Predictive value of pressure ulcer risk for obstructive coronary artery disease

The theory and practice of pressure ulcer/injury risk assessment: a critical discussion

Pressure ulcer/injury (PU) risk assessment is widely considered an essential component in clinical practice. It is a complex and broad concept that includes different approaches, such as clinical judgement, using standardised risk assessment instruments, skin assessments, or using devices to measure skin or tissue properties. A distinction between PU risk assessment and early detection is important. PU risk measures the individual's susceptibility to developing a PU under a specific exposure (primary prevention), and early detection includes the assessment of early (sub)clinical signs and symptoms to prevent progression and to support healing (secondary prevention). PU risk is measured using prognostic/risk factors or prognostic models. Every risk estimate is a probability statement containing varying degrees of uncertainty. It therefore follows that every clinical decision based on risk estimates also contains uncertainty. PU risk assessment and prevention is a complex intervention, where delivery contains several interacting components. There is a huge body of evidence indicating that risk assessment and its outcomes, the selection of preventive interventions and PU incidence are not well connected. Methods for prognostic model development and testing in PU risk research must be improved and follow state-of-the-art methodological standards. Despite these challenges, we do have substantial knowledge about PU risk factors that helps us to make better clinical decisions. An important next step in the development of PU risk prediction might be the combination of clinical and other predictors for more individualised care. Any prognostic test or procedure must lead to better prevention at an acceptable cost.

Incidence, characteristics and risk factors of medical device-related pressure injuries: An observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the cumulative incidence, characteristics, and risk factors of medical device-related pressure injuries (MDRPIs), including patient outcomes, in the intensive care unit (ICU) of a university hospital.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN

A prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING

The study was conducted in an university hospital between November 2019 and October 2020.

METHODS

The study included patients over the age of 18 years who had a device in situ and stayed in the ICU for more than 24 h. Each device was monitored twice a day for 15 days; the clinical assessment was performed daily until ICU discharge or death. The Case Report Form, MDRPI Monitoring Form, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II), Braden Scale, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) staging and categories, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were used for data collection. Patients with and without MDRPIs were compared for demographic and clinical characteristics, length of ICU stay, and mortality by using t-test and Chi-square test. Cumulative incidence was calculated. Logistic regression model was used to investigate risk factors.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of MDRPIs was 48.8% (84/172 patients). Most of the MDRPIs developed in the mucosa; hence, they could not be staged (63.7%). Of the remaining MDRPIs on the skin, 18.7%, 13%, and 4.6% were categorized as Stage I, II, and III, respectively. In terms of anatomical locations, most commonly occurred in the head and neck region (62.3%). Among the twelve medical devices that caused MDRPIs, endotracheal tubes (61 cases), urinary catheters (46 cases), nasogastric tubes (30 cases) and non-invasive masks (17 cases) were most commonly reported. In multivariate analysis, age (46-64 years) (p = 0.008, OR = 12.457), history of cardiovascular diseases (p = 0.021, OR = 0.044), administration of vasopressors (p = 0.013, OR = 0.089), length of ICU stay (≥22 days, p = 0.048, OR = 0.055) and requirement for mechanical ventilation (p = 0.028, OR = 10.252) were identified as independent risk factors of the occurrence of MDRPI.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a comprehensive understanding of the risk of MDRPI in critically ill adults. The incidence of MDRPIs was high and was associated with several factors. It is critical that MDRPIs are taken seriously by all members of the healthcare team, especially nurses, and that protocols should be established for improvements.

Predictive value of pressure ulcer risk for obstructive coronary artery disease

AIM

To investigate the relationship between pressure ulcers risk and severity of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) by invasive coronary angiography.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

A total of 193 consecutive patients with underlying pressure ulcers risk who underwent invasive coronary angiography were enrolled. Subjects were divided into three groups according to severity of coronary artery stenosis. Pressure ulcers risk score, fall risk score, self-care ability score and cardiovascular risk factors were compared among the three groups. Multivariate regression analysis and receiver operating curve analysis were performed to explore the diagnostic value of Braden score for left main or three-vessel disease.

RESULTS

Patients with more severe CAD had higher pressure ulcers risk. The percentage of high-pressure ulcers risk was highest in left main or three-vessel disease group, compared with control group and single- or two-vessel disease group. After adjusting for age, body mass index, diabetes, chronic kidney disease and other confounding factors, Braden score was an independent predictor of left main or three-vessel disease. Moreover, higher Braden score had a moderate area under the curve for excluding more severe CAD. In conclusion, among patients planning for coronary angiography, pressure ulcers risk assessment is conducive to predict the severity of obstructive CAD.