Characteristics of hospitalised US veterans with nosocomial pressure ulcers

Understanding Skin Failure: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To map the use of the term "skin failure" in the literature over time and enhance understanding of this term as it is used in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

The databases searched for published literature included PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Google Scholar. The search for unpublished literature encompassed two databases, Open Gray and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses.

STUDY SELECTION

Search terms included "skin failure," "acute skin failure," "chronic skin failure," and "end stage skin." All qualitative and quantitative research designs, editorial, opinion pieces, and case studies were included, as well as relevant gray literature.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data collected included author, title, year of publication, journal name, whether the term "skin failure" was mentioned in the publication and/or in conjunction with other skin injury, study design, study setting, study population, sample size, main focus of the publication, what causes skin failure, skin failure definition, primary study aim, and primary outcome.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Two main themes of skin failure were identified through this scoping review: the etiology of skin failure and the interchangeable use of definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the term "skin failure" has increased significantly over the past 30 years. However, there remains a significant lack of empirical evidence related to skin failure across all healthcare settings. The lack of quality research has resulted in multiple lines of thinking on the cause of skin failure, as well as divergent definitions of the concept. These results illustrate substantial gaps in the current literature and an urgent need to develop a globally agreed-upon definition of skin failure, as well as a better understanding of skin failure etiology.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. These wounds are difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. Prevention strategies include nutritional support and pressure redistribution. Dressing and topical agents aimed at prevention are also widely used, however, it remains unclear which, if any, are most effective. This is the first update of this review, which was originally published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age, without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction on language, date of trial or setting. In May 2018 we updated this search; as a result several trials are awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that enrolled people at risk of pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The original search identified nine trials; the updated searches identified a further nine trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 trials (3629 participants), nine involved dressings; eight involved topical agents; and one included dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence.Topical agentsThere were five trials comparing fatty acid interventions to different treatments. Two trials compared fatty acid to olive oil. Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between groups, fatty acid versus olive oil (2 trials, n=1060; RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision; or fatty acid versus standard care (2 trials, n=187; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Trials reported that pressure ulcer incidence was lower with fatty acid-containing-treatment compared with a control compound of trisostearin and perfume (1 trial, n=331; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in incidence of adverse events between fatty acids and olive oil (1 trial, n=831; RR 2.22 95% CI 0.20 to 24.37; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).Four trials compared further different topical agents with placebo. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) cream may increase the risk of pressure ulcer incidence compared with placebo (1 trial, n=61; RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.57; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). The other three trials reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between active topical agents and control/placebo; active lotion (1 trial, n=167; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19), Conotrane (1 trial, n=258; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07), Prevasore (1 trial, n=120; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.11) (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). There was limited evidence from one trial to determine whether the application of a topical agent may delay or prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (Dermalex^TM 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the Dermalex^TM group compared with none out of 91 in the placebo group (RR 6.14, 95% CI 0.29 to 129.89; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision).DressingsSix trials (n = 1247) compared a silicone dressing with no dressing. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias). In the one trial (n=77) we rated as being at low risk of bias, there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between silicone dressing and placebo-treated groups (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.61; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).One trial (n=74) reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence when a thin polyurethane dressing was compared with no dressing (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07). In the same trial pressure ulcer incidence was reported to be higher in an adhesive foam dressing compared with no dressing (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.48). We rated evidence from this trial as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision).Four trials compared other dressings with different controls. Trials reported that there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the following comparisons: polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressing (n=160, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); Kang' huier versus routine care n=100; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05); 'pressure ulcer preventive dressing' (PPD) versus no dressing (n=74; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) We rated the evidence as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious or very serious imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the trials exploring the impact of topical applications on pressure ulcer incidence showed no clear benefit or harm. Use of fatty acid versus a control compound (a cream that does not include fatty acid) may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage). However the low level of evidence certainty means that additional research is required to confirm these results.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers, which are localised injury to the skin, or underlying tissue or both, occur when people are unable to reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. Pressure ulcers are often difficult to heal, painful and impact negatively on the individual's quality of life. The cost implications of pressure ulcer treatment are considerable, compounding the challenges in providing cost effective, efficient health services. Efforts to prevent the development of pressure ulcers have focused on nutritional support, pressure redistributing devices, turning regimes and the application of various topical agents and dressings designed to maintain healthy skin, relieve pressure and prevent shearing forces. Although products aimed at preventing pressure ulcers are widely used, it remains unclear which, if any, of these approaches are effective in preventing the development of pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on the prevention of pressure ulcers, in people of any age without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing a pressure ulcer, in any healthcare setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2013 we searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised clinical trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs evaluating the use of dressings, topical agents, or topical agents with dressings, compared with a different dressing, topical agent, or combined topical agent and dressing, or no intervention or standard care, with the aim of preventing the development of a pressure ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trials for their appropriateness for inclusion and for their risk of bias. This was done by two review authors working independently, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials (940 participants) of unclear or high risk of bias compared a topical agent with a placebo. Four of these trials randomised by individual and one by cluster. When results from the five trials were combined, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.31; P value 0.35) indicating no overall beneficial effect of the topical agents. When the cluster randomised trial was omitted from the analysis, use of topical agents reduced the pressure ulcer incidence by 36%; RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.83; P value 0.0008).Four trials (561 participants), all of which were of high or unclear risk of bias, showed that dressings applied over bony prominences reduced pressure ulcer incidence; RR 0.21 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.51; P value 0.0006).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support or refute the use of topical agents applied over bony prominences to prevent pressure ulcers. Although the incidence of pressure ulcers was reduced when dressings were used to protect the skin, results were compromised by the low quality of the included trials. These trials contained substantial risk of bias and clinical heterogeneity (variations in populations and interventions); consequently, results should be interpreted as inconclusive. Further well designed trials addressing important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes are justified, based on the incidence of the problem and the high costs associated with pressure ulcer management.