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.

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.

The Efficacy of a Viscoelastic Foam Overlay on Prevention of Pressure Injury in Acutely Ill Patients: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare a viscoelastic foam overlay (VEFO) to a standard hospital mattress for pressure injury (PI) prevention. We also compared interface pressures (IPs) of the VEFO to our facility's standard hospital mattress.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized controlled trial.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

Data analysis was based on 110 participants (55 in each group) who were 19 years or older, had a Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk score of 16 or less, and were cared for on a neurology, oncology, or pulmonology inpatient care unit. The research setting was the Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, South Korea.

METHODS

Participants were divided into 2 groups: the experimental group were based on a VEFO on top of the standard hospital mattress used in our facility. Participants in the control group were placed on a standard hospital mattress with/without air overlay. All patients were given standard nursing care for prevention of PI. Skin assessments were completed daily over a period of 2 weeks. In addition, we compared IPs of the standard hospital mattress and the VEFO in participants randomly allocated to the intervention group. Interface pressure was measured over the sacral/coccygeal area with subjects in the supine position. Pressures were measured immediately before and immediately following placement of the VEFO and just before data collection began. Data were collected between October 2013 and November 2014. Pressure injury incidence was compared between groups using the χ test, and IPs were compared using the paired t test.

INSTRUMENTS

Pressure injury development was determined using the staging system described in guidelines from the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance in 2014. Interface pressure was measured using a device manufactured for this purpose.

RESULTS

The incidence of PI development was significantly lower in subjects assigned to the experimental group as compared to those in the control group (3.6%-27.3% over the 2-week data collection period; P = .001). The maximum IP was significantly lower on the VEFO with standard hospital mattress than on the standard hospital mattress (paired t = 8.87, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients managed with a VEFO had a significantly lower incidence of PI than those managed with a standard hospital mattress. Additional research is needed to further characterize the efficacy of the VEFO, its effect on PI healing, and its effect of PI prevention in high-risk populations such as critically ill patients.