Risk factors for pressure ulcer development in Intensive Care Units: A systematic review

The effect of vasopressor agents on pressure injury development in intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

Vasopressors are life-saving agents that increase mean arterial pressure. The pharmacodynamic features of these agents and previous studies suggest that vasopressors may be an essential risk factor in developing pressure injuries.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the effect of vasopressors in medical-surgical intensive care patients on pressure injury development.

DESIGN AND SETTINGS

This retrospective and correlational study was conducted between March 2021- May 2022. The electronic patient data were obtained from 148 surgical and medical patients exposed to vasopressor agents in the intensive care unit. Data on patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated using descriptive statistical methods (number, percentage, mean, standard deviation). Logistic regression modelling was used to assess independent relationships with pressure injury risk; results are reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

All patients were given norepinephrine agents, and dopamine infusion secondary to norepinephrine was found in only 28.3 % of patients (n = 42). Pressure injury incidence was 43.2 % (n = 64). Duration of norepinephrine infusion was recognized as an independent risk factor for ICU-acquired pressure injury development (OR 1.22, 95 % CI 1.11-1.35), while a medical admission diagnosis (instead of surgical) was protective against pressure injury risk (OR 0.24, 95 % CI 0.10-0.59).

CONCLUSION

This study indicated that duration of norepinephrine infusion is a significant risk factor for pressure injury development.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Although norepinephrine use cannot be avoided entirely, its administration may be an early warning for nurses to increase pressure injury prevention strategies. Skin evaluation should be performed more frequently, and preventive strategies should be implemented meticulously. This study was registered on clincialtrials.gov (Identifier: NCT06163352).

Mask-related pressure injury prevention associated with non-invasive ventilation: A systematic review

Noninvasive ventilation interfaces are one of the main factors contributing to pressure injuries caused by medical devices. Prevention is still the best course of action when discussing noninvasive ventilation-induced pressure injuries. A systematic review was designed to summarize and analyse all published literature on strategies to prevent pressure injuries caused by masks in patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation. The protocol of the systematic review followed the PRISMA guideline. An extensive search from the beginning to May 16, 2023, using current articles in databases such as Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library was conducted. Medical Subject Headings (MESH) were used as follows: "Pressure Injury," "Noninvasive Ventilation," "Prevention," and "Pressure Sore." Any language-published studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review. A risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, including evaluation methodologies for all studies. Database searches yielded 2546 articles, which were reduced to 23 that met our criteria after reviewing full texts. A narrative synthesis was conducted. As a result, type of interface (14 studies), dressings (4 studies), adjustment of mask leakage (1 study), humidity (1 study), positioning (1 study), and design of personalized masks (2 studies) seem to be a practical approach to prevent pressure injuries caused by masks in patients undergoing noninvasive ventilation. The results of our study show the effectiveness of preventive methods in reducing the incidence of pressure injuries caused by masks. Given the significant occurrence of pressure injury related to noninvasive ventilation and the crucial role of prevention and treatment, it is imperative to conduct more rigorous studies to ascertain the efficacy of each strategy.

Implementable Prediction of Pressure Injuries in Hospitalized Adults: Model Development and Validation

Background

Numerous pressure injury prediction models have been developed using electronic health record data, yet hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) are increasing, which demonstrates the critical challenge of implementing these models in routine care.

Objective

To help bridge the gap between development and implementation, we sought to create a model that was feasible, broadly applicable, dynamic, actionable, and rigorously validated and then compare its performance to usual care (ie, the Braden scale).

Methods

We extracted electronic health record data from 197,991 adult hospital admissions with 51 candidate features. For risk prediction and feature selection, we used logistic regression with a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach. To compare the model with usual care, we used the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), Brier score, slope, intercept, and integrated calibration index. The model was validated using a temporally staggered cohort.

Results

A total of 5458 HAPIs were identified between January 2018 and July 2022. We determined 22 features were necessary to achieve a parsimonious and highly accurate model. The top 5 features included tracheostomy, edema, central line, first albumin measure, and age. Our model achieved higher discrimination than the Braden scale (AUC 0.897, 95% CI 0.893-0.901 vs AUC 0.798, 95% CI 0.791-0.803).

Conclusions

We developed and validated an accurate prediction model for HAPIs that surpassed the standard-of-care risk assessment and fulfilled necessary elements for implementation. Future work includes a pragmatic randomized trial to assess whether our model improves patient outcomes.

Everyday Prevention: The Impact of Daily Comprehensive Skin Assessments on Pressure Injury Healing in the General ICU

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of daily versus weekly comprehensive skin assessments on wound healing status in patients with pressure injuries (PIs) treated in the general ICU.

METHODS

This quasi-experimental study was conducted at a foundation hospital from November 15, 2022, to March 15, 2023. The sample consisted of 193 patients with PIs who met the inclusion criteria. The Braden Scale, Nutritional Risk Scale 2002 (NRS-2002), and Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) were used. The intervention group (n = 98) underwent comprehensive skin assessment every day, whereas the control group (n = 95) followed routine procedures. The study findings were reported according to TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs) guidelines.

RESULTS

Patients were older adults, with a mean age of 70 ± 15.45 years in the intervention group and 71 ± 13.20 years in the control group. The mean NRS-2002 score was 3 ± 2.01 in the intervention group and 2 ± 1.38 in the control group. Medical device-related PI incidence was high in both groups (intervention: 36.8%, control: 24.5%). In the intervention (14.3%) and control (50%) groups, PIs developed mostly due to antiembolic stockings. Deep-tissue PIs were the most common (intervention: 56.8%, control: 62.2%). The last PUSH scores decreased in both groups. The difference between the PUSH scores of the intervention and control groups was statistically significant (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study demonstrate the critical role of daily comprehensive skin assessment in the healing process of PIs. Especially in ICUs, the study provides compelling evidence for the need to prioritize and implement regular skin assessments to prevent PIs and support the healing process.

Pressure injury prevalence in critical care settings: An observational pre-post intervention study

AIM

To explore pressure injury prevention practices and evaluate the impact of an educational intervention on PI prevalence before and after an educational intervention.

DESIGN

A multi-centre observational study.

METHOD

Data were collected at two time points in May 2021 and April 2022 using a Qualtrics® online form. Two Registered Nurses at each site collected observational data at each time point by diagnosing and staging any identified pressure injuries as part of a prevalence study. Patients admitted to participating units were included.

RESULTS

A total of 181 patients in critical care units were included at the two-time points. Pressure injury prevalence was 60.9% at the outset, with 52.9% hospital-acquired, 37.9% unit-acquired and 23.0% medical device-related. Post-intervention prevalence decreased significantly to 28.7%, including 21.3% hospital-acquired, 14.9% unit-acquired, and 8.5% medical device-related. Pressure injuries were prominent in the sacral region, head area, and heels. Stages I and II pressure injuries were the most common. Increased age and longer ICU stays are linked to a heightened risk of pressure injury development in critically ill patients, whereas higher haemoglobin levels show an inverse relationship with the development of both pressure injury and severe stages in the univariate analysis. The predictive models revealed that increased age and longer ICU stays are predictors for both pressure injury development and progression to severe stages, while Braden scores predict the likelihood of developing severe stages of pressure injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has identified a benchmark for pressure injury prevalence in critical care units in Saudi Arabia. The results demonstrate that pressure injuries can be prevented in critically ill patients when evidence-based education strategies are implemented.

PATIENT CARE IMPACT

Pressure injuries are an important issue for critically ill patients and can be prevented with proper investments. Strategies to prevent pressure injuries from admission will result in fewer pressure injuries.

REPORTING METHOD

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Pressure injury prevalence and characteristics in patients with COVID-19 admitted to acute inpatient rehabilitation unit

Objective

To investigate the incidence and severity of pressure injuries among COVID-19 patients who required acute hospitalization and subsequent acute inpatient rehabilitation (AIR).

Design

Data was collected retrospectively from medical charts of COVID-19 patients who were admitted to AIR during April 2020–April 2021.

Setting

Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation at a single hospital in the greater New York metropolitan area.

Participants

Subjects included COVID-19 patients (N = 120) who required acute hospitalization and subsequent acute inpatient rehabilitation, of whom 39 (32.5%) had pressure injuries.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main outcome measure(s)

The incidence, location, and severity of pressure injuries in COVID-19 patients, as well as demographic and clinical characteristics of the acute hospitalization.

Results

Among patients who developed pressure injuries, more patients received mechanical ventilation (59% vs. 33%, P &lt; 0.05) and tracheostomy (67% vs. 17%, P &lt; 0.00001). The lengths of stay were longer in both the intensive care unit (ICU) (34 vs. 15 days, P &lt; 0.005), and in acute inpatient rehabilitation (22 vs. 17 days P &lt; 0.05).

Conclusion

Pressure injuries were more common in COVID-19 patients who had longer lengths of stay, received mechanical ventilation or tracheostomy, during acute hospitalization. This supports the use of protocols to prioritize pressure offloading in this patient population.

Biomarkers and clinical features associated with pressure injury among geriatric patients

<b>Purpose:</b> The study aims to identify biomarkers and clinical features associated with pressure injury (PI) among geriatric patients.<br /> <b>Methods:</b> A cross-sectional study including 191 patients aged ≥60 years. Patients were classified into those with and without PI. Assessing the risk of PI was performed on admission by applying the Braden scale (BS) for predicting pressure sore risk. Clinical history, baseline hematology, and biochemistry results were obtained. C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) were calculated. Statistical analyses were performed.<br /> <b>Results: </b>43 (22.5%) patients had PI. PI was significantly associated with higher CCI, total leukocyte count, and CAR, besides lower BS scores, serum albumin, and total proteins. Significant comorbidities were diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack, dementia, incontinence, and chronic kidney disease. The optimal cut-offs for PI occurrence were ≤14, ≤3.1 g/dl and &gt;1.27 for BS, albumin, and CAR, respectively.

Implementation of Pressure Injury Prevention Strategies in Acute Care: Results From the 2018-2019 International Pressure Injury Prevalence Survey

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of pressure injury (PI) prevention strategies in adult acute care settings in the United States using the data from the 2018/2019 International Pressure Ulcer Prevalence (IPUP) Survey.

DESIGN

Observational, cohort study with cross-sectional data collection and retrospective data analysis.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

The sample comprised 296,014 patients hospitalized in 1801 acute care facilities in the United States that participated in the 2018 and/or 2019 IPUP Survey. Slightly less than half (49.4%, n = 146,231) were male, 50% (n = 148,997) were female, 0.6% (n = 17,760) were unknown. Their mean age was 64.29 (SD 17.2) years.

METHODS

Data from the 2018/2019 IPUP database were analyzed to evaluate the implementation of prevention strategies including repositioning, support surface use, head-of-bed (HOB) elevation, heel elevation, moisture management, minimizing linen layers, and nutritional support. Practices were analyzed for differences between patients without pressure injuries, and patients with Stage 1 and 2 hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI), and those with severe HAPIs (Stage 3, Stage 4, unstageable, and deep tissue pressure injury). Acute care unit types included critical or intensive care units, medical-surgical inpatient care units, and step-down units.

RESULTS

Compliance rates to PI prevention strategies varied among patients at risk for HAPIs (Braden Scale for Pressure Sore Risk score ≤18). Daily skin assessment was performed for 86% of patients with no HAPIs and 96.8% of patients with severe HAPIs. Pressure redistribution was used in 74.6% of all patients and in over 90% of patients with severe HAPIs; however, compliance to routine repositioning was reported at lower levels between 67% and 84%, respectively. Heel elevation was reported for over 60% of the patients with severe HAPIs while 31.9% did not receive heel elevation, though only 6% were reported as not needing elevation. The majority of patients had HOB greater than the 30° at the time of the data collection; compliance with minimizing linen layers (≤3) was reported in 76% or more. Moisture management strategies were reportedly used in more than 71% of all patients and 89% for patients with severe HAPIs. Nutrition support was used for 55% to 82% of the patients and only documented as contraindicated in fewer than 2% of all groups.

CONCLUSION

Study findings revealed substantial compliance rates to PI prevention strategies. Nevertheless, there is potential for improvement in the implementation of some of the most basic prevention strategies including repositioning, heel elevation, nutritional support, and moisture management.

Comparing Risk Profiles in Critical Care Patients With Stage 2 and Deep Tissue Pressure Injuries: Exploratory Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Understanding hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPrI) etiology is essential for developing effective preventive interventions. Pressure injuries are classified based on the degree of visible tissue damage; the two most commonly identified HAPrI stages in critical care patients are stage 2 and deep tissue injury (DTI). Some experts speculate that stage 2 and DTI have different etiologies, with stage 2 injuries formed from the "outside in" as a result of tissue deformation, decreased perfusion, and subsequent ischemia caused by external pressure and/or shear forces, whereas DTI emerges from the "inside out" due to inadequate perfusion to the deeper tissues causing tissue ischemia.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare risk profiles of intensive care unit (ICU) patients who developed stage 2 injuries versus DTIs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study to compare the risk profiles of patients in the ICU with stage 2 injuries and DTIs using electronic health record data. Eligible patients were admitted to the surgical or cardiovascular ICU at an academic medical center in the United States between 2014 and 2018. Anatomic locations were examined, and differences in anatomic patterns were compared using the χ2 test. Risk profile variables included demographic characteristics, Braden Scale scores, vasopressor infusions, hypotension, surgical factors, length of stay, BMI, laboratory values, diabetes, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and the levels of sedation or agitation. The distributions of potential risk variables between patients with stage 2 injuries and DTIs were summarized and compared. A logistic regression model with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method was developed to identify the critical risk factors for distinguishing stage 2 and DTI patients.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients developed a stage 2 injury or DTI during the study period. Of those, 38 patients with medical device-related pressure injury were excluded. The final study sample consisted of 206 patients (n=146 stage 2 and n=60 DTI). Compared with DTIs, stage 2 HAPrIs were more likely to be located on a bony prominence (n=206, χ21=8.43, P=.03). The multivariate model showed that patients who developed stage 2 HAPrIs had a longer length of stay in the ICU than those with DTIs (odds ratio [OR] 1.001, 95% CI 1-1.002, P=.03) but were less likely than patients with DTIs to experience a diastolic blood pressure <50 mmHg (OR 0.179, 95% CI 0.072-0.416, P<.001) or receive an epinephrine infusion (OR 0.316, 95% CI 0.079-0.525, P=.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Stage 2 injuries and DTIs have different risk factors and different anatomic patterns. Patients who developed DTIs were more likely to experience low diastolic blood pressure and receive epinephrine, a potent vasopressor. Stage 2 injuries were more likely to occur on the bony prominences, whereas DTIs commonly occurred on the fleshy parts of the body such as the buttock.

Riesgo de úlceras por presión (UPP) en pacientes internados en las unidades de cuidados intensivos

Introducción: Las limitaciones de la percepción sensorial, la inmovilidad, la sedación, la ventilación mecánica, la hipoperfusión tisular, el edema y la humedad se consideran factores que predisponen la aparición de úlceras por presión en pacientes en estado crítico. Objetivo: Caracterizar las úlceras por presión en pacientes críticos, determinar la asociación con variables demográficas, la hospitalización y las condiciones clínicas, e identificar los factores de riesgo para la aparición de úlceras por presión. Materiales y Métodos: Se realizó un estudio transversal mediante una muestra de pacientes > 18 años que no presentaban úlceras por presión al ingreso y habían estado hospitalizados >24 horas en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos. La asociación de las úlceras por presión con las variables se verificó a través de la prueba U de Mann-Whitney, prueba de chi-cuadrado, razón de verosimilitud y el test exacto de Fisher. Los factores de riesgo se identificaron mediante regresión logística múltiple. Resultados: De 324 pacientes, 46 (14.2%) desarrollaron úlceras por presión con mayor frecuencia en las regiones sacra y calcánea. Los factores de riesgo para la aparición de úlceras por presión fueron la edad, la duración de la hospitalización y la estancia hospitalaria antes de ingresar a la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos. Discusión: La alta incidencia, la localización y el estadio de las úlceras por lesión observadas revelan la vulnerabilidad del paciente de la unidad de cuidados intensivos a este tipo de lesiones. Entre los riesgos de las úlceras por presión se encuentran factores relacionados con el paciente, la hospitalización y la gravedad de la enfermedad, y su combinación debe valorarse en la evaluación diaria del paciente crítico. Conclusión: La aparición de úlceras por presión en pacientes críticos es un fenómeno multifactorial, para la que el reconocimiento de factores de riesgo puede contribuir a una rápida adopción de medidas para su prevención Como citar este artículo: Campos, Michelle Mayumi Yoshimura de; Souza, Mariana Fernandes Cremasco de;  Whitaker, Iveth Yamaguchi.  Risco para lesão por pressão em pacientes de unidade de terapia intensiva. Revista Cuidarte. 2021;12(2):e1196. http://dx.doi.org/10.15649/cuidarte.1196    

Frequency and risk factors of pressure injuries in clinical settings of affiliated to Tabriz University of Medical Sciences

AIM

Pressure injuries are considered a common and costly problem in the care of patients. Prevention and identification of risk factors for pressure injuries are very important due to the high cost of treatment and the adverse consequences of pressure injuries. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of pressure injuries and its risk factors in clinical settings of affiliated to Tabriz University of Medical Sciences.

DESIGN

A descriptive-analytical study.

METHODS

This study was performed on 200 patients who were selected by random sampling. The data collection tool was a 3-part questionnaire. Data were analysed using a t test, chi-square, Fisher's exact test and logistic regression in SPSS v. 24.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 51.93 (SD 14.99) years. The rate of pressure injuries in this study was 19.5%. The most susceptible area for pressure injuries were sacral (35.89%) and gluteal (20.51%), respectively. The pressure injuries was significantly associated with Braden's criteria, age, disease diagnosis and length of hospital stay (p < .05). But there was no statistically significant difference between sex and incidence of pressure injuries (p > .05).

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Use of autologous platelet rich fibrin-based bioactive membrane in pressure ulcer healing in rats

OBJECTIVE

To verify the feasibility of treating pressure ulcers (PUs) with autologous platelet-rich fibrin-based (PRF) bioactive membrane, both in vitro and in vivo.

METHOD

An animal model using adult male Sprague-Dawley rats was used. Pressure was periodically exerted on the skin to induce localised ischaemia by using an external magnet and transplanted metal disc. After a PU developed, the rats were divided into two groups: a treatment group and a control group. Rats in the treatment group were then treated with PRF bioactive membrane every three days.

RESULTS

A total of 20 rats were used in this study. At days three and seven, the PU area in the PRF bioactive membrane-treated group was significantly smaller than that in the control group, and after 14 days of treatment, the PUs in the PRF bioactive membrane treatment group had healed. Haemotoxylin and eosin staining, immunohistochemistry and Western blot results indicated that PRF bioactive membrane induced wound healing by increasing the thickness of the regenerated epidermis and by upregulating vascular endothelial growth factor expression. Further, we found that different concentrations of rat autologous PRF soluble factors extraction components could significantly promote rat aortic endothelial cell proliferation, wound healing and migration ability in vitro.

CONCLUSION

Overall, results indicate that PRF bioactive membrane promotes PU healing in rats. Thus, it may represent a natural and effective wound-healing tool for use in the treatment of clinical skin PUs in humans in the future.