Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers

Repositioning for pressure injury prevention in adults

BACKGROUND

A pressure injury (PI), also referred to as a 'pressure ulcer', or 'bedsore', is an area of localised tissue damage caused by unrelieved pressure, friction, or shearing on any part of the body. Immobility is a major risk factor and manual repositioning a common prevention strategy. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of repositioning regimens(i.e. repositioning schedules and patient positions) on the prevention of PI in adults regardless of risk in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus on 12 February 2019. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies.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

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials (c-RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PI incidence in adults in any setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five additional trials and one economic substudy in this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of eight trials involving 3941 participants from acute and long-term care settings and two economic substudies in the review. Six studies reported the proportion of participants developing PI of any stage. Two of the eight trials reported within-trial cost evaluations. Follow-up periods were short (24 hours to 21 days). All studies were at high risk of bias. Funding sources were reported in five trials. Primary outcomes: proportion of new PI of any stage Repositioning frequencies: three trials compared different repositioning frequencies We pooled data from three trials (1074 participants) comparing 2-hourly with 4-hourly repositioning frequencies (fixed-effect; I² = 45%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.41). It is uncertain whether 2-hourly repositioning compared with 4-hourly repositioning used in conjunction with any support surface increases or decreases the incidence of PI. The certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, downgraded twice for risk of bias, and once for imprecision. One of these trials had three arms (967 participants) comparing 2-hourly, 3-hourly, and 4-hourly repositioning regimens on high-density mattresses; data for one comparison was included in the pooled analysis. Another comparison was based on 2-hourly versus 3-hourly repositioning. The RR for PI incidence was 4.06 (95% CI 0.87 to 18.98). The third study comparison was based on 3-hourly versus 4-hourly repositioning (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92). The certainty of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision. In one c-RCT, 262 participants in 32 ward clusters were randomised between 2-hourly and 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattresses and 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic mattresses. The RR for PI with 2-hourly repositioning compared with 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattress is imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16; very low-certainty evidence). The CI for PI include both a large reduction and no difference for the comparison of 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02). The certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded twice due to high risk of bias, and once for imprecision. Positioning regimens: four trials compared different tilt positions We pooled data from two trials (252 participants) that compared a 30° tilt with a 90° tilt (random-effects; I² = 69%). There was no clear difference in the incidence of stage 1 or 2 PI. The effect of tilt is uncertain because the certainty of evidence is very low (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97), downgraded due to serious design limitations and very serious imprecision. One trial involving 120 participants compared 30° tilt and 45° tilt with 'usual care' and reported no occurrence of PI events (low certainty evidence). Another trial involving 116 ICU patients compared prone with the usual supine positioning for PI. Reporting was incomplete and this is low certainty evidence. Secondary outcomes No studies reported health-related quality of life utility scores, procedural pain, or patient satisfaction. Cost analysis Two included trials also performed economic analyses. A cost-minimisation analysis compared the costs of 3-hourly and 4-hourly repositioning with 2-hourly repositioning schedule amongst nursing home residents. The cost of repositioning was estimated at CAD 11.05 and CAD 16.74 less per resident per day for the 3-hourly or 4-hourly regimen, respectively, compared with the 2-hourly regimen. The estimates of economic benefit were driven mostly by the value of freed nursing time. The analysis assumed that 2-, 3-, or 4-hourly repositioning is associated with a similar incidence of PI, as no difference in incidence was observed. A second study compared the nursing time cost of 3-hourly repositioning using a 30° tilt with standard care (6-hourly repositioning with a 90° lateral rotation) amongst nursing home residents. The intervention was reported to be cost-saving compared with standard care (nursing time cost per patient EUR 206.60 versus EUR 253.10, incremental difference EUR -46.50, 95% CI EUR -1.25 to EUR -74.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the addition of five trials, the results of this update are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty. There remains a lack of robust evaluations of repositioning frequency and positioning for PI prevention and uncertainty about their effectiveness. Since all comparisons were underpowered, there is a high level of uncertainty in the evidence base. Given the limited data from economic evaluations, it remains unclear whether repositioning every three hours using the 30° tilt versus "usual care" (90° tilt) or repositioning 3-to-4-hourly versus 2-hourly is less costly relative to nursing time.

Determine what to measure and how to measure in clinical trials for the treatment of pressure injury: A protocol for the development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials in specific areas of health care. A considerable amount of trials did not report essential outcomes or outcomes measurement methods, which makes it challenging to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment strategies for pressure injury (PI) and produced significant heterogeneity of reported outcomes. It is necessary to develop a COS, which can be used for clinical trials in PI treatment.

METHODS/DESIGN

The development of this COS will be guided by an advisory group composed of clinicians, senior nurses, patients, and methodologists. We will search six databases and 2 registry platforms to identify currently reported PI treatment outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews. We will also conduct a semi-structured interview with clinicians, nurses, and adult PI patients to collect their opinions on important outcomes. Each outcome of the initial list generated from systematic review and interviews will be scored and reach a consensus through two rounds of international Delphi survey with all key stakeholders. A face-to-face consensus meeting with key stakeholders will be conducted to finish a final COS and recommend measurement instruments for each outcome.

RESULTS

We will develop a COS that should be reported in future clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of PI treatment.

DISCUSSION

The COS will follow current guidance to develop a high-quality COS in the field of PI treatment to reduce heterogeneity in trial reporting, facilitate valid comparisons of new therapies, and improve the quality of clinical trials.

Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are treated by reducing pressure on the areas of damaged skin. Special support surfaces (including beds, mattresses and cushions) designed to redistribute pressure, are widely used as treatments. The relative effects of different support surfaces are unclear. This is an update of an existing review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pressure-relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2017 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 published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), that assessed the effects of support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers, in any participant group or setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction, assessment of 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments were performed independently by two review authors. Trials with similar participants, comparisons and outcomes were considered for meta-analysis. Where meta-analysis was inappropriate, we reported the results of the trials narratively. Where possible, we planned to report data as either risk ratio or mean difference as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we identified one new trial of support surfaces for pressure ulcer treatment, bringing the total to 19 trials involving 3241 participants. Most trials were small, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 1971, and were generally at high or unclear risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

healing of existing pressure ulcersLow-tech constant pressure support surfacesIt is uncertain whether profiling beds increase the proportion of pressure ulcer which heal compared with standard hospital beds as the evidence is of very low certainty: (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.28 to 12.24), downgraded for serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness (1 study; 70 participants).There is currently no clear difference in ulcer healing between water-filled support surfaces and foam replacement mattresses: (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.37); low-certainty evidence downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (1 study; 120 participants).Further analysis could not be performed for polyester overlays versus gel overlays (1 study; 72 participants), non-powered mattresses versus low-air-loss mattresses (1 study; 20 participants) or standard hospital mattresses with sheepskin overlays versus standard hospital mattresses (1 study; 36 participants).High-tech pressure support surfacesIt is currently unclear whether high-tech pressure support surfaces (such as low-air-loss beds, air suspension beds, and alternating pressure surfaces) improve the healing of pressure ulcers (14 studies; 2923 participants) or which intervention may be more effective. The certainty of the evidence is generally low, downgraded mostly for risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision.Secondary outcomesNo analyses were undertaken with respect to secondary outcomes including participant comfort and surface reliability and acceptability as reporting of these within the included trials was very limited.Overall, the evidence is of low to very low certainty and was primarily downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision with some indirectness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, it is unclear whether any particular type of low- or high-tech support surface is more effective at healing pressure ulcers than standard support surfaces.

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

BACKGROUND

This report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.

DATA SOURCES

We searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

This narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015.

RESULTS

The literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities' research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish^® (researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established.

LIMITATIONS

There were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Research funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.A clear and current overview of all the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.

SEARCH METHODS

In July 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (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, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds.We judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole.It is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze.More research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.

Anabolic steroids for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores, pressure sores or decubitus ulcers develop as a result of a localised injury to the skin or underlying tissue, or both. The ulcers usually arise over a bony prominence, and are recognised as a common medical problem affecting people confined to a bed or wheelchair for long periods of time. Anabolic steroids are used as off-label drugs (drugs which are used without regulatory approval) and have been used as adjuvants to usual treatment with dressings, debridement, nutritional supplements, systemic antibiotics and antiseptics, which are considered to be supportive in healing of pressure ulcers. Anabolic steroids are considered because of their ability to stimulate protein synthesis and build muscle mass. Comprehensive evidence is required to facilitate decision making, regarding the benefits and harms of using anabolic steroids.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of anabolic steroids for treating pressure ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2017 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

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of anabolic steroids with alternative treatments or different types of anabolic steroids in the treatment of pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

The review contains only one trial with a total of 212 participants, all with spinal cord injury and open pressure ulcers classed as stage III and IV. The participants were mainly male (98.2%, 106/108) with a mean age of 58.4 (standard deviation 10.4) years in the oxandrolone group and were all male (100%, 104/104) with a mean age of 57.3 (standard deviation 11.6) years in the placebo group. This trial compared oxandrolone (20 mg/day, administered orally) with a dose of placebo (an inactive substance consisting of 98% starch and 2% magnesium stearate) and reported data on complete healing of ulcers and adverse events. There was very low-certainty evidence on the relative effect of oxandrolone on complete ulcer healing at the end of a 24-week treatment period (risk ratio RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.26) (downgraded twice for imprecision due to an extremely wide 95% CI, which spanned both benefit and harm, and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Thus, we are uncertain whether oxandrolone improves or reduces the complete healing of pressure ulcers, as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low.There was low-certainty evidence on the risk of non-serious adverse events reported in participants treated with oxandrolone compared with placebo (RR 3.85, 95% CI 1.12 to 13.26) (downgraded once for imprecision and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Thus, the treatment with oxandrolone may increase the risk of non-serious adverse events reported in participants.There was very low-certainty evidence on the risk of serious adverse events reported in participants treated with oxandrolone compared with placebo (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.17) (downgraded twice for imprecision due to an extremely wide 95% CI, which spanned both benefit and harm, and once for indirectness, as the participants were mostly male spinal cord injury patients). Of the five serious adverse events reported in the oxandrolone-treated group, none were classed by the trial teams as being related to treatment. We are uncertain whether oxandrolone increases or decreases the risk of serious adverse events as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low.Secondary outcomes such as pain, length of hospital stay, change in wound size or wound surface area, incidence of different type of infection, cost of treatment and quality of life were not reported in the included trial.Overall the evidence in this study was of very low quality (downgraded for imprecision and indirectness). This trial stopped early when the futility analysis (interim analysis) in the opinion of the study authors showed that oxandrolone had no benefit over placebo for improving ulcer healing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high quality evidence to support the use of anabolic steroids in treating pressure ulcers.Further well-designed, multicenter trials, at low risk of bias, are necessary to assess the effect of anabolic steroids on treating pressure ulcers, but careful consideration of the current trial and its early termination are required when planning future research.

Getting evidence-based pressure ulcer prevention into practice: a multi-faceted unit-tailored intervention in a hospital setting

The aim of the study was to evaluate whether a multi-faceted, unit-tailored intervention using evidenced-based pressure ulcer prevention affects (i) the performance of pressure ulcer prevention, (ii) the prevalence of pressure ulcers and (iii) knowledge and attitudes concerning pressure ulcer prevention among registered and assistant nurses. A quasi-experimental, clustered pre- and post-test design was used. Five units at a hospital setting were included. The intervention was based on the PARIHS framework and included a multi-professional team, training and repeated quality measurements. An established methodology was used to evaluate the prevalence and prevention of pressure ulcers. Nurses' knowledge and attitudes were evaluated using a validated questionnaire. A total of 506 patients were included, of whom 105 patients had a risk to develop pressure ulcer. More patients were provided pressure ulcer prevention care (P = 0·001) and more prevention care was given to each patient (P = 0·021) after the intervention. Corresponding results were shown in the group of patients assessed as being at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Nurses' knowledge about pressure ulcer prevention increased (P < 0·001). Positive attitudes towards pressure ulcer prevention remained high between pre- and post-test surveys. This multi-faceted unit-tailored intervention affected pressure ulcer prevention. Facilitation and repeated quality measurement together with constructed feedback of results seemed to be the most important factor for pressure ulcer prevention.

Antibiotics and antiseptics for pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. A range of treatments with antimicrobial properties, including impregnated dressings, are widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers. A clear and current overview is required to facilitate decision making regarding use of antiseptic or antibiotic therapies in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is one of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of antiseptics and antibiotics in different types of wounds. It also forms part of a suite of reviews investigating the use of different types of dressings and topical treatments in the treatment of pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics, and topical antiseptics on the healing of infected and uninfected pressure ulcers being treated in any clinical setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In October 2015 we searched: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which enrolled adults with pressure ulcers of stage II or above were included in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials (576 participants); 11 had two arms and one had three arms. All assessed topical agents, none looked at systemic antibiotics. The included trials assessed the following antimicrobial agents: povidone iodine, cadexomer iodine, gentian violet, lysozyme, silver dressings, honey, pine resin, polyhexanide, silver sulfadiazine, and nitrofurazone with ethoxy-diaminoacridine. Comparators included a range of other dressings and ointments without antimicrobial properties and alternative antimicrobials. Each comparison had only one trial, participant numbers were low and follow-up times short. The evidence varied from moderate to very low quality.Six trials reported the primary outcome of wound healing. All except one compared an antiseptic with a non-antimicrobial comparator. There was some moderate and low quality evidence that fewer ulcers may heal in the short term when treated with povidone iodine compared with non-antimicrobial alternatives (protease-modulating dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.98) and hydrogel (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97)); and no clear difference between povidone iodine and a third non-antimicrobial treatment (hydrocolloid) (low quality evidence). Pine resin salve may heal more pressure ulcers than hydrocolloid (RR 2.83, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.05) (low quality evidence). There is no clear difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care, and between honey a combined antiseptic and antibiotic treatment (very low quality evidence).Six trials reported adverse events (primary safety outcome). Four reported no adverse events; there was very low quality evidence from one showing no clear evidence of a difference between cadexomer iodine and standard care; in one trial it was not clear whether data were appropriately reported.There was limited reporting of secondary outcomes. The five trials that reported change in wound size as a continuous outcome did not report any clear evidence favouring any particular antiseptic/anti-microbial treatments. For bacterial resistance, one trial found some evidence of more MRSA eradication in participants with ulcer treated with a polyhexanide dressing compared with a polyhexanide swab (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.13); patients in the dressing group also reported less pain (MD -2.03, 95% CI -2.66 to -1.40). There was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions in infection resolution in three other comparisons. Evidence for secondary outcomes varied from moderate to very low quality; where no GRADE assessment was possible we identified substantial limitations which an assessment would have taken into account.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The relative effects of systemic and topical antimicrobial treatments on pressure ulcers are not clear. Where differences in wound healing were found, these sometimes favoured the comparator treatment without antimicrobial properties. The trials are small, clinically heterogenous, generally of short duration, and at high or unclear risk of bias. The quality of the evidence ranges from moderate to very low; evidence on all comparisons was subject to some limitations.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Chronic Wounds: The Spectrum from Basic to Advanced Therapy

Significance: Almost 7 million Americans have chronic cutaneous wounds and billions of dollars are spent on their treatment. The number of patients with nonhealing wounds keeps increasing worldwide due to an ever-aging population, increasing number of obese and diabetic patients, and cardiovascular disease. Recent Advances: Advanced treatments for difficult wounds are needed. Therapy with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is attractive due to their differentiating potential, their immunomodulating properties, and their paracrine effects. Critical Issues: New technologies (including growth factors and skin substitutes) are now widely used for stimulating wound healing. However, in spite of these advances, the percentage of complete wound closure in most clinical situations is around 50-60%. Moreover, there is a high rate of wound recurrence. Future Directions: Recently, it has been demonstrated that MSCs speed up wound healing by decreasing inflammation, by promoting angiogenesis, and by decreasing scarring. However, there are some potential limitations to successful MSC therapy. These limitations include the need to improve cell delivery methods, cell viability, heterogeneity in MSC preparations, and suboptimal wound bed preparation. Further large, controlled clinical trials are needed to establish the safety of MSCs before widespread clinical application.

Alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and there are many options to choose from including alginate dressings. A clear and current overview of current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers. This review is part of a suite of Cochrane reviews investigating the use of dressings in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Each review will focus on a particular dressing type.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of alginate dressings for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

For this review, in April 2015 we searched the following databases the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of alginate with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (336 participants) in this review; all studies had two arms. The included studies compared alginate dressings with six other interventions that included: hydrocolloid dressings, silver containing alginate dressings, and radiant heat therapy. Each of the six comparisons included just one study and these had limited participant numbers and short follow-up times. All the evidence was of low or very low quality. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between alginate dressings and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The relative effects of alginate dressings compared with alternative treatments are unclear. The existing trials are small, of short duration and at risk of bias. Decision makers may wish to consider aspects such as cost of dressings and the wound management properties offered by each dressing type, for example, exudate management.

Seeking effective interventions to treat complex wounds: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Numerous, often multi-faceted regimens are available for treating complex wounds, yet the evidence of these interventions is recondite across the literature. We aimed to identify effective interventions to treat complex wounds through an overview of systematic reviews.

METHODS

MEDLINE (OVID interface, 1946 until October 26, 2012), EMBASE (OVID interface, 1947 until October 26, 2012), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 10 of 12, 2012) were searched on October 26, 2012. Systematic reviews that examined adults receiving care for their complex wounds were included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed study quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool.

RESULTS

Overall, 99 systematic reviews were included after screening 6,200 titles and abstracts and 422 full-texts; 54 were systematic reviews with a meta-analysis (including data on over 54,000 patients) and 45 were systematic reviews without a meta-analysis. Overall, 44% of included reviews were rated as being of high quality (AMSTAR score ≥ 8). Based on data from systematic reviews including a meta-analysis with an AMSTAR score ≥ 8, promising interventions for complex wounds were identified. These included bandages or stockings (multi-layer, high compression) and wound cleansing for venous leg ulcers; four-layer bandages for mixed arterial/venous leg ulcers; biologics, ultrasound, and hydrogel dressings for diabetic leg/foot ulcers; hydrocolloid dressings, electrotherapy, air-fluidized beds, and alternate foam mattresses for pressure ulcers; and silver dressings and ultrasound for unspecified mixed complex wounds. For surgical wound infections, topical negative pressure and vacuum-assisted closure were promising interventions, but this was based on evidence from moderate to low quality systematic reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous interventions can be utilized for patients with varying types of complex wounds, yet few treatments were consistently effective across all outcomes throughout the literature. Clinicians and patients can use our results to tailor effective treatment according to type of complex wound. Network meta-analysis will be of benefit to decision-makers, as it will permit multiple treatment comparisons and ranking of the effectiveness of all interventions. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0326-3.

Hydrogel dressings for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and there are many different dressing options including hydrogel dressings. A clear and current overview of the current evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding dressing use for the treatment of pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of hydrogel dressings on the healing of pressure ulcers in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 19 June 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to June Week 2 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 23 June 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 20 June 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2014). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of hydrogel dressings with alternative wound dressings or no dressing in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eleven studies (523 participants) in this review. Ten studies had two arms and one had three arms that were all relevant to this review. Three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a basic wound contact dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with a hydrocolloid dressing; three studies compared a hydrogel dressing with another hydrogel dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a foam dressing; one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a dextranomer paste dressing and one study compared a hydrogel dressing with a topical treatment (collagenase). Limited data were available for analyses in this review: we conducted no meta-analyses. Where data were available there was no evidence of a difference between hydrogel and alternative treatments in terms of complete wound healing or adverse events. One small study reported that using hydrogel dressings was, on average, less costly than hydrocolloid dressings, but this estimate was imprecise and its methodology was not clear. All included studies were small, had short follow-up times and were at unclear risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear if hydrogel dressings are more or less effective than other treatments in healing pressure ulcers or if different hydrogels have different effects, Most trials in this field are very small and poorly reported so that risk of bias is unclear.

Identifying the right surface for the right patient at the right time: generation and content validation of an algorithm for support surface selection

Support surfaces are an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment, but there is insufficient evidence to guide clinical decision making in this area. In an effort to provide clinical guidance for selecting support surfaces based on individual patient needs, the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society (WOCN®) set out to develop an evidence- and consensus-based algorithm. A Task Force of clinical experts was identified who: 1) reviewed the literature and identified evidence for support surface use in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers; 2) developed supporting statements for essential components for the algorithm, 3) developed a draft algorithm for support surface selection; and 4) determined its face validity. A consensus panel of 20 key opinion leaders was then convened that: 1.) reviewed the draft algorithm and supporting statements, 2.) reached consensus on statements lacking robust supporting evidence, 3.) modified the draft algorithm and evaluated its content validity. The Content Validity Index (CVI) for the algorithm was strong (0.95 out of 1.0) with an overall mean score of 3.72 (out of 1 to 4), suggesting that the steps were appropriate to the purpose of the algorithm. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence and consensus based algorithm for support surface selection that has undergone content validation.

Activated protein C to heal pressure ulcers

Pressure ulcers present a major clinical challenge, are physically debilitating and place the patient at risk of serious comorbidities such as septic shock. Recombinant human activated protein C (APC) is an anticoagulant with anti-inflammatory, cytoprotective and angiogenic effects that promote rapid wound healing. Topical negative pressure wound therapy (TNP) has become widely used as a treatment modality in wounds although its efficacy has not been proven through randomised controlled trials. The aim of this study was to determine the preliminary efficacy and safety of treatment with APC for severe chronic pressure sores with and without TNP. This case presentation describes the history, management and outcome of two patients each with a severe chronic non-healing pressure ulcer that had failed to respond to conventional therapy. TNP was added to conservative management of both ulcers with no improvement seen. Then local application of small doses of APC was added to TNP and with conservative management, resulted in significant clinical improvement and rapid healing of both ulcers, displaying rapid growth of vascular granulation tissue with subsequent epithelialisation. Patients tolerated the treatment well and improvements suggested by long-term follow-up were provided. Randomised placebo-controlled double blind trials are needed to quantify the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, optimal dose and quality of life changes seen from treatment with APC.

Pressure-reducing interventions among persons with pressure ulcers: results from the first three national pressure ulcer prevalence surveys in Sweden

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The overall aim of this study was to describe preventive interventions among persons with pressure ulcer (PU) in three nationwide PU prevalence surveys in Sweden.

METHODS

A cross-sectional research design was used; more than 70 000 persons from different hospitals and nursing homes participated in the three prevalence surveys conducted in March 2011, October 2011 and March 2012. The methodology used was that recommended by the European Pressure Ulcers Advisory Panel.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of PU categories I-IV in hospitals was 16.6%, 14.4% and 16.1%, respectively. Corresponding figures for nursing homes were 14.5%, 14.2% and 11.8%, respectively. Heel protection/floating heels and sliding sheets were more frequently planned for persons with PU category I.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the three prevalence studies that have showed high prevalence of PU the use of preventing interventions is still not on an acceptable level. Heel protection/floating heels and sliding sheets were more frequently planned for persons with PUs, and individual-planned repositioning also increased. However, when persons already have a PU they should all have pressure-reducing preventive interventions to prevent the development of more PUs. Preventing PUs presents a challenge even when facilities have prevention programmes. A PU prevention programme requires an enthusiastic leader who will maintain the team's focus and direction for all staff involved in patient care.

Pressure ulcer knowledge of registered nurses, assistant nurses and student nurses: a descriptive, comparative multicentre study in Sweden

The aim of this study was to describe and compare the knowledge of registered nurses (RNs), assistant nurses (ANs) and student nurses (SNs) about preventing pressure ulcers (PUs). PU prevention behaviours in the clinical practice of RNs and ANs were also explored. A descriptive, comparative multicentre study was performed. Hospital wards and universities from four Swedish county councils participated. In total, 415 participants (RN, AN and SN) completed the Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool. The mean knowledge score for the sample was 58·9%. The highest scores were found in the themes 'nutrition' (83·1%) and 'risk assessment' (75·7%). The lowest scores were found in the themes 'reduction in the amount of pressure and shear' (47·5%) and 'classification and observation' (55·5%). RNs and SNs had higher scores than ANs on 'aetiology and causes'. SNs had higher scores than RNs and ANs on 'nutrition'. It has been concluded that there is a knowledge deficit in PU prevention among nursing staff in Sweden. A major educational campaign needs to be undertaken both in hospital settings and in nursing education.

Wound cleansing for pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also called pressure sores, bed sores and decubitus ulcers) are areas of tissue damage that occur in the elderly, malnourished or acutely ill, who cannot reposition themselves. Pressure ulcers impose a significant financial burden on health care systems and negatively affect quality of life. Wound cleansing is considered an important component of pressure ulcer care.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review seeks to answer the following question: what is the effect of wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques on the rate of healing of pressure ulcers?

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 3 January 2013); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to November Week 3 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 31, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 52); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 21 December 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or different wound cleansing solutions, or different cleansing techniques, were eligible for inclusion if they reported an objective measure of pressure ulcer healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently and resolved disagreements through discussion. A structured narrative summary of the included studies was conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, risk ratio (RR), plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated; for continuous outcomes, mean difference (MD), plus 95% CI were calculated. Meta analysis was not conducted because of the small number of diverse RCTs identified. Two review authors independently assessed each included study using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

One additional eligible study was identified from the updated searches, one study was added to the table of excluded studies. A total of three studies (169 participants) met the inclusion criteria for the review. No studies compared cleansing with no cleansing. Two studies compared different wound cleansing solutions. A statistically significant improvement in Pressure Sore Status Tool scores occurred for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) compared with isotonic saline (P value = 0.025), but no statistically significant change in healing was seen when water was compared with saline (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 41.89). One study compared cleansing techniques; for pressure ulcers cleansed with pulsatile lavage, compared with sham (the lavage flow was directed into a wash basin positioned adjacent to the wound and not visible to the participants), there was a statistically significant reduction in ulcer volume at the end of the three week study period in the lavage group compared with the sham group (MD -6.60, 95% CI-11.23, -1.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified three small studies addressing cleansing of pressure ulcers. One reported a statistically significant improvement in pressure ulcer healing for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) compared with isotonic saline solution, a further study reported no statistically significant change in healing was seen when wounds were cleaned with water was compared with saline. A final study compared pulsatile lavage with sham and found a significantly greater reduction in ulcer volume at the end of the study period in the lavage group compared with the sham group. The authors conclude that there is no good trial evidence to support use of any particular wound cleansing solution or technique for pressure ulcers.