Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis

Family caregivers' perception of pressure ulcer prevention devices and equipment for patients with cerebrovascular and spinal disease

BACKGROUND

Family caregivers play a crucial role in preventing pressure ulcers in patients with cerebrovascular and spinal diseases. Despite the availability of advanced devices, including Internet of Things(IoT) based smart mattresses, the adoption and effectiveness of these technologies are influenced by caregivers' experiences and perceptions.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the experiences and perceptions of family caregivers regarding pressure ulcer prevention devices and equipment, with a focus on the factors influencing the intention to adopt IoT-based smart mattresses.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING(S) AND PARTICIPANTS

159 family caregivers of patients with cerebrovascular and spinal diseases, who had experiences with pressure ulcer prevention devices.

METHODS

Data for this study were collected through survey questionnaires. Descriptive statistics, frequency analysis and multiple regression analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

Caregivers reported using an average of 1.69 types of pressure ulcer prevention equipment, with cushions (37.7 %) and mattresses (44.0 %) being the most commonly used. Ease of use and comfort were identified as key factors contributing to their satisfaction. The multiple regression model (R2 = 0.54, p < .001) revealed that ease of use (p < .01), perceived usefulness (p < .01), and perceived necessity (p < .01) were significant predictors of participants' intention to adopt smart mattresses. In addition, the number of digital devices owned by caregivers was positively associated with the intention to adopt smart mattress (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study show the importance of usability and digital inclusion in the adoption of smart health technologies by caregivers. A user-centered approach to device development is recommended to better meet the practical needs of family caregivers.

Incidence of Pressure Injuries in Patients at Risk Using a Powered Alternating Pressure Air Mattress: A Noninterventional Study in a Real-World Setting

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to determine the clinical value of using a powered alternating pressure air mattress (P-APAM) in the prevention of pressure injury (PI) in patients at medium to high risk.

DESIGN

Noncomparative, observational study.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

The sample comprised 86 patients who were >18 years old, were classified as having medium to high risk of PI, had no PI at baseline, and were lying more than 15 hours a day on a specific P-APAM. Data were collected between September 2018 and July 2019, in 4 nursing homes, and 1 long-term care geriatrics hospital department in France.

METHODS

In addition to guideline-based care for PI prevention, patients were followed up for 35 days following placement on the P-APAM. The main outcome was the percentage of patients who developed between day 0 and day 35 at least 1 PI of at least stage 2 on the sacrum, spine, or heel. Secondary outcomes were patient assessments of comfort, caregiver satisfaction, mattress noise level, and mattress safety.

RESULTS

No patients experienced a PI (incidence = 0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.00%-4.28%). Patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the mattress in most cases in terms of comfort (77.9%) and stability (73.0%). Patients also rated the noise level of the mattress as satisfactory or very satisfactory in all cases (100%).

CONCLUSION

When combined with guideline-based PI prevention measures, use of the P-APAM was associated with a low incidence of PI.

Comparison of the effectiveness of assisted turning mattresses and conventional air mattresses in relieving body pressure in different lying positions

Pressure ulcers are a common problem among individuals who, for medical reasons, must spend most of their day in bed. Manually turning a person's body is labor intensive and can easily cause occupational injuries. To compare the effectiveness of a new assisted turning mattress in pressure management with that of a conventional air mattress. This is a single-session crossover trial study. Twenty-four participants confined to bed were transferred onto the selected mattress (assisted turning or conventional air mattresses) in the selected position. Average interface pressures of bony prominences were measured after the participants laid on the mattress in different positions. After the data collection, they were transferred to the second mattress, and the process was repeated. Subjective feedback from participants and caregivers was also acquired immediately following a one-week trial period of assisted turning mattresses. The mean interface pressures were comparable for most body parts between two mattresses. Subjective feedback showed that assisted turning mattresses could relieve caregivers' workload but at the cost of patients' decreased feelings of safety. Assisted turning mattresses are equal to conventional air mattresses in pressure distribution. Proper pressure management through scheduled positional changes is required in assisted turning mattresses.

Introducing ROHO Hybrid Select Cushion

This article first describes the presentation, impact, prevalence and aetiology of pressure ulceration in wheelchair users. It then explores how to assess the risk of a wheelchair user developing a pressure ulcer and how to reduce this risk with effective skin care, moisture management and surface support, as well as repositioning, nutrition and advice. The article concludes by examining the clinical benefits of wheelchair support surfaces and how to select a cushion from the reactive, dynamic and hybrid types available, with a focus on the ROHO Hybrid Select Cushion (Permobil).

Implementation of an Evidence-Based, Content-Validated, Standardized Support Surface Algorithm Tool in Home Health Care: A Quality Improvement Project

PURPOSE

The purpose of this quality improvement project was to provide a standardized, repeatable, and easy-to-use process for selecting a support surface for prevention or treatment of pressure injuries (PIs).

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

The Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society Support Surface Algorithm was chosen to guide clinicians in selection of an appropriate support surface. These clinicians provide services to approximately 465,000 patients across the nation annually.

APPROACH

This quality improvement project aimed to establish clinician knowledge and comfort levels when recommending a support surface and providing a standardized way to identify the appropriate support surface once a patient had been identified as at risk. The support surface algorithm was incorporated into our agency's electronic medical record (EMR); we chose this interactive algorithm to facilitate support surface selection among clinicians with no specialized expertise in PI treatment or prevention.

OUTCOMES

Clinicians reported an increase in knowledge and comfort levels in the ability to select an appropriate support surface following implementation of the clinical decision support tool. Benchmarking data illustrated a decrease in the year over year aggregate (September 2018 to September 2021) trending for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services quality outcome measures surrounding potentially avoidable events related to PIs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Implementing the support surface algorithm assisted clinicians with support surface selection, elevated and standardized clinician practice, and reduced potentially avoidable events. As a result of this project, the Wound, Ostomy, and Continence Nurses Society Support Surface Algorithm Tool has been fully integrated into our EMR and is a standardized part of our clinical assessment.

Performance and safety assessment of materials used in the medical devices destinated for pressure ulcer management

Pressure ulcers are a significant health problem that affects a large population, especially the elderly and individuals with physical limitations. These injuries cause pain, are difficult to heal, and can be expensive to manage, leading to a negative impact on the quality of life of those affected. This scientific paper provides an overview of medical devices such as support surfaces, dressings, and topical agents for preventing and managing pressure ulcers. This review focuses on the importance of understanding the viscoelastic mechanical properties, water vapor transmission rate, and biocompatibility testing of medical devices, which can help define performance criteria needed to prevent and manage pressure ulcers effectively. The paper highlights the potential use of alginate, polyurethane, silicone, polyvinyl alcohol, and collagen as pressure relief and wound care solutions. Synthesizing this research can help medical device manufacturers make better decisions and improve the quality of care for patients with pressure ulcers.

Evaluation of an Evidence-Based Care Bundle for Preventing Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries in High-Risk Surgical Patients

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based care bundle to prevent perioperative pressure injuries. In a single facility, using a preintervention and postintervention quasi-experimental design, we compared the pressure injury incidence rate for two patient groups (ie, before and after care bundle implementation). The bundle included a variety of elements, such as educating patients, applying protection, controlling skin moisture, and using pressure-relieving devices according to the patient's risk. Before the intervention, patients received standard care before procedures that did not address risk for pressure injury development. The study involved a total of 944 patients, and the incidence of pressure injury was lower in the postintervention group than in the preintervention group (1.6% versus 4.8%; P < .001). However, the odds ratio was nonsignificant and therefore the clinical relevance of the bundle is unclear. Additional research with a control group and multiple sites is needed.

Distribution characteristics of pathogens in different stages of pressure ulcers and the therapeutic effect of linear polarized polychromatic light combined with silver sulfadiazine cream

To investigate the distribution characteristics of pathogens in different stages of pressure ulcers and observe the application of linear polarized polychromatic light (LPPL) combined with silver sulfadiazine cream in treating varying stages of pressure ulcers. This study comprised 88 patients with pressure ulcers who were enrolled in the department of burn and plastic surgery of our hospital from April 2019 to April 2022. The wound exudates from patients were collected, followed by analyzing the distribution of pathogens in different stages of pressure ulcers. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. The first group (n = 44) received LPPL combined with silver sulfadiazine. The other group was intervened with LPPL group only for 2 weeks. The clinical efficacy, condition, and pain in the 2 groups, as well as the healing timeframes for patients were measured at different stages. The findings showed that among 88 patients with pressure ulcers, 62 were infected, and the infection rate was 70.45%. The pathogens that were observed in stage II and III to IV pressure ulcers were mainly Gram-negative bacteria. The total effective rate in the combined group was 90.91%, which was much higher than that of LPPL group (70.45%). Compared with LPPL group, the pressure ulcer scale for healing and visual analogue scale scores in the combined group were markedly lower (P < .05). It is important to note that in LPPL group, the healing time of patients in stage II and stage III to IV in the combined arm were 9.76 ± 2.38 days and 13.19 ± 2.54 days, respectively. The corresponding time in the LPPL group was prolonged to 13.20 ± 3.76 and 18.82 ± 4.17 days, respectively. The main pathogens associated with wound infection in patients with pressure ulcers are Gram-negative bacteria. The curative effects of LPPL combined with sulfadiazine silver cream on patients with pressure ulcer is obviously improved, and the recovery and pain relief are faster while the healing time of pressure ulcer is shorter.

Prevention of pressure injuries using a non-motorised decompression air mattress: a non-interventional study

OBJECTIVE

Prevention of pressure injuries (PI) is a public health issue. Among the preventive measures, the use of support surfaces adapted to the risk of PI occurrence is recommended. This study aimed to report the incidence of PIs in patients at medium-to-high risk of occurrence of PIs and using a new non-motorised automated decompression air mattress combined with other recommended PI prevention measures.

METHOD

An observational, national, multicentre, prospective, non-comparative study, with a follow-up period of 35 days was conducted. Patients at medium-to-high risk of PIs and without PIs at baseline were included if they were lying on a specific non-powered automated decompression air mattress. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who developed at least one category 2 or more severe PI of the sacrum, backbone or heel between day 0 and day 35.

RESULTS

In total, 81 patients were included from four participating centres. There was one report of a patient with a PI that fitted within the definition of the primary outcome, meaning an incidence of 1.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0-6.7%). More than 80% of patients rated the overall comfort and the stability of the non-motorised automated decompression air mattress as satisfactory or very satisfactory. In more than 80% of cases, the healthcare teams found the use of the mattress to be easy or very easy.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that in combination with other preventive measures, the use of a specific non-motorised air mattress with automated decompression is associated with a low incidence of PIs in patients with medium-to-high risk of occurrence of PIs.

Evaluating the Efficacy of a New Alternating Pressure Air Mattress Aimed at Reducing Pressure Injuries During the Transport of Combat Casualties

INTRODUCTION

The development of pressure ulcers during aeromedical transport of combat casualties is an issue that continues to exist, especially during long transport flights. This study investigated the potential for a new intervention, an air-inflated insulating mattress pad (IMP) that has a pump system designed to alternate the pressurization of air cells under the patient, thus temporally shifting the pressure concentration locations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a repeated measures design study, 12 participants experienced the following four simulated transport conditions, each for 90 minutes: (1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) litter by itself (control condition), (2) the NATO litter covered with the standard mattress pad (Warrior Evacuation Pad), (3) the NATO litter covered with the air-inflated mattress (IMP), and (4) the NATO litter, covered with the standard mattress pad that was covered by the insulating mattress pad. Peak pressure readings were obtained every 15 seconds under the head, torso, pelvis, legs, and heels.

RESULTS

While both mattress pads significantly reduced the peak pressures relative to the litter-only condition, the new IMP with the alternating cell pressurizations, by itself or in combination with the standard mattress pad, further reduced the peak pressures under the regions with the localized highest pressures, namely the head, pelvis, and heels. Moreover, the IMP with alternating pressure introduced the most variability in the peak pressure readings, which reduces the peak pressure exposure periods for specific tissue locations.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMP with alternating cell pressurizations could further reduce the likelihood of pressure injuries during aeromedical transport of combat casualties.

Impact of a new clinical mattress solution on interface pressure and comfort during supine lying

OBJECTIVE

Effective pressure management for individuals is critical for hospital and community-based care, to prevent the occurrence of pressure ulcers. This study explores the impact of a new mattress and topper solution on interface pressure and comfort during supine lying.

METHOD

In this quantitative, healthy cohort study, patient-surface interface pressures were calculated for three mattresses (a standard hospital mattress, a new mattress solution (Levitex Foams Ltd., UK) and a dynamic air flow mattress) with and without an innovative topper solution (Levitex Foams Ltd., UK). Subjective comfort, contact surface area, peak and mean pressure and peak pressure index (head, sacrum, heels) were calculated for all mattress conditions for a 21-minute period.

RESULTS

A total of 27 healthy volunteers took part in this study. The new mattress solution decreased peak pressure significantly compared with the hospital and air mattresses (p<0.04). Lower peak pressures were observed for the hospital mattress compared with the dynamic air flow mattress. The new mattress solution improved comfort and significantly lowered (>30%; p≤0.005) heel and head pressure compared with the other surfaces. Both hospital and air mattresses significantly reduced pressure and improved comfort with the addition of the new topper solution (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The new mattress solution used in this study offers a potentially improved pressure management solution for individuals. Implementation of the topper may also help to improve pressure management when used with existing standard or dynamic air flow mattresses.

Nursing interventions in preventing pressure injuries in acute inpatient care: a cross-sectional national study

BACKGROUND

Several nursing interventions for pressure injury prevention have been identified, including risk and skin status assessment. The aim of this study was to explore prevention of pressure injuries in Finnish acute inpatient care. The data were collected on pressure injury risk and skin status assessments, repositioning, the use of support surfaces, preventive skin care, malnutrition risk assessment, and nutritional care.

METHODS

This multicentre, cross-sectional study was conducted in 16 acute care hospitals, excluding psychiatric care. Adult patients from inpatient care were recruited on the annual international Stop Pressure Ulcers Day in 2018 and 2019. Enrolment covered 6,160 participants in 503 units. Descriptive statistics were used to describe pressure injuries, risk assessments, and preventive nursing interventions. Cross tabulation, Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were also used. Reporting follows the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

RESULTS

In all, 30% of the participants had their pressure injury risk assessed during the care, and for 19% within 8 h after admission. The same time limit in risk assessment was fulfilled for 16% of the participants with a pressure injury, and 22% of the participants using a wheelchair or being bedridden. A skin status assessment within 8 h after admission was conducted for 30% of all participants, and for 29% of the participants with a pre-existing pressure injury, and for 38% of the participants using a wheelchair or being bedridden. The risk of malnutrition was screened in 20% of the participants. Preventive interventions were targeted to participants with a pressure injury instead of patients with a high-pressure injury risk.

CONCLUSION

This study adds evidence about pressure injury risk assessments and the implementation of preventive nursing interventions in Finnish acute care. Skin status and pressure injury risk assessments were irregularly conducted, and the outcome was not used by nurses to guide the implementation of preventive interventions. The results reveal the gaps in evidence-based nursing practice, which require further efforts to prevent pressure injuries. Improving the national focus on pressure injury prevention practice is critical for improving healthcare for our patients.

Thermal changes in the sacral region with different mattresses used in the prevention of pressure injuries

BACKGROUND

Pressure Injury (PI) is a severe health problem that affects millions of people. As a preventive strategy for high-risk ICU patients, the appropriate selection of a support surface is essential for preventing PI, along with risk assessment and repositioning. Increasing skin temperature has been associated with a higher susceptibility to PI development.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate thermal variations related to skin pressure in the sacral area of healthy individuals lying on three different mattresses models (standard, inflatable air, and egg crate).

DESIGN

Experimental study.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Initially, a survey was performed to identify the mattresses models most used in four public university hospitals and preventive strategies adopted. And then, an experimental study was conducted with a non-probabilistic sample involving 28 individuals of both sexes, aged 18-35 years old. The volunteers were immobilized for 2 h, and temperature variations in the sacral region were obtained by acquiring thermal images.

RESULTS

A significant difference was not found in the temperature recorded on the three mattresses models before the experiment. However, there were significant differences at the 1st and 31st minute (p < 0.001). The lowest temperature values were identified in the air inflatable mattress. Post-hoc comparisons revealed a significant difference between standard or egg crate mattresses and the inflatable air model.

CONCLUSION

The inflatable air mattress should be considered for preventing pressure injury in ICU patients since the temperature had returned to the initial value (pre-test) after the 31st min. In addition to the appropriate selection surface, risk assessment and positioning are essential to PI prevention strategies.

Pressure Injury Management in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in a Makeshift Hospital in Indonesia: A Report of Two Cases

ABSTRACT

Patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 need ventilation support in the ICU. However, ICU patients are at higher risk of developing a pressure injury (PI). Unfortunately, PI prevention is not optimally implemented in Indonesia, especially in the makeshift hospitals created during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, the authors report two cases of critically ill patients with COVID-19 who developed large sacral PIs during hospitalization in a makeshift hospital in Indonesia. The first patient developed a stage 3, 7 × 7-cm sacral PI on the 14th day of hospitalization. The second patient developed a stage 4, 12 × 8-cm sacral PI on the 16th day of hospitalization. Both patients had elevated d-dimer levels and used a noninvasive ventilator for 1 week. The wounds were treated with surgical debridement, silver hydrogel dressing, and hydrocolloid dressing and complemented with static air mattress overlay. The authors recommend that in situations where there is a shortage of healthcare workers, the government should provide pressure-redistribution devices and silicone foam dressings for all critically ill patients to prevent PI development and lighten the workload of healthcare workers.

The effectiveness of drugs combined with individualized management for elderly patients with stage III pressure ulcers

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effect of drugs in combination with individualized management for elderly patients with stage III pressure ulcers.

METHODS

Sixty patients with stage III pressure sores at our hospital from August 2017 to December 2019 were selected as research subjects. The patients were equally divided between the study group (n = 30) and the control group (n = 30) by the random number table method. All enrolled patients received drug treatment, silver ion alginate and hydrocolloid and foam dressings once every 3 days, according to the patient's wound condition to shorten the healing time. After necrotic tissue and wounds were washed with normal saline, a silver ion alginate dressing was applied and the dressing was changed once a day. The study group had individualized management based on the above drug treatment as well as exercise, nutrition, and psychological management. The pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) score and changes in the pressure ulcer area were compared between the two groups before treatment, at 1, 3, and 5 weeks of treatment. The wound healing rate was then calculated.

RESULTS

With the progress of treatment time, the PUSH scores and pressure ulcer areas in both groups showed a significantly decreasing trend, and the wound healing rate was significantly increased (p < 0.05). The study group's PUSH scores and pressure ulcer areas were significantly lower when compared with the control group (p < 0.05) after one, three, and 5 weeks of treatment. The wound healing rate of the study group at three and 5 weeks was significantly faster than the control group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on drug therapy (silver ion alginate, hydrocolloid dressing, and foam dressing) combined with individualized exercise, nutrition, and psychological management, older patients with stage III pressure ulcers had improved therapeutic wound healing.

Sleep postures monitoring based on capacitively coupled electrodes and deep recurrent neural networks

Background

Capacitively coupled electrode (CC electrode), as a non-contact and unobtrusive technology for measuring physiological signals, has been widely applied in sleep monitoring scenarios. The most common implementation is capacitive electrocardiogram (cECG) that could provide useful clinical information for assessing cardiac function and detecting cardiovascular diseases. In the current study, we sought to explore another potential application of cECG in sleep monitoring, i.e., sleep postures recognition.

Methods

Two sets of experiments, the short-term experiment, and the overnight experiment, were conducted. The cECG signals were measured by a smart mattress based on flexible CC electrodes and sleep postures were recorded simultaneously. Then, a classifier model based on a deep recurrent neural network (RNN) was proposed to distinguish sleep postures (supine, left lateral and right lateral). To verify the reliability of the proposed model, leave-one-subject-out cross-validation was introduced.

Results

In the short-term experiment, the overall accuracy of 96.2% was achieved based on 30-s segment, while the overall accuracy was 88.8% using one heart beat segment. For the unconstrained overnight experiment, the accuracy of 91.0% was achieved based on 30-s segment, while the accuracy was 81.4% using one heart beat segment.

Conclusions

The results suggest that cECG could render valuable information about sleep postures detection and potentially be helpful for sleep disorder diagnosis.

Seating and Wheeled Mobility Clinicians Contribute to the Wound Care Team

Many know that the wound care team consists of physicians and nurses with specialized training. Many may not know of physical therapists (PT) or occupational therapists (OT) with training in seating and wheeled mobility who address skin injuries in people who are full-time wheelchair users. PTs/OTs address the fit and use of their wheelchair to their body and look at their daily function while looking for causes of skin injury otherwise not seen and can help prevent them in the future. Therefore, this makes PTs and OTs with this expertise a valuable part of the wound care team.

Perioperative management of pressure injury: a best practice implementation project

OBJECTIVES

This project aimed to set up a control mechanism for the prevention of pressure injuries during surgery.

INTRODUCTION

Structured and comprehensive risk assessment is effective in identifying individuals at risk for pressure injuries. The subsequent use of proper positioning aids (modern gel-filled positioning aids used to position the head and limbs: floating limb concept) reduces the incidence of surgery-related pressure injuries.

METHODS

The best practice implementation project used the JBI's Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and Getting Research into Practice audit tool for promoting change in local healthcare practice. The study was carried out from January 2020 to February 2021 at the private clinic of aesthetic surgery (Brno, Czech Republic). A baseline audit involving 27 patients was undertaken and measured against six best practice recommendations. This step was followed by the implementation of targeted strategies and finally, a postimplementation follow-up audit was conducted.

RESULTS

The baseline audit results showed significant deficits between current practice and best practice in all but two criteria. Barriers to implementation of nursing clinical handover best practice criteria were identified by the project team and an education strategy was implemented, documentation for recording possible risks of pressure injuries was created, and new positioning aids were purchased and introduced into clinical practice. There were significantly improved outcomes across all best practice criteria in the follow-up audit.

CONCLUSION

Clinical audits were proved to promote best practice in healthcare. Focused education, provision, and use of relevant tools and aids can have an immediate and positive impact on clinical practice. Future audits are planned to ensure the sustainability of practice changes.

Repositioning mattress: how a lateral tilt position reshapes the prevention of pressure ulcers in bedridden patients

Pressure ulcers have been part of tissue damage without effectiveness in medical, surgical, and intensive care units. This study aims to focus on developing lateral tilt positions for effective pressure ulcer relief for bedridden patients. A repositioning mattress was placed in the side-lying left lateral tilt position (15°, 30°, 45°), sheering (0.680, 1.323, 1.870), interface pressure (2.550, 2.290, 2.830), and placed at 1.5 m long piece of polyethylene rubber. The design strength was set at 6000 N and 2100 mm x 1105 mm (σt,0,d = 42, σc,0,d = 34). The design shows the greatest supine position at 30°, 1.323, 2.290, pressure load (Δp0 = 1.125 (1820) ≈ 2050 psi, Δp3000 = 1.125 (620) ≈ 700 psi), tensile stress (σt,0,d (MPa) = 42), compressive stress (σc,0,d (MPa) = 34), and FOS (σt,0,d = 42, σc,0,d = 34). The factor of safety illustrated that the 30° lateral tilt position is more consistent in repositioning for pressure ulcer prevention compared to the supine-to-tilt region. Further, an application of repositioning mattresses was developed to test in bedridden patients with tissue ulcers in nursing homes.

Effect Evaluation of Platelet-Rich Plasma Combined with Vacuum Sealing Drainage on Serum Inflammatory Factors in Patients with Pressure Ulcer by Intelligent Algorithm-Based CT Image

This work was to explore the efficacy of intelligent algorithm-based computed tomography (CT) to evaluate platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) in the treatment of patients with pressure ulcers. Based on the u-net network structure, an image denoising algorithm based on double residual convolution neural network (Dr-CNN) was proposed to denoise the CT images. A total of 84 patients who were hospitalized in hospital were randomly divided into group A (without any intervention), group B (PRP treatment), group C (VSD treatment), and group D (PRP+VSD treatment). Procalcitonin (PCT) was detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) combined with immunofluorescence method, C-reactive protein (CRP) was detected by rate reflectance turbidimetry (RRT), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) was detected by electrochemiluminescence method. The results showed that after treatment, 44 cases (52.38%) of pressure ulcers patients recovered, 24 cases (28.57%) had no change in stage, and 16 cases (19.04%) developed pressure ulcers. The pain scores of group D at 1 week (3.35 ± 0.56 points) and 2 weeks (2.76 ± 0.55 points) after treatment were significantly lower than those in group C (7.77 ± 0.58 points and 6.34 ± 0.44 points, respectively). The time of complete wound healing in group D (24.5 ± 2.32) was obviously lower in contrast to that in groups A, B, and C (35.54 ± 3.22 days, 30.23 ± 2 days, and 29.34 ± 2.15 days, respectively). In addition, the medical satisfaction of group D (8.74 ± 0.69) was significantly higher than that of groups A, B, and C (4.69 ± 0.85, 5.22 ± 0.31, and 5.18 ± 0.59, respectively). The levels of IL-6 and PCT in group D were lower than those in groups A, B, and C, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.01). The average values of peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity index measure (SSIM) of the Dr-CNN network model were 37.21 ± 1.09 dB and 0.925 ± 0.01, respectively, which were higher than other algorithms. The mean values of root mean square error (MSE) and normalized mean absolute distance (NMAD) of the Dr-CNN network model were 0.022 ± 0.002 and 0.126 ± 0.012, respectively, which were significantly lower than other algorithms (P < 0.05). The experimental results showed that PrP combined with VSD could significantly reduce the inflammatory response of patients with pressure ulcers. PRP combined with VSD could significantly reduce the pain of dressing change for patients. Moreover, the performance model of image denoising algorithm based on double residual convolutional neural network was better than other algorithms.

Intensive Care Pressure Injuries: A Cohort Study Using the CALCULATE and Braden Scales

OBJECTIVE

Identify both the risk of developing pressure injuries (PIs) by applying the CALCULATE (CriticAL Care pressure ULcer Assessment Tool made Easy) and Braden Scales and the incidence of PIs in adult patients in intensive care.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted from March 2016 to February 2017 in an adult ICU. The Braden and CALCULATE scales were applied every 48 hours until medical discharge, death, or PI development.

RESULTS

The sample included 100 patients. The investigators obtained 818 evaluations (409 Braden and 409 CALCULATE) with an average of 4.1 observations per patient. According to the CALCULATE scale, 49 participants (49%) were classified as very high risk, compared with 40 participants (40%; P = .204) according to the Braden Scale. Thirty-five patients developed 37 PIs, with a total incidence of 35%. The mean age of patients who developed PIs was 60.3 (SD, 13.7) years, and they averaged 9.2 (SD, 6.8) days of hospitalization, with diagnoses related to cardiorespiratory and neurologic diseases and associated comorbidities of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking. The most affected site was the sacral region; 64.9% of the injuries were classified as stage 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in intensive care were high risk according to both PI scales, and many developed PIs. It is evident that even when preventive measures are used, they are insufficient without the implementation of preventive protocols.

The prevention of pressure injuries in the positioning and mobilization of patients in the ICU: a good clinical practice document by the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this document is to support clinical decision-making concerning positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient in the early identification and resolution of risk factors (primary prevention) and in the early recognition of those most at risk (secondary prevention). The addresses of this document are physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and other professionals involved in patient positioning in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A consensus pathway was followed using the Nominal Focus Group and the Delphi Technique, integrating a phase of focused group discussion online and with a pre-coded guide to an individual phase. A multidisciplinary advisory board composed by nine experts on the topic contributed to both the phases of the process, to reach a consensus on four clinical questions positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient.

RESULTS

The topics addressed by the clinical questions were the risks associated with obligatory positioning and therapeutic positions, the effective interventions in preventing pressure injuries, the appropriate instruments for screening for pressure injuries in the ICU, and the cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions relating to ICU positioning. A total of 27 statements addressing these clinical questions were produced by the panel. Among the statements, nine provided guidance on how to manage safely some specific patients' positions, including the prone position; five suggested specific screening tools and patients' factors to consider when assessing the individual risk of developing pressure injuries; five gave indications on mobilization and repositioning; and eight focused on the use of devices, such as positioners and preventive dressings.

CONCLUSIONS

The statements may represent a practical guidance for a broad public of healthcare professionals involved in the management of critically ill patients.

Modelling, design and control of a new seat-cushion for pressure ulcers prevention

Pressure ulcers are a frequent complication in patients having limited activity and mobility (e.g., elderly people, spinal cord injury patients, people with disabilities, etc.). The aim of this work is the conceptual design, modelling and control of a new seat cushion for pressure ulcers prevention. The whole system (constituted by the seat cushion equipped with a real-time pressure mapping with closed-loop control) is designed to identify the critical points on the human skin, before pressure ulcers creation, and to be able to distribute the contact pressure between the human and cushion avoiding wound creation. The seat cushion is constituted by soft air-cells actuated by air flow. To define the shape and size of the soft air-cells, finite element simulations are carried out, analysing the internal volume reduction with external loads application to reproduce the variable stiffness. The data obtained by finite element analysis are used to simulate inflation and deflation of the soft bubble air-cells. Finally, the control systems of a single air-cell and of the whole cushion are designed and simulated. The novelty of our work consists in the conception of a seat cushion able to recognise higher and lower risk zones of pressure ulcer generation on the human skin and to provide compensation automatically. This work can therefore be considered in line with the sustainable development goals recently launched by the EU Commission.

Consistent practices in pressure ulcer prevention based on international care guidelines: A cross-sectional study

The use of consistent and evidence‐based practices is essential in terms of patient safety and quality of care. The purpose of this study was to describe the use of consistent practices in PU prevention based on international care guidelines and to assess the validity and reliability of the pressure ulcer prevention practice (PUPreP) instrument. The data (n = 554) were collected between 2018 and 2019 from nursing professionals working at two hospital districts in Finland using the PUPreP instrument. The instrument consisted of 42 items assessing participants' perceptions of the frequencies of pressure ulcer prevention practices with the following scale: never, sometimes, often, always. The data were analysed using statistical analysis. According to the results, the use of pressure ulcer prevention practices was more frequently described as often. The most frequently used prevention practice was repositioning, and the least frequently used practice was nutrition. Factors related to nursing professionals' pressure ulcer prevention practices were the working sector, education and working frequency in pressure ulcer prevention, and early identification of pressure ulcers. The study results suggest that the evidence‐based pressure ulcer prevention practices were followed at a moderate level by nurses. The PuPreP instrument demonstrated validity and reliability, but further development is needed.

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.

[Nursing care plan for the prevention of pressure ulcers secondary to prone positioning in COVID-19 patientsPlano de cuidados de enfermagem para a prevenção de úlceras por pressão secundárias à posição prona em pacientes com COVID-19]

Introduction

Prone position (PP) is a therapeutic alternative widely used and recommended in patients with COVID-19. Although PP is a non-invasive procedure, it is complex and could be associated with complications such as the development of pressure ulcers (PU). We aimed to propose a standardized nursing care plan in terms of NANDA-International, NIC (Nursing Interventions Classification) and NOC (Nursing Outcomes Classification) to prevent PU secondary to the PP in people with COVID-19.

Content synthesis

In patients with COVID-19, in addition to risk factors such as advanced age and the presence of comorbidities, PP contributes to the presence of pressure ulcer risk nursing diagnoses [00249], of deterioration of skin [00047] and tissue [00248] integrity. On the other hand, the nursing intervention for the prevention of pressure ulcers [3540], due to the specificity and scientific basis of its activities, is key to minimize the development of this complication, improve the quality of care and the prognosis in this type of patients. Finally, to evaluate the effectiveness of nursing care, we propose the nursing results (NOC): consequences of immobility: physiological [0204] and tissue integrity: skin and mucous membranes [1101].

Conclusion

PP is a recommended adjunctive therapy for the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients due to its benefits to improve lung function. However, it is associated with adverse effects such as PU. This article presents recommendations based on a narrative review for a better implementation of preventive nursing care that reduces the frequency of PU in this population.

Beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing and treating pressure ulcers: an overview of Cochrane Reviews and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.

METHODS

In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.

Using past performance to improve future clinical outcomes in pressure ulcer prevention

OBJECTIVE

Episodes of inpatient care-related pressure ulcers (PU) lead to deleterious effects on patient quality of life, and additional costs associated with wound dressings, staff visits and hospitalisation. Accurate prediction of future incidence may be helpful in defining strategies for benchmarking and resource management. Observations of category 2 or above PUs during episodes of care at an NHS Foundation Trust were recorded monthly from 2010 to 2020. Trust-specific interventions designed to reduce PU incidence, such as procurement of specialised staff and equipment, were also recorded. This study aimed to investigate the historical pattern of PU incidence in the Trust to assess intervention effectiveness in reducing PU incidence, and to use historical data to derive estimates of future incidence.

METHOD

Time-series analysis was conducted on monthly PU incidence data to quantify underlying trends, seasonality and effect of interventions, and to derive a suitable model to predict future incidence levels.

RESULTS

Mean monthly PU incidence gradually reduced from 20.3 during 2012 to 5.08 during 2019; with a negative linear trend in the presence of concurrent seasonal effects. There was limited evidence that implementation of specific interventions was associated with raised rates of reduction; however, incidence reductions during intervention periods continued from lower baselines. Best estimate predictions revealed that incidence is likely to stay at current levels or below for the foreseeable future.

CONCLUSION

Past data can be used to model future episodes of inpatient care PU occurrence. Interventions may be effective in reducing PU incidence rates.

Incidence of pressure ulcer in patients using an alternating pressure mattress overlay: the ACTIVE study

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to determine the clinical benefit of using a specific alternating-pressure mattress overlay (APMO) in the prevention of pressure ulcer (PU) in patients at medium to high risk.

METHOD

This prospective study was conducted in five rehabilitation centres and three nursing homes. Patients at medium to high risk of PU, but without PU at baseline, and lying between 15 and 20 hours per day on a specific APMO were included. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who developed a sacral, spine, heel or trochanteric PU (supine support areas) of at least category II, at day 35. All patients were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were included; of whom six patients (6.7%) dropped out of the study (average (±standard deviation) follow-up 32±5.4 days). No sacral, spine, heel or trochanteric PU of at least category II was reported (i.e., an incidence of 0% [95% Confidence Interval: 0-4.1%] according to the exact Clopper-Pearson method]. Patients were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the comfort and stability of the APMO. The caregivers assessed as 'very easy' or 'easy' the implementation, maintenance and use of the APMO (turning over, moving to a sitting position).

CONCLUSION

In combination with the usual measures to prevent PU, the results of our study showed a low incidence of PU in high-risk patients lying for between 15 and 20 hours a day on an APMO, use of which is therefore recommended in these patients.

Evaluation of interface pressure and temperature management in five wheelchair seat cushions and their effects on user satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Factors such as the manufacturing materials, shape or even the mechanical and thermal response of sitting Pressure Redistribution Support Surfaces (PRSS) can be potential contributors to pressure ulcers. However, few studies have compared a number of characteristics of the most frequently used devices.

OBJECTIVE

To compare three potential contributors to pressure ulcers in five commercial PRSS: pressure redistribution, temperature and perceived comfort.

METHOD

Study with a cross-over randomized design in healthy volunteer participants. Data was collected in a temperature and relative humidity controlled environment. To assess thermal response, the temperature (Flir-E60) of the region of interest was captured before and after use of each PRSS for further analysis. The region of interest was the gluteal zone. To assess the pressure redistribution a pressure mat (XSensor®) was used between the 5 cushion and each study participant using a standardized method. Finally, a subjective perception questionnaire recorded comfort, adaptability and thermal sensation parameters. Data analysis levels of significance were set at 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 22 participants completed the assessments. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline temperatures between PRSS (>0.05). Pressure redistribution analysis showed significant differences between all PRSS in all variables evaluated except in the maximum and peak pressure index al sacrum. The subjective assessment suggested no major user-perceived differences between PRSS.

CONCLUSION

Seat cushions made of open cell polyurethane foam blocks of variable hardness and the horseshoe cushion (also open cell polyurethane foam) seem to provide a more effective pressure relief characteristic than those injected with polyurethane foam and gel in most of the studied pressure variables. However, the cushions provide similar thermal response and perceived comfort.

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

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; I² = 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; I² = 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; I² = 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.

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers

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. Beds, overlays or mattresses are widely used with the aim of treating pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on pressure ulcer healing in people with pressure ulcers of any stage, 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 pressure-redistributing beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for treating pressure ulcers.

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 13 studies (972 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 72 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 64.0 to 86.5 years (median: 82.7 years) and all studies recruited people with existing pressure ulcers (the baseline ulcer area size ranging from 4.2 to 18.6 cm2,median 6.6 cm2). Participants were recruited from acute care settings (six studies) and community and long-term care settings (seven studies). Of the 13 studies, three (224 participants) involved surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. Additionally, six (46.2%) of the 13 studies presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. We synthesised data for four comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and a comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces. We summarise key findings for these four comparisons below. (1) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces: we are uncertain if there is a difference between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants whose pressure ulcers completely healed (two studies with 132 participants; the reported risk ratio (RR) in one study was 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 3.58). There is also uncertainty for the outcomes of patient comfort (one study with 83 participants) and adverse events (one study with 49 participants). These outcomes have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (2) Reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportion of participants with completely healed pressure ulcers between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). When time to complete pressure ulcer healing is considered using a hazard ratio, data from one small study (84 participants) suggests a greater hazard for complete ulcer healing on reactive air surfaces (hazard ratio 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). These results are sensitive to the choice of outcome measure so should be interpreted as uncertain. We are also uncertain whether there is any difference between these surfaces in patient comfort responses (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in adverse events (2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence that reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use (1 study, 87 participants). Included studies did not report health-related quality of life. (3) Reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between reactive water surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 1 study, 101 participants) and in adverse events (1 study, 120 participants). All these have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, patient comfort, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (4) Comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between Nimbus and Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers, in patient comfort responses and in adverse events: each of these outcomes had four studies (256 participants) but very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the relative effects of most different pressure-redistributing surfaces for pressure ulcer healing (types directly compared are alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and Nimbus versus Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces). There is also uncertainty regarding the effects of these different surfaces on the outcomes of comfort and adverse events. However, people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have pressure ulcers completely healed than those using foam surfaces over 37.5 days' follow-up, and reactive air surfaces may cost more for each ulcer-free day than foam surfaces. Future research in this area could consider the evaluation of alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces as a high priority. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

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. Reactive air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of reactive air 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 reactive air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for preventing pressure ulcers.

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. If a reactive air surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then we recorded and described the concerned study but did not included it in further data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies (2604 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average participant age ranged from 56 to 87 years (median: 72 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings with the majority being acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in the regions of Europe and America. Of the 17 included studies, two (223 participants) compared reactive air surfaces with surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. We analysed data for five comparisons: reactive air surfaces compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (seven studies with 1728 participants), (2) foam surfaces (four studies with 229 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive gel surfaces (one study with 66 participants), and (5) another type of reactive air surface (two studies with 223 participants). Of the 17 studies, seven (41.2%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.96; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer on reactive air surfaces compared with: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (6 studies, 1648 participants); reactive water surfaces (1 study, 37 participants); reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 66 participants), or another type of reactive air surface (2 studies, 223 participants). Evidence for all these comparisons is of very low certainty. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for two comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer incidence is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), low-certainty evidence suggests that in the nursing home setting, people on reactive air surfaces may be less likely to develop a new pressure ulcer over 14 days' of follow-up than people on alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; 1 study, 308 participants). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies have data on this outcome for three comparisons. We could not pool any data as comfort outcome measures differed between included studies; therefore a narrative summary is provided. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces over the top of an alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants), and between those using reactive air surfaces and those using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (4 studies, 1364 participants). Evidence for these two comparisons is of very low certainty. It is also uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there were data on this outcome for one comparison: it is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies have no data for health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness for all five comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is uncertain regarding any differences in the relative effects of reactive air surfaces on ulcer incidence and patient comfort, when compared with reactive water surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, or another type of reactive air surface. Using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with using foam surfaces. Also, using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers within 14 days compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in people in a nursing home setting. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Foam surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of foam 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 foam beds, mattresses or overlays. Comparators were any beds, mattresses or overlays.

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. If a foam surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (9566 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 101 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 47.0 to 85.3 years (median: 76.0 years). Participants were mainly from acute care settings. We analysed data for seven comparisons in the review: foam surfaces compared with: (1) alternating pressure air surfaces, (2) reactive air surfaces, (3) reactive fibre surfaces, (4) reactive gel surfaces, (5) reactive foam and gel surfaces, (6) reactive water surfaces, and (7) another type of foam surface. Of the 29 included studies, 17 (58.6%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

pressure ulcer incidence Low-certainty evidence suggests that foam surfaces may increase the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 2.95; I2 = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants), and (2) reactive air surfaces (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.54; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants). We are uncertain regarding the difference in pressure ulcer incidence in people treated with foam surfaces and the following surfaces: (1) reactive fibre surfaces (1 study, 68 participants); (2) reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 135 participants); (3) reactive gel and foam surfaces (1 study, 91 participants); and (4) another type of foam surface (6 studies, 733 participants). These had very low-certainty evidence. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer development for two comparisons. When time to ulcer development is considered using hazard ratios, the difference in the risk of having new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces is uncertain (2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two further studies comparing different types of foam surfaces also reported time-to-event data, suggesting that viscoelastic foam surfaces with a density of 40 to 60 kg/m3 may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over 11.5 days' follow-up compared with foam surfaces with a density of 33 kg/m3 (1 study, 62 participants); and solid foam surfaces may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over one month's follow-up compared with convoluted foam surfaces (1 study, 84 participants). Both had low-certainty evidence. There was no analysable data for the comparison of foam surfaces with reactive water surfaces (one study with 117 participants). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the review contains data for three comparisons for this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort measure between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces (1 study, 76 participants; very low-certainty evidence); foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and different types of foam surfaces (4 studies, 669 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: the review contains data for two comparisons for this outcome. We are uncertain about differences in adverse effects between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (3 studies, 2181 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life: only one study reported data on this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference (low-certainty evidence) between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in health-related quality of life measured with two different questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L (267 participants) and the PU-QoL-UI (233 participants). Cost-effectiveness: one study reported trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing pressure ulcer incidence (2029 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests uncertainty about the differences in pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse events and health-related quality of life between using foam surfaces and other surfaces (reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, reactive foam and gel surfaces, or reactive water surfaces). Foam surfaces may increase pressure ulcer incidence compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive air surfaces. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and by blinding adjudicators of the photographs to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non-foam and non-air-filled) for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as 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. Reactive surfaces that are not made of foam or air cells can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-foam and non-air-filled reactive beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any other 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 non-foam or non-air-filled reactive beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses used.

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. If a non-foam or non-air-filled surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies (4653 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 198 participants). The average participant age ranged from 37.2 to 85.4 years (median: 72.5 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings but were mainly from acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in Europe and America. Of the 20 studies, 11 (2826 participants) included surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be fully classified. We synthesised data for the following 12 comparisons: (1) reactive water surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (three studies with 414 participants), (2) reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 117 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 87 participants), (5) reactive fibre surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (four studies with 384 participants), (6) reactive fibre surfaces versus foam surfaces (two studies with 228 participants), (7) reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds (two studies with 415 participants), (8) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 74 participants), (9) reactive gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 135 participants), (10) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 113 participants), (11) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 166 participants) and (12) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 91 participants). Of the 20 studies, 16 (80%) presented findings which were considered to be at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Pressure ulcer incidence We did not find analysable data for two comparisons: reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (14/205 (6.8%)) may increase the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (3/210 (1.4%) (risk ratio 4.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 15.65; 2 studies, 415 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For all other comparisons, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing new pressure ulcers as all data were of very low certainty. Included studies did not report time to pressure ulcer incidence for any comparison in this review. Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies provide data on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there is evidence on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive gel surfaces followed by foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (one study with 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find any health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness evidence for any comparison in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is generally uncertain about the differences between non-foam and non-air-filled reactive surfaces and other surfaces in terms of pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds may increase the risk of having new pressure ulcers compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Role of progesterone, cerclage and pessary in preventing preterm birth in twin pregnancies: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the role of progesterone, pessary and cervical cerclage in reducing the risk of (preterm birth) PTB in twin pregnancies and compare these interventions using pairwise and network meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were explored. The inclusion criteria were studies in which twin pregnancies were randomized to an intervention for the prevention of PTB (any type of progesterone, cervical cerclage, cervical pessary, or any combination of these) or to a control group (e.g. placebo or treatment as usual). Interventions of interest were either progesterone [vaginal or oral natural progesterone or intramuscular 17a-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC)], cerclage (McDonald or Shirodkar), or cervical pessary. The primary outcome was PTB < 34 weeks of gestation. Both primary and secondary outcomes were explored in an unselected population of twin pregnancies and in women at higher risk of PTB (defined as those with cervical length <25 mm). Random-effect head-to-head and a multiple-treatment meta-analyses were used to analyze the data and results expressed as risk ratios.

RESULTS

26 studies were included in the meta-analysis. When considering an unselected population of twin pregnancies, vaginal progesterone, intra-muscular17-OHPC or pessary did not reduce the risk of PTB < 34 weeks of gestation (all p > 0.05). When stratifying the analysis for spontaneous PTB, neither pessary, vaginal or intramuscular 17-OHPC were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of PTB compared to controls (all p > 0.05), while there was no study on cerclage which explored this outcome in an unselected population of twin pregnancies. When considering twin pregnancies with short cervical length (≤25 mm), there was no contribution of either pessary, vaginal progesterone, intra-muscular 17-OHPC or cerclage in reducing the risk of overall PTB < 34 weeks of gestation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical pessary, progesterone and cerclage do not show a significant effect in reducing the rate of PTB or perinatal morbidity in twins, either when these interventions are applied to an unselected population of twins or in pregnancies with a short cervix.

Study designs: Part 9 - Meta-analysis (II)

The previous two articles in this series gave an overview of the methodology of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. In this third and concluding article, we look at the different types of biases that can confound the results of a meta-analysis and briefly describe some special types of meta-analysis.

A Fully Automated Pulsating Support System for Pressure Injury Prevention and Treatment in 10 Belgium Nursing Homes: An Observational Study

PURPOSE

We studied pressure injury (PI) stage II-IV cumulative incidence and the change of PI status in the sacral area of nursing home residents associated with the use of a fully automated pulsating support system air mattress in use for 30 days. We also assessed caregivers', residents', and their family members' experiences and perceptions of mattress comfort and other factors such as pain.

DESIGN

Multicenter cohort study.

SUBJECT AND SETTING

A convenience sample of 40 residents residing in 10 Belgian nursing homes was recruited.

METHODS

Pressure injury classification was confirmed using the European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel classification system. The Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) tool was used to assess and measure PI status change. A comfort assessment was performed at end of the study. Cumulative PI incidence of stages II-IV was calculated, and frequencies and percentages were used to describe the results of the comfort assessments.

RESULTS

Residents were allocated to the prevention group (n = 22) and to the treatment group (n = 18). The cumulative PI incidence was 4.5% (n = 1/22) in the prevention group. In the treatment group, the mean score on the PUSH tool decreased from 9.36 to 7.70 during the observation period, indicating an overall improvement. Four of the existing PIs healed, 17 PIs remained stable, and 1 PI deteriorated. The comfort questionnaires were completed by 76 nursing home caregivers, 21 family members, and 11 residents in the 10 participating nursing homes; the mattress comfort was perceived as very good, and pain was noted to decrease.

CONCLUSIONS

Low cumulative PI incidence findings were observed with use of the mattress for the prevention of PIs and resulted in improvements in existing PIs, results which are consistent with several existing studies. The majority of the caregivers, residents, and family members evaluated the mattress as comfortable. Future research is needed to corroborate findings in larger randomized clinical trials.

Optimal Method of Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Upper Limb Dysfunction After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The obstacle of limb motor caused by stroke, especially the decline of motor function of upper limbs, can directly affect the activities of daily living of stroke patients with hemiplegia. Based on long-term clinical practice, the treatment effect of electrical stimulation methods for stroke limb dysfunction has been widely recognized and supported by authoritative guidelines and systematic reviews. However, which electrical stimulation method is the optimum in the treatment of stroke limb dysfunction is still a controversial issue.

OBJECTIVE

In this paper, we adopted Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) to rank the priorities of various electrical stimulation methods, so as to select the optimal electrical stimulation method and discuss its rationality in guiding clinical practice.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review by searching a total of 6806 studies from 8 databases and 2 clinical trial registries, and finally screened out 34 studies for further investigation. Then, pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were employed to evaluate the effectiveness and ranking of various interventions. The primary outcome measure was Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), and the secondary outcome measures were Modified Barthel Index (MBI) and Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS). Finally, the risk of bias, publication bias and sensitivity of the Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

On the basis of comprehensive rehabilitation treatment (RT), the Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) was superior than other electrical stimulation methods in improving both FMA-UE and MBI. Meanwhile, the results indicated that the Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation (TEAS) was the only electrical stimulation method that showed treatment advantages in reducing MAS.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that FES had the optimal overall rehabilitation effect on upper limb dysfunction of stroke patients based on the comprehensive RT, while the treatment effect of TEAS on upper limb spasticity after stroke was the most significant.

Relationship between a pressure redistributing foam mattress and pressure injuries: An observational prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Pressure injuries remain a significant health care issue in various settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between a pressure redistributing foam mattress (PRFM) and the development of pressure injuries.

METHODS

This study employed an observational prospective cohort study design. We enrolled 254 participants from the intensive care unit who were at risk of developing pressure injuries. Participants were exposed to either a nonpressure redistributing foam mattress (NPRFM), which was the standard mattress used at the study site, or a PRFM made of viscoelastic, temperature-sensitive, polyurethane memory foam. The patients' assignment to either a PRFM or NPRFM was performed upon their admission, before the study eligibility screening. The relationship between the PRFM and the development of pressure injuries was studied using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pressure injuries was 5.9% (15/254) in our study, with 1.6% (2/127) for participants who used a PRFM and 10.2% (13/127) for those using a NPRFM. After adjusting for potential confounding variables, use of a PRFM was associated with an 88% reduced risk of pressure injury development (OR = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.56, P = 0.007). The use of a PRFM also contributed to a postponed occurrence of pressure injuries by 4.2 days on average in comparison with that of a NPRFM (P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

A PRFM is associated with a significantly reduced incidence and postponed occurrence of pressure injuries. It is recommended to use a PRFM for patients at risk of developing pressure injuries.

Risk Factors for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury in Surgical Critical Care Patients

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries disproportionately affect critical care patients. Although risk factors such as moisture, illness severity, and inadequate perfusion have been recognized, nursing skin assessment data remain unexamined in relation to the risk for hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with hospital-acquired pressure injuries among surgical critical care patients. The specific aim was to analyze data obtained from routine nursing skin assessments alongside other potential risk factors identified in the literature.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 5101 surgical critical care patients at a level I trauma center and academic medical center. Multivariate logistic regression using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method identified important predictors with parsimonious representation. Use of specialty pressure redistribution beds was included in the model as a known predictive factor because specialty beds are a common preventive intervention.

RESULTS

Independent risk factors identified by logistic regression were skin irritation (rash or diffuse, nonlocalized redness) (odds ratio, 1.788; 95% CI, 1.404-2.274; P < .001), minimum Braden Scale score (odds ratio, 0.858; 95% CI, 0.818-0.899; P < .001), and duration of intensive care unit stay before the hospital-acquired pressure injury developed (odds ratio, 1.003; 95% CI, 1.003-1.004; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The strongest predictor was irritated skin, a potentially modifiable risk factor. Irritated skin should be treated and closely monitored, and the cause should be eliminated to allow the skin to heal.

Best Practice in Pressure Injury Prevention Among Critical Care Patients

Pressure injuries are areas of damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or pressure in combination with shear. Pressure injury prevention in the critical care population necessitates risk assessment, selection of appropriate preventive interventions, and ongoing assessment to determine the adequacy of the preventive interventions. Best practices in preventive interventions among critical care patients, including skin and tissue assessment, skin care, repositioning, nutrition, support surfaces, and early mobilization, are described. Unique considerations in special populations including older adults and individuals with obesity are also addressed.

An exploration of nursing home residents' experiences of a non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers

Pressure ulcers are injuries to the skin and underlying tissue and are associated with a negative impact on well-being and health-related quality of life. This explorative, qualitative study aimed to explore the true meaning of elderly nursing home residents' perspectives and critical success factors when implementing a new non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers. Individual, loosely structured interviews were conductedin 12 nursing homes in Flanders, the Northern region of Belgium, a convenience sampling of 14 nursing home residents were selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chair-bound, aged >65 years, and use of an alternating air pressure mattress previous to the application of the non-powered static air mattress overlay. Interviews were conducted in the participants' personal rooms between June 2017 and March 2018. Interviews included broad, open-ended questions, to invite and encourage participants to openly discuss their perspectives and experiences. Participants were interviewed once during the 14-day observation period between day 3 and day 14. All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed by an experienced transcriber. Interviews were read several times to reveal emerging patterns and were marked with codes into NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software. During the process, (sub) themes were discussed by the authors until a consensus was reached. Three main themes emerged from the analysis process: rest and sleep; mobility; and discomfort and pain associated with the use of the support surface. Themes were divided into multiple subthemes: motion, noise, sensation, repositioning, and transfer in and out of bed. Through interviews, critical success factors associated with the implementation were identified, including the lack of information and time needed to evaluate the functionality and effects of a new mattress overlay. Implementation of a non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers has a far-reaching impact on nursing home residents' experiences. This study provides insight into the true meaning of patients' perspectives by focusing on learning from the patients' experiences that provide valuable information for healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

Preventing Pressure Injuries in Nursing Home Residents Using a Low-Profile Alternating Pressure Overlay: A Point-of-Care Trial

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries (PIs) are a significant concern for patients with very limited mobility in skilled nursing facilities. Conflicting clinical guidelines and a lack of effectiveness data for the various support surfaces reduces the efficacy of PI prevention programs.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the preventive effectiveness (incidence of facility-acquired PIs) of a low-profile alternating pressure (AP) support surface plus facility-specific PI prevention programs in patients at high risk for PI.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective, multicenter, point-of-care observational study in two for-profit nursing homes in the northeastern US.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTION

A retrospective review of 101 residents was performed to determine baseline PI incidence. Then, a consecutive sample of 25 participants was selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for PI, bedbound (20 hours or more per day), and stay in a mechanical ventilation unit for more than 5 days. The participants were placed on an AP overlay positioned above a facility-provided nonpowered reactive support surface.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The development of any new PI (stage 1-4), deep-tissue injury, or unstageable PI in participants using the AP overlay. The PI incidence for the AP group was compared with the retrospective baseline PI incidence from the same units in the two nursing homes.

MAIN RESULTS

The group using the AP overlay had a significantly lower PI incidence (0/25, 0%) compared with baseline (22/101, 21.8%; P < .001). Almost 80% of the study participants in the AP group were completely immobile, 100% of the participants were bowel- and bladder-incontinent, their average time on the AP overlay was 140.9 ± 94.1 days, and average length of stay in the facility was 633.9 ± 1,129.1 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The low-profile AP overlay was significantly more effective than facility-specific prevention programs alone in preventing PIs in a high-risk nursing home population over an extended period.

Pressure ulcer prevention using an alternating-pressure mattress overlay: the MATCARP project

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to assess the incidence of pressure ulcer (PU) in patients at high risk of PU and lying between 15-20 hours per day on an alternating-pressure mattress overlay (APMO). Secondary objectives were the patient's satisfaction with the comfort of the APMO, patient acceptance of its sound level, and the care team's assessment of its use and the moisture level.

METHOD

This prospective observational study was conducted in three rehabilitation centres and two nursing homes between June 2016 and March 2017. To be included, patients should not have PU at baseline and present a high risk of PU (Braden score between 10-15). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients in whom a PU developed over a 35-day period.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients were included in the study. Neurological disease was responsible for the reduced mobility of 44 (53.7%) patients, 10 patients (12.0%) dropped out (one patient for a serious adverse event (femoral neck fracture) considered not to be related to the APMO, four patients for adverse events, two of which were considered to be related to APMO and five for other reasons, including, in one case, discomfort with the APMO. These patients were considered in the analysis. Over the study period, 1.2% (1/83) (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03 to 6.53) of patients developed a PU. Patient satisfaction with the comfort of the APMO, patient acceptance of its sound level, and the care team's assessment of its use were considered satisfying for most patients.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of this study of a low incidence of PU in participating patients, the use of an AMPO is recommended in high-risk patients lying for between 15-20 hours a day.

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Chronic Wounds in Older Adults

Chronic wounds are common, disproportionately affect older adults, and are likely to be encountered by providers across all specialties and care settings. All providers should be familiar with basic wound prevention, identification, classification, and treatment approach, all of which are outlined in this article.

Static overlays for pressure ulcer prevention: a hospital-based health technology assessment

INTRODUCTION

At Odense University Hospital (OUH) alternating-air mattresses (AAM) are used in the prevention of pressure ulcers (PU); however, static overlays might be more effective and have lower costs. To investigate the properties and consequences of using static overlays for prevention of PU at OUH, a hospital-based health technology assessment (HTA) was conducted.

METHODS

Two types of static overlays were tested in an observational study and compared with AAM for patients with a medium-high risk of PU in geriatric and orthopaedic wards at OUH. Incidence of PU was investigated 7 months before (n=720) and 6 months after implementation (n=837). Staff attitudes were examined in a questionnaire survey (n=55) and focus group interviews (n=13). Patients who had tried one of the overlays and the AAM were interviewed (n=12).

RESULTS

No statistical difference in PU incidence was found before and after the implementation of overlays (2.5% before, 2.7% after, P=0.874, n=1557) and no patients lying on overlays developed PU (n=123). Staff had mixed attitudes, but the majority preferred having overlays as an option for their patients. Interviewed patients preferred overlays due to less noise and improved mobility.

CONCLUSION

Both types of overlay are effective in PU prevention. However, overlays introduce challenges for staff and clear guidelines for the selection of support surfaces are needed. Overall, it is recommended that static overlays are considered as an alternative to AAM for PU prevention.