-
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 We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional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 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2022The most common pressure ulcer associated with medical devices in the ICU is pressure injury associated with the endotracheal tube. We aimed to scrutinise the effects of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The most common pressure ulcer associated with medical devices in the ICU is pressure injury associated with the endotracheal tube. We aimed to scrutinise the effects of two different techniques of endotracheal tube securement used in the ICU on the occurrence of pressure ulcers. This randomised clinical trial was conducted in 60 patients, 30 of which were intervention and 30 experimental, admittedin the ICU of a training and research hospitaldata were collected using the descriptive and clinical characteristics from the Braden Scale for predicting Pressure Sore Risk, the Pressure Ulcer Scale for healing, The International Staging System for Pressure Injuries and the Eilers Oral Assessment Guide. Based on the Braden Scale scores of the patients, we found that 98.3% of the cases were in the high-risk group before and after the intervention. We also found that the recovery was higher among patients in whom the bandage fixation method was applied compared to those in whom the fixation was done with an endotracheal tube holder.
Topics: Humans; Intensive Care Units; Intubation, Intratracheal; Pressure Ulcer; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35088531
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13757 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2021The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multi-layered silicone foam (intervention) compared with transparent polyurethane film (control) in preventing heel... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of multi-layered silicone foam (intervention) compared with transparent polyurethane film (control) in preventing heel pressure injuries caused by surgical positioning of individuals undergoing elective surgery. It was designed an intra-patient, open, parallel, randomised controlled trial was conducted in a university hospital in southern Brazil, from March 2019 to February 2020, with patients undergoing elective surgeries of cardiac and gastrointestinal specialties. The patients who met the selection criteria constituted, simultaneously, a single group receiving the intervention and active control, through paired analysis of the cutaneous sites (right heel and left heel). The outcome was the occurrence of PI, within the follow-up period was 72 hours. Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials: RBR-5GKNG5. There was analysis of 135 patients/270 heels, with an overall incidence of 36.7%. The pressure injury incidence was significantly lower in the intervention group (26.7%), compared with the control group (P = .001); relative risk of 0.57. In the intervention group, the estimated pressure injury-free time (survival) was 57.5 hours and in the control group, 43.9 hours. It was concluded that Multi-layered silicone foam (intervention) is more efficacious than transparent polyurethane film (control) in the prevention of pressure injuries caused by surgical positioning of individuals undergoing elective surgery.
Topics: Bandages; Brazil; Female; Heel; Humans; Male; Operating Rooms; Pressure Ulcer
PubMed: 33314605
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13538 -
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 -
Wounds : a Compendium of Clinical... Aug 2019Pressure injury is one of the most prevalent skin injuries and a great challenge in the hospital environment. The implementation of preventive measures contributes to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
INTRODUCTION
Pressure injury is one of the most prevalent skin injuries and a great challenge in the hospital environment. The implementation of preventive measures contributes to reducing its occurrence.
OBJECTIVE
This study compares the protective effect of 2 adhesive dressings used in the prevention of pressure injuries in at-risk patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This case series was conducted at a university hospital in southeastern Brazil with 80 hospitalized adult patients at risk for pressure injuries, as per the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk. Patients were randomized to preventive intervention with either hydrocellular foam (n = 40) or hydrocolloid plate (n = 40) dressing, which was applied to the intact skin over the sacrum and trochanters and changed weekly over 8 weeks.
RESULTS
Of the patients, 56.5% were women, 64.5% were 60 years of age or older, 58.1% were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 63.9% were at high risk for pressure injuries. None of the patients developed a pressure injury. However, the presence of blanchable erythema, desquamation, pruritus, discomfort during dressing removal, and skin damage caused by the strong adhesiveness of the dressings were observed in both groups. In the hydrocolloid plate group, patients reported significantly more discomfort during dressing removal due to its strong adhesion to the skin (P = .004) than those in the hydrocellular foam group.
CONCLUSIONS
Standard preventive measures combined with the use of either hydrocellular foam or hydrocolloid plate contributed to the prevention of pressure injuries in at-risk patients, with hydrocolloid plate being associated with significantly more discomfort during dressing removal.
Topics: Aged; Bandages; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31184996
DOI: No ID Found -
Trials Jan 2023Prophylactic dressings are increasingly used to prevent pressure injuries in hospitalised patients. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of these dressings is... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Prophylactic dressings are increasingly used to prevent pressure injuries in hospitalised patients. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of these dressings is still emerging. This trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic silicone foam border dressing in preventing sacral pressure injuries in medical-surgical patients.
METHODS
This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. A sample size of 1320 was calculated to have >90% power to detect a 5% difference in the primary outcome at an alpha of 0.05. Adult patients admitted to participating medical-surgical wards are screened for eligibility: ≥18 years, admitted to hospital within the previous 36 h, expected length of stay of ≥24 h, and assessed high risk for hospital-acquired pressure injury. Consenting participants are randomly allocated to either prophylactic silicone foam dressing intervention or usual care without any dressing as the control group via a web-based randomisation service independent of the trial. Patients are enrolled across three Australian hospitals. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of patients who develop a sacral pressure injury. Secondary outcomes include the time to sacral pressure injury, incidence of severity (stage) of sacral pressure injury, cost-effectiveness of dressings, and process evaluation. Participant outcomes are assessed daily for up to 14 days by blinded independent outcome assessors using de-identified, digitally modified sacral photographs. Those who develop a sacral pressure injury are followed for an additional 14 days to estimate costs of pressure injury treatment. Analysis of clinical outcomes will be based on intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses.
DISCUSSION
This trial aims to provide definitive evidence on the effect prophylactic dressings have on the development of hospital-acquired sacral pressure injuries in medical-surgical patients. A parallel economic evaluation of pressure injury prevention and treatment will enable evidence-informed decisions and policy. The inclusion of a process evaluation will help to explain the contextual factors that may have a bearing on trial results including the acceptability of the dressings to patients and staff. The trial commenced 5 March 2020 and has been significantly delayed due to COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ANZCTR ACTRN12619000763145. Prospectively registered on 22 May 2019.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Australia; COVID-19; Bandages; Deafness; Silicones
PubMed: 36721259
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06999-y -
BMJ Open Quality Jun 2023The quality department used adaptive leadership and the plan-do-study-act cycle to decrease pressure injury (PI) rates. After identifying gaps, the pressure injury...
The quality department used adaptive leadership and the plan-do-study-act cycle to decrease pressure injury (PI) rates. After identifying gaps, the pressure injury prevention bundle was developed and implemented to bring evidence-based nursing practice to frontline nurses. Organisational rates of PI was followed for 4 years (2019-2022) and a smaller subset of 88 patients were followed in the prospective arm. Using statistical analysis, the decrease in PI rates (90%) and severity is significant (p<0.5) and sustained compared with the year prior to interventions.
Topics: Humans; Pressure Ulcer; Prospective Studies; Leadership
PubMed: 37286297
DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002248 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are several possible interventions for managing pressure ulcers (sometimes referred to as pressure injuries), ranging from pressure-relieving measures, such as repositioning, to reconstructive surgery. The surgical approach is usually reserved for recalcitrant wounds (where the healing process has stalled, or the wound is not responding to treatment) or wounds with full-thickness skin loss and exposure of deeper structures such as muscle fascia or bone. Reconstructive surgery commonly involves wound debridement followed by filling the wound with new tissue. Whilst this is an accepted means of ulcer management, the benefits and harms of different surgical approaches, compared with each other or with non-surgical treatments, are unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different types of reconstructive surgery for treating pressure ulcers (category/stage II or above), compared with no surgery or alternative reconstructive surgical approaches, in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed reconstructive surgery in the treatment of pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted study data, assessed the risk of bias and undertook GRADE assessments. We would have involved a third review author in case of disagreement.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one RCT conducted in a hospital setting in the USA. It enrolled 20 participants aged between 20 and 70 years with stage IV ischial or sacral pressure ulcers (involving full-thickness skin and tissue loss). The study compared two reconstructive techniques for stage IV pressure ulcers: conventional flap surgery and cone of pressure flap surgery, in which a large portion of the flap tip is de-epithelialised and deeply inset to obliterate dead space. There were no clear data for any of our outcomes, although we extracted some information on complete wound healing, wound dehiscence, pressure ulcer recurrence and wound infection. We graded the evidence for these outcomes as very low-certainty. The study provided no data for any other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently there is very little randomised evidence on the role of reconstructive surgery in pressure ulcer management, although it is considered a priority area. More rigorous and robust research is needed to explore this intervention.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Debridement; Humans; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Wound Healing; Young Adult
PubMed: 36228111
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012032.pub3 -
International Wound Journal Aug 2023Pressure ulcers can develop in bedridden or immobile patients which physiotherapists frequently encounter. Although physiotherapists receive training for preventing...
Pressure ulcers can develop in bedridden or immobile patients which physiotherapists frequently encounter. Although physiotherapists receive training for preventing pressure ulcers, there is limited evidence of physiotherapists' knowledge level. Our study evaluated physiotherapists' pressure ulcer prevention knowledge. The level of knowledge for pressure ulcer prevention was inquired with the Turkish version of the Pressure Ulcer Prevention Knowledge Assessment Instrument (PUPKAI-T). Two hundred and sixty-five physiotherapists participated in our study. The median PUPKAI-T total score ranged from 8 to 21. Only two physiotherapists (0.8%) got good points from the questionnaire. The highest score was Nutrition (Theme 4; 59.2%), and the lowest score belonged to the contact preventive interventions that reduce pressure/shearing (Theme 5; 26.7%). The question with the lowest success rate was the positioning question of Theme 5 (Question 2; 12.5%). In our study, physiotherapists' pressure ulcer prevention knowledge was evaluated with a relatively high number of participants compared to the literature. These results brought to mind that training programs that specifically emphasise techniques to prevent pressure ulcers and positioning manoeuvres to be organised increase the knowledge level of physiotherapists.
Topics: Humans; Physical Therapists; Pressure Ulcer; Skin Care; Surveys and Questionnaires; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
PubMed: 36535803
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14049 -
PloS One 2023Medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is a serious issue. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors for MDRPI associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is a serious issue. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors for MDRPI associated with ICU patients through systematic review and meta-analysis, and provide insights into the clinical prevention of MDRPI.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Database, and China BioMedical Literature Database (CBM) (from inception to January 2023) for studies that identified risk factors of MDRPI in ICU patients. In order to avoid the omission of relevant literature, we performed a secondary search of the above database on February 15, 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.3.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies involving 4850 participants were selected to analyze risk factors for MDRPI in ICU patients. While conducting a meta-analysis, we used sensitivity analysis to ensure the reliability of the results for cases with significant heterogeneity among studies. When the source of heterogeneity cannot be determined, we only described the risk factor. The risk factors for MDRPI in ICU patients were elder age (OR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.10), diabetes mellitus (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 1.96-5.21), edema (OR = 3.62, 95% CI: 2.31-5.67), lower Braden scale score (OR = 1.22, 95%CI: 1.11-1.33), higher SOFA score (OR = 4.21, 95%CI: 2.38-7.47), higher APACHE II score (OR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.15-1.64), longer usage time of medical devices (OR = 1.11, 95%CI: 1.05-1.19), use of vasoconstrictors (OR = 6.07, 95%CI: 3.15-11.69), surgery (OR = 4.36, 95% CI: 2.07-9.15), prone position (OR = 24.71, 95% CI: 7.34-83.15), and prone position ventilation (OR = 17.51, 95% CI: 5.86-52.36). Furthermore, we found that ICU patients who used subglottic suction catheters had a higher risk of MDRPI, whereas ICU patients with higher hemoglobin and serum albumin levels had a lower risk of MDRPI.
CONCLUSION
This study reported the risk factors for MDRPI in ICU patients. A comprehensive analysis of these risk factors will help to prevent and optimize interventions, thereby minimizing the occurrence of MDRPI.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Reproducibility of Results; Intensive Care Units; Critical Care; Crush Injuries; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37352180
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287326