Evaluation of a new pressure ulcer preventive dressing containing ceramide 2 with low frictional outer layer

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure over bony prominences. They are difficult to heal, costly, and reduce quality of life. Dressings and topical agents (lotions, creams, and oils) for pressure ulcer prevention are widely used. However, their effectiveness is unclear. This is the third update of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age without existing pressure ulcers, but at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify the studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was November 2022. We imposed no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that enroled people at risk of developing a pressure ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we added 33 new studies, resulting in a total of 51 trials (13,303 participants). Of these, 31 studies involved dressings, 16 topical agents, and four included both dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence. Dressings Pressure ulcer incidence We made a total of 13 comparisons with 9027 participants. We present seven prioritised comparisons in the summary of findings (SoF) tables, as follows: silicone foam dressing versus no dressing (18 trials, 5903 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.77); foam dressing versus film dressing (3 trials, 569 participants; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.67); hydrocellular foam dressing versus hydrocolloid dressing (1 trial, 80 participants; RR not estimable); silicone foam dressing type 1 versus silicone foam dressing type 2 (2 trials, 376 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15); foam dressing versus fatty acid (2 trials, 300 participants; RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.72); polyurethane film versus hydrocolloid dressing (1 trial, 160 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); and hydrocolloid dressing versus no dressing (2 trials, 230 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78). All low or very low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of dressings on pressure ulcer development. Pressure ulcer stage Three comparisons reported pressure ulcer (PU) stage. Silicone foam dressing versus no dressing: PU stage 1 (8 trials, 1823 participants; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.79); PU stage 2 (10 trials, 2873 participants; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73); PU stage 3 (3 trials, 718 participants; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.21); PU stage 4 (2 trials, 610 participants; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.77); unstageable PU (1 trial, 366 participants; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.09); deep tissue injury (3 trials, 840 participants; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.08). Foam dressing versus film dressing: PU stage 1 (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80); PU stage 2 (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.82); deep tissue injury (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.93). Hydrocolloid dressing versus no dressing: PU stage 1 (1 trial, 108 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94); PU stage 2 (1 trial, 108 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.66). All low or very low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of dressings on different stages of pressure ulcer development. Adverse events One comparison reported adverse events: silicone foam dressing versus no dressing (3 trials, 2317 participants; RR not estimable; very low-certainty evidence). Silicone foam dressings may have little to no effect on the incidence of adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain. Topical agents Pressure ulcer incidence We evaluated seven comparisons with 4276 participants. We present five prioritised comparisons in the SoF tables as follows: fatty acid versus placebo (6 trials, 2201 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.36); fatty acid versus usual care (7 trials, 1058 participants; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84); cream versus fatty acid (1 trial, 120 participants; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.03); cream versus placebo (3 trials, 513 participants; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.36); and cream versus usual care (1 trial, 47 participants; RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.04). All very low-certainty evidence. It is very uncertain whether they make any difference to PU development. Pressure ulcer stage Two comparisons reported PU stage. Fatty acid versus usual care: PU stage 1 (2 trials, 180 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.03); PU stage 2 (2 trials, 180 participants; RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.53). Cream versus placebo: PU stage 3 (1 trial, 258 participants; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.55); PU stage 4 (1 trial, 258 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.11). Both low or very low-certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether they make any difference to the stage of PU development. Adverse events One comparison reported adverse events: fatty acid versus placebo (3 trials, 967 participants; RR 4.38, 95% CI 0.50 to 38.30; very low-certainty evidence). Fatty acid may have little to no effect on the incidence of adverse events compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. Risk of bias and imprecision were the main reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies tested a wide variety of dressings and topical agents. The evidence for all interventions is uncertain or very uncertain; thus, it is unclear whether any of the dressings or topical agents studied make any difference to pressure ulcer development. Future studies should engage with stakeholders to determine priority interventions.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries cause significant harm to afflicted individuals, and financially burden hospitals. Most pressure injuries are avoidable with the use of preventative interventions. However, within acute hospital settings the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions, as demonstrated by high-level evidence, requires examination.

OBJECTIVE

Analyse the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to acute hospital settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase were searched in May/June 2019. In April 2020, searches were updated to the end of 2019.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials which investigated the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions on pressure injury incidence, within adults admitted to acute hospital settings, were included. Trials limited to pressure injury treatment or specialty areas, and non-English reports, were excluded. Screening, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment were undertaken independently by two reviewers, with a third as arbitrator. Included studies were grouped by intervention type. Studies were synthesised narratively, and meta-analysis was undertaken where study interventions were similar. Using a random-effects model, primary meta-analyses were undertaken using intention-to-treat data.

RESULTS

Of 2000 records, 45 studies were included in the systematic review which investigated nine different intervention types: continence management, heel protection devices, medication, nutrition, positioning, prophylactic dressings, support surfaces, topical preparations and bundled interventions. All studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk-of-bias. Several meta-analyses were undertaken, pooled by intervention type. Most pooled samples were heterogeneous. Based on intention-to-treat data, only one intervention demonstrated a statistically significant effect: Australian medical sheepskin surfaces compared to other standard care surfaces (risk ratio 0.42, p = 0.006, I² = 36%), but included studies were limited by bias and age. Following per protocol meta-analyses, only two intervention types demonstrated a significant effect: support surfaces (active versus other comparison [risk ratio = 0.54, p = 0.005, I² = 43%] and standard surfaces [risk ratio = 0.31, p < 0.001, I² = 0%]; and reactive versus other comparison surfaces [risk ratio = 0.53, p = 0.03, I² = 64%]) and heel protection devices versus standard care (risk ratio = 0.38, p < 0.001, I² = 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one intervention was supported by intention-to-treat meta-analysis. Significantly, all trials were at unclear or high risk-of-bias; and there were several limitations regarding heterogeneity across trials and trial outcomes. Further large-scale, high-quality trials testing pressure injury preventative interventions are required to establish effectiveness within acute hospital settings. Attention should be paid to true intention-to-treat analysis, and acute and intensive care settings should be reported separately. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019129556.

Ostomy 101 for dermatologists: Managing peristomal skin diseases

An estimated 1 million North Americans live with ostomies, with up to 80% of ostomy patients developing stoma-related skin morbidities. While ostomy nurses are often the first line of management, dermatologists may be involved in the care of ostomy patients with complex or persistent peristomal skin complications. Therefore, an understanding of the ostomy apparatus and possible peristomal skin conditions that may arise allows dermatologists to identify skin complications early and work effectively with a multidisciplinary team. In this article, we aim to review the ostomy apparatus, discuss the differential diagnoses, and provide practical guidelines for the management of peristomal skin conditions. Pubmed, Ovid Medline, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles assessing peristomal skin complications and their management. Peristomal skin complications may be local (e.g., contact dermatitis, infection, fistula, and mechanical trauma) or secondary to systemic disease (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, and psoriasis). Ensuring appropriate ostomy fit and proper use of ostomy accessory products helps to reduce effluent leakage and prevent damage to the peristomal skin. For persistent peristomal skin conditions, corticosteroid sprays, systemic therapies, and surgical interventions may be warranted.

International consensus on pressure injury preventative interventions by risk level for critically ill patients: A modified Delphi study

The aim of this modified Delphi study was to determine a minimum pressure injury preventative intervention set for implementation relative to critically ill patients' risk level. Preventative interventions were identified via systematic review, risk levels categorised by an intensive-care-specific risk-assessment-scale (COMHON Index), and panel members (n = 67) identified through an international critical care nursing body. Round 1: panel members were asked to rate implementation of 12 interventions according to risk level (low, moderate, high). Round 2: interventions were rated for use at the risk level which received greatest round 1 support. Round 3: interventions not yet achieving consensus were again rated, and discarded where consensus was not reached. Consensus indicated all patients should receive: risk assessment within 2-hours of admission; 8-hourly risk reassessment; and use of disposable incontinence pads. Additionally, moderate- and high-risk patients should receive: a reactive mattress support surface and a heel off-loading device. High-risk patients should also receive: nutritional supplements if eating orally; preventative dressings (sacral, heel, trochanteric); an active mattress support surface; and a pressure-redistributing cushion for sitting. Repositioning is required at least 4-hourly for low-risk, and 2-hourly for moderate- and high-risk patients. Rigorous application of the intervention set has the potential to decrease pressure injuries in intensive care.

Preliminary Investigation of the Usability Characteristics Required for Wound Management Products by Semi-Structural Interview of Medical Staff

Consideration of drug usability characteristics is important during the design process. Although many wound management products have been developed in recent years, there are few studies on their usability. We investigated the needs and characteristics of wound management products required by medical professionals, so as to consider these in future development projects. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a group of healthcare professionals. Interview responses were analyzed based on thematic analysis. Four themes common to all facilities were secondary wounds, adaptability of materials, convenience, and physicochemical properties. Economic efficiency of medical care was found to be considered only at the hospital, and quality of life of patients was found to be considered only at the home palliative care clinic. Requirements for wound management products can be affected by participants’ roles and their facility settings. However, there were needs common to all fields that all wound management products should aim to incorporate.

Selection of Appropriate Wound Dressing for Various Wounds

There are many factors involved in wound healing, and the healing process is not static. The therapeutic effect of modern wound dressings in the clinical management of wounds is documented. However, there are few reports regarding the reasonable selection of dressings for certain types of wounds in the clinic. In this article, we retrospect the history of wound dressing development and the classification of modern wound dressings. In addition, the pros and cons of mainstream modern wound dressings for the healing of different wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, pressure ulcers, burns and scalds, and chronic leg ulcers, as well as the physiological mechanisms involved in wound healing are summarized. This article provides a clinical guideline for selecting suitable wound dressings according to the types of wounds.

Release of sodium pyruvate from sacral prophylactic dressings: A computational model

The use of sacral dressings for pressure ulcer prevention is growing rapidly. In addition to their passive biomechanical role in pressure and shear reduction, in the near future, prophylactic dressings may also provide active tissue protection by releasing preventive agents or drugs into skin and deeper tissues. We investigated delivery of sodium pyruvate (NaPy) from an active dressing to potentially protect the sacral skin and underlying tissues in addition. We used four finite element model variants describing different skin roughness levels to determine time profiles of NaPy diffusion from the dressing into the skin layers. The NaPy concentrations for the different modelled cases stabilised after 1 to 6.5 hours from the time of application of the dressings, at 1% to 3% of the NaPy concentration in the dressing reservoir, which is considered potent. We conclude that prophylactic sacral dressings have the potential to deliver NaPy into skin and subdermally, to potentially increase soft tissue tolerance to sustained bodyweight-caused cell and tissue deformations. The time durations to achieve the steady-state potent NaPy dermal concentrations are clinically feasible, for example, for preparation of patients for surgery or for use in intensive care units.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

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 (DermalexTM 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the DermalexTM 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.

Microclimate: A critical review in the context of pressure ulcer prevention

Pressure ulcers are caused by sustained mechanical loading and deformation of the skin and subcutaneous layers between internal stiff anatomical structures and external surfaces or devices. In addition, the skin microclimate (temperature, humidity and airflow next to the skin surface) is an indirect pressure ulcer risk factor. Temperature and humidity affect the structure and function of the skin increasing or lowering possible damage thresholds for the skin and underlying soft tissues. From a pressure ulcer prevention research perspective, the effects of humidity and temperature next to the skin surface are inextricably linked to concurrent soft tissue deformation. Direct clinical evidence supporting the association between microclimate and pressure ulceration is sparse and of high risk of bias. Currently, it is recommended to keep the skin dry and cool and/or to allow recovery periods between phases of occlusion. The stratum corneum must be prevented from becoming overhydrated or from drying out but exact ranges of an acceptable microclimate are unknown. Therefore, vague terms like 'microclimate management' should be avoided but product and microclimate characteristics should be explicitly stated to allow an informed decision making. Pressure ulcer prevention interventions like repositioning, the use of special support surfaces, cushions, and prophylactic dressings are effective only if they reduce sustained deformations in soft tissues. This mode of action outweighs possible undesirable microclimate properties. As long as uncertainty exists efforts must be taken to use as less occlusive materials as possible. There seems to be individual intrinsic characteristics making patients more vulnerable to microclimate effects.

The role of dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers

Pressure ulceration is a significant global healthcare problem and represents a considerable burden on healthcare resources. Within the literature an increasing number of studies have examined the role prophylactic dressings play in redistributing pressure and helping to protect the skin from the effects of friction and shear. The use of dressings to prevent pressure ulcers may be considered a controversial issue, as previous opinion has been that dressings do not reduce the effects of pressure. This article will critically evaluate the literature to examine the role dressings play in the prevention of pressure ulceration.

Dressings for Preventing Pressure Ulcers: A Meta-analysis

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the effectiveness of dressing material in the prevention of pressure ulcers. Results showed that hydrocolloid, foam, and film were more effective than a standard care protocol in patients at risk for pressure ulcers.

Soft silicone foam dressing is more effective than polyurethane film dressing for preventing intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers in spinal surgery patients: the Border Operating room Spinal Surgery (BOSS) trial in Japan

Preventing intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers (IAPUs) in patients undergoing spinal surgery in the prone position using a Relton-Hall frame is challenging. We investigated the efficacy of soft silicone foam dressings in preventing IAPUs. A prospective dual-center sham study was conducted among patients undergoing elective spinal surgery in a general hospital and a university hospital in Japan. The incidence of IAPUs that developed when soft silicone foam dressings and polyurethane film dressings were used was compared on two sides in the same patient. IAPUs developed on the chest in 11 of 100 patients (11%). Polyurethane film dressings were associated with a significantly higher rate of IAPUs than soft silicone foam dressings (11 versus 3, P = 0·027). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a diastolic blood pressure of <50 mmHg (P = 0·025, OR 3·74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1·18-13·08) and the length of surgery (by 1 hour: P = 0·038, OR 1·61, 95% CI 1·03-2·64) were independently associated with the development of IAPUs. The use of soft silicone foam dressings reduced the risk of IAPUs (P = 0·019, OR 0·23, 95% CI 0·05-0·79) and was more effective than film dressings for preventing IAPUs in spinal surgery patients.

Risk factors associated with intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers in the park-bench position: a retrospective study

Patients undergoing surgery in the park-bench position are at high risk of developing intraoperatively acquired pressure ulcers (IAPUs). The purpose was to examine retrospectively risk factors associated with IAPUs in the park-bench position. This study was conducted at a general hospital during the period of September 2010 to September 2012. Twenty-one potential risk factors were evaluated using data obtained from the hospital database. IAPUs developed in 30 of 277 patients (11%). Perspiration was statistically found to be independently associated with IAPUs [OR 3·09, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 1.07-8·58, P = 0·037]. A length of surgery of more than 6 hours was identified to be likely associated with IAPUs (OR 2·64, 95% Cl 0·84-9·08, P = 0·095) compared with less than 6 hours. Furthermore, there was an interaction between the length of surgery and the core temperature; that is, when the length of surgery was more than 6 hours, a core temperature of more than 38·1°C at the end of surgery had a higher odds ratio (8·45, 95% Cl 3·04-27·46, P < 0·001) than that at a lower core temperature (3·20, 95% Cl 1·23-8·78, P = 0·017). These results suggest that perspiration and core temperature are preventable causative factors of pressure ulcers, even under conditions of prolonged surgery in the park-bench position.

A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of soft silicone multi-layered foam dressings in the prevention of sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: the border trial

The prevention of hospital acquired pressure ulcers in critically ill patients remains a significant clinical challenge. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings in preventing intensive care unit (ICU) pressure ulcers when applied in the emergency department to 440 trauma and critically ill patients. Intervention group patients (n = 219) had Mepilex(®) Border Sacrum and Mepilex(®) Heel dressings applied in the emergency department and maintained throughout their ICU stay. Results revealed that there were significantly fewer patients with pressure ulcers in the intervention group compared to the control group (5 versus 20, P = 0·001). This represented a 10% difference in incidence between the groups (3·1% versus 13·1%) and a number needed to treat of ten patients to prevent one pressure ulcer. Overall there were fewer sacral (2 versus 8, P = 0·05) and heel pressure ulcers (5 versus 19, P = 0·002) and pressure injuries overall (7 versus 27, P = 0·002) in interventions than in controls. The time to injury survival analysis indicated that intervention group patients had a hazard ratio of 0·19 (P = 0·002) compared to control group patients. We conclude that multi-layered soft silicone foam dressings are effective in preventing pressure ulcers in critically ill patients when applied in the emergency department prior to ICU transfer.

Risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the comparative effectiveness of risk assessment scales and preventive interventions for pressure ulcers.

METHODS

This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE (1946 through February 2014), CINAHL (1998 through February 2014), the Cochrane Library, clinical trials registries, and reference lists. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include pressure ulcer incidence and severity, resource use, diagnostic accuracy, measures of risk, and harms. This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is patients at risk for pressure ulcers.

RECOMMENDATION 1

ACP recommends that clinicians should perform a risk assessment to identify patients who are at risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP recommends that clinicians should choose advanced static mattresses or advanced static overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP recommends against using alternating-air mattresses or alternating-air overlays in patients who are at an increased risk of developing pressure ulcers. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

The biomechanical efficacy of dressings in preventing heel ulcers

The heels are the most common site for facility-acquired pressure ulcers (PUs), and are also the most susceptible location for deep tissue injuries. The use of multilayer prophylactic dressings to prevent heel PUs is a relatively new prevention concept, generally aimed at minimizing the risk for heel ulcers (HUs) through mechanical cushioning and reduction of friction at the dressing-support interface. We used 9 finite element model variants of the posterior heel in order to evaluate the biomechanical performance of a multilayer dressing in prevention of HUs during supine lying. We compared volumetric exposures of the loaded soft tissues to effective and maximal shear strains, as well as peak stresses in the Achilles tendon, without any dressing and with a single-layer or a multilayer dressing (Mepilex(®) Border Heel-type), on supports with different stiffnesses. The use of the multilayer dressing consistently and considerably reduced soft tissue exposures to elevated strains at the posterior heel, on all of the tested support surfaces and when loaded with either pure compression or combined compression and shear. The aforementioned multilayer design showed (i) clear benefit over a single-layer dressing in terms of dissipating tissue strains, by promoting internal shear in the dressing which diverts loads from tissues; (ii) a protective effect that was consistent on supports with different stiffnesses. Recent randomized controlled trials confirmed the efficacy of the simulated multilayer dressing, and so, taken together with this modeling work, the use of a prophylactic multilayer dressing indicates a great promise in taking this route for prevention.

The effect of concentration of tackifying agent on adhesive and skin-protective properties of ceramide 2-containing hydrocolloid dressings

OBJECTIVE

In the treatment of pressure ulcers and leg ulcers it is necessary to achieve an effective balance between adhesive and skin-protective properties. We speculated that addition of a tackifying agent (TA) to ceramide 2-containing hydrocolloid dressings would increase their adhesiveness under dry conditions and reduce their adhesiveness under wet conditions because dry tack converts to wet tack after water absorption.

METHOD

We prepared ceramide 2-containing hydrocolloid dressings with varying amounts of TA. Basic characteristics of the test ceraminde dressings, such as initial tack force and peeling force, were evaluated using standard methods. Peeling force and stratum corneum (SC) removal on healthy human skin were also evaluated at 20 minutes, 7 hours, and 72 hours. In addition, the effect of 10 repeated applications on transepidermal water loss (TEWL) was investigated on the skin of hairless mice under dry and wet conditions. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Dunnett's multiple comparison test. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

On a stainless steel substrate, initial tack force and 180° peeling force increased as TA content increased. Twenty minutes after application on human skin, peeling force and SC removal increased with increasing TA content. When TA contents were over 10%, significant differences in peeling force and SC removal were obtained compared with ceramide 2-containing hydrocolloid dressings without TA (p<0.05). However, a TA content-dependent increase in peeling force was not evident 7 hours and 72 hours after application. Under dry conditions, TEWL increased with repeated application and peeling. Conversely, no significant increases in TEWL were evident under wet conditions after 10 repeated applications and peelings.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that the initial attachment of ceramide 2-containing hydrocolloid dressings to the skin increases with addition of TA. Skin damage can be avoided by conversion of the adhesive system to wet tack with water absorption.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

Masushi Kohta and Tetsuji IwasakI are employees of ALCARE Co., Ltd., Japan. This project was supported by an unrestricted grant from ALCARE.

Systematic review of the use of prophylactic dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers

This systematic review considers the evidence supporting the use of prophylactic dressings for the prevention of pressure ulcer. Electronic database searches were conducted on 25 July 2013. The searches found 3026 titles and after removal of duplicate records 2819 titles were scanned against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 2777 were excluded based on their title and abstract primarily because they discussed pressure ulcer healing, the prevention and treatment of other chronic and acute wounds or where the intervention was not a prophylactic dressing (e.g. underpads, heel protectors and cushions). Finally, the full text of 42 papers were retrieved. When these 42 papers were reviewed, 21 were excluded and 21 were included in the review. The single high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) and the growing number of cohort, weak RCT and case series all suggest that the introduction of a dressing as part of pressure ulcer prevention may help reduce pressure ulcer incidence associated with medical devices especially in immobile intensive care unit patients. There is no firm clinical evidence at this time to suggest that one dressing type is more effective than other dressings.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, which are localised injury to the skin, or underlying tissue or both, occur when people are unable to reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. Pressure ulcers are often difficult to heal, painful and impact negatively on the individual's quality of life. The cost implications of pressure ulcer treatment are considerable, compounding the challenges in providing cost effective, efficient health services. Efforts to prevent the development of pressure ulcers have focused on nutritional support, pressure redistributing devices, turning regimes and the application of various topical agents and dressings designed to maintain healthy skin, relieve pressure and prevent shearing forces. Although products aimed at preventing pressure ulcers are widely used, it remains unclear which, if any, of these approaches are effective in preventing the development of pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on the prevention of pressure ulcers, in people of any age without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing a pressure ulcer, in any healthcare setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2013 we searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs evaluating the use of dressings, topical agents, or topical agents with dressings, compared with a different dressing, topical agent, or combined topical agent and dressing, or no intervention or standard care, with the aim of preventing the development of a pressure ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trials for their appropriateness for inclusion and for their risk of bias. This was done by two review authors working independently, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials (940 participants) of unclear or high risk of bias compared a topical agent with a placebo. Four of these trials randomised by individual and one by cluster. When results from the five trials were combined, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; P value 0.35) indicating no overall beneficial effect of the topical agents. When the cluster randomised trial was omitted from the analysis, use of topical agents reduced the pressure ulcer incidence by 36%; RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.83; P value 0.0008).Four trials (561 participants), all of which were of high or unclear risk of bias, showed that dressings applied over bony prominences reduced pressure ulcer incidence; RR 0.21 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.51; P value 0.0006).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support or refute the use of topical agents applied over bony prominences to prevent pressure ulcers. Although the incidence of pressure ulcers was reduced when dressings were used to protect the skin, results were compromised by the low quality of the included trials. These trials contained substantial risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity (variations in populations and interventions); consequently, results should be interpreted as inconclusive. Further well designed trials addressing important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes are justified, based on the incidence of the problem and the high costs associated with pressure ulcer management.

Vibration therapy accelerates healing of Stage I pressure ulcers in older adult patients

OBJECTIVE

The present study investigated whether vibration therapy using a vibrator could facilitate the healing of Stage I pressure ulcers (PrUs) in older adults.

METHODS

The study had a nonrandomized, blinded, controlled design. The subjects were hospital patients in long-term-care facilities with Stage I PrUs. In the experimental group, a vibrator (RelaWave; Matsuda Micronics Corp, Chiba, Japan) was used to apply vibration (frequency: 47 Hz; time: 10 seconds; amplitude modulation cycle: 15 seconds) for 15 minutes 3 times a day for up to 7 days, until Stage I PrUs healed. Apart from the vibration therapy, the experimental and control groups received the same care, which was provided according to PrU care guidelines. The number of healed ulcers was compared between 2 groups.

RESULTS

The experimental group consisted of 16 patients with 20 Stage I PrUs; the control group consisted of 15 patients with 21 Stage I PrUs. In the experimental group, 8 (40.0%) PrUs healed; in the control group, 2 (9.5%) PrUs healed. The number of healed ulcers was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (P = .033). The healing rate during the study period was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group (P = .018, logrank test). The hazard ratio adjusted for baseline risk factors was 0.031 (95% confidence intervals: 0.002-0.594, P = .021). The mean relative changes per day in wound area and intensity of redness were significantly greater in the experimental group than in the control group (P = .007, and P = .023, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Based on these results, the use of the vibrator may facilitate the healing of Stage I PrUs.

Effects of skin wrinkles, age and wetness on mechanical loads in the stratum corneum as related to skin lesions

Finite element models of skin were developed to determine the effects of wetness, age, and wrinkles on mechanical strains and stresses in the stratum corneum (SC) as related to skin lesions. We modeled two geometries, young (0.12-mm-deep wrinkles) and aged (0.18-mm-deep wrinkles), and for each geometry, three loading conditions were applied (compression in a dry environment, compression and shear in dryness, and compression with shear in wetness). Effects of skin wrinkling were studied independently or while coupled with age-related mechanical property changes. For each simulation, we calculated the peak maximal shear strain and stress in the SC, peak shear stress on the skin surface, and volumetric exposure of the SC to potentially injurious shear stresses (<70 kPa). Compression and shear with wetness produced the highest skin surface loads. Volumetric exposure of aged skin to potentially injurious shear stresses was six times greater than in the young skin for these conditions. Deeper wrinkles caused elevated loads in the SC consistently for all outcome measures and independently of the age factor. Thinning and/or stiffening the SC increased both the surface and internal SC stresses. Our findings indicate that theoretically, wetness, skin aging, and/or skin wrinkling are all risk factors for skin lesions such as superficial pressure ulcers.