-
Journal of Tissue Viability Aug 2023Pressure injuries are a significant health care problem worldwide, and many factors influence their occurrence and development. The purpose of this systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Pressure injuries are a significant health care problem worldwide, and many factors influence their occurrence and development. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the role of nutritional status in the development rate of pressure injuries as a potentially modifiable risk factor.
METHODS
Study designs included cohort (prospective and retrospective), case-control, and RCTs if the association between nutrition status and pressure injuries was reported. Databases searched included: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library on April 20th, 2022. The data were analyzed using OR and random effect model in Revman5.3 and STATA 15 Software. Report this systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA 2020 statement.
RESULTS
A total of 22 separate studies were retained in this systematic review. Of these, 16 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were assessed as low risk and sixteen as a moderate risk of bias. All RCTs were B quality. The odds ratio of the incidence of pressure injuries in malnourished and non-malnourished patients was 3.66(95% CI: 2.77-4.83). In the three RCTs studies(n = 870), the odds ratio of the incidence of pressure ulcers in patients with standard nutrition to those with specific nutritional interventions was 1.35(95%CI:1.02-1.78).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that nutritional status is significantly associated with pressure injuries. Malnutrition can increase the incidence of pressure injuries, and specific nutritional interventions can reduce the incidence of pressure injuries compared to standard nutrition.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Nutritional Status; Pressure Ulcer; Incidence; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Crush Injuries
PubMed: 37117126
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2023.04.005 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Jan 2021The addition of topical fluid instillation, a programmable "dwell" time and a novel foam-wound interface to the established wound healing benefits of negative-pressure... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
The addition of topical fluid instillation, a programmable "dwell" time and a novel foam-wound interface to the established wound healing benefits of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) works synergistically to benefit patients with complex wounds. This engineering breakthrough for wound care has been termed NPWT with instillation and dwell (NPWTi-d), and the new foam dressings are reticulated open cell foam dressings specifically designed for use with NPWTi-d. This combined technology has shown promise in chronic, complex wounds and has potential for the management of sacral and ischial pressure wounds.
METHODS
A qualitative comprehensive review was performed analyzing articles from PubMed and Medline that reported on the use of NPWTi-d in sacral or ischial pressure ulcers. Case series and case reports were predominant, and results of cases specific to sacral and ischial pressure wounds were extracted from larger studies and summarized for presentation.
RESULTS
Compared with conventional NPWT alone, NPWTi-d has been shown to help irrigate the wound, remove fibrinous debris, and promote granulation tissue formation. This is associated with a decreased number of operative debridements and decreased hospital length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS
This technology is rapidly demonstrating expanded utilization in hospitalized patients with chronic sacral and ischial pressure ulcers. When used correctly, NPWTi-d serves as an effective "bridge to defined endpoint": whether that is a flap reconstruction, skin grafting, or discharge home with a stable chronic wound and simplified wound care.
Topics: Bandages; Debridement; Humans; Instillation, Drug; Length of Stay; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Pressure Ulcer; Sacrococcygeal Region; Saline Solution; Surgical Flaps; Therapeutic Irrigation; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33347064
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007613 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a serious manifestation of chronic venous disease affecting up to 3% of the adult population. This typically recalcitrant and recurring... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Venous leg ulcers (VLUs) are a serious manifestation of chronic venous disease affecting up to 3% of the adult population. This typically recalcitrant and recurring condition significantly impairs quality of life, and its treatment places a heavy financial burden upon healthcare systems. The longstanding mainstay treatment for VLUs is compression therapy. Surgical removal of incompetent veins reduces the risk of ulcer recurrence. However, open surgery is an unpopular option amongst people with VLU, and many people are unsuitable for it. The efficacy of the newer, minimally-invasive endovenous techniques has been established in uncomplicated superficial venous disease, and these techniques can also be used in the management of VLU. When used with compression, endovenous ablation aims to further reduce pressure in the veins of the leg, which may impact ulcer healing.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of superficial endovenous ablation on the healing and recurrence of venous leg ulcers and the quality of life of people with venous ulcer disease.
SEARCH METHODS
In April 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 clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scrutinised reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on the language of publication, but there was a restriction on publication year from 1998 to April 2022 as superficial endovenous ablation is a comparatively new technology.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing endovenous ablative techniques with compression versus compression therapy alone for the treatment of VLU were eligible for inclusion. Studies needed to have assessed at least one of the following primary review outcomes related to objective measures of ulcer healing such as: proportion of ulcers healed at a given time point; time to complete healing; change in ulcer size; proportion of ulcers recurring over a given time period or at a specific point; or ulcer-free days. Secondary outcomes of interest were patient-reported quality of life, economic data and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, carried out risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool, and assessed GRADE certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
The previous version of this review found no RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria. In this update, we identified two eligible RCTs and included them in a meta-analysis. There was a total of 506 participants with an active VLU, with mean durations of 3.1 months ± 1.1 months in the EVRA trial and 60.5 months ± 96.4 months in the VUERT trial. Both trials randomised participants to endovenous treatment and compression or compression alone, however the compression alone group in the EVRA trial received deferred endovenous treatment (after ulcer healing or from six months). There is high-certainty evidence that combined endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone, or compression with deferred endovenous treatment, improves time to complete ulcer healing (pooled hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.47; I = 0%; 2 studies, 466 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence that the proportion of ulcers healed at 90 days is probably higher with combined endovenous ablation and compression compared with compression therapy alone or compression with deferred endovenous treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; I = 0%; 2 studies, 466 participants). There is low-certainty evidence showing an unclear effect on ulcer recurrence at one year in people with healed ulcers with combined endovenous treatment and compression when compared with compression alone or compression with deferred endovenous treatment (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.48; I = 78%; 2 studies, 460 participants). There is also low-certainty evidence that the median number of ulcer-free days at one year may not differ (306 (interquartile range (IQR) 240 to 328) days versus 278 (IQR 175 to 324) days) following combined endovenous treatment and compression when compared with compression and deferred endovenous treatment; (1 study, 450 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of an unclear effect in rates of thromboembolism between groups (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.51 to 7.97; I = 78%, 2 studies, 506 participants). The addition of endovenous ablation to compression is probably cost-effective at one year (99% probability at GBP 20,000/QALY; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Endovenous ablation of superficial venous incompetence in combination with compression improves leg ulcer healing when compared with compression alone. This conclusion is based on high-certainty evidence. There is moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that it is probably cost-effective at one year and low certainty evidence of unclear effects on recurrence and complications. Further research is needed to explore the additional benefit of endovenous ablation in ulcers of greater than six months duration and the optimal modality of endovenous ablation.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Varicose Ulcer; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Wound Healing; Veins; Leg Ulcer
PubMed: 37497816
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009494.pub3 -
Wound Management & Prevention Sep 2021Smoking is a risk factor for many diseases. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Smoking is a risk factor for many diseases.
PURPOSE
This study explored the relationship between current or past smoking and pressure injury (PI) risk through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
The databases PubMed, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for the years between 2001 and 2020. Quality of evidence was estimated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The random effects model was applied to assess the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI); pooled adjusted OR and 95% CI, subgroup analysis, publication bias, sensitivity analyses, and meta-regression analysis were performed.
RESULTS
Fifteen (15) studies (12 retrospective and 3 prospective) comprising data on 11 304 patients were eligible for inclusion in the review. The meta-analysis demonstrated that smoking increased the risk of PI (OR = 1.498; 95% CI, 1.058-2.122), and the pooled adjusted OR (1.969) and 95% CI (1.406-2.757) confirmed this finding. Publication bias was not detected by funnel plot, Begg's test (P = .322), or Egger's test (P = .666). Subgroup analyses yielded the same observations in both retrospective (OR = 1.607; 95% CI, 1.043-2.475) and prospective (OR = 1.218; 95% CI, 0.735-2.017) studies. The results were consistent across sensitivity analyses (OR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.043- 2.475). Relevant heterogeneity moderators were not identified by meta-regression analysis with PI incidence (P = .466), years of patient data included (P = .637), mean patient age (P = .650), and diabetes mellitus diagnosis (P = .509).
CONCLUSION
This study found that individuals who are current or formers smokers have an almost 1.5 times higher risk of PI development than do those who do not smoke.
Topics: Humans; Odds Ratio; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Smoking; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 34473642
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Tissue Viability Aug 2021Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is causing a rapid and tragic health emergency worldwide. Because of the particularity of COVID-19, people are at a high risk of...
BACKGROUND
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is causing a rapid and tragic health emergency worldwide. Because of the particularity of COVID-19, people are at a high risk of pressure injuries during the prevention and treatment process of COVID-19.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to summarize the pressure injuries caused by COVID-19 and the corresponding preventive measures and treatments.
METHODS
This systematic review was according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. PubMed, Web of science and CNKI (Chinese) were searched for studies on pressure injuries caused by COVID-19 published up to August 4, 2020. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and the CARE guidelines.
RESULTS
The data were extracted from 16 studies involving 7,696 participants in 7 countries. All studies were published in 2020. There are two main types of pressure injuries caused by the COVID-19: 1) Pressure injuries that caused by protective equipment (masks, goggles and face shield, etc.) in the prevention process; 2) pressure injuries caused by prolonged prone position in the therapy process.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, the included studies showed that wearing protective equipment for a long time and long-term prone positioning with mechanical ventilation will cause pressure injuries in the oppressed area. Foam dressing may need to be prioritized in the prevention of medical device related pressure injuries. The prevention of pressure injuries should be our particular attention in the course of clinical treatment and nursing.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Pandemics; Personal Protective Equipment; Pressure Ulcer; Respiration, Artificial; Risk Factors; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33895045
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2021.04.002 -
International Journal of Nursing... Apr 2023This study aims to synthesize qualitative evidence on the effectiveness and safety of electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This study aims to synthesize qualitative evidence on the effectiveness and safety of electrical stimulation for treating pressure ulcers.
BACKGROUND
Electrical stimulation is often used clinically to treat pressure ulcers, but its effectiveness and safety and some potential problems are not clear.
DESIGN
This is a qualitative systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
The data sources are four English databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science) and four Chinese databases (CNKI, SinoMed, VIP and WANFANG).
METHODS
Two reviewers independently examined the records according to the eligibility criteria and extracted the data of each included study. We used the Review Manager 5.3 software to perform data analysis.
RESULTS
Seventeen randomized controlled trials including 740 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials demonstrated that electrical stimulation significantly reduced the ulcer surface in contrast with standard wound care alone or pulsed sham electrical stimulation. Nine studies showed that electrical stimulation increased the risk of pressure ulcers being completely healed than the controlled group. Three studies reported that adverse reactions were rare.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated that electrical stimulation was a relatively effective and safe adjunctive therapy for pressure ulcers treatment.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Wound Healing; Electric Stimulation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35244315
DOI: 10.1111/ijn.13041 -
Journal of Tissue Viability May 2023The aim of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the difference in therapeutic effects between moist dressings and traditional dressings in the treatment of pressure... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The aim of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the difference in therapeutic effects between moist dressings and traditional dressings in the treatment of pressure injury (PI), explore the healing, healing time, direct cost, and number of dressing changes of different moist dressings for the management of pressure injuries.
BACKGROUND
The incidence of pressure injury is high and the burden of disease is high, but there is no consensus on how to choose moist dressing treatment.
DESIGN
A systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed.
DATA SOURCES
We searched the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP database, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE.com, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and CINAHL to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of PI with moist dressings.
REVIEW METHODS
R studio software and Stata 16.0 software were used to compare different moist dressings and traditional dressings.
RESULTS
41 RCTs of moist dressings in the treatment of PI were included. A total of seven kinds of moist dressings, Vaseline gauze and traditional gauze dressing were involved. All RCTs were at a medium to high risk of bias. Overall, moist dressings had more advantages than traditional dressings in terms of various outcome indicators.
CONCLUSION
The effect of moist dressings in treating PI is more advantageous than traditional dressings. However, in terms of direct cost and the number of dressings changes, more research is needed to improve the credibility of the network meta-analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis show that the silver ion dressing and alginate dressing are the best choices in the treatment of PI.
NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION
This study is a network meta-analysis, which does not require the participation of patients and the public.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Network Meta-Analysis; Bandages; Wound Healing; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 37012120
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2023.03.003 -
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine Jul 2023Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) constitute a significant challenge harming thousands of people worldwide yearly. While various tools and methods are used to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) constitute a significant challenge harming thousands of people worldwide yearly. While various tools and methods are used to identify pressure injuries, artificial intelligence (AI) and decision support systems (DSS) can help to reduce HAPIs risks by proactively identifying patients at risk and preventing them before harming patients.
OBJECTIVE
This paper comprehensively reviews AI and DSS applications for HAPIs prediction using Electronic Health Records (EHR), including a systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted through PRISMA and bibliometric analysis. In February 2023, the search was performed using four electronic databases: SCOPIS, PubMed, EBSCO, and PMCID. Articles on using AI and DSS in the management of PIs were included.
RESULTS
The search approach yielded 319 articles, 39 of which have been included and classified into 27 AI-related and 12 DSS-related categories. The years of publication varied from 2006 to 2023, with 40% of the studies taking place in the US. Most studies focused on using AI algorithms or DSS for HAPIs prediction in inpatient units using various types of data such as electronic health records, PI assessment scales, and expert knowledge-based and environmental data to identify the risk factors associated with HAPIs development.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence in the existing literature concerning the real impact of AI or DSS on making decisions for HAPIs treatment or prevention. Most studies reviewed are solely hypothetical and retrospective prediction models, with no actual application in healthcare settings. The accuracy rates, prediction results, and intervention procedures suggested based on the prediction, on the other hand, should inspire researchers to combine both approaches with larger-scale data to bring a new venue for HAPIs prevention and to investigate and adopt the suggested solutions to the existing gaps in AI and DSS prediction methods.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Retrospective Studies; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors; Hospitals
PubMed: 37295900
DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102560 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2024To assess all published studies which describe what happens to the delivery of pressure ulcer/injury (PI/PU) care pathways as a result of detecting raised sub-epidermal... (Review)
Review
To assess all published studies which describe what happens to the delivery of pressure ulcer/injury (PI/PU) care pathways as a result of detecting raised sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) delta (∆ ≥ 0.6). We undertook a systematic review of the literature, and included original research studies using either a prospective or retrospective study design that report the impact that assessment using SEM assessments have on healthcare practitioners' delivery of PI/PU care pathways in adults at risk of developing PI/PUs. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023416975). A literature search was conducted in May 2023, using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science and Science Direct databases. Data were extracted using a data extraction tool including elements such as country, setting, sample size, intervention, control and quality appraisal was undertaken using the Evidence-based Librarianship. We identified nine papers published between 2017 and 2022. The majority of these studies were conducted in England (n = 6; 67%). The systematic review included studies conducted across multiple care settings including acute care, medical-surgical units, and palliative care, highlighting the importance of PI/PU prevention and management across diverse patient populations. The PI/PU care pathways implemented in the studies varied, but commonly included elements such as the application or increased use of pressure-redistributing mattresses/cushions, implementation of repositioning plans, management of incontinence and moisture, regular skin inspection, and assessment of patient mobility. Out of the nine studies identified, seven reported PI/PU incidence. A meta-analysis of seven studies (N = 18 451) demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in visual PI/PU development in favour of SEM-guided care pathways compared to usual care (the odds ratio = 0.36 [95% confidence interval: 0.24-0.53, p < 0.00001]). This systematic review provides evidence that implementing SEM assessments in patients at risk of developing PI/PUs prompts anatomy-specific clinical actions. The subsequent implementation of enhanced and targeted skin care interventions leads to consistent and sustained reductions in hospital-acquired PU incidence. The findings emphasise the importance of incorporating SEM assessments as part of comprehensive PI/PU prevention strategies in all care settings and patient populations. This systematic review is limited by the predominance of observational studies and variable study quality. Future research should focus on randomised trials in different care settings that monitor the efficacy of preventive interventions and their impact in reducing PI/PU incidence when implemented based on SEM assessments.
Topics: Pressure Ulcer; Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Aged; Adult; Aged, 80 and over; Critical Pathways; Delivery of Health Care
PubMed: 38832363
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14928 -
Revista Latino-americana de Enfermagem 2023to map the instruments for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in adults in critical situation in intensive care units; identify performance indicators of the instrument,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
to map the instruments for risk assessment of pressure ulcers in adults in critical situation in intensive care units; identify performance indicators of the instrument, and the appreciation of users regarding the instruments' use/limitations.
METHOD
a scoping review. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews in the writing of the study. We carried out the searches in the EBSCOhost search tool for 8 databases, resulting in 1846 studies, of which 22 studies compose the sample.
RESULTS
we identified two big instrument groups: generalist [Braden, Braden (ALB), Emina, Norton-MI, RAPS, and Waterlow]; and specific (CALCULATE, Cubbin & Jackson, EVARUCI, RAPS-ICU, Song & Choi, Suriaidi and Sanada, and COMHON index). Regarding the predictive value, EVARUCI and CALCULATE presented better results for performance indicators. Concerning appreciation/limitations indicated by users, we highlight the CALCULATE scale, followed by EVARUCI and RAPS-ICU, although they still need future adjustments.
CONCLUSION
the mapping of the literature showed that the evidence is sufficient to indicate one or more instruments for the risk assessment of pressure ulcers for adults in critical situation in intensive care units. (1) The risk assessment instrument must be applied to the patient's specificities. (2) The instruments are divided into two groups: generalist and specific. (3) The EVARUCI and CALCULATE instruments presented better results. (4) The EVARACI presented better results in terms of performance indicators. (5) The CALCULATE highlights itself for being recent scale, appropriate, simple, and easy to use.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Assessment; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 37820213
DOI: 10.1590/1518-8345.6659.3983