-
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... Jan 2019The treatment of osteomyelitis in patients with stage IV sacral pressure ulcers is controversial. We conducted a systematic literature review and did not find evidence...
The treatment of osteomyelitis in patients with stage IV sacral pressure ulcers is controversial. We conducted a systematic literature review and did not find evidence of benefit of antibacterial therapy in this setting without concomitant surgical debridement and wound coverage. Furthermore, many patients with chronically exposed bone do not have evidence of osteomyelitis when biopsied, and magnetic resonance imaging may not accurately distinguish osteomyelitis from bone remodeling. The goal of therapy should be local wound care and assessment for the potential of wound closure. If the wound can be closed and osteomyelitis is present on bone biopsy, appropriate antibiotic therapy is reasonable. We find no data to support antibiotic durations of >6 weeks in this setting, and some authors recommend 2 weeks of therapy if the osteomyelitis is limited to cortical bone. If the wound will not be closed, we find no clear evidence supporting a role for antibiotic therapy.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Male; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Osteomyelitis; Pressure Ulcer; Sacrum
PubMed: 29986022
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciy559 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pressure sores, or pressure injuries, are localised damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue, usually caused by intense or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pressure sores, or pressure injuries, are localised damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue, usually caused by intense or long-term pressure, shear, or friction. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers, but its effect needs to be further clarified. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of NPWT for treating adult with pressure ulcers in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
On 13 January 2022, 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 We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal for ongoing and unpublished studies and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional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 published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of adults with pressure ulcers (stage II or above).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included eight RCTs with a total of 327 randomised participants. Six of the eight included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domains, and evidence for all outcomes of interest was deemed to be of very low certainty. Most studies had small sample sizes (range: 12 to 96, median: 37 participants). Five studies compared NPWT with dressings, but only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing and adverse events). This study had only 12 participants and there were very few events; only one participant was healed in the study (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 61.74, very low-certainly evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with adverse events in the NPWT group and the dressing group, but the evidence for this outcome was also assessed as very low certainty (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.44, very low-certainty evidence). Changes in ulcer size, pressure ulcer severity, cost, and pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) sores were also reported, but we were unable to draw conclusions due to the low certainly of the evidence. One study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments, but this study provided no usable data. Another study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing', which did not report primary outcome data. Changes in ulcer size and cost were reported in this study, but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty; One study compared NPWT combined with internet-plus home care with standard care, but no primary outcome data were reported. Changes in ulcer size, pain, and dressing change times were reported, but we also assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty. None of the included studies reported time to complete healing, health-related quality of life, wound infection, or wound recurrence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The efficacy, safety, and acceptability of NPWT in treating pressure ulcers compared to usual care are uncertain due to the lack of key data on complete wound healing, adverse events, time to complete healing, and cost-effectiveness. Compared with usual care, using NPWT may speed up the reduction of pressure ulcer size and severity of pressure ulcer, reduce pain, and dressing change times. Still, trials were small, poorly described, had short follow-up times, and with a high risk of bias; any conclusions drawn from the current evidence should be interpreted with considerable caution. In the future, high-quality research with large sample sizes and low risk of bias is still needed to further verify the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Future researchers need to recognise the importance of complete and accurate reporting of clinically important outcomes such as the complete healing rate, healing time, and adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Bandages; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Pressure Ulcer; Surgical Wound Infection; Ulcer
PubMed: 37232410
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011334.pub3 -
Worldviews on Evidence-based Nursing Dec 2016Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health burden, but could be preventable. Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) prevention has become a priority for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers are associated with substantial health burden, but could be preventable. Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) prevention has become a priority for all healthcare settings, as it is considered a sign of quality of care providing. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at higher risk for HAPUs development. Despite the availability of published prevention strategies, there is a little evidence about which strategies can be safely integrated into routine standard care and have an impact on HAPUs prevention.
AIMS
The aim was to synthesize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of single strategies designed to reduce the incidence and prevalence of HAPUs development in ICUs.
METHODS
The search strategy was designed to retrieve studies published in English across CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Scopus, and Mednar between 2000 and 2015. All adult ICU participants were aged 18 years or over. This review included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental and comparative studies. The studies that were selected for retrieval were assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical-appraisal instruments.
RESULTS
The review included 25 studies, and the meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant effect of a silicon foam dressing strategy in reducing HAPUs incidence (effect size = 4.62; 95% CI: 0.05-0.29; p < .00001, effect size = 4.50; 95% CI: 0.05-0.31; p = .00001, respectively) in critically ill patients. Evidence of the effectiveness of nutrition, skin-care regimen, positioning and repositioning schedule, support surfaces, and the role of education in prevention of HAPUs development in the ICU was limited, which precludes strong conclusions.
LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION
The review provides an evidence-based guide to future priorities for clinical practice. In particular, a silicone foam dressing has positive impact in reducing sacrum and heel HAPUs incidence in the ICU.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Pressure Ulcer; Program Evaluation
PubMed: 27712030
DOI: 10.1111/wvn.12177 -
International Wound Journal Nov 2023We aimed to review and synthesise the evidence of the interventions of patients' and informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home. The research... (Review)
Review
We aimed to review and synthesise the evidence of the interventions of patients' and informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home. The research team used a systematic review methodology based on an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (PRISMA) and recommendations from the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial of the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Wanfang (Chinese), and CNKI database (Chinese) were searched from inception to May 2022. The following MESH terms were used: wound healing, pressure ulcer, leg ulcer, diabetic foot, skin ulcer, surgical wound, educational, patient education, counselling, self-care, self-management, social support, and family caregiver. Experimental studies involving participants with chronic wounds (not at risk of wounds) and their informal caregivers were screened. Data were extracted and the narrative was synthesised from the findings of included studies. By screening the above databases, 790 studies were retrieved, and 16 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were 6 RCTs and ten non-RCTs. Outcomes of chronic wound management included patient indicators, wound indicators, and family/caregiver indicators. Home-based interventions of patients or informal caregivers' engagement in managing chronic wounds at home may effectively improve patient outcomes and change wound care behaviour. What's more, educational/behavioural interventions were the primary type of intervention. Multiform integration of education and skills training on wound care and aetiology-based treatment was delivered to patients and caregivers. Besides, there are no studies entirely targeting elderly patients. Home-based chronic wound care training was important to patients with chronic wounds and their family caregivers, which may advance wound management outcomes. However, the findings of this systematic review were based on relatively small studies. We need more exploration of self and family-oriented interventions in the future, especially for older people affected by chronic wounds.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Caregivers; Social Support; Self Care; Pressure Ulcer; Skin Ulcer
PubMed: 37277908
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14219 -
Enfermeria Clinica (English Edition) 2023Preventing hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PI) in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge because of its associated high risk for comorbid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Preventing hospital-acquired pressure injuries (PI) in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge because of its associated high risk for comorbid conditions. We assessed the preventive effectiveness of silicone dressings among patients admitted in intensive care units and non-intensive care units settings.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted across 3 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central) from inception through December 2021. Studies assessing the effectiveness of silicone dressing on the incidence of PI on the sacral area were included. Evaluations were reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval, and analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Of the 1056 articles retrieved from the initial search, 11 studies were included in the final analysis. Silicone dressings significantly reduced the incidence of PI compared to usual care (RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19-0.45, P<0.01). We found no significant difference between results of studies conducted in intensive care settings (RR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.15-0.43, P<0.01) and non-intensive care settings (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.17-0.83, P=0.01) (P-interaction: 0.39). Silicone dressings reduced the risk of developing PI among patients using five-layer foam Border dressing (Mepilex® Sacrum) (RR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.48, P<0.01), and dressing Allevyn Gentle Border® (RR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.01-0.73, P=0.02) with no significant difference upon subgroup analysis (P-interaction: 0.27).
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis suggests that silicone dressings consistently reduce the incidence of PI in intensive as well as in non-intensive care settings, regardless of the type of dressing used.
Topics: Humans; Silicones; Bandages; Intensive Care Units; Pressure Ulcer; Hospitalization
PubMed: 35680115
DOI: 10.1016/j.enfcle.2022.05.002 -
Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da U S P 2016To identifyevidences of the influence of nursing workload on the occurrence of adverse events (AE) in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identifyevidences of the influence of nursing workload on the occurrence of adverse events (AE) in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).
METHOD
A systematic literature review was conducted in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO, BDENF, and Cochrane from studies in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, published by 2015. The analyzed AE were infection, pressure ulcer (PU), patient falls, and medication errors.
RESULTS
Of 594 potential studies, eight comprised the final sample of the review. TheNursing Activities Score (NAS; 37.5%) and the Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System(TISS; 37.5%) were the instruments most frequently used for assessing nursing workload. Six studies (75.0%) identified the influence of work overload in events of infection, PU, and medicationerrors. An investigation found that the NAS was a protective factor for PU.
CONCLUSION
The nursing workload required by patients in the ICU influenced the occurrence of AE, and nurses must monitor this variable daily to ensure proper sizing of staff and safety of care.
OBJETIVO
Identificar evidências sobre a influência da carga de trabalho de enfermagem na ocorrência de eventos adversos (EA) em pacientes adultos internados em Unidade de Terapia Intensiva (UTI).
MÉTODO
Revisão sistemática da literatura realizada nas bases de dados MEDLINE, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO, BDENF e Cochrane deestudosem inglês, português ou espanhol, publicados até 2015. Os EA analisados foram infecção, úlcera por pressão (UPP), quedas e erros associados a medicamentos.
RESULTADOS
Das 594 pesquisas potenciais identificadas, oito compuseram a amostra final da revisão. O NursingActivities Score -NAS (37,5%) e o TherapeuticInterventionScoring System -TISS (37,5%) foram os instrumentos mais utilizados para avaliação da carga de trabalho de enfermagem. Seis pesquisas (75,0%) identificaram influência da sobrecarga de trabalho na ocorrência de infecção, UPP e uso de medicamentos. Uma investigação identificou que o NAS foi fator de proteção para UPP.
CONCLUSÃO
A carga de trabalho de enfermagem requerida por pacientes na UTI influenciou a ocorrência de EA, e os enfermeiros devem monitorar diariamente esta variável para garantir o correto dimensionamento da equipe e a segurança da assistência prestada.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Critical Care Nursing; Cross Infection; Humans; Medication Errors; Patient Safety; Pressure Ulcer; Workload
PubMed: 27680056
DOI: 10.1590/S0080-623420160000500020 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2020The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressings in the treatment of grade I, II, III, and IV pressure ulcers in adult patients. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressings in the treatment of grade I, II, III, and IV pressure ulcers in adult patients. We compared the therapeutic effects of hydrocolloids and alternative dressings in pressure ulcer treatment. We conducted a systematic review, using a literature search only in English, from database inception until 20 April 2020, to identify randomized trials comparing various types of dressings applied in the healing of pressure ulcers. The databases were PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). The study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted based on the guidelines included in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using a standardized critical appraisal instrument developed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effect meta-analysis of data from three or more studies was performed using meta-analysis software (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V3, Biostat, New Jersey, USA). A total of 1145 records were identified, of which 223 were qualified after further verification, of which eight were finally included in further analysis. Hydrocolloid dressings were not superior to control therapeutics ( = 0.839; Z = 0.203; CI 95%: 0.791-1.334). They were not associated with higher healing rates ( = 0.718; Z = 0.361; OR: 0.067; CI 95%: 0.297-0.431), nor did they decrease the incidence of adverse events compared with control therapeutics ( = 0.300; Z = -1.036; OR: 0.067; CI 95%: 0.394-1.333). In the above cases, Egger's test also did not indicate publication bias (t value = 0.779, = 0.465; t value = 1.198, = 0.442; t value = 0.834, = 0.465, respectively). The present meta-analysis shows that hydrocolloid dressings are not significantly better than alternative ones in the healing of pressure ulcers in adult patients.
Topics: Adult; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Humans; Incidence; Pressure Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33121151
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17217881 -
International Journal of Preventive... 2020Pressure ulcer is a health problem worldwide that is common among inpatients and elderly people with physical-motor limitations. To deliver nursing care and prevent the...
Pressure ulcer is a health problem worldwide that is common among inpatients and elderly people with physical-motor limitations. To deliver nursing care and prevent the development of pressure ulcers, it is essential to identify the factors that affect it. This global systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted with the aim of evaluating the incidence of pressure ulcers in observational studies. In this study, databases including Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched to collect data. Articles published from 1997 to 2017 about the factors influencing the incidence of pressure ulcers were retrieved and their results were analyzed using meta-analysis according to the Random-Effects Model. The heterogeneity of studies was investigated using the I statistic. Data were analyzed using the R and Stata software (version 14). In this study, 35 studies were included in the final analysis. The results showed that the pooled estimate of the incidence rate of pressure ulcer was 12% (95% CI: 10-14). The incidence rates of the pressure ulcers of the first, second, third, and fourth stages were 45% (95% CI: 34-56), 45% (95% CI: 34-56), 4% (95% CI: 3-5), and 4% (95% CI: 2-6), respectively. The highest incidence of pressure ulcers was observed among inpatients in orthopedic surgery ward (18.5%) (95% CI: 11.5-25). According to the final results, better conditions should be provided to decrease the incidence of pressure ulcers in different wards, especially orthopedics, and in patients with diabetes.
PubMed: 33312480
DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_182_19 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. These wounds are difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. Prevention strategies include nutritional support and pressure redistribution. Dressing and topical agents aimed at prevention are also widely used, however, it remains unclear which, if any, are most effective. This is the first update of this review, which was originally published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age, without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction on language, date of trial or setting. In May 2018 we updated this search; as a result several trials are awaiting classification.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that enrolled people at risk of pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
The original search identified nine trials; the updated searches identified a further nine trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 trials (3629 participants), nine involved dressings; eight involved topical agents; and one included dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence.Topical agentsThere were five trials comparing fatty acid interventions to different treatments. Two trials compared fatty acid to olive oil. Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between groups, fatty acid versus olive oil (2 trials, n=1060; RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision; or fatty acid versus standard care (2 trials, n=187; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Trials reported that pressure ulcer incidence was lower with fatty acid-containing-treatment compared with a control compound of trisostearin and perfume (1 trial, n=331; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in incidence of adverse events between fatty acids and olive oil (1 trial, n=831; RR 2.22 95% CI 0.20 to 24.37; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).Four trials compared further different topical agents with placebo. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) cream may increase the risk of pressure ulcer incidence compared with placebo (1 trial, n=61; RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.57; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). The other three trials reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between active topical agents and control/placebo; active lotion (1 trial, n=167; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19), Conotrane (1 trial, n=258; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07), Prevasore (1 trial, n=120; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.11) (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). There was limited evidence from one trial to determine whether the application of a topical agent may delay or prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (Dermalex 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the Dermalex group compared with none out of 91 in the placebo group (RR 6.14, 95% CI 0.29 to 129.89; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision).DressingsSix trials (n = 1247) compared a silicone dressing with no dressing. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias). In the one trial (n=77) we rated as being at low risk of bias, there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between silicone dressing and placebo-treated groups (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.61; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).One trial (n=74) reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence when a thin polyurethane dressing was compared with no dressing (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07). In the same trial pressure ulcer incidence was reported to be higher in an adhesive foam dressing compared with no dressing (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.48). We rated evidence from this trial as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision).Four trials compared other dressings with different controls. Trials reported that there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the following comparisons: polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressing (n=160, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); Kang' huier versus routine care n=100; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05); 'pressure ulcer preventive dressing' (PPD) versus no dressing (n=74; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) We rated the evidence as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious or very serious imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the trials exploring the impact of topical applications on pressure ulcer incidence showed no clear benefit or harm. Use of fatty acid versus a control compound (a cream that does not include fatty acid) may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage). However the low level of evidence certainty means that additional research is required to confirm these results.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Aged; Allantoin; Bandages; Dimethyl Sulfoxide; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Fatty Acids; Hexachlorophene; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Olive Oil; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicones; Skin Care; Skin Cream; Squalene
PubMed: 30537080
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009362.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Pressure ulcers are localized injuries to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both, and are common in older and immobile people, people with diabetes, vascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers are localized injuries to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both, and are common in older and immobile people, people with diabetes, vascular disease, or malnutrition, as well as those who require intensive or palliative care. People with pressure ulcers often suffer from severe pain and exhibit social avoidance behaviours. The prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers involves strategies to optimize hydration, circulation, and nutrition. Adequate nutrient intake can reduce the risk factor of malnutrition and promote wound healing in existing pressure ulcers. However, it is unclear which nutrients help prevent and treat pressure ulcers. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of nutritional interventions (special diets, supplements) for preventing and treating pressure ulcers in people with or without existing pressure ulcers compared to standard diet or other nutritional interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was in May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in people with or without existing pressure ulcers, that compared nutritional interventions aimed at preventing or treating pressure ulcers with standard diet or other types of nutritional interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome for prevention studies was the proportion of participants who developed new (incident) pressure ulcers. For treatment studies, our primary outcomes were time to complete pressure ulcer healing, number of people with healed pressure ulcers, size and depth of pressure ulcers, and rate of pressure ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes were side effects, costs, health-related quality of life and acceptability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 33 RCTs with 7920 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from 6993 participants. Pressure ulcer prevention Eleven studies (with 12 arms) compared six types of nutritional interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants developing a pressure ulcer (energy, protein and micronutrient supplements 248 per 1000, standard diet 269 per 1000; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; 3 studies, 1634 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard diet, protein supplements may result in little to no difference in pressure ulcer incidence (protein 21 per 1000, standard diet 28 per 1000; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4 studies, 4264 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the gastrointestinal side effects of these supplements (protein 109 per 1000, standard diet 155 per 1000; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 7.96; 2 studies, 140 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidants; L-carnitine, L-leucine, calcium, magnesium and vitamin D; EPA, GLA and antioxidants; disease-specific supplements on pressure ulcer incidence when compared to standard diet (1 study each; very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons). Pressure ulcer treatment Twenty-four studies (with 27 arms) compared 10 types of nutritional interventions or supplements for treatment of pressure ulcers. Compared to standard diet, energy, protein and micronutrient supplements may slightly increase the number of healed pressure ulcers (energy, protein and micronutrients 366 per 1000, standard diet 253 per 1000; RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.85; 3 studies, 577 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on gastrointestinal side effects. Compared to standard diet, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of protein, arginine, zinc and antioxidant supplements on pressure ulcer healing (pressure ulcer area: mean difference (MD) 2 cm² smaller, 95% CI 4.54 smaller to 0.53 larger; 2 studies, 71 participants, very low-certainty evidence). The evidence on side effects of these supplements is very uncertain. Compared to standard diet, supplements with arginine and micronutrients may not increase the number of healed pressure ulcers, but the evidence suggests a slight reduction in pressure ulcer area (MD 15.8% lower, 95% CI 25.11 lower to 6.48 lower; 2 studies, 231 participants, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about changes in pressure ulcer scores, acceptability, and side effects of these supplements. Compared to placebo, collagen supplements probably improve the mean change in pressure ulcer area (MD 1.81 cm² smaller, 95% CI 3.36 smaller to 0.26 smaller; 1 study, 74 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these supplements on side effects. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of vitamin C, different doses of arginine; EPA, GLA (special dietary fatty acids) and antioxidants; protein; a specialized amino acid mixture; ornithine alpha-ketoglutarate and zinc supplements on pressure ulcer healing (1 or 2 studies each; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The benefits of nutritional interventions with various compositions for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment are uncertain. There may be little or no difference compared to standard nutrition or placebo. Nutritional supplements may not increase gastrointestinal side effects, but the evidence is very uncertain. Larger studies with similar nutrient compositions would reduce these uncertainties. No study investigated the effects of special diets (e.g. protein-enriched diet, vegetarian diet) on pressure ulcer incidence and healing.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Antioxidants; Vitamins; Zinc; Malnutrition; Arginine
PubMed: 38345088
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003216.pub3