-
American Journal of Critical Care : An... Sep 2022Hospital-acquired pressure injuries, including those related to airway devices, are a significant source of morbidity in critically ill patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hospital-acquired pressure injuries, including those related to airway devices, are a significant source of morbidity in critically ill patients.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the incidence of endotracheal tube-related pressure injuries in critically ill patients and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent injury.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies of pediatric or adult patients in intensive care units that evaluated interventions to reduce endotracheal tube-related pressure injury. Reviewers extracted data on study and patient characteristics, incidence of pressure injury, type and duration of intervention, and outcomes. Risk of bias assessment followed the Cochrane Collaboration's criteria.
RESULTS
Twelve studies (5 randomized clinical trials, 3 quasi-experimental, 4 observational) representing 9611 adult and 152 pediatric patients met eligibility criteria. The incidence of pressure injury was 4.2% for orotracheal tubes and 21.1% for nasotracheal tubes. Interventions included anchor devices, serial endotracheal tube assessment or repositioning, and barrier dressings for nasotracheal tubes. Meta-analysis revealed that endotracheal tube stabilization was the most effective individual intervention for preventing pressure injury. Nasal alar barrier dressings decreased the incidence of skin or mucosal injury in patients undergoing nasotracheal intubation, and data on effectiveness of serial assessment and repositioning were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
Airway device-related pressure injuries are common in critically ill patients, and patients with nasotracheal tubes are particularly susceptible to iatrogenic harm. Fastening devices and barrier dressings decrease the incidence of injury. Evidence regarding interventions is limited by lack of standardized assessments.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Critical Illness; Incidence; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 36045034
DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2022644 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Sep 2023Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based pressure injury prevention and management is a global health service priority. Low uptake of pressure injury guidelines leads to compromised patient outcomes. Understanding clinicians' and patients' views on the barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines and mapping the identified barriers and facilitators to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques will inform an end-user and theoretically informed intervention to improve guideline uptake in the acute care setting.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise quantitative and qualitative evidence on i) hospital clinicians' and inpatients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines.
DESIGN
A convergent integrated mixed-methods systematic review was conducted using the JBI approach.
DATA SOURCE
English language peer-reviewed studies published from 2009 to August 2022 were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Library.
REVIEW METHODS
Included studies reported: i) acute care hospital clinicians' and patients' perceptions and experiences of evidence-based pressure injury practices and ii) barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Quantitative data was transformed into qualitised data, then thematically synthesised with qualitative data, comparing clinicians' and patients' views. Barriers and facilitators associated with each main theme were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and allocated to relevant behaviour change techniques.
RESULTS
Fifty-five out of 14,488 studies of variable quality (29 quantitative, 22 qualitative, 4 mixed-methods) met the inclusion criteria. Four main themes represent factors thought to influence the implementation of evidence-based guidelines: 1) nurse-led multidisciplinary care, 2) patient participation in care, 3) practicability of implementation and 4) attitudes towards pressure injury prevention and management. Most barriers identified by clinicians were related to the third theme, whilst for patients, there were multiple barriers under theme 2. Barriers were mainly mapped to the Knowledge domain and Environmental Context and Resources domain and were matched to the behaviour change techniques of "instruction on how to perform a behaviour" and "restructuring the physical environment". Most facilitators mentioned by clinicians and patients were related to themes 1 and 2, respectively, and mapped to the Environmental Context and Resources domain. All patient-related attitudes in theme 4 were facilitators.
CONCLUSIONS
These review findings highlight the most influential factors related to implementing evidence-based pressure injury care from clinicians' and patients' views and mapping these factors to the Theoretical Domains Framework and behaviour change techniques has contributed to developing a stakeholder-tailored implementation intervention in acute care settings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021250885.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Inpatients
PubMed: 37453248
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104557 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores or pressure sores, are localised areas of tissue damage arising due to excess pressure and shearing forces. Education of healthcare staff has been recognised as an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention. These educational programmes are directed towards influencing behaviour change on the part of the healthcare professional, to encourage preventative practices with the aim of reducing the incidence of pressure ulcer development.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of educational interventions for healthcare professionals on pressure ulcer prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, that evaluated the effect of any educational intervention delivered to healthcare staff in any setting to prevent pressure ulceration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review: four RCTs and one cluster-RCT. The study characteristics differed in terms of healthcare settings, the nature of the interventions studied and outcome measures reported. The cluster-RCT, and two of the RCTs, explored the effectiveness of education delivered to healthcare staff within residential or nursing home settings, or nursing home and hospital wards, compared to no intervention, or usual practices. Educational intervention in one of these studies was embedded within a broader, quality improvement bundle. The other two individually randomised controlled trials explored the effectiveness of educational intervention, delivered in two formats, to nursing staff cohorts.Due to the heterogeneity of the studies identified, pooling was not appropriate and we have presented a narrative overview. We explored a number of comparisons (1) education versus no education (2) components of educational intervention in a number of combinations and (3) education delivered in different formats. There were three primary outcomes: change in healthcare professionals' knowledge, change in healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour and incidence of new pressure ulcers.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in health professionals' knowledge depending on whether they receive education or no education on pressure ulcer prevention (hospital group: mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.00 to 1.60; 10 participants; nursing home group: MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.77 to 1.37; 10 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for serious study limitations, indirectness and imprecision.We are uncertain whether there is a difference in pressure ulcer incidence with the following comparisons: training, monitoring and observation, versus monitoring and observation (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.05; 345 participants); training, monitoring and observation, versus observation alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.43; 325 participants) or, monitoring and observation versus observation alone (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.88; 232 participants). This was based on very low-certainty evidence from one study, which we downgraded for very serious study limitations and imprecision. We are uncertain whether multilevel intervention versus attention control makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence. The report presented insufficient data to enable further interrogation of this outcome.We are uncertain whether education delivered in different formats such as didactic education versus video-based education (MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.12; 102 participants) or e-learning versus classroom education (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; 18 participants), makes any difference to health professionals' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This was based on very low-certainty evidence from two studies, which we downgraded for serious study limitations and study imprecision.None of the included studies explored our other primary outcome: change in health professionals' clinical behaviour. Only one study explored the secondary outcomes of interest, namely, pressure ulcer severity and patient and carer reported outcomes (self-assessed quality of life and functional dependency level respectively). However, this study provided insufficient information to enable our independent assessment of these outcomes within the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain whether educating healthcare professionals about pressure ulcer prevention makes any difference to pressure ulcer incidence, or to nurses' knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention. This is because the included studies provided very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, further information is required to clarify the impact of education of healthcare professionals on the prevention of pressure ulcers.
Topics: Health Personnel; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29800486
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011620.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Oct 2023Current evidence shows that medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) has a high prevalence (10%) and incidence (12%), and much research has been done to prevent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Current evidence shows that medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) has a high prevalence (10%) and incidence (12%), and much research has been done to prevent MDRPI in recent years. However, to our knowledge, there is limited systematic review available on interventions and strategies to prevent MDRPI.
AIM
To synthesise research evidence on interventions and strategies used to prevent MDRPI.
METHODS
This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA Guidelines. We searched six databases including Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and ProQuest with no restriction to year of publication. Data were extracted and checked by two authors independently. A narrative summary technique was used to describe the findings. Implementation strategies were grouped into six classifications: dissemination/implementation process/integration/capacity building/sustainability/scale-up strategies.
RESULTS
Twenty-four peer-reviewed papers met the inclusion criteria, which comprised of 11 quality improvement projects and 13 original research. Types of devices included respiratory devices (non-invasive ventilation mask, CPAP/BiPAP mask, endotracheal tube), gastrointestinal/urinary devices and other devices. Interventions used included the use of dressing, hyperoxygenated fatty acids, full-face mask, training, and/or multidisciplinary education, use of special securement devices or tube holder, repositioning, application of stockinette, early removal and foam ring use. Common implementation strategies included ongoing staff education, audit and standardising documentation or guideline development.
CONCLUSION
Much work on MDRPI prevention strategies has been undertaken. There were a variety of devices reported, however, it is evident that higher quality research is needed.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Current evidence shows that interventions including use of dressing or special securement device, repositioning, and training/multidisciplinary education can be beneficial for MDRPI prevention. High-quality research, such as randomised controlled trials are needed to test the effectiveness of the interventions and their implementation strategies. No patient or public contribution.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Pressure Ulcer; Bandages
PubMed: 37300246
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16790 -
Australian Critical Care : Official... Mar 2022The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings.
REVIEW METHOD USED
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
Five databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched in mid-2019. Searches were updated (in April 2020) to year end 2019.
REVIEW METHODS
From an overarching systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions in adults admitted to acute hospital settings, trials conducted in intensive care were separated for an intensive care-specific synthesis. Two reviewers, with a third as an arbitrator, undertook study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Included trials were grouped by intervention type for narrative synthesis and for random-effects meta-analysis using intention-to-treat data where appropriate.
RESULTS
Overall, 26 trials were included. Ten intervention types were found (support surfaces, prophylactic dressings, positioning, topical preparations, continence management, endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, noninvasive ventilation masks, and bundled interventions). All trials, except one, were at high or unclear risk of bias. Four intervention types (endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, and noninvasive ventilation masks) comprised single trials. Support surface trials were limited to type (active, reactive, seating, other). Meta-analysis was undertaken for reactive surfaces, but the intervention effect was not significant (risk ratio = 0.24, p = 0.12, I = 51%). Meta-analyses demonstrated the effectiveness of sacral (risk ratio = 0.22, p < 0.001, I = 0%) and heel (risk ratio = 0.31, p = 0.02; I = 0%) prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention.
CONCLUSIONS
Only prophylactic sacral and heel dressings demonstrated effectiveness in preventing pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. Further intensive care-specific trials are required across all intervention types. To minimise bias, we recommend that all future trials are conducted and reported as per relevant guidelines and recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Bandages; Critical Care; Hospitalization; Noninvasive Ventilation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 34144865
DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.04.007 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2018The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The... (Review)
Review
The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The primary outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcers. Secondary outcomes included costs and patient comfort. This study was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were consulted: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCOhost interface), Science direct, and Web of Science. In addition, a hand search through reviews, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies. Potential studies were reviewed and assessed by 2 independent authors based on the title and abstract. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of the studies were based on a consensus between the authors. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: reporting an original study; the outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcer categories I to IV when using a static air mattress overlay and/or in comparison with other pressure-redistribution device(s); and studies published in English, French, and Dutch. No limitation was set on study setting, design, and date of publication. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Tool. Results were reported in a descriptive way to reflect the exploratory nature of the review. The searches included 13 studies: randomised controlled trials (n = 11) and cohort studies (n = 2). The mean pressure ulcer incidence figures found in the different settings were, respectively, 7.8% pressure ulcers of categories II to IV in nursing homes, 9.06% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in intensive care settings, and 12% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in orthopaedic wards. Seven comparative studies reported a lower incidence in the groups of patients on a static air mattress overlay. Three studies reported a statistical (P < .1) lower incidence compared with a standard hospital mattress (10 cm thick, density 35 kg/m ), a foam mattress (15 cm thick), and a viscoelastic foam mattress (15 cm thick). No significant difference in incidence, purchase costs, and patient comfort was found compared with dynamic air mattresses. This review focused on the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. There are indications that these mattress overlays are more effective in preventing pressure ulcers compared with the use of a standard mattress or a pressure-reducing foam mattress in nursing homes and intensive care settings. However, interpretation of the evidence should be performed with caution due to the wide variety of methodological and/or reporting quality levels of the included studies.
Topics: Beds; Humans; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 29504266
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12870 -
Nursing Open Nov 2022Pressure injuries (PIs) are one of the most common complications related to immobility, especially in hospitalized patients, which lead to increased morbidity, infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Pressure injuries (PIs) are one of the most common complications related to immobility, especially in hospitalized patients, which lead to increased morbidity, infection and overall decreased quality of life. Arginine supplementation may prevent the development of PIs. This study has summarized the findings of studies on the effect of arginine supplementation on PI healing.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
This study was conducted on online electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase to identify relevant clinical trial studies up to September 2020. The pooled effect size of arginine supplement effects on PI was evaluated with standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis with 196 patients. PIs were significantly improved with Arginine supplementation (SMD: -0.6; CI 95%: -0.9 to -0.3, I : 72.5%, p = .001). Subgroup analysis showed that administering Arginine supplement more than 15 g/day had more beneficial effects on the healing of PIs (SMD: -2.8; CI 95%: -4.08 to -1.52, I : 54.7%, p = .138).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the administration of Arginine supplement in patients with PIs can accelerate the healing of this type of ulcer. Arginine is a supplement, and primary treatment is still needed to optimize PI healing. Therefore, arginine supplementation in addition to primary treatment seems to be an appropriate approach for the healing of PIs. Further well-designed studies are necessary to prevent the development of PIs compared to their primary treatment.
Topics: Humans; Arginine; Dietary Supplements; Enteral Nutrition; Quality of Life; Wound Healing; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 34170617
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.974 -
International Wound Journal Aug 2023The aim of this study was to summarise the best evidence for the prevention and control of pressure ulcer at the support surface based on the site and stage of the...
The aim of this study was to summarise the best evidence for the prevention and control of pressure ulcer at the support surface based on the site and stage of the pressure ulcer in order to reduce the incidence of pressure ulcer and improve the quality of care. In accordance with the top-down principle of the 6 S model of evidence-based resources, evidence from domestic and international databases and websites on the prevention and control of pressure ulcer on support surfaces, including randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, evidence-based guidelines, and evidence summaries, was systematically searched for the period from January 2000 to July 2022. Evidence grading based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence-Based Health Care Centre Evidence Pre-grading System (2014 version), Australia. The outcomes mainly embraced 12 papers, including three randomised controlled trials, three systematic reviews, three evidence-based guidelines, and three evidence summaries. The best evidence summarised included a total of 19 recommendations in three areas: type of support surface selection assessment, use of support surfaces, and team management and quality control.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Beds; Incidence; Australia; Quality Control
PubMed: 36891753
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14109 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.A clear and current overview of all the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.
SEARCH METHODS
In July 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds.We judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole.It is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze.More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.
Topics: Alginates; Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Collagenases; Dermatologic Agents; Egg White; Gels; Glucuronic Acid; Hexuronic Acids; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Ointments; Pharmaceutic Aids; Phenytoin; Povidone; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Wound Healing; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 28639707
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011947.pub2 -
Impact of evidence-based bundles on ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention: A systematic review.Journal of Infection in Developing... Feb 2023This review aimed at investigating the impact of bundle components on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in adults and the elderly.
INTRODUCTION
This review aimed at investigating the impact of bundle components on the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in adults and the elderly.
METHODOLOGY
The databases consulted were PubMed, EBSCO, and Scielo. The terms Bundle and Pneumonia were searched in combination. The original articles were selected in Spanish and English; published between January 2008 and December 2017. After eliminating the duplicate papers, an analysis of the titles and the abstracts was performed in order to select the assessed articles. A total of 18 articles were included in this review that were evaluated according to the following criteria: research reference, country of data collection, type of study, characteristics of the studied patients, analysis and intervention performed, bundle items investigated and their results, and research outcome.
RESULTS
Four bundle items were presented in all the investigated papers. 61% of those works were considered from seven to eight bundle items. Daily evaluation of sedation interruption and daily assessment for verifying extubation condition, head-of-bed elevation at 30 degrees, cuff pressure monitoring, coagulation prophylaxis, and oral hygiene were the most reported bundle items. One study described the increased mortality of patients under mechanical ventilation when omitted the bundle items of oral hygiene and stress ulcer prophylaxis. Head-of-bed elevation at 30 degrees was the item reported in 100% of the studied papers.
CONCLUSIONS
Existing research demonstrated that VAP reduction occurred when bundle items were performed for adults and the elderly. Four works showed the relevance of team education as a central approach to the event reduction related to the ventilator.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aged; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Intensive Care Units; Respiration, Artificial; Ventilators, Mechanical; Peptic Ulcer
PubMed: 36897895
DOI: 10.3855/jidc.12202