Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

Impact of hydrocolloid dressings in the prevention of pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: a randomized controlled trial (PENFUP)

It is uncertain whether hydrocolloid dressings, a more costly intervention than offering standard care with petrolatum, is superior to prevent pressure ulcers among hospitalized high-risk adults. Randomized, parallel-group, open-label, superiority trial with an active control group, blinded for investigators, event validators, and analysts (December 1, 2015 to December 12, 2017). Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years of age with intact skin judged as high-risk for skin ulcers (Braden scale), admitted to surgical or medical wards of two tertiary-level hospitals. Participants were randomized (1:1) to protection with hydrocolloid dressings or petrolatum. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of pressure ulcers (with post-injury photographs adjudicated by three judges) under intention-to-treat analysis. Based on prior cost analysis, and the available resources (assumed incidence of 6 ulcers/1000 patient-days in controls), inclusion of up to 1500 participants allowed to surpass a one-sided superiority threshold > 5% based on a target efficacy > 40% for dressings. We planned an economic analysis using a decision tree model based on the effectiveness of the study results from a perspective of the third payer of health care. After inclusion of 689 patients (69 events), the trial was stopped for futility after a planned interim analysis (conditional power < 0.1 for all scenarios if the trial was completed). Pressure ulcers had occurred in 34 (10.2%) patients in the intervention group [9.6 per 1000 patient-days] and 35 (9.9%) participants in the control group [7.9 per 1000 patient-days], HR = 1.07 [95% CI 0.67 to 1.71]. The estimated incremental cost for dressings (a dominated strategy) was USD 52.11 per patient. Using hydrocolloid dressings was found similar to petrolatum for preventing pressure ulcers among hospitalized high-risk patients. As it conveys additional costs, and in this study was unlikely to demonstrate enough superiority, this strategy did not overcome conventional skin care.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02565745 registered on December 1, 2015.

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.

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.