-
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 -
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 -
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Mar 2021For patients with diabetic foot ulcers, offloading is one crucial aspect of treatment and aims to redistribute pressure away from the ulcer site. In addition to...
BACKGROUND
For patients with diabetic foot ulcers, offloading is one crucial aspect of treatment and aims to redistribute pressure away from the ulcer site. In addition to offloading strategies, patients are often advised to reduce their activity levels. Consequently, patients may avoid exercise altogether. However, it has been suggested that exercise induces an increase in vasodilation and tissue blood flow, which may potentially facilitate ulcer healing. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether exercise improves healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
REVIEW
We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE between July 6, 2009 and July 6, 2019 using the key terms and subject headings diabetes, diabetic foot, physical activity, exercise, resistance training and wound healing. Randomised controlled trials were included in this review. Three randomised controlled trials (139 participants) were included in this systematic review. All studies incorporated a form of non-weight bearing exercise as the intervention over a 12-week period. One study conducted the intervention in a supervised setting, while two studies conducted the intervention in an unsupervised setting. Two studies found greater improvement in percentage wound size reduction in the intervention group compared with the control group, with one of these studies achieving statistically significant findings (p < 0.05). The results of the third study demonstrated statistically significant findings for total wound size reduction (p < 0.05), however results were analysed within each treatment group and not between groups.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review found there is insufficient evidence to conclusively support non-weight bearing exercise as an intervention to improve healing of diabetic foot ulcers. Regardless, the results demonstrate some degree of wound size reduction and there were no negative consequences of the intervention for the participants. Given the potential benefits of exercise on patient health and wellbeing, non-weight bearing exercise should be encouraged as part of the management plan for treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. Further research is required to better understand the relationship between exercise and healing of diabetic foot ulcers.
Topics: Aged; Diabetic Foot; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Female; Foot; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Regional Blood Flow; Treatment Outcome; Vasodilation; Weight-Bearing; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33743791
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-021-00456-w -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2019, 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 that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Air; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Bias; Elasticity; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Pressure; Pressure Ulcer; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33969911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013620.pub2 -
Journal of Wound, Ostomy, and...The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the use of prophylactic foam dressings for prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs).
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate the use of prophylactic foam dressings for prevention of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Statement (PRISMA).
SEARCH STRATEGY
Four researchers independently conducted searches in Health Source, Cochrane of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PubMed. Search terms included: "pressure* OR skin breakdown AND sacrum*"; "ICU patient* OR critical care patient*"; and "foam dressing OR prophylactic* or prevent*."
FINDINGS
The search identified 380 articles; 14 met eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of the included studies was variable. Findings from all studies included in our review support a decrease in HAPI incidence with use of sacral foam dressings.
IMPLICATIONS
Findings from this review suggest that prophylactic foam dressings decrease sacral HAPI occurrences in critical care patients. While additional research is needed, current best evidence supports use of prophylactic foam sacral dressings for patients at risk for HAPI.
Topics: Bandages; Hospitals; Humans; Incidence; Pressure; Pressure Ulcer; Sacrococcygeal Region; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33951710
DOI: 10.1097/WON.0000000000000762 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Sep 2019The field of dermatology has seen numerous therapeutic innovations in the past decade with platelet-rich plasma (PRP), recently garnering significant interest in...
The field of dermatology has seen numerous therapeutic innovations in the past decade with platelet-rich plasma (PRP), recently garnering significant interest in alopecia, acne scarring, and skin rejuvenation. In other conditions of dermatology, such as chronic wounds and vitiligo, PRP has been investigated but has received less attention. The objective of this literature review was to focus on conditions of medical dermatology and to consolidate the available evidence on PRP for the practicing dermatologist. This review evaluates the literature up to October 31, 2018, and a search was conducted in the PubMed database for "platelet-rich plasma," "platelet releasate," "platelet gel," "platelet-rich fibrin" or "PRP" and "dermatology," "skin," "cutaneous," "wound," or "ulcer." In total, 14 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. In studies representing Levels of Evidence 1b-4 according to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford, PRP significantly improved wound healing in chronic diabetic ulcers, venous ulcers, pressure ulcers, leprosy ulcers, acute traumatic wounds, and ulcers of multifactorial etiologies. Two studies also documented benefits of adjunctive PRP in stable vitiligo. In chronic wounds of multiple etiologies and vitiligo, PRP warrants further investigation because it represents a potential therapeutic adjunct or alternative with a favorable side effect profile.
Topics: Alopecia; Cicatrix; Dermatology; Humans; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Rejuvenation; Skin Ulcer; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31009668
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.04.037 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Leg ulcers are open skin wounds on the lower leg that can last weeks, months or even years. Most leg ulcers are the result of venous diseases. First-line treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Leg ulcers are open skin wounds on the lower leg that can last weeks, months or even years. Most leg ulcers are the result of venous diseases. First-line treatment options often include the use of compression bandages or stockings.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of using compression bandages or stockings, compared with no compression, on the healing of venous leg ulcers in any setting and population.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2020 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 by language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared any types of compression bandages or stockings with no compression in participants with venous leg ulcers in any setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (1391 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 51 participants). Participants were recruited from acute-care settings, outpatient settings and community settings, and a large proportion (65.9%; 917/1391) of participants had a confirmed history or clinical evidence of chronic venous disease, a confirmed cause of chronic venous insufficiency, or an ankle pressure/brachial pressure ratio of greater than 0.8 or 0.9. The average age of participants ranged from 58.0 to 76.5 years (median: 70.1 years). The average duration of their leg ulcers ranged from 9.0 weeks to 31.6 months (median: 22.0 months), and a large proportion of participants (64.8%; 901/1391) had ulcers with an area between 5 and 20 cm. Studies had a median follow-up of 12 weeks. Compression bandages or stockings applied included short-stretch bandage, four-layer compression bandage, and Unna's boot (a type of inelastic gauze bandage impregnated with zinc oxide), and comparator groups used included 'usual care', pharmacological treatment, a variety of dressings, and a variety of treatments where some participants received compression (but it was not the norm). Of the 14 included studies, 10 (71.4%) presented findings which we consider to be at high overall risk of bias. Primary outcomes There is moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded once for risk of bias) (1) that there is probably a shorter time to complete healing of venous leg ulcers in people wearing compression bandages or stockings compared with those not wearing compression (pooled hazard ratio for time-to-complete healing 2.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 3.10; I = 59%; 5 studies, 733 participants); and (2) that people treated using compression bandages or stockings are more likely to experience complete ulcer healing within 12 months compared with people with no compression (10 studies, 1215 participants): risk ratio for complete healing 1.77, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.21; I = 65% (8 studies with analysable data, 1120 participants); synthesis without meta-analysis suggests more completely-healed ulcers in compression bandages or stockings than in no compression (2 studies without analysable data, 95 participants). It is uncertain whether there is any difference in rates of adverse events between using compression bandages or stockings and no compression (very low-certainty evidence; 3 studies, 585 participants). Secondary outcomes Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that people using compression bandages or stockings probably have a lower mean pain score than those not using compression (four studies with 859 participants and another study with 69 ulcers): pooled mean difference -1.39, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.98; I = 65% (two studies with 426 participants and another study with 69 ulcers having analysable data); synthesis without meta-analysis suggests a reduction in leg ulcer pain in compression bandages or stockings, compared with no compression (two studies without analysable data, 433 participants). Compression bandages or stockings versus no compression may improve disease-specific quality of life, but not all aspects of general health status during the follow-up of 12 weeks to 12 months (four studies with 859 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if the use of compression bandages or stockings is more cost-effective than not using them (three studies with 486 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
If using compression bandages or stockings, people with venous leg ulcers probably experience complete wound healing more quickly, and more people have wounds completely healed. The use of compression bandages or stockings probably reduces pain and may improve disease-specific quality of life. There is uncertainty about adverse effects, and cost effectiveness. Future research should focus on comparing alternative bandages and stockings with the primary endpoint of time to complete wound healing alongside adverse events including pain score, and health-related quality of life, and should incorporate cost-effectiveness analysis where possible. Future studies should adhere to international standards of trial conduct and reporting.
Topics: Aged; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Bias; Compression Bandages; Dermatologic Agents; Humans; Middle Aged; Pain Management; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stockings, Compression; Time Factors; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing; Zinc Oxide
PubMed: 34308565
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013397.pub2 -
Diabetes/metabolism Research and Reviews Mar 2024This is the 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guideline on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes, which updates the 2019 guideline....
AIMS
This is the 2023 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guideline on the prevention of foot ulcers in persons with diabetes, which updates the 2019 guideline. This guideline is targeted at clinicians and other healthcare professionals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to devise clinical questions and critically important outcomes in the PICO format, to conduct a systematic review of the medical-scientific literature including, where appropriate, meta-analyses, and to write recommendations and their rationale. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence found in the systematic review, expert opinion where (sufficient) evidence was not available, and a weighing of the desirable and undesirable effects of an intervention, as well as patient preferences, costs, equity, feasibility and applicability.
RESULTS
We recommend screening a person with diabetes at very low risk of foot ulceration annually for the loss of protective sensation and peripheral artery disease, and screening persons at higher risk at higher frequencies for additional risk factors. For preventing a foot ulcer, educate persons at-risk about appropriate foot self-care, educate not to walk without suitable foot protection, and treat any pre-ulcerative lesion on the foot. Educate moderate-to-high risk people with diabetes to wear properly fitting, accommodative, therapeutic footwear, and consider coaching them to monitor foot skin temperature. Prescribe therapeutic footwear that has a demonstrated plantar pressure relieving effect during walking, to help prevent plantar foot ulcer recurrence. Consider advising people at low-to-moderate risk to undertake a, preferably supervised, foot-ankle exercise programme to reduce ulcer risk factors, and consider communicating that a total increase in weight-bearing activity of 1000 steps/day is likely safe with regards to risk of ulceration. In people with non-rigid hammertoe with pre-ulcerative lesion, consider flexor tendon tenotomy. We suggest not to use a nerve decompression procedure to help prevent foot ulcers. Provide integrated foot care for moderate-to-high-risk people with diabetes to help prevent (recurrence of) ulceration.
CONCLUSIONS
These recommendations should help healthcare professionals to provide better care for persons with diabetes at risk of foot ulceration, to increase the number of ulcer-free days and reduce the patient and healthcare burden of diabetes-related foot disease.
Topics: Humans; Diabetic Foot; Foot Ulcer; Risk Factors; Evidence-Based Medicine; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37302121
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.3651