In the study “Antimicrobial Dressing versus Standard Dressing in Obese Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial” conducted by Dr. Antonio Saad and colleagues at the University of Texas Medical Branch, ReliaTect antimicrobial dressing was compared to standard wound dressing. It is the first published trial comparing different types of wound dressings that focuses on evaluation of patient well‐being and health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients (n=160) were randomly assigned to either ReliaTect or standard wound dressing for use in their post‐operative care.¹

HRQoL is a comprehensive measurement of health that encompasses patient quality‐ of‐life and wellbeing instead of focusing solely on physical status. Growing evidence supports that health is comprised of physical, mental, emotional, and social functioning concepts. Effective treatment should consider each of these components when measuring recovery.^2‐4

This study enrolled obese women using dressings for post‐cesarean delivery care. Focus on this patient population is important since cesarean procedures are the most common surgeries in the United States,⁵ and rates of obesity in reproductively mature women are increasing.⁶ Obesity is also a known risk factor for development of surgical site infections (SSIs).⁷ Since SSIs often increase risk of obstetrical morbidity and hospital readmission, preventing their development is a priority during post‐operative wound care.⁸

*NOTE – Since the measurement of SSI rates as a secondary outcome did not differ between the two groups, it cannot determine whether ReliaTect is superior to current practice in decreasing wound infection rates.  Further investigation and evidence is needed to assess ReliaTect’s efficacy in this regard.¹

Outcomes were divided into primary (patient satisfaction and HRQoL) and secondary (provider satisfaction and wound complications) categories. Patients in both the ReliaTect and Standard Dressing groups were asked to answer an 11‐question survey about the treatment’s effect on their wellbeing, rating each category on a scale from 1‐5, with 5 being the highest score possible. Overall satisfaction and HRQoL were also assessed.

A majority of women in the ReliaTect group experienced better self‐esteem, body image, and personal hygiene. Their quality of sleep and ability to do daily activities were also increased, including allowing the patients to shower earlier than those who received the standard of care.

Members of the ReliaTect group also reported less incision odor and pain. Less wound dressing leakage was observed, and easier assessment of the incision site was possible due to ReliaTect’s transparent, CHG‐coated film.

Overall, the ReliaTect patient group reported higher total satisfaction scores and higher HRQoL than the Standard Dressing Group, with median scores of 52 and 49 respectively. Providers reported an overall satisfaction score of 17 for standard dressing and 21 for ReliaTect Post‐Op Dressing with CHG. Use of ReliaTect was associated with better patient and provider satisfaction throughout the trial. These measures of patient well‐being provide a well‐rounded assessment of health and treatment efficacy.

For more information about the ReliaTect® Post‐Op Dressing with CHG, please contact your sales consultant or complete this form. Access the full study here. Eloquest Healthcare’s products support strategies that prevent hospital acquired infections and provide better outcomes, higher quality and lower healthcare costs.

1. Saad AF, Salazar AE, Allen L, Saade GR. Antimicrobial Dressing versus Standard Dressing in Obese Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am J Perinatol. 2020. doi: ********doi.org/10.1055/s‐0040‐1721112.=
2. Schwartz CE, Andresen EM, Nosek MA, Krahn GLRRTC Expert Panel on Health Status Response shift theory: important implications for measuring quality of life in people with disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2007;88(04):529‐536.
3. Ostir GV, Markides KS, Black SA, Goodwin JS. Emotional well‐being predicts subsequent functional independence and survival. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48(05):473‐ 478.
4. Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychol Bull 2005;131(06):925‐971.
5. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gulmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990‐2014. PLoS One 2016;11(02):e0148343.
6. Poston L, Caleyachetty R, Cnattingius S, et al. Preconceptional and maternal obesity: epidemiology and health consequences. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016;4(12):1025‐1036.
7. Gibbs RS. Clinical risk factors for puerperal infection. Obstet Gynecol 1980;55(05):178S‐184S.
8. Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, Wilkinson WE, Sexton DJ. The impact of surgical‐site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20(11):725‐730