Achieving clinical outcomes while tackling costs and inefficiencies

NPWT has well-documented clinical benefits across acute and chronic wound indications,3-5 yet there may be obstacles to clinician confidence and timely therapy initiation.1,2

  • NPWT decision-making can be complex, which may impact clinician confidence and wound outcomes2,6
  • 38% of patients discontinue their therapy sooner than clinically recommended, many of whom due to the impact on their quality of life7
  • Logistics and paperwork relating to tNPWT can create additional work, potentially delaying patient discharge and increasing overall costs of care2,8
  • Costs are increasing quicker than budgets, and complex inventory management can be a drain on resources

An international expert consensus

Experts recommend implementation of an evidence-based framework to simplify and optimise NPWT provision, and to help guide the selection of appropriate NPWT systems.

Prompt selection of a single-use NPWT system, such as PICO sNPWT, for clinically eligible wounds can help to:

Unlocking the full potiential of NPWT

Reduce the number of NPWT options and simplify your inventory to help optimise the clinical benefits of NPWT using our proprietary traditional and single-use technologies. Clinical studies have demonstrated:

  • Improved patient comfort and tolerability with the RENASYS System’s unique Soft Port Technology*9
  • The RENASYS TOUCH System was found to be comfortable by over 90% of patients4
  • The PICO System helps to promote healing progression and shorten time to healing**5,10
  • PICO sNPWT was shown to improve the area, depth and volume of lower extremity ulcer wounds***11
  • 97.5% of patients report being satisfied or pleased with PICO sNPWT treatment****12

Contact us


*n=96; compared to alternative ports.

**For healing progression compared to baseline trajectory and for healing compared with predictions for standard care; n=52 wounds. On responding to stalled chronic wounds of 44 weeks mean duration, the PICO system healed 56% of wounds an average of 10 weeks earlier than predicted with standard wound care dressings; n=9.

***Compared to traditional NPWT over a 12-week treatment period for VLUs and DFUs; n=161; ITT analysis.


  1. Hurd T. et al. Wounds 2021;33 (suppl 2):S1– S11.
  2. Kirsner R, et al. Wounds 2020;32(12).
  3. Saunders C, et al. BJS Open. 2021;0(0):1 - 8.
  4. Forlee M, et al. Poster presented at: EWMA;9-11 May, 2018; Krakow, Poland.
  5. Dowsett C, et al. Wounds International. 2017;8(2):52-58.
  6. Cray A. . Br J Nurs. 2017 Aug 10;26(15):S6-S18.
  7. Janssen AHJ, et al. J Tissue Viability. 2021 Feb 6.
  8. Kantar Health market research report, November 2018.
  9. Carnali M, et al. Acta Vulnologica. Vol 142016:24-39.
  10. Hampton J. Community Wound Care. 2015:S14-S20.
  11. Kirsner R, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(5):519 - 529.
  12. Hurd T, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014;60(3):30-36.