Silicone adhesive multilayer foam dressings as adjuvant prophylactic therapy to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a pragmatic noncommercial multicentre randomized open-label parallel-group medical device trial

The effect of pressure injury prevention care bundles on pressure injuries in hospital patients: A complex intervention systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Numerous interventions for pressure injury prevention have been developed, including care bundles.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the effectiveness of pressure injury prevention care bundles on pressure injury prevalence, incidence, and hospital-acquired pressure injury rate in hospitalised patients.

DATA SOURCES

The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (via PubMed), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and two registries were searched (from 2009 to September 2023).

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies with a comparison group published in English after 2008 were included. Studies reporting on the frequency of pressure injuries where the number of patients was not the numerator or denominator, or where the denominator was not reported, and single subgroups of hospitalised patients were excluded. Educational programmes targeting healthcare professionals and bundles targeting specific types of pressure injuries were excluded.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Bundles with ≥3 components directed towards patients and implemented in ≥2 hospital services were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were undertaken independently by two researchers. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted. The certainty of the body of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Nine studies (seven non-randomised with historical controls; two randomised) conducted in eight countries were included. There were four to eight bundle components; most were core, and only a few were discretionary. Various strategies were used prior to (six studies), during (five studies) and after (two studies) implementation to embed the bundles. The pooled risk ratio for pressure injury prevalence (five non-randomised studies) was 0.55 (95 % confidence intervals 0.29-1.03), and for hospital-acquired pressure injury rate (five non-randomised studies) it was 0.31 (95 % confidence intervals 0.12-0.83). All non-randomised studies were at high risk of bias, with very low certainty of evidence. In the two randomised studies, the care bundles had non-significant effects on hospital-acquired pressure injury incidence density, but data could not be pooled.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Whilst some studies showed decreases in pressure injuries, this evidence was very low certainty. The potential benefits of adding emerging evidence-based components to bundles should be considered. Future effectiveness studies should include contemporaneous controls and the development of a comprehensive, theory and evidence-informed implementation plan.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42023423058.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Pressure injury prevention care bundles decrease hospital-acquired pressure injuries, but the certainty of this evidence is very low.

The frictional energy absorber effectiveness and its impact on the pressure ulcer prevention performance of multilayer dressings

Pressure ulcers including heel ulcers remain a global healthcare concern. This study comprehensively evaluates the biomechanical effectiveness of the market-popular ALLEVYN® LIFE multilayer dressing in preventing heel ulcers. It focuses on the contribution of the frictional sliding occurring between the non-bonded, fully independent layers of this dressing type when the dressing is protecting the body from friction and shear. The layer-on-layer sliding phenomenon, which this dressing design enables, named here the frictional energy absorber effectiveness (FEAE), absorbs approximately 30%-45% of the mechanical energy resulting from the foot weight, friction and shear acting to distort soft tissues in a supine position, thereby reducing the risk of heel ulcers. Introducing the novel theoretical FEAE formulation, new laboratory methods to quantify the FEAE and a review of relevant clinical studies, this research underlines the importance of the FEAE in protecting the heels of at-risk patients. The work builds on a decade of research published by our group in analysing and evaluating dressing designs for pressure ulcer prevention and will be useful for clinicians, manufacturers, regulators and reimbursing bodies in assessing the effectiveness of dressings indicated or considered for prophylactic use.

The incidence of intraoperatively acquired pressure injuries in the park-bench position was reduced by applying soft silicone multilayer foam dressings

The Park-Bench Position (PBP) is associated with a high incidence rate of intraoperatively acquired pressure injuries (IAPIs). Preventive measures must be established to prevent the development of IAPIs. We investigated the risk factors for PBP by applying a soft silicone multilayered foam dressing (SMD) under core temperature management to prevent IAPIs. We conducted a prospective, single-centre, open-label observational study of patients undergoing elective neurosurgery operations using PBP in a university hospital in Japan. The incidence rate of IAPIs in this study was compared with that in our two previous studies, in which a film dressing was applied and core temperature management was not performed. IAPIs developed in 90 patients (6.7%); in the lateral thoracic region in five patients and the iliac crest region in one patient. The operative time (every 1 h: p = 0.0001, OR: odds ratio 3.62, 95% CI: confidence interval 1.73-11.42) was significantly associated with the incidence of IAPIs. In our two previous studies, the incidence rate of IAPIs was 11.0% and 24.1%, respectively, when film dressing was used. SMD may weaken the involvement of risk factors in IAPIs.

Implementation of a Pressure Injury Prevention Protocol for Intensive Care Unit Patients Undergoing Prone Positioning

BACKGROUND

Pressure injuries remain the most common hospital-acquired condition, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are at especially high risk for pressure injuries, including those related to medical devices, because of their lower tissue tolerance, prolonged intubation, and common treatment with prone positioning.

LOCAL PROBLEM

The COVID-19 pandemic brought an increased incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injury. A 350-bed hospital in St. Joseph, Missouri, recognized that an intervention to lower the risk of pressure injury for these patients was needed.

METHODS

A quality improvement project was initiated to reduce the incidence of pressure injuries in patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit. A protocol was implemented for patients with COVID-19 undergoing prone positioning that included the use of dressing packets. The incidence of hospital-acquired pressure injury during the 1-year periods before and after implementation of the protocol were determined.

RESULTS

Before implementation of the new protocol, 18 of 155 intensive care unit patients with COVID-19 who were placed in a prone position (11.6%) experienced a hospital-acquired pressure or medical device-related injury, compared with 3 of 111 patients (2.7%) after protocol implementation, a reduction of 76.7% (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of hospital-acquired pressure injuries can be reduced with additional education and the use of appropriate products and protocols. All patients who undergo prone positioning, regardless of diagnosis, may benefit from implementation of a pressure injury prevention protocol that includes the use of dressing packets.

Variations in sacral sub-epidermal moisture measurements in hospitalized medical and surgical patients: A longitudinal observational sub-study

BACKGROUND

Pressure injury risk assessment tools have several well-known limitations. As a result, new methods of assessing risk are emerging, including the use of sub-epidermal moisture measurement to detect localized edema.

AIMS

To assess the daily variation in sacral sub-epidermal moisture measurement over five days and establish if age and prophylactic sacral dressing use influenced these measurements.

METHODS

As part of a larger randomized controlled trial of the use of prophylactic sacral dressings, a longitudinal observational substudy was undertaken in hospitalized medical and surgical adult patients at risk of pressure injury. The substudy was conducted in consecutively recruited patients from 20 May 2021 to 9 November 2022. Using the SEM 200 (Bruin Biometrics LLC), daily sacral sub-epidermal measurements for up to five days were completed. Two measurements were generated, the most recent sub-epidermal moisture measurement and, after at least three measurements, a delta value, the difference between the highest and lowest values. The delta measurement was the outcome, with a delta of ≥0.60 considered abnormal, increasing the risk of pressure injury development. A mixed analysis of covariance was undertaken to determine if there was any change in delta measurements over the five days and to determine if age and sacral prophylactic dressing use influenced sub-epidermal moisture delta measurement.

RESULTS

A total of 392 participants were included in this study; 160 (40.8%) patients had completed five consecutive days of sacral sub-epidermal moisture delta measurements. In total, 1324 delta measurements were undertaken across the five study days. In total, 325 of 392 patients (82.9%) had experienced one or more abnormal delta. Furthermore, 191 (48.7%) and 96 (24.5%) of patients experienced abnormal deltas for two or more and three or more consecutive days. There was no statistically significant variation in sacral sub-epidermal moisture delta measurements over time; increasing age and prophylactic dressing use did not influence sub-epidermal moisture deltas over the five days.

CONCLUSION

If only one abnormal delta was used as a trigger, about 83% of patients would have received additional pressure injury prevention strategies. But, if a more nuanced approach to responding to abnormal deltas is taken, between 25 and 50% of patients may receive additional pressure injury prevention, representing a more time and resource efficient approach.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Sub-epidermal moisture delta measurements did not vary over 5 days; increasing age and prophylactic dressing use did not influence these measurements.

Silicone adhesive multilayer foam dressings for preventing facial pressure injuries in COVID-19 patients in prone position

The development of facial pressure injury (PI) during prone position is frequently described. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients with facial PIs increased. This quality improvement project describes the effectiveness of using silicone adhesive multilayer foams for preventing facial PIs in COVID-19 patients in need of prone position therapy. After introduction of foam dressing on chin and forehead to the standard protocol procedures for PI prevention, the decrease in number of patients developing facial PIs was statistically significant. Based on these results, the use of silicone adhesive multilayer foam will be implemented as a standard procedure for facial PIs prevention.

Effect of a prophylactic dressing for sacral pressure injuries in non-critically ill patients after general surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired pressure injuries are strongly associated with surgeries performed under general anesthesia.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of using a prophylactic multi-layer soft silicone foam dressing in non-critically ill patients with a Braden Scale score of ≤18 after undergoing routine surgery without sacral pressure injuries.

METHODS

This randomized controlled trial included 156 patients who were admitted for surgery under general anesthesia in a tertiary general hospital. The patients were divided into a control group and an intervention group. A 5-layer soft silicone foam dressing was applied to the sacrum of patients in the intervention group immediately after surgery. For the control group, standard pressure injury prevention activities were performed alongside standard care without preventive dressings.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in general and clinical characteristics between the two groups; however, the incidence of pressure injury and blanching erythema was higher in the control group, showing a significant difference from the experimental group. Factors influencing the development of pressure injuries and blanching erythema through multivariate regression analysis were prophylactic dressing application and Braden Scale score at the time of admission. A statistically significant difference was noted in survival time from pressure injury between both groups.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

The incidence of pressure injuries and blanching erythema was lower when the prophylactic dressing was applied with standard protocol for general ward patients after surgery. Accurate evaluation of the patient's skin condition and pressure injury risk assessment before surgery are important. Progressive prophylactic dressings to prevent pressure injuries are effective, and tailored nursing interventions based on accurate assessment of patient's skin condition and risk factors are essential for maintaining skin integrity.

The Effect of Prophylactic Silicone Dressings on the Incidence of Pressure Injuries on Patients in the Acute Care Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To explore the effect of silicone dressings on the prevention of pressure injuries in patients cared for in the acute care setting. Three main comparisons were explored: silicone dressing versus no dressing, all anatomical areas; silicone dressing versus no dressing on the sacrum; and silicone dressing versus no dressing on the heels.

METHODS

Using a systematic review methodology, published randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials were included. The search was conducted from December 2020 to January 2021 using CINAHL, full text on EBSCOhost, MEDLINE on EBSCOhost, and Cochrane databases. The search returned 130 studies; 10 met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a predesigned extraction tool. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence was appraised using a software program specifically designed for this purpose.

RESULTS

Silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries compared to no dressings (relative risk [RR]: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.53; moderate certainty evidence). Furthermore, silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries on the sacrum compared to no dressings (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.62; moderate certainty evidence). Finally, silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries on the heels compared to no dressings (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.62; moderate certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

There is moderate certainty evidence of the effect of silicone dressings as a component of a pressure injury prevention strategy. The main limiting factor in the study designs was a high risk of performance and detection bias. Although this is a challenge to achieve in trials such as these, consideration should be given to how the effect of this could be minimized. A further issue is the lack of head-to-head trials that limits clinicians' abilities to determine whether any of the products in this category are more effective than others.

EffEctiveness of Prophylactic fOam dressings in the prevention of saCral pressure injuries in at-risk hospitalised patients: the EEPOC trial

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic dressings are increasingly used to prevent pressure injuries in hospitalised patients. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of these dressings is still emerging. This trial aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a prophylactic silicone foam border dressing in preventing sacral pressure injuries in medical-surgical patients.

METHODS

This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. A sample size of 1320 was calculated to have >90% power to detect a 5% difference in the primary outcome at an alpha of 0.05. Adult patients admitted to participating medical-surgical wards are screened for eligibility: ≥18 years, admitted to hospital within the previous 36 h, expected length of stay of ≥24 h, and assessed high risk for hospital-acquired pressure injury. Consenting participants are randomly allocated to either prophylactic silicone foam dressing intervention or usual care without any dressing as the control group via a web-based randomisation service independent of the trial. Patients are enrolled across three Australian hospitals. The primary outcome is the cumulative incidence of patients who develop a sacral pressure injury. Secondary outcomes include the time to sacral pressure injury, incidence of severity (stage) of sacral pressure injury, cost-effectiveness of dressings, and process evaluation. Participant outcomes are assessed daily for up to 14 days by blinded independent outcome assessors using de-identified, digitally modified sacral photographs. Those who develop a sacral pressure injury are followed for an additional 14 days to estimate costs of pressure injury treatment. Analysis of clinical outcomes will be based on intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses.

DISCUSSION

This trial aims to provide definitive evidence on the effect prophylactic dressings have on the development of hospital-acquired sacral pressure injuries in medical-surgical patients. A parallel economic evaluation of pressure injury prevention and treatment will enable evidence-informed decisions and policy. The inclusion of a process evaluation will help to explain the contextual factors that may have a bearing on trial results including the acceptability of the dressings to patients and staff. The trial commenced 5 March 2020 and has been significantly delayed due to COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTR ACTRN12619000763145. Prospectively registered on 22 May 2019.

Use of a Sacral Foam Dressing to Prevent Pressure Injury in At-Risk Subacute Hospitalized Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this pilot study was to inform a future trial aimed at comparing the effectiveness of a prophylactic sacral dressing plus standard care to standard care only to reduce sacral pressure injuries (PIs) in at-risk older adults admitted to a subacute hospital setting.

DESIGN

A pilot study with a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled trial design.

SAMPLE AND SETTING

One hundred thirty participants were randomized (intervention n = 66, 50.8%; control n = 64, 49.2%). Protocol violations occurred in 48 participants (intervention n = 33, 68.8%; control n = 15, 31.3%). The study setting was a subacute hospital inpatient care unit located in Queensland, Australia.

METHODS

Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention (prophylactic dressing plus standard care) or control group (standard care). Standard care included regular PI risk and skin assessments, and selection and implementation of preventive interventions (eg, support surfaces and increased repositioning) from a PI prevention care plan. The sacral dressing was applied for intervention participants immediately following recruitment. Ward and research staff collected data and assessed skin integrity daily; participants were followed up until onset of a PI or up to 28 days without PI occurrence. In addition, retrospective chart reviews were undertaken to verify PI occurrences. Patient comfort and dressing utility were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two (3.0%) participants in the intervention group and 1 (1.6%) in the control group developed a sacral PI. The difference was not statistically significant. Only 1 PI was recorded prospectively, while 2 PIs were identified via retrospective chart review. Participants rated dressing comfort highly, particularly during the first 2 weeks, and nurses rated utility highly. Based on the intention-to-treat results, a sample size of 1799 per arm would be required in a definitive trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive trial is feasible and warranted. However, the large sample size required in a definitive trial indicates the need for multiple sites.

Alternatives and preferences for materials in use for pressure ulcer prevention: An experiment-reinforced literature review

Alleviation of localised, sustained tissue loads and microclimate management are the most critical performance criteria for materials in use for pressure ulcer prevention, such as in prophylactic dressings, padding or cushioning. These material performance criteria can be evaluated by calculating the extents of matching between the material stiffness (elastic modulus) and the thermal conductivity of the protective dressing, padding or cushioning with the corresponding properties of native skin, separately or in combination. Based on these bioengineering performance criteria, hydrocolloids, which are commonly used for prophylaxis of medical device-related pressure ulcers, exhibit poor stiffness matching with skin. In addition, there is remarkable variability in the modulus and thermal conductivity matching levels of different material types used for pressure ulcer prevention, however, it appears that among the materials tested, hydrogels provide the optimal matching with skin, followed by gels and silicone foams. The stiffness matching for hydrocolloids appears to be inferior even to that of gauze. This article provides quantitative performance criteria and metrics for these evaluations, and grades commonly used material types to biomechanically guide clinicians and industry with regards to the selection of dressings for pressure ulcer prevention, both due to bodyweight forces and as a result of applied medical devices.

Prophylactic sacral protective dressings' effect on preventing pressure injury: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. A systematic literature search up to July 2021 was performed, and 11 studies included 5150 community or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care at the start of the study; 2832 of them were using sacral protective dressings and 2318 were given standard care with no sacral protective dressings. They were reporting relationships between the effects of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effects of prophylactic sacral protective dressings on preventing pressure injury using the dichotomous method with a random or fixed-effect model. Sacral protective dressings had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.53, P < .001) compared with standard care with no sacral protective dressings in community- or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care. Sacral protective dressings had a significantly lower incidence of pressure injuries compared with standard care with no sacral protective dressings in community- or hospital-based adult subjects requiring care. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Use of multilayer silicone foam dressings as adjuvant therapy to prevent pressure injuries

Despite progress in the prevention of pressure injuries (PIs), they remain a challenging public health problem because of their frequency and morbidity. Protection of the skin by multilayer silicone foam dressings may be an adjuvant measure to prevent PIs in high-risk patients. Despite the available clinical data and published recommendations on this measure, caregivers face difficulties in identifying patients who would benefit from this adjuvant measure. The objective of this work was to define the profiles of high-risk patients who would benefit optimally from this measure in combination with basic preventive procedures. This consensual expert opinion was drawn up using two methods: the Nominal Group Technique with eight medical and paramedical experts, and the Delphi process with 16 experts. The bases for this expert consensual opinion were a formal search and analysis of the published literature regarding evidence on the prevention of PIs using multilayer silicone foam dressings. The consensual expert opinion reported here addresses five proposals mostly intended to define patients who would benefit from the use of a multilayer silicone foam dressing (≥4 layers) to prevent PIs (sacrum and heels).