Bacteremia associated with pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study

Preventable deaths involving sepsis in England and Wales, 2013-2022: a systematic case series of coroners' reports

PURPOSE

Coroners' Prevention of Future Death (PFDs) reports are an under-utilized resource to learn about preventable deaths in England and Wales. We aimed to identify sepsis-related PFDs and explore the causes and concerns in this subset of preventable sepsis deaths.

METHODS

Four thousand three hundred five reports were acquired from the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website between July 2013 and November 2022, which were screened for sepsis. Demographic information, coroners concerns and responses to these reports were extracted and analyzed, including a detailed paediatric subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-five reports (6% of total PFDs) involved sepsis-related deaths. The most common cause of death in these reports was "sepsis without septic shock" (42%) and the most common site of infection was the respiratory system (18%) followed by gastrointestinal (16%) and skin (13%) infections. Specific pathogens were named in few reports (27%). Many deaths involved multimorbid patients (49%) or those with recent surgery (26%). Coroners named 773 individual concerns, the most frequent were: a failure to keep accurate records or notes (28%), failure in communication or handover (27%) or failure to recognize risk factors or comorbidities (20%). Paediatric cases frequently reported issues with sepsis screening tools (26%). Sepsis PFDs resulted in 421 individual reports being sent, of which 45% received no response. Most organisations who did respond acknowledged concerns and initiated a new change (74%).

CONCLUSION

Sepsis-related PFDs provide valuable insights into preventable causes of sepsis and identify important sources of improvement in sepsis care. Wider dissemination of findings is vital to learn from these reports.

Hospital-Acquired Sacral Pressure Ulcer Complicated by a Spinal Epidural Abscess

A spinal epidural abscess is a rare condition characterized by the accumulation of pus between the dura mater and vertebral column, often caused by hematogenous spread from a distant site or local spread from infection in nearby structures. The abscess leads to compression of the spinal cord and can result in neurological damage, including dysfunction or permanent neurological deficits. Treatment of spinal epidural abscesses should not be delayed and requires a combination of decompression by surgical drainage and antibiotic therapy. The authors present a rare case in which a spinal epidural abscess developed from a hospital-acquired pressure ulcer, further complicated by bacteremia.

Influence of severity of illnesses on risk of death in intensive care unit patients with severity of pressure injuries as mediating variable

This study was to verify whether the severity of pressure injuries (PIs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients plays a mediating role in the relationship between severity of their illnesses and risk of death. I examined adult patients admitted to the ICUs between 1 January 2014 and 31 August 2021. The average follow-up period was 11.34 months. A total of 390 ICU patients suffered from PIs. The influences of the APACHE II score of the ICU patients on the mediating variable 'unstageable & DTPIs vs. Stage 1&2 PIs' and on risk of death were significant. After controlling the influence of APACHE II score on risk of death, the influences of mediating variables 'Stage 3&4 PIs vs. Stage 1&2 PIs' and 'unstageable & DTPIs vs. Stage 1&2 PIs' on risk of death were also significant. The regression coefficient of APACHE II score of the ICU patients declined after the severity of PIs was included. The Sobel test on the indirect effects also reached the level of significance. The severity of illnesses is a factor that is beyond my control, severe PIs should still be prevented to lower the risk of death.

Skin Pigmentation Impacts the Clinical Diagnosis of Wound Infection: Imaging of Bacterial Burden to Overcome Diagnostic Limitations

Underrepresentation of diverse skin tones in medical education and providers' implicit racial bias drives inequities in wound care, such as disproportionally poor outcomes for Black patients. Diagnostic indicators (e.g., erythema) can present differently depending on skin pigmentation. This post hoc analysis of 350 chronic wounds from a prospective 14-site clinical trial aimed to determine how the perception of clinical signs and symptoms of infection (CSS) differs by patient skin tone and if fluorescence-imaging can offer a more objective diagnostic solution. Participants were grouped by skin tone (low, medium, high) as measured by the Fitzpatrick Skin Phototype Classification (FSPC) scale. CSS and total bacterial load (TBL) were compared across FSPC groups, along with sensitivity to detect TBL >104 CFU/g using CSS alone and combined with fluorescence-imaging. Erythema was reported less often with increasing FSPC score (p = 0.05), from 13.4% (low), to 7.2% (medium), to 2.3% (high), despite comparable bacterial loads (median = 1.8 × 106 CFU/g). CSS sensitivity in the high group (2.9%) was 4.8-fold to 8.4-fold lower than the low (p = 0.003) and medium groups (p = 0.04). Fluorescence-imaging significantly improved the detection of high bacterial load in each group, peaking in the high group at 12-fold over CSS alone. These findings underscore the threat of pervasive racialized health inequities in wound care, where missed diagnosis of pathogenic bacteria and infection could delay treatment, increasing the risk of complications and poor outcomes. Fluorescence-imaging is poised to fill this gap, at least in part, serving as a more objective and equitable indicator of wound bacteria. Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT03540004 registered 16-05-2018.

Lights, fluorescence, action-Influencing wound treatment plans including debridement of bacteria and biofilms

High bacterial loads within chronic wounds increase the risk of infection and complication. Detection and localization of bacterial loads through point-of-care fluorescence (FL) imaging can objectively inform and support bacterial treatment decisions. This single time-point, retrospective analysis describes the treatment decisions made on 1000 chronic wounds (DFUs, VLUs, PIs, surgical wounds, burns, and others) at 211 wound-care facilities across 36 US states. Clinical assessment findings and treatment plans derived from them, as well as subsequent FL-imaging (MolecuLight®) findings and any associated treatment plan changes, were recorded for analysis. FL signals indicating elevated bacterial loads were observed in 701 wounds (70.8%), while only 293 (29.6%) showed signs/symptoms of infection. After FL-imaging, treatment plans changed in 528 wounds as follows: more extensive debridement (18.7%), more extensive hygiene (17.2%), FL-targeted debridement (17.2%), new topical therapies (10.1%), new systemic antibiotic prescriptions (9.0%), FL-guided sampling for microbiological analysis (6.2%), and changes in dressing selection (3.2%). These real-world findings of asymptomatic bacterial load/biofilm incidence, and of the frequent treatment plan changes post-imaging, are in accordance with clinical trial findings using this technology. These data, from a range of wound types, facilities, and clinician skill sets, suggest that point-of-care FL-imaging information improves bacterial infection management.

PSTPIP2 is associated with disease severity in patients with pressure ulcer sepsis and has anti-inflammatory effects

BACKGROUND

One of the common adverse reactions in patients with pressure ulcers (PU) is sepsis, which is mainly related to microbial infections caused by pathogenic organisms. The activation of nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB) frequently occurs in conjunction with pathogenic microbial infections. Proline-serine-threonine-phosphatase-interacting protein 2 (PSTPIP2) is closely related to inflammatory disorders. The role and mechanism of PSTPIP2 in sepsis because of pressure ulcers is unclear. In this study, we discovered that PSTPIP2 was lowly expressed in peripheral blood of patients with sepsis induced by pressure ulcers.

METHODS

Peripheral blood was collected from 20 patients with sepsis due to pressure ulcers and 10 healthy controls, and the expression of PSTPIP2 in peripheral blood was discovered by polymerase chain reaction and Western blot analysis. Information on the clinical characteristics of patients was summarized, and the expression data of PSTPIP2 were correlated with the patients' acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) scores by Spearman's correlation analysis. One of the main mediators of Gram-negative sepsis is lipopolysaccharide (LPS). In order to establish an in vitro sepsis model, THP-1 cells were treated with LPS, and the cells were transfected with PSTPIP2. Contents of interleukin 6 (IL-6), interleukin 1β (IL-1β), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) in each group of cells were detected by enzyme-linked--immunosorbent serologic assay, and NF-κB-related proteins were detected by Western blot analysis.

RESULTS

When compared to healthy controls, the peripheral blood of patients with pressure sepsis had lower PSTPIP2 expression, which had a negative correlation with the APACHE II, SOFA, CRP, and PCT scores. LPS-induced THP-1 cells expressed less PSTPIP2 than the untreated control cells, and PSTPIP2 transfection decreased IL-6, IL-1β, and TNF-α levels and inhibited the activation of NF-κB pathway.

CONCLUSION

PSTPIP2 is associated with disease severity in patients with pressure ulcer sepsis and has anti-inflammatory effects.

Minor microbial alterations after faecal diversion do not affect the healing process of anus-near pressure injuries in patients with spinal cord injury - results of a matched case-control study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective matched case-control study including patients with spinal cord injury who presented with an anus-near pressure injury. Two groups were formed based on the presence of a diverting stoma.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the primary microbial colonisation and secondary infection of anus-near pressure injuries depending on the presence of a pre-existing diverting stoma and to investigate the effect on the wound healing.

SETTING

University hospital with a spinal cord injury unit.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients who had undergone surgery of an anus-near decubitus stage 3 or 4 were included in a matched-pair cohort study. Matching was realised according to age, gender, body mass index and general condition.

RESULTS

The most common species in both groups was Staphylococcus spp.(45.0%). The only significantly different primary colonisation affected Escherichia coli, that was found in the stoma patients less often (18.3 and 43.3%, p < 0.01). A secondary microbial colonisation occurred in 15.8% and was equally distributed, except for Enterococcus spp. that was present in the stoma group only (6.7%, p < 0.05). The time to complete cure took longer in the stoma group (78.5 versus 57.0 days, p < 0.05) and was associated with a larger ulcer size (25 versus 16 cm2, p < 0.01). After correction for the ulcers' size, there was no association to outcome parameters such as overall success, healing time or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a diverting stoma alters the microbial flora of an anus-near decubitus slightly without impact on the healing process.

The outcome of COVID‐19 patients in the intensive care unit in Sudan: A cross‐sectional study

Background and Aim

A major outbreak of coronavirus spread all over the world and gave rise to high mortality rate and high admission rate to intensive care unit (ICU). This cohort study aims to assess the outcome of COVID‐19 patients in ICU and to investigate the factors associated with mortality.

Method

This is a multicentered retrospective cohort study that was conducted among confirmed cases of COVID‐19 patients, who were admitted to ICU in Sudan during March 2021. The data collection was done manually from the medical records of patients. Mortality rate and association and prediction of factors associated with mortality were obtained using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS) version 22.

Results

The mortality rate among patients in this study was 70%. Using the chi‐square test we found that age, needing intubation, developing Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, neurological complications, hematological complications, and cardiac complications have a significant association with the outcome.

Conclusion

Majority of COVID‐19 patients who were admitted to the ICU died. 55.8% of patients developed at least one complication during their stay in ICU. The age, the need for intubation, and developing of systematic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) are the factors that predict the mortality.

The skin microbiome of infected pressure ulcers: A review and implications for health professionals

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are injuries resulting from ischaemia caused by prolonged compression or shear forces on the skin, adjacent tissues and bones. Advanced stages of PUs are associated with infectious complications and constitute a major clinical challenge, with high social and economic impacts in health care.

GOALS

This study aims to identify and describe the relationship between PU risk factors, stages and anatomical locations, and the relevance of microbial cohabitation and biofilm growth.

METHODS

The narrative review method to advocating a critical and objective analysis of the current knowledge on the topic was performed. Indexed databases and direct consultation to specialized and high-impact journals on the subject were used to extract relevant information, guided by co-authors. The Medical Subject Headings of pressure ulcer (or injury), biofilms, infection and other analogues terms were used.

RESULTS

Development of PUs and consequent infection depends on several direct and indirect risk factors, including cutaneous/PU microbiome, microclimate and behavioural factors. Infected PUs are polymicrobial and characterized by biofilm-associated infection, phenotypic hypervariability of species and inherent resistance to antimicrobials. The different stages and anatomical locations also play an important role in their colonization. The prevention and monitoring of PUs remain crucial for avoiding the emergence of systemic infections and reducing health care-associated costs, improve the quality of life of patients and reduce the mortality-associated infected PUs.

Intensive Care Nurses' Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Pressure Injury Prevention in China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Pressure injury (PI) remains a critical health issue worldwide. The global incidence of hospital-acquired PI is 8.4%, and among intensive-care unit (ICU) patients, it is even higher, ranging from 6.60% to 36.80%. It is important to investigate ICU nurses’ PI prevention knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP).

Aim

The aim of this study was to describe the level of Chinese ICU nurses’ knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practices of PI prevention.

Materials and Methods

From March 31 to April 30, 2019, we recruited a total of 510 ICU nurses into the current study using convenience sampling. The Modified Pressure Ulcer Knowledge Assessment Tool version 2.0, Attitudes toward Pressure Ulcer Prevention instrument, and Questionnaire to evaluate nurses’ Adherence to Recommendations for Preventing Pressure Ulcers were used for data collection. We used one-way analysis of variance, Student’s t-test, and the Mann–Whitney U-test to assess differences in knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practices of PI prevention among ICU nurses, whom we categorized by their demographic characteristics.

Results

Mean scores of participants’ knowledge, attitude, and their self-report practice were 65.82 ± 9.29, 76.65 ± 8.62, and 83.35 ± 13.55, respectively. Participants with bachelor’s degrees or higher, who worked in tertiary hospitals, and who had received training on PI prevention over the last year had higher scored on PI prevention knowledge (all P < 0.05). Participants who had received training on PI prevention over the last year scored higher on attitude than those who had not received such training over the last year (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

ICU nurses surveyed in this study did not demonstrate an acceptable level of knowledge about PI prevention, while their attitudes and self-reported practices were acceptable. Continuing education or in-service training should be provided to enhance ICU nurses’ knowledge of PI prevention.

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.

Association of Skin Microbiome with the Onset and Recurrence of Pressure Injury in Bedridden Elderly People

Pressure injuries have been identified as one of the main health hazards among bedridden elderly people. Bedridden elderly people often stay in the same position for a long time, because they cannot switch positions; thus, the blood flow in the part of the body that is being compressed between the bed and their own weight is continuously blocked. As a result, redness and ulcers occur due to lacking oxygen and nutrients in the skin tissues, and these sites are often infected with microorganisms and, thus, become suppurative wounds, a condition commonly determined as pressure injuries. If left untreated, the pressure injury will recur with microbial infections, often resulting in cellulitis, osteomyelitis, and sepsis. The skin microbiome, in which many types of bacteria coexist, is formed on the skin surface. However, it remains unclear what characteristic of the skin microbiome among the bedridden elderly constitutes the development and severity of pressure injuries and the development of post-pressure injury infections. Thus, in this review article, we outlined the changes in the skin microbiome among the bedridden elderly people and their potential involvement in the onset and recurrence of pressure injuries.

A rat model of polymicrobial infection in full-thickness excision wounds

AIM

A reproducible animal model is required to study the pathophysiology of wound infections and for development of effective therapeutic interventions. The objective of this study was to produce an infected skin wound model utilizing the cecal microbiota in non-immunocompromised rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An excision wound was created on the dorsal surface of rats and inoculated with different concentration of cecal slurry (CS). Wound progression was investigated macroscopically by wound scoring and imaging. The rats were sacrificed on day 6 and microbial load, myeloperoxidase activity, histopathology, and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were performed in wound tissue.

RESULTS

Inoculation of CS into excision wounds caused significantly (p < 0.05) delayed wound healing in comparison to non-infected wounds as revealed by slow wound closure (9.1 to 12.83%). A significant (p < 0.05) difference in wound score was observed between the infected and non-infected wounds. A significantly (p < 0.05) high microbial load (~10 ⁹ CFU/gm) was observed in infected wound which was supported by the presence of intensive bacterial colonization with sparse development of amorphous material on wound tissue during SEM analysis. A maximum increase of 1.76-fold in myeloperoxidase activity was observed in the infected wounds in comparison to non-infected wounds. Histopathology revealed increased amount of cellular infiltration, hematoma formation, and presence of bacterial aggregates in deep tissues.

CONCLUSION

The study reports a reproducible and relevant clinical model of wound infection where cecal microbiota was used as a source of infection. This model can provide a suitable platform for evaluation of new therapeutic interventions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Skin and sepsis: contribution of dermatology to a rapid diagnosis

In patients who develop sepsis, whether due to primary, secondary or metastatic lesions, the skin is frequently affected. However, there are unresolved aspects regarding the general clinical manifestations in the skin or the prognosis and/or therapeutic implications. The main challenge in the approach to sepsis is its early diagnosis and management. In this review, we address the sepsis-skin relationship and the potential impact of early dermatological intervention on the septic patient through ten basic questions. We found little evidence of the participation of the dermatologist in sepsis alert programs. There are early skin changes that may alert clinicians on a possible sepsis, such as skin mottling or variations in acral skin temperature. In addition, the skin is an accessible and highly cost-effective tissue for etiological studies of some forms of sepsis (e.g., meningococcal purpura) and its involvement defines the prognosis of certain patients (e.g., infective endocarditis).

Pressure Injury Prevention in COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in China in December 2019 and became a pandemic in a short period of time. While most infected people might have mild symptoms, older people and people with chronic illnesses may develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Patients with ARDS with worsening hypoxemia require prone positioning to improve the respiratory mechanics and oxygenation. Intubated patients may stay in a prone position up to 12–16 h, increasing the risk of pressure injury (PI). Frequent skin inspections and PI risk assessment in COVID-19 patients will be challenging due to hospital infection control measures aimed to reduce the risk for health professionals. In this perspective article, we summarize the best practice recommendations for prevention of PI in SARS-CoV-2-infected ARDS patients in prone positioning. Prior to positioning patients in prone position, the main recommendations are to (1) conduct a skin assessment, (2) use pressure redistribution devices, (3) select an appropriate mattress or an overlay, (4) ensure that the endotracheal tube securing device is removed and the endotracheal tube is secured with tapes, (5) use a liquid film-forming protective dressing, and (6) lubricate the eyes and tape them closed. Once a patient is in prone position, it is recommended to (1) use the swimmer's position, (2) reposition the patient every 2 h, and (3) keep the skin clean. When the patient is repositioned to supine position, healthcare professionals are advised to (1) assess the pressure points and (2) promote early mobilization.

Psychological outcomes of MRSA isolation in spinal cord injury rehabilitation

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective secondary analysis with a quantitative, matched-pairs design. Patients isolated due to methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were matched with controls without MRSA infection admitted to a multi-bedded ward, based on: gender, injury level, injury severity (AIS grade), age at the time of injury and year of admission.

OBJECTIVES

Determine the implications of MRSA-related infection isolation on spinal cord injury patients' anxiety, depression, appraisals of disability, perceived manageability and pain intensity. Hypotheses predicted patients who were isolated due to MRSA during inpatient stay would demonstrate poorer psychological health outcomes at discharge in comparison with non-isolated matched controls.

SETTING

National Spinal Injuries Centre, England, UK.

METHODS

Secondary analyses were conducted on pre-existing data based on patients' first admission for primary rehabilitation. Psychometric scales were used to measure outcome variables. Assessments were repeated at the time of admission and discharge.

RESULTS

Nonparametric longitudinal analyses using the nparLD package in R were conducted. Relative treatment effects demonstrated that there were no significant differences between groups across all outcome measures. There was a significant effect of time (admission vs discharge) on perceived manageability and pain intensity, indicating improved outcomes at discharge. There was no difference in the overall length of stay between the isolated and non-isolated groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Isolation experienced by rehabilitation inpatients with spinal cord injury with MRSA had no effect on a series of psychological outcomes. Engaging with rehabilitation had a positive impact in reducing pain unpleasantness and increasing perceived manageability of spinal cord injury, irrespective of infection isolation.

Systemwide Practice Change Program to Combat Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries: Translating Knowledge Into Practice

BACKGROUND

Considerable evidence exists on how to prevent hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). However, processes employed to implement evidence play a significant role in influencing outcomes.

PROBLEM

One Australian health district experienced a substantial increase in HAPIs over a 5-year period (by almost 60%) that required a systemwide practice change.

APPROACH

This article reports on the people, processes, and learnings from using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework taking into account the evidence, context, and facilitation to address HAPIs.

OUTCOMES

Applying this approach resulted in a significant decrease in pressure injuries and positive practice change, leading to improved patient outcomes in a shorter time frame than previous strategies.

CONCLUSION

Processes guided by the PARiHS enhanced the effectiveness of translating evidence into practice and positively assisted clinicians to promote optimal patient care. This approach is transferrable to other health care settings.

Chitosan hydrogel encapsulated with LL-37 peptide promotes deep tissue injury healing in a mouse model

BACKGROUND

LL-37 peptide is a member of the human cathelicidin family, and has been shown to promote the healing of pressure ulcers. However, the low stability of this peptide within the wound environment limits its clinical use. Chitosan (CS) hydrogel is commonly used as a base material for wound dressing material.

METHODS

CS hydrogel (2.5% w/v) was encapsulated with LL-37. Cytotoxicity of the product was examined in cultured NIH3T3 fibroblasts. Effects on immune response was examined by measuring tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) release from RAW 264.7 macrophages upon exposure to lipopolysaccharides. Antibacterial activity was assessed using Staphylococcus aureus. Potential effect on pressure ulcers was examined using a mouse model. Briefly, adult male C57BL/6 mice were subjected to skin pressure using magnets under a 12/12 h schedule for 21 days. Mice were randomized to receive naked LL-37 (20 μg), chitosan gel containing 20-μg LL-37 (LL-37/CS hydrogel) or hydrogel alone under the ulcer bed (n = 6). A group of mice receiving no intervention was also included as a control.

RESULTS

LL-37/CS hydrogel did not affect NIH3T3 cell viability. At a concentration of 1-5 μg/ml, LL-37/CS inhibited TNF-α release from macrophage. At 5 μg/ml, LL-37/CS inhibited the growth of Staphylococcus aureus. The area of the pressure ulcers was significantly lower in mice receiving LL-37/CS hydrogel in comparison to all other 3 groups on days 11 (84.24% ± 0.25%), 13 (56.22% ± 3.91%) and 15 (48.12% ± 0.28%). Histological examination on days 15 and 21 showed increased epithelial thickness and density of newly-formed capillary with naked LL-37 and more so with LL-37/CS. The expression of key macromolecules in the process of angiogenesis (i.e., hypoxia inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) and vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A)) in wound tissue was increased at both the mRNA and protein levels.

CONCLUSION

Chitosan hydrogel encapsulated with LL-37 is biocompatible and could promote the healing of pressure ulcers.

A new culture-based method for rapid identification of microorganisms in polymicrobial blood cultures by MALDI-TOF MS

Background

The application of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry (MS) to microbial identification has allowed the development of rapid methods for identification of microorganisms directly in positive, blood cultures (BCs). These methods can yield accurate results for monomicrobial BCs, but often fail to identify multiple microorganisms in polymicrobial BCs. The present study was aimed at establishing a rapid and simple method for identification of bacteria and yeast in polymicrobial BCs from patients with bloodstream infection.

Results

The rapid method herein proposed is based on short-term culture in liquid media allowing selective growth of microorganisms recovered from polymicrobial BCs, followed by rapid identification by MALDI-TOF MS. To evaluate the accuracy of this method, 56 polymicrobial BCs were comparatively analyzed with the rapid and routine methods. The results showed concordant identification for both microbial species in 43/50 (86%) BCs containing two different microorganisms, and for two microbial species in six BCs containing more than two different species. Overall, 102/119 (85.7%) microorganisms were concordantly identified by the rapid and routine methods using a cut-off value of 1.700 for valid identification. The mean time to identification after BC positivity was about 4.2 h for streptococci/enterococci, 8.7 h for staphylococci, 11.1 h for Gram-negative bacteria, and 14.4 h for yeast, allowing a significant time saving compared to the routine method.

Conclusions

The proposed method allowed rapid and reliable microbial identification in polymicrobial BCs, and could provide clinicians with timely, useful information to streamline empirical antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients.

Possible clinical indications of ceftobiprole

Ceftobiprole is a fifth-generation cephalosporin approved for the treatment of adult community-acquired pneumonia and non-ventilator associated hospital-acquired pneumonia. However, its microbiological and pharmacokinetic profile is very attractive as armamentarium for empirical monotherapy treatment in other infections too. Among these, the following scenarios could be considered complicated skin and soft tissue infections, moderate-severe diabetic foot infections without bone involvement, vascular-catheter-associated-bloodstream infections, and fever without apparent focus in the hospitalized patient without septic shock or profound immunosuppression.

Inhospital death is a biased measure of fatal outcome from bloodstream infection

Purpose

Inhospital death is commonly used as an outcome measure. However, it may be a biased measure of overall fatal outcome. The objective of this study was to evaluate inhospital death as a measure of all-cause 30-day case fatality in patients with bloodstream infection (BSI).

Patients and methods

A population-based surveillance cohort study was conducted, and patients who died in hospital within 30 days (30-day inhospital death) were compared with those who died in any location by day 30 post BSI diagnosis (30-day all-cause case fatality).

Results

A total of 1,773 residents had first incident episodes of BSI. Overall, 299 patients died for a 30-day all-cause case fatality rate of 16.9%. Most (1,587; 89.5%) of the patients were admitted to hospital, and ten (5.4%) of the 186 patients not admitted to hospital died. Of the 1,587 admitted patients, 242 died for a 30-day inhospital death rate of 15.2%. A further 47 patients admitted to hospital died after discharge but within 30 days of BSI diagnosis for a 30-day case fatality rate among admitted patients of 18.2%. Patients who died following discharge within 30 days were older and more likely to have dementia.

Conclusion

The use of inhospital death is a biased measure of true case fatality.

Yunnan Baiyao reduces hospital-acquired pressure ulcers via suppressing virulence gene expression and biofilm formation of Staphylococcus aureus

Yunnan Baiyao (YB) as a kind of famous Chinese herbal medicine, possessed hemostatic, invigorating the circulation of blood, and anti-inflammatory effects. Identifying strategies to protect patients at risk for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPU) is essential. Herein, our results showed that YB treatment can effectively reduce the acne wound area and improve efficacy in a comparative study of 60 cases HAPU patients with S. aureus positive of acne wound pathogens. Furthermore, YB inhibited HIa expression and suppressed accessory gene regulator (agr) system controlled by regulatory RNA II and RNA III molecule using pALC1740, pALC1742 and pALC1743 S. aureus strain linked to gfp_uvr reporter gene. Moreover, YB downregulated cao mRNA expression and inhibited coagulase activity by RT-PCR, slide and tube coagulase test. Additionally, YB downregulated seb, sec, sed, and tsst-1 mRNA expression to suppress enterotoxin and tsst-1 secretion and adhesion function related genes sarA, icaA, and cidA mRNA expression. Taken together, the data suggest that YB may reduce HAPU via suppressing virulence gene expression and biofilm formation of S. aureus.