (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology present for at least 30 days meeting specific criteria]|
|I70.261 - I70.269||Atherosclerosis of native arteries of extremities with gangrene [chronic Stage III or IV neuropathic ulcers (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology present for at least 30 days meeting specific criteria]|
|I73.9||Peripheral vascular disease, unspecified [chronic Stage III or IV neuropathic ulcers (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology present for at least 30 days meeting specific criteria]|
|I83.001 - I83.029||Varicose veins of lower extremities with ulcer [chronic Stage III or IV neuropathic ulcers (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology present for at least 30 days meeting specific criteria]|
|L02.01 - L03.90||Other cellulitis and abscess|
|L89.003 L89.004, L89.013 - L89.014
L89.023 - L89.024, L89.103 - L89.104
L89.113 - L89.114, L89.123 - L89.124
L89.133 - L89.134, L89.143 - L89.144
L89.153 - L89.154, L89.203 - L89.204
L89.213 - L89.214, L89.223 - L89.224
L89.303 - L89.304, L89.313 - L89.314
L89.323 - L89.324. L89.43 - L89.44
L89.503 - L89.504, L89.513 - L89.514
L89.523 - L89.524, L89.603 - L89.604
L89.613 - L89.614, L89.623 - L89.624
L89.813 - L89.814, L89893 - L89.894
|Pressure ulcer stage III or IV|
|S31.100+ - S31.159+||Open wound of abdominal wall|
|S31.600+ - S31.659+||Open wound of abdominal wall with penetration into peritoneal cavity|
|S39.001+, S39.021, S39.091+, S39.81x+. S39.91x+||Other injury of abdomen [abdominal traumatic injuries]|
|S41.021+ - S41.029+
S41.041+ - S41.049+
S41.121+ - S41.129+
S41.141+ - S41.149+
S51.021+ - S51.029+
S51.041+ - S51.049+
S51.821+ - S51.829+
S51.841+ - S51.859+
S61.021+ - S61.029+
S61.041+ - S61.049+
S61.121+ - S61.129+
S61.141+ - S61.149+
S61.220+ - S61.229+
S61.240+ - S61.249+
S61.320+ - S61.329+
S61.340+ - S61.349+
S61.421+ - S61.429+
S61.441+ - S61.449+
S61.521+ - S61.529+
|Open wound of upper limb, complicated|
|S71.021+ - S71.029+
S71.041+ - S71.049+
S71.121+ - S71.129+
S71.141+ - S71.149+
S81.021+ - S81.029+
S81.041+ - S81.049+
S81.821+ - S81.829+
S81.841+ - S81.849+
|Open wound of lower limb, complicated|
|T81.31x+ - T81.32x+||Disruption of external or internal operation (surgical) wound, not elsewhere classified|
|T81.4xx+||Infection following a procedure [other than deep sternal wound infections]|
|T81.89x+||Other complications of procedures, not elsewhere classified [other than deep sternal wound infections]|
|ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in CPB (not all-inclusive):|
|E66.01 - E66.9||Overweight and obesity [prophylactic use of NPWT for preventing complications in surgical wounds of the abdomen based upon presence of diabetes or obesity as risk factors]|
|L05.01 - L05.02||Pilonidal cyst with abscess|
|L05.91 - L05.92||Pilonidal cyst without abscess|
|L89.000 - L89.002, L89.009 - L89.012
L89.019 - L89.022, L89.029 - L89.102
L89.109 - L89.112, L89.119 - L89.122
L89.129 - L89.132, L89.139 - L89.142
L89.149 - L89.152, L89.159 - L89.202
L89.209 - L89.212, L89.219 - L89.222
L89.229 - L89.302, L89.309 - L89.312
L89.319 - L89.311, L89.329 - L89.42
L89.45 - L89.502, L89.509 - L89.512
L89.519 - L89.522, L89.529 - L89.602
L89.609 - L89.612, L89.619 - L89.622
L89.629 - L89.812, L89.819 - L89.892
L89.899 - L89.92, L89.95,
L97.101 - L97.929, L98.441 - L98.499
|Chronic ulcer of skin [other than chronic stage III or stage IV pressure ulcer, neuropathic ulcer (e.g., diabetic ulcer), venous or arterial insufficiency ulcer, or a chronic ulcer of mixed etiology present for at least 30 days]|
|O90.0||Disruption of cesarean delivery wound [prophylactic use of NPWT after cesarean delivery]|
|S21.101+ - S21.109+
S21.121+ - S21.129+
S21.141+ - S21.149+
|Open wound of chest (wall), complicated [deep sternal wound infection]|
|S82.101+ - S82.399+||Fracture of tibia|
|S89.001+ - S89.199+||Physeal fracture of tibia|
|T20.20x+ - T20.29x+T20.60x+ - T20.69x+||Burns or corrosion of second degree of head, face and neck [partial-thickness]|
|T21.20x+ - T21.29x+T21.60x+ - T21.69x+||Burns or corrosion of second degree of truck [partial-thickness]|
|T22.20x+ - T22.299+T22.60x+ -T22.699+||Burns or corrosion of second degree of shoulder and upper limb [partial-thickness]|
|T23.201+ - T23.299+T23.601+ - T23.699+||Burns or corrosion of second degree of wrist and hand [partial-thickness]|
|ICD-10 codes contraindicated for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT):|
|C00.0 - C96.9
D00.00 - D09.9
|Malignant neoplasms [cancer present in wounds]|
|I96||Gangrene, not elsewhere classified [presence in the wound of necrotic tissue with eschar if debridement is not attempted]|
|L08.9||Local infection of skin and subcutaneous tissue, unspecified [to an organ or body cavity within the vicinity of the wound]|
|M86.00 - M86.9||Acute, chronic, or unspecified osteomyelitis [untreated osteomyelitis within the vicinity of the wound]|
|T20.30x+ - T20.39x+
T20.70x+ - T20.79x+
|Third degree burns face, head and neck [presence in the wound of necrotic tissue with eschar if debridement is not attempted]|
|T21.30x+ - T21.39x+
T21.70x+ - T21.79x+
|Third degree burns trunk [presence in the wound of necrotic tissue with eschar if debridement is not attempted]|
|T22.30x+ - T22.399x+
T22.70x+ - T22.799+
|Third degree burns upper limb [presence in the wound of necrotic tissue with eschar if debridement is not attempted ]|
|T23.301+ - T23.399+
T23701+ - T23.799+
|Third degree burns wrist and hand [presence in the wound of necrotic tissue with eschar if debridement is not attempted]|
|T24.301+ - T24.399+
T24.701+ - T24.799+
T25.311+ - T25.399+
T25.711+ - T25.799+
|Third degree burns lower limb [presence in the wound of necrotic tissue with eschar if debridement is not attempted]|
|T30.0 - T30.4||Burn and corrosion of unspecified body region [third degree burns]|
|T81.83x+||Persistent postoperative fistula [to an organ or body cavity within the vicinity of the wound]|