Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure over bony prominences. They are difficult to heal, costly, and reduce quality of life. Dressings and topical agents (lotions, creams, and oils) for pressure ulcer prevention are widely used. However, their effectiveness is unclear. This is the third update of this review.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We used the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two other databases, and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify the studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was November 2022. We imposed no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that enroled people at risk of developing a pressure ulcer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we added 33 new studies, resulting in a total of 51 trials (13,303 participants). Of these, 31 studies involved dressings, 16 topical agents, and four included both dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence. Dressings Pressure ulcer incidence We made a total of 13 comparisons with 9027 participants. We present seven prioritised comparisons in the summary of findings (SoF) tables, as follows: silicone foam dressing versus no dressing (18 trials, 5903 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.77); foam dressing versus film dressing (3 trials, 569 participants; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.67); hydrocellular foam dressing versus hydrocolloid dressing (1 trial, 80 participants; RR not estimable); silicone foam dressing type 1 versus silicone foam dressing type 2 (2 trials, 376 participants; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15); foam dressing versus fatty acid (2 trials, 300 participants; RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.72); polyurethane film versus hydrocolloid dressing (1 trial, 160 participants; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); and hydrocolloid dressing versus no dressing (2 trials, 230 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.78). All low or very low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of dressings on pressure ulcer development. Pressure ulcer stage Three comparisons reported pressure ulcer (PU) stage. Silicone foam dressing versus no dressing: PU stage 1 (8 trials, 1823 participants; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.79); PU stage 2 (10 trials, 2873 participants; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73); PU stage 3 (3 trials, 718 participants; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.21); PU stage 4 (2 trials, 610 participants; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.77); unstageable PU (1 trial, 366 participants; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.09); deep tissue injury (3 trials, 840 participants; RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.08). Foam dressing versus film dressing: PU stage 1 (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80); PU stage 2 (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.82); deep tissue injury (1 trial, 270 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.93). Hydrocolloid dressing versus no dressing: PU stage 1 (1 trial, 108 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94); PU stage 2 (1 trial, 108 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.66). All low or very low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of dressings on different stages of pressure ulcer development. Adverse events One comparison reported adverse events: silicone foam dressing versus no dressing (3 trials, 2317 participants; RR not estimable; very low-certainty evidence). Silicone foam dressings may have little to no effect on the incidence of adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain. Topical agents Pressure ulcer incidence We evaluated seven comparisons with 4276 participants. We present five prioritised comparisons in the SoF tables as follows: fatty acid versus placebo (6 trials, 2201 participants; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.36); fatty acid versus usual care (7 trials, 1058 participants; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84); cream versus fatty acid (1 trial, 120 participants; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.03); cream versus placebo (3 trials, 513 participants; RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.36); and cream versus usual care (1 trial, 47 participants; RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.04). All very low-certainty evidence. It is very uncertain whether they make any difference to PU development. Pressure ulcer stage Two comparisons reported PU stage. Fatty acid versus usual care: PU stage 1 (2 trials, 180 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.03); PU stage 2 (2 trials, 180 participants; RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.53). Cream versus placebo: PU stage 3 (1 trial, 258 participants; RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.55); PU stage 4 (1 trial, 258 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.11). Both low or very low-certainty evidence. It is uncertain whether they make any difference to the stage of PU development. Adverse events One comparison reported adverse events: fatty acid versus placebo (3 trials, 967 participants; RR 4.38, 95% CI 0.50 to 38.30; very low-certainty evidence). Fatty acid may have little to no effect on the incidence of adverse events compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. Risk of bias and imprecision were the main reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies tested a wide variety of dressings and topical agents. The evidence for all interventions is uncertain or very uncertain; thus, it is unclear whether any of the dressings or topical agents studied make any difference to pressure ulcer development. Future studies should engage with stakeholders to determine priority interventions.

Best Evidence Summary for the Prevention of Pressure Injuries in Orthopaedic Patients

AIM

To systematically search, evaluate and synthesise the most robust evidence regarding pressure injury prevention in orthopaedic patients admitted to general wards.

DESIGN

The present study provides an evidence-based summary of the most robust findings, adhering to the evidence guidelines established by the Center for Evidence-Based Nursing of Fudan University.

METHOD

According to the "6S" model, a systematic search was conducted for literature on pressure injury prevention among orthopaedic patients in general wards. The types of literature included guidelines, clinical decisions, expert Consensus, evidence summaries, etc. The search period covered the time from the beginning of the database up to December 2023.

DATA SOURCES

The following databases and resources were systematically searched: Up To Date, JBI, NICE, WOCN, NZWCS, etc. RESULTS: Fifteen literature sources were included, comprising one clinical decision, eight guidelines, one systematic review, and one expert Consensus. In these sources, a comprehensive collection of 34 pieces of best evidence was formed across six key topics: risk assessment, position management, skin care, device used for device-related pressure injury, nutritional assessment, and support, as well as health education and training. Among the evidence gathered, a strong recommendation was made for 18 pieces, while the remaining 16 received a weak recommendation.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a comprehensive synthesis of the most robust evidence on pressure injury prevention in orthopaedic patients, encompassing 34 pieces of evidence that can serve as valuable references for clinical practice. Before implementing this evidence, it is crucial to evaluate the specific contextual factors within different countries and medical institutions, as well as the facilitators and barriers influencing its application by healthcare professionals and patient's preferences. Furthermore, targeted evidence selection should be conducted through careful screening and subsequent adjustments in implementation, thereby offering a more scientifically grounded basis for clinical nursing practice. Future research endeavours should prioritise investigating strategies for effective evidence utilisation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE

The prevention of pressure injuries poses a significant challenge for orthopaedic patients. This study presents a synthesis of 34 pieces of best evidence to provide guidance on preventive measures for pressure injuries in orthopaedic patients. Adhering to and implementing these 34 pieces of evidence can effectively aid in preventing pressure injuries in clinical practice. This evidence encompasses risk assessment, position management, skin care, device usage for device-related pressure injuries, nutritional support and evaluation, and health education and training, establishing a comprehensive and systematic implementation process. Assessing the risk of pressure injuries during interventions serves as an essential prerequisite for developing effective strategies to prevent such injuries among orthopaedic patients. Ultimately, this study will offer valuable guidance to healthcare professionals worldwide regarding preventing pressure injuries in orthopaedic patients.

IMPACT

Upon admission to the hospital, it is essential to conduct a risk assessment and implement evidence-based, individualised prevention measures for pressure ulcers in patients to prevent their occurrence. This study will provide valuable insights into preventing pressure injuries in orthopaedic patients admitted to orthopaedic wards for healthcare workers worldwide.

STATE

The PRIMA manifest is utilised during the text preparation process.

TRAIL REGISTRATION

ES20245365.

A randomised controlled phase II trial to examine the feasibility of using hyper-oxygenated fatty acids (HOFA) to prevent facial pressure injuries from medical devices among adults admitted to intensive care-A research protocol

One in three patients admitted to intensive care will sustain a pressure injury (PI) from a medical device. These injuries are painful and when on the face, head or neck they can result in permanent disfigurement. Preliminary evidence of the efficacy of hyper-oxygenated fatty acids (HOFAs) to prevent facial pressure injuries from medical devices is promising; however, the feasibility of incorporating HOFAs into current standard care to prevent PI from a medical device of the face, head and neck has not been extensively explored. It is intended that the findings from this phase II feasibility study will inform the design of a larger phase III trial, by addressing two primary aims: (1) to assess the feasibility of incorporating HOFAs into standard care to prevent device-related pressure ulcers of the skin associated with the face, head and neck assess the feasibility and (2) efficacy preliminary effectiveness of HOFA. This feasibility study is an investigator-initiated mixed method study incorporating a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of using HOFAs as an adjunct to standard pressure injury prevention and care, compared with standard care alone to prevent facial, head or neck from medical devices among adults admitted to intensive care. The primary outcome of interest is the incidence of facial, head or neck pressure injuries during the first 14 days in intensive care. Secondary outcomes include PI staging, medical device exposure and intensive care and hospital outcomes. The primary analysis will be undertaken using Cox's Proportional Hazards model, and due to the exploratory nature of this phase II trial, efficacy will be based on a one-sided p-value for superiority set at 0.10. Type I and Type II error rates are set at 20%; therefore, a total sample size of 196 study participants is planned. To explore the feasibility of incorporating HOFA into usual care and to design a larger phase III trial, we will aim to interview between 10 and 20 nurses across participating intensive care unit sites. Pressure injuries of the face, head or neck from medical devices, among adults admitted to intensive care, are considered preventable. This phase II study will investigate the feasibility and efficacy of HOFAs as an adjunct to standard care. Importantly, we aim to inform the development of a larger phase III trial.

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.

Multidisciplinary Consensus on the Management of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the COVID-19 Patient

Acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia often requires a comprehensive approach that includes non-pharmacological strategies such as non-invasive support (including positive pressure modes, high flow therapy or awake proning) in addition to oxygen therapy, with the primary goal of avoiding endotracheal intubation. Clinical issues such as determining the optimal time to initiate non-invasive support, choosing the most appropriate modality (based not only on the acute clinical picture but also on comorbidities), establishing criteria for recognition of treatment failure and strategies to follow in this setting (including palliative care), or implementing de-escalation procedures when improvement occurs are of paramount importance in the ongoing management of severe COVID-19 cases. Organizational issues, such as the most appropriate setting for management and monitoring of the severe COVID-19 patient or protective measures to prevent virus spread to healthcare workers in the presence of aerosol-generating procedures, should also be considered. While many early clinical guidelines during the pandemic were based on previous experience with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the landscape has evolved since then. Today, we have a wealth of high-quality studies that support evidence-based recommendations to address these complex issues. This document, the result of a collaborative effort between four leading scientific societies (SEDAR, SEMES, SEMICYUC, SEPAR), draws on the experience of 25 experts in the field to synthesize knowledge to address pertinent clinical questions and refine the approach to patient care in the face of the challenges posed by severe COVID-19 infection.

Role of hydrocolloid dressing in preventing face pressure ulcers from non-invasive ventilation and facilitating postoperative wound healing in maxillofacial surgery: A meta-analysis

Facial pressure ulcers from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and challenges in wound healing post-maxillofacial surgery are significant concerns in clinical care. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of hydrocolloid dressings in these contexts. From a pool of 1135 articles, 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. Hydrocolloid dressings demonstrated a significant reduction in facial pressure ulcers for NIV patients, with lower REEDA scores 1-week postapplication (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -16.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -24.26 to -9.15, p < 0.01). In maxillofacial surgery, patients treated with hydrocolloid dressings exhibited improved wound healing and reduced scar formation, evidenced by lower Manchester Scar Scale scores 3 months post-surgery (SMD = -15.46, 95% CI: -20.28 to -10.64, p < 0.01). These findings suggest that hydrocolloid dressings are effective in both preventing NIV-related facial pressure ulcers and enhancing wound healing in maxillofacial surgery.

Factors associated with facial pressure injury in patients receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation mask: A retrospective case-control study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate factors associated with facial pressure injury (FPI) in patients receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) during hospitalisation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and to identify predictors of FPI.

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation is a method of treating patients with acute and chronic respiratory failure. However, FPI may occur due to unsuitable nasal-oral NIPPV masks and discomfort in contact with the skin surface.

DESIGN

A retrospective case-control study.

METHODS

From January 2018 to October 2020, a total of 397 patients admitted to a national hospital in Taiwan were enrolled. Patients received NIPPV and routinely used under-mask prophylactic dressings during hospitalisation. Patients were divided into the non-FPI group (n = 357) and the FPI group (n = 40). Demographic, clinical characteristics, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II scores, and Braden Scale scores were collected from medical records. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the contribution of each factor to the FPI, and odds ratios were reported. The STROBE checklist was used in this retrospective case-control study.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the groups in age, serum albumin, C-reactive protein, body mass index (BMI), disease severity, Braden Scale score, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and use of corticosteroids. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the risk factor for FPI was the Braden Scale score [OR = 1.630 (1.176-2.260)], BMI [OR = 0.396 (0.210-1.784)] and corticosteroids [OR = 0.394 (0.159-1.811)], which were predictors of FPI in patients with NIPPV.

CONCLUSIONS

Facial pressure injury may still occur in patients who routinely use prophylactic dressings under NIPPV masks. This study provides information on continuing education training for FPI to more accurately identify high-risk and timely preventive measures to reduce FPI.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Addressing FPI-related factors to prevent facial skin damage and reduce comorbidities in patients using NIPPV masks.

Non-invasive Ventilation Interventions for Skin Injury Prevention: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers associated with the non-invasive ventilation mask can significantly reduce the quality of life of the patient who needs this therapy. This study aims to identify clinical interventions to prevent skin lesions associated with the use of non-invasive ventilation medical devices.

METHODS

The Scoping Review followed the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute. For this study the research was carried out, during the month of January 2022, in several databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOhost, RCAAP and OpenGrey, and studies published between 2010 and 2022 were included.

RESULTS

Of the 33 articles identified, 11 articles were included in this review, in which we identified several interventions for the prevention of skin lesions associated with the use of medical devices for non-invasive ventilation. The interventions identified include skin assessment, optimal fixation of the device, and the use of interfaces, namely, hydrocolloid or foam dressing under the NIV mask, among others Conclusion: This scoping review demonstrates that there is some scientific evidence for prevention, however the methodological approaches are very different, which makes it difficult to clearly describe the referenced interventions. This study was not registered.

Educating patients with upper limb dysfunction on self-adjustment of the CPAP/NPPV mask: A case series

We share our experiences of instructing three patients with severe upper limb dysfunction on how to self-adjust CPAP/NPPV masks. In Case 1, we simplified the procedure by suturing a part of the headband as the left forearm was amputated. In Case 2, the patient had congenitally short limbs with short stature; thus, we provided an additional belt to the headband to maintain the headband's configuration while wearing the mask. In Case 3, the patient had left hemiplegia due to stroke and, repetitive coaching was conducted during the recovery phase rehabilitation program. Difficulties with self-adjusting NPPV/CPAP masks can occur whenever there is limited hand mobility above the head, including upper limb dysfunction. Simplifying procedures and providing sufficient time for instruction could help achieve independence. There have been no previous reports describing similar training details. We believe that sharing this knowledge will be helpful to both patients and healthcare professionals.

Interventions and strategies to prevent medical device-related pressure injury in adult patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Current evidence shows that medical device-related pressure injury (MDRPI) has a high prevalence (10%) and incidence (12%), and much research has been done to prevent MDRPI in recent years. However, to our knowledge, there is limited systematic review available on interventions and strategies to prevent MDRPI.

AIM

To synthesise research evidence on interventions and strategies used to prevent MDRPI.

METHODS

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA Guidelines. We searched six databases including Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and ProQuest with no restriction to year of publication. Data were extracted and checked by two authors independently. A narrative summary technique was used to describe the findings. Implementation strategies were grouped into six classifications: dissemination/implementation process/integration/capacity building/sustainability/scale-up strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-four peer-reviewed papers met the inclusion criteria, which comprised of 11 quality improvement projects and 13 original research. Types of devices included respiratory devices (non-invasive ventilation mask, CPAP/BiPAP mask, endotracheal tube), gastrointestinal/urinary devices and other devices. Interventions used included the use of dressing, hyperoxygenated fatty acids, full-face mask, training, and/or multidisciplinary education, use of special securement devices or tube holder, repositioning, application of stockinette, early removal and foam ring use. Common implementation strategies included ongoing staff education, audit and standardising documentation or guideline development.

CONCLUSION

Much work on MDRPI prevention strategies has been undertaken. There were a variety of devices reported, however, it is evident that higher quality research is needed.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Current evidence shows that interventions including use of dressing or special securement device, repositioning, and training/multidisciplinary education can be beneficial for MDRPI prevention. High-quality research, such as randomised controlled trials are needed to test the effectiveness of the interventions and their implementation strategies. No patient or public contribution.

Respiratory device-related pressure injuries in hospitalised adults: An integrative review

OBJECTIVE

To identify the main ventilatory support medical devices related to the occurrence of pressure injuries in hospitalised adults, as well as the most frequent anatomical localisations of these injuries.

METHODS

The Integrative review was registered at Open Science Framework as per DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/P3NTZ. Two independent reviewers, in May 2022, searched the databases: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS and CINAHL; no language or publication year restriction. The review question was: What are the ventilatory support medical devices that cause PIs in hospitalised adults more often? The terms for searching the database were: "adult," "noninvasive ventilation," "artificial respiration." and "pressure injury," and their synonyms. This review followed the PRISMA checklist.

RESULTS

The final sample was 21 articles. Oxygen nasal catheters caused up to 40.7% of the pressure injuries by ventilatory support devices identified, all in the ears. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation oronasal masks presented an incidence of pressure injuries of 63.3%. The nasal bridge was the site most affected by this mask. The Set of Holders for Insight® endotracheal tubes was the device that caused the most pressure injuries, with an incidence of 75%, affecting lip commissure. Tracheostomy cannula accounted for 18.2% of the pressure injuries related to ventilatory support devices; all lesions were in the neck.

CONCLUSION

The ventilatory support devices causing pressure injuries and the most affected sites were, respectively, nasal catheters, ears; masks, nasal bridge; endotracheal tubes, lip commissures; tracheostomy cannulas, neck.

RELEVANCE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Knowing which respiratory devices cause pressure injuries more often in hospitalised adults and which anatomical localisations are more likely to be affected is fundamental for adopting preventive measures and reducing the occurrence of this problem.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution because of the review.

A pragmatic, open-label, multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trial on the rotational use of interfaces vs standard of care in patients treated with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure: the ROTAtional-USE of interface STUDY (ROTA-USE STUDY)

BACKGROUND

In the last decades, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been increasingly used to support patients with hypercapnic and hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. Pressure ulcers are a frequently observed NIV-related adverse effect, directly related to interface type and exposure time. Switching to a different interface has been proposed as a solution to improve patient comfort. However, large studies investigating the benefit of this strategy are not available. Thus, the aim of the ROTAtional-USE of interface STUDY (ROTA-USE STUDY) is to investigate whether a protocolized rotational use of interfaces during NIV is effective in reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers.

METHODS

The ROTA-USE STUDY is a pragmatic, parallel arm, open-label, multicenter, spontaneous, non-profit, randomized controlled trial requiring non-significant risk medical devices, with the aim to determine whether a rotational strategy of NIV interfaces is associated with a lower incidence of pressure ulcers compared to the standard of care. In the intervention group, NIV mask will be randomly chosen and rotated every 6 h. In the control group, mask will be chosen according to the standard of care of the participating centers and changed in case of discomfort or in the presence of new pressure sores. In both groups, the skin underneath the mask will be inspected every 12 h for any possible damage by blinded assessors. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients developing new pressure sores at 36 h from randomization. The secondary outcomes are (i) onset of pressure sores measured at different time points, i.e., 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, and 96 h; (ii) number and stage of pressure sores and comfort measured at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, and 96 h; and (iii) the economic impact of the protocolized rotational use of interfaces. A sample size of 239 subjects per group (intervention and control) is estimated to detect a 10% absolute difference in the proportion of patients developing pressure sores at 36 h.

DISCUSSION

The development of pressure ulcers is a common side effect of NIV that negatively affects the patients' comfort and tolerance, often leading to NIV failure and adverse outcomes. The ROTA-USE STUDY will determine whether a protocolized rotational approach can reduce the incidence, number, and severity of pressure ulcers in NIV-treated patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05513508. Registered on August 24, 2022.

Evaluation of the effect of fish oil in the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients admitted to the intensive care unit

Introduction

Today, the anti-inflammatory property of fish oil is used to heal wounds, but this property has not been investigated to prevent the occurrence of pressure ulcers. So the research team decided to evaluate this feature as well.

Materials and methods

This clinical trial study was performed on 102 patients admitted to the intensive care unit located at Besat Hospital in 2020. Samples were assigned to three groups control, placebo, and intervention using permutation blocks. Before the intervention, the questionnaire of demographic and clinical variables, level of consciousness, Braden scale, and short nutritional status questionnaire was completed by the main researcher. In the intervention group, in addition to routine care, 2 cc of fish oil was gently rubbed into the sacrum once a day for 5 days. The same intervention was repeated in the placebo group, with the difference that soybean oil was used instead of fish oil, and the control group received only the usual care. The daily evaluation of pressure ulcers by one of the ICU nurses lasted up to 6 days.

Results

The results showed that there was a significant difference in the incidence of pressure ulcers in the three groups (P = 0.043). The risk of pressure ulcers in the control group was 11.9 and 2.7 times higher than the fish oil group and placebo group (P = 0.023) & (P = 0.132).

Conclusion

The use of topical fish oil can be effective in preventing pressure ulcers.

Differences in prophylactic performance across wound dressing types used to protect from device-related pressure ulcers caused by a continuous positive airway pressure mask

Prolonged use of continuous positive airway pressure masks, as often required for non-invasive ventilation, involves a risk for facial tissue breakdown due to the sustained deformations caused by tightening of the stiff mask surfaces to the head and the moist environment. The risk of developing mask-related facial injuries can be reduced through suitable cushioning materials placed at the skin-mask interfaces to spread the localised contact forces and disperse the surface and internal tissue stresses. Using an integrated experimental-computational approach, we compared the biomechanical protective performance of three popular foam-based wound dressings to that of a market-lead hydrocolloid dressing when applied to protect the facial skin under a mask. We measured the compressive stiffness properties of the four commercial dressing types in dry and moist conditions, and then fed those to an anatomically realistic finite element model of an adult male head, with an applied simulated mask. Through this process, we calculated the protective efficacy index of each dressing type, indicating the relative contribution of the specified dressing to alleviating facial soft tissue loads with respect to the no-dressing case. The foam-based dressings generally performed substantially better than the hydrocolloid, but foam dressings were also demonstrated to vary by their protective performance.

Effectiveness of an adapted diving mask (Owner mask) for non-invasive ventilation in the COVID-19 pandemic scenario: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is indicated to avoid orotracheal intubation (OTI) to reduce hospital stay and mortality. Patients infected by SARS-CoV2 can progress to respiratory failure (RF); however, in the initial phase, they can be submitted to oxygen therapy and NIV. Such resources can produce aerosol and can cause a high risk of contagion to health professionals. Safe NIV strategies are sought, and therefore, the authors adapted diving masks to be used as NIV masks (called an Owner mask).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the Owner mask safety and effectiveness regarding conventional orofacial mask for patients in respiratory failure with and without confirmation or suspicion of COVID-19.

METHODS

A Brazilian multicentric study to assess patients admitted to the intensive care unit regarding their clinical, sociodemographic and anthropometric data. The primary outcome will be the rate of tracheal intubation, and secondary outcomes will include in-hospital mortality, the difference in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and PaCO2 levels, time in the intensive care unit and hospitalization time, adverse effects, degree of comfort and level of satisfaction of the mask use, success rate of NIV (not progressing to OTI), and behavior of the ventilatory variables obtained in NIV with an Owner mask and with a conventional face mask. Patients with COVID-19 and clinical signs indicative of RF will be submitted to NIV with an Owner mask [NIV Owner COVID Group (n = 63)] or with a conventional orofacial mask [NIV orofacial COVID Group (n = 63)], and those patients in RF due to causes not related to COVID-19 will be allocated into the NIV Owner Non-COVID Group (n = 97) or to the NIV Orofacial Non-COVID Group (n = 97) in a randomized way, which will total 383 patients, admitting 20% for loss to follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized and controlled trial during the COVID-19 pandemic about the safety and effectiveness of the Owner mask compared to the conventional orofacial mask. Experimental studies have shown that the Owner mask enables adequate sealing on the patient's face and the present study is relevant as it aims to minimize the aerosolization of the virus in the environment and improve the safety of health professionals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC): RBR - 7xmbgsz . Registered on 15 April 2021.

MEDICAL DEVICE-RELATED PRESSURE INJURY: FREQUENCY AND ASSOCIATED FACTORS

Objective: to analyze the occurrence of pressure injuries related to medical devices in patients admitted to an intensive care unit. Method: quantitative, observational, descriptive, prospective cohort study, carried out with 171 patients, from May 15 to August 31, 2018 in the intensive care units of a public hospital in the Federal District. Results: the main risk factors were the presence of pressure injuries at admission, with a significant association for the formation of pressure injuries related to medical devices (p=0.002), and patients who progressed to death, with an association for the formation of pressure injuries related to medical devices (p=0.012); medical device-related pressure injury incidence rate of 40.35%. Conclusion: the use of medical devices has grown, as well as the appropriation of these technologies in the critical care environment. The multidisciplinary team should be aware of the formation of pressure injuries related to medical devices that can affect hospitalized patients.

LESÃO POR PRESSÃO RELACIONADA A DISPOSITIVOS MÉDICOS: FREQUÊNCIA E FATORES ASSOCIADOS

Objetivo:analisar a ocorrência de lesões por pressão relacionadas a dispositivos médicos em pacientes internados em unidade de terapia intensiva. Método: estudo quantitativo, de caráter observacional descritivo, do tipo coorte prospectivo, realizado com 171 pacientes, no período de 15 de maio a 31 de agosto de 2018 nas unidades de terapia intensiva de um hospital público do Distrito Federal. Resultados: os principais fatores de risco foram presença de lesões por pressão na admissão, com associação significativa para a formação de lesão por pressão relacionada a dispositivos médicos (p=0,002), e pacientes que evoluíam ao desfecho óbito, com associação para formação de lesão por pressão relacionada a dispositivos médicos (p=0,012); taxa de incidência de lesão por pressão relacionada a dispositivos médicos de 40,35%. Conclusão: o uso de dispositivo médico tem crescido, bem como a apropriação dessas tecnologias no ambiente de cuidados críticos. A equipe multiprofissional deve ficar atenta para a formação das lesões por pressão relacionadas a dispositivos médicos que podem acometer os pacientes internados.

Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings.

REVIEW METHOD USED

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Five databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched in mid-2019. Searches were updated (in April 2020) to year end 2019.

REVIEW METHODS

From an overarching systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions in adults admitted to acute hospital settings, trials conducted in intensive care were separated for an intensive care-specific synthesis. Two reviewers, with a third as an arbitrator, undertook study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Included trials were grouped by intervention type for narrative synthesis and for random-effects meta-analysis using intention-to-treat data where appropriate.

RESULTS

Overall, 26 trials were included. Ten intervention types were found (support surfaces, prophylactic dressings, positioning, topical preparations, continence management, endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, noninvasive ventilation masks, and bundled interventions). All trials, except one, were at high or unclear risk of bias. Four intervention types (endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, and noninvasive ventilation masks) comprised single trials. Support surface trials were limited to type (active, reactive, seating, other). Meta-analysis was undertaken for reactive surfaces, but the intervention effect was not significant (risk ratio = 0.24, p = 0.12, I² = 51%). Meta-analyses demonstrated the effectiveness of sacral (risk ratio = 0.22, p < 0.001, I² = 0%) and heel (risk ratio = 0.31, p = 0.02; I² = 0%) prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Only prophylactic sacral and heel dressings demonstrated effectiveness in preventing pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. Further intensive care-specific trials are required across all intervention types. To minimise bias, we recommend that all future trials are conducted and reported as per relevant guidelines and recommendations.

The biomechanical efficacy of a hydrogel-based dressing in preventing facial medical device-related pressure ulcers

Continuous positive airway pressure masks for breathing assistance are used widely during the coronavirus pandemic. Nonetheless, these masks endanger the viability of facial tissues even after a few hours because of the sustained tissue deformations and extreme microclimate conditions. The risk of developing such device-related pressure ulcers/injuries can be reduced through suitable cushioning materials at the mask-skin interface, to alleviate localised contact forces. Here, we determined the facial tissue loading state under an oral-nasal mask while using hydrogel-based dressing cuts (Paul Hartmann AG, Heidenheim, Germany) for prophylaxis, which is a new concept in prevention of device-related injuries. For this purpose, we measured the compressive mask-skin contact forces at the nasal bridge, cheeks, and chin with vs without these dressing cuts and fed these data to a finite element, adult head model. Model variants were developed to compare strain energy densities and effective stresses in skin and through the facial tissue depth, with vs without the dressing cuts. We found that the dry (new) dressing cuts reduced tissue exposures to loads (above the median loading level) by at least 30% at the nasal bridge and by up to 99% at the cheeks, across the tissue depth. These dressing cuts were further able to maintain at least 65% and 89% of their protective capacity under moisture at the nasal bridge and cheeks, respectively. The hydrogel-based dressings demonstrated protective efficacy at all the tested facial sites but performed the best at the nasal bridge and cheeks, which are at the greatest injury risk.

Nursing interventions for pressure injury prevention among critically ill patients: A systematic review

AIM

To systemically synthesise the evidence on the most effective nursing interventions to prevent pressure injuries among critical care patients.

BACKGROUND

Although pressure injury (PI) prevention is a focus of nursing care in critical care units, hospital-acquired pressure injuries continue to occur in these settings.

DESIGN

A systematic review of literature guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched for relevant studies. Included studies were screened and then critically appraised using the appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool. Data were analysed and reported using a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

The review included 14 studies. Randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, case series and cross-sectional studies were included. The review identified four broad categories of interventions that are the most effective for preventing pressure injuries: (a) PI prevention bundles, (b) repositioning and the use of surface support, (c) prevention of medical device-related pressure injuries and (d) access to expertise. All the included studies reported a reduction in pressure injuries following the interventions; however, the strength of the evidence was rated from moderate to very low.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses are well qualified to lead in the prevention of pressure injuries in critical care units. Every critically ill patient requires interventions to prevent pressure injuries, and the prevention of PIs should be considered a complex intervention. Nurses must plan and implement evidence-based care to prevent all types of pressure injuries, including medical device-related pressure injuries. Education and training programmes for nurses on PI prevention are important for prevention of pressure injuries.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nursing interventions should consist of evidence-based 'bundles' and be adapted to patients' needs. To prevent pressure injuries among critically ill patients, nurses must be competent and highly educated and ensure fundamental strategies are routinely implemented to improve mobility and offload pressure.

Plan de cuidados de enfermería para la prevención de úlceras por presión secundarias a la posición prono en pacientes COVID-19

Introducción: La posición prono (PP) es una alternativa terapéutica ampliamente recomendada e implementada en los pacientes con COVID-19. Sin embargo, aunque es un procedimiento no invasivo, es complejo y se asocia con eventos adversos como las úlceras por presión (UPP). Nuestro objetivo es proponer un plan de cuidados de enfermería basado en el lenguaje estandarizado NANDA-I, NIC, NOC para la prevención de las UPP secundarias a la PP en la enfermedad de COVID-19. Síntesis del contenido: En los pacientes con COVID-19, además de factores de riesgo propios del paciente como la edad avanzada y la presencia de comorbilidades, la PP contribuye a la presencia de los diagnósticos de enfermería de riesgo de úlcera por presión [00249], de deterioro de la integridad cutánea [00047] y tisular [00248]. Por su parte, la intervención de enfermería prevención de úlceras por presión [3540], es clave para minimizar el desarrollo de esta complicación, mejorar la calidad de la atención y el pronóstico en este tipo de pacientes. Finalmente, para determinar la efectividad del cuidado de enfermería se proponen los resultados NOC consecuencias de la inmovilidad: fisiológicas [0204] e integridad tisular: piel y membranas mucosas [1101]. Conclusión: La PP es una terapia coadyuvante recomendada para el manejo de los pacientes con COVID-19 críticamente enfermos, debido a que optimiza la función pulmonar, sin embargo está asociada a eventos adversos como las UPP. Este artículo presenta recomendaciones basadas en una revisión narrativa para facilitar la implementación de cuidados de enfermería preventivos que reduzcan su frecuencia en esta población.

Bioactive Fatty Acids in the Resolution of Chronic Inflammation in Skin Wounds

Significance: Optimal skin wound healing is crucial for maintaining tissue homeostasis, particularly in response to an injury. The skin immune system is under regulation of mediators such as bioactive lipids and cytokines that can initiate an immune response with controlled inflammation, followed by efficient resolution. However, nutritional deficiency impacts wound healing by hindering fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and epithelialization, among other crucial functions. In this way, the correct nutritional support of bioactive lipids and of other essential nutrients plays an important role in the outcome of the wound healing process. Recent Advances and Critical Issues: Several studies have revealed the potential role of lipids as a treatment for the healing of skin wounds. Unsaturated fatty acids such as linoleic acid, α-linolenic acid, oleic acid, and most of their bioactive products have shown an effective role as a topical treatment of chronic skin wounds. Their effect, when the treatment starts at day 0, has been observed mainly in the inflammatory phase of the wound healing process. Moreover, some of them were associated with different dressings and were tested for clinical purposes, including pluronic gel, nanocapsules, collagen films and matrices, and polymeric bandages. Therefore, future research is still needed to evaluate these dressing technologies in association with different bioactive fatty acids in a wound healing context. Future Directions: This review summarizes the main results of the available clinical trials and basic research studies and provides evidence-based conclusions. Together, current data encourage the use of bioactive fatty acids for an optimal wound healing resolution.

The Prevalence, Characteristics, and Prevention Status of Skin Injury Caused by Personal Protective Equipment Among Medical Staff in Fighting COVID-19: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: To investigate the prevalence, characteristics, and preventive status of skin injuries caused by personal protective equipment (PPE) in medical staff. Approach: A cross-sectional survey was conducted online for understanding skin injuries among medical staff fighting COVID-19 in February 8-22, 2020. Participants voluntarily answered and submitted the questionnaire with cell phone. The questionnaire items included demographic data, grade of PPE and daily wearing time, skin injury types, anatomical sites, and preventive measures. Univariable analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to explore the risk factors associated with skin injuries. Results: A total of 4,308 respondents were collected from 161 hospitals and 4,306 respondents were valid. The overall prevalence of skin injuries was 42.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.30-44.30) with three types of device-related pressure injuries, moist-associated skin damage, and skin tear. Co-skin injuries and multiple location injuries were 27.4% and 76.8%, respectively. The logistic regression analysis indicated that sweating (95% CI for odds ratio [OR] 87.52-163.11), daily wearing time (95% CI for OR 1.61-3.21), male (95% CI for OR 1.11-2.13), and grade 3 PPE (95% CI for OR 1.08-2.01) were associated with skin injuries. Only 17.7% of respondents took prevention and 45.0% of skin injuries were treated. Innovation: This is the first cross-sectional survey to understand skin injuries in medical staff caused by PPE, which is expected to be a benchmark. Conclusion: The skin injuries among medical staff are serious, with insufficient prevention and treatment. A comprehensive program should be taken in the future.

Prevention of pressure ulcers among individuals cared for in the prone position: lessons for the COVID-19 emergency

OBJECTIVE

Pressure ulcers (PUs) involve the destruction of skin and underlying tissue due to prolonged pressure and shear forces. These ulcers are painful and significantly reduce a person's quality of life. PUs are also expensive to manage and impact negatively on the achievement of cost-effective, efficient care delivery.

METHOD

Prone positioning is a postural therapy that aims to enhance respiratory function through increasing oxygenation levels. In contemporary clinical practice, ventilation in the prone position is indicated for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, despite its advantages in terms of respiratory function, several studies have examined complications of prone position ventilation and have identified PUs (facial PUs as well as PUs on other weight-bearing areas of the body) as a frequent complication in patients who are already in a precarious medical situation. International data suggest that up to 57% of patients nursed in the prone position develop a PU. The aim of this clinical review is to identify and review evidence-based recommendations developed to facilitate the selection and application of preventive interventions aimed at reducing PU development in patients ventilated in the prone position. Given the current COVID-19 crisis, this review is timely as intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 require ventilation in the prone position at a level that is disproportionate to the general intensive care population. Up to 28% of patients admitted to the ICU with confirmed infection due to severe COVID-19 are cared for in the prone position. The scope of this review is limited to adult individuals only.

RESULTS

The skin assessment should be undertaken before proning and following positioning the patient back into the supine position. Although it is essential to keep the skin clean and moisturised, using pH-balanced cleansers, there is inconsistency in terms of the evidence to support the type of moisturiser. Use of positioning devices in addition to repositioning is recommended to offload pressure points on the face and body. Further, using dressings such as hydrocolloids, transparent film and silicone may be of benefit in decreasing facial skin breakdown.

CONCLUSION

Given the importance of PU prevention in this cohort of patients, adopting a focused prevention strategy, including skin assessment and care, offloading and pressure redistribution, and dressings for prevention may contribute to a reduction in the incidence and prevalence of these largely preventable wounds.

ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs

A. ACUTE HYPERCAPNIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE A1. Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Recommendations: NIV should be used in management of acute exacerbation of COPD in patients with acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory acidosis (pH = 7.25-7.35). (1A) NIV should be attempted in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (pH <7.25 & PaCO2 ≥ 45) before initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) except in patients requiring immediate intubation. (2A). Lower the pH higher the chance of failure of NIV. (2B) NIV should not to be used routinely in normo- or mildly hyper-capneic patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, without acidosis (pH > 7.35). (2B) A2. NIV in ARF due to Chest wall deformities/Neuromuscular diseases: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients of ARF due to chest wall deformity/Neuromuscular diseases. (PaCO2 ≥ 45) (UPP) A3. NIV in ARF due to Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS): Recommendations: NIV may be used in AHRF in OHS patients when they present with acute hypercapnic or acute on chronic respiratory failure (pH 45). (3B) NIV/CPAP may be used in obese, hypercapnic patients with OHS and/or right heart failure in the absence of acidosis. (UPP) B.

NIV IN ACUTE HYPOXEMIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE

B1. NIV in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema: Recommendations: NIV is recommended in hospital patients with ARF, due to Cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). NIV should be used in patients with acute heart failure/ cardiogenic pulmonary edema, right from emergency department itself. (1B) Both CPAP and BiPAP modes are safe and effective in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). However, BPAP (NIV-PS) should be preferred in cardiogenic pulmonary edema with hypercapnia. (3A) B2. NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Recommendations: NIV may be used over conventional oxygen therapy in mild early acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (P/F ratio <300 and >200 mmHg), under close supervision. (2B) We strongly recommend against a trial of NIV in patients with acute hypoxemic failure with P/F ratio <150. (2A) B3. NIV in ARF due to Chest Trauma: Recommendations: NIV may be used in traumatic flail chest along with adequate pain relief. (3B) B4. NIV in Immunocompromised Host: Recommendations: In Immunocompromised patients with early ARF, we may consider NIV over conventional oxygen. (2B). B5. NIV in Palliative Care: Recommendations: We strongly recommend use of NIV for reducing dyspnea in palliative care setting. (2A) B6. NIV in post-operative cases: Recommendations: NIV should be used in patients with post-operative acute respiratory failure. (2A) B6a. NIV in abdominal surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients with ARF following abdominal surgeries. (2A) B6b. NIV in bariatric surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in post-bariatric surgery patients with pre-existent OSA or OHS. (3A) B6c. NIV in Thoracic surgery: Recommendations: In cardiothoracic surgeries, use of NIV is recommended post operatively for acute respiratory failure to improve oxygenation and reduce chance of reintubation. (2A) NIV should not be used in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. (UPP) B6d. NIV in post lung transplant: Recommendations: NIV may be used for shortening weaning time and to avoid re-intubation following lung transplantation. (2B) B7. NIV during Procedures (ETI/Bronchoscopy/TEE/Endoscopy): Recommendations: NIV may be used for pre-oxygenation before intubation. (2B) NIV with appropriate interface may be used in patients of ARF during Bronchoscopy/Endoscopy to improve oxygenation. (3B) B8. NIV in Viral Pneumonitis ARDS: Recommendations: NIV cannot be considered as a treatment of choice for patients with acute respiratory failure with H1N1 pneumonia. However, it may be reasonable to use NIV in selected patients with single organ involvement, in a strictly controlled environment with close monitoring. (2B) B9. NIV and Acute exacerbation of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Recommendations: Careful use of NIV in patients with acute Tuberculosis may be considered, with effective infection control precautions to prevent air-borne transmission. (3B) B10. NIV after planned extubation in high risk patients: Recommendation: We recommend that NIV may be used to wean high risk patients from invasive mechanical ventilation as it reduces re-intubation rate. (2B) B11. NIV for respiratory distress post extubation: Recommendations: We recommend that NIV therapy should not be used to manage respiratory distress post-extubation in high risk patients. (2B) C.

APPLICATION OF NIV

Recommendation: Choice of mode should be mainly decided by factors like disease etiology and severity, the breathing effort by the patient and the operator familiarity and experience. (UPP) We suggest using flow trigger over pressure triggering in assisted modes, as it provides better patient ventilator synchrony. Especially in COPD patients, flow triggering has been found to benefit auto PEEP. (3B) D.

MANAGEMENT OF PATIENT ON NIV

D1. Sedation: Recommendations: A non-pharmacological approach to calm the patient (Reassuring the patient, proper environment) should always be tried before administrating sedatives. (UPP) In patients on NIV, sedation may be used with extremely close monitoring and only in an ICU setting with lookout for signs of NIV failure. (UPP) E.

EQUIPMENT

Recommendations: We recommend that portable bilevel ventilators or specifically designed ICU ventilators with non-invasive mode should be used for delivering Non-invasive ventilation in critically ill patients. (UPP) Both critical care ventilators with leak compensation and bi-level ventilators have been equally effective in decreasing the WOB, RR, and PaCO2. (3B) Currently, Oronasal mask is the most preferred interface for non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. (3B) F.

WEANING

Recommendations: We recommend that weaning from NIV may be done by a standardized protocol driven approach of the unit. (2B) How to cite this article: Chawla R, Dixit SB, Zirpe KG, Chaudhry D, Khilnani GC, Mehta Y, et al. ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 1):S61-S81.

MEDICAL-DEVICE-RELATED PRESSURE INJURY ON ADULTS: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW

ABSTRACT Objective: to identify factors associated with medical-device-related pressure injury. Method: an integrative review of published articles on the subject related to the adult population in the databases of PUBMED, Scopus, MEDLINE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, LILACS), Web of Science and Nursing Database (Banco de Dados em Enfermagem, BDENF), between 2013 and 2018. Results: medical-device-related pressure injuries were common in adults, especially in the elderly, due to capillary fragility, among other changes. Other observed factors were length of stay, critically ill patients or those requiring any type of medical device. Numerous medical devices have been associated with skin lesions; among the most frequent were breathing, feeding, and orthopedic devices, tubes, oximeters, neck collars, patches and nasogastric tubes. Conclusion: the first step towards prevention is exploration in terms of identifying the types of injury-causing devices and evidence-based interventions, and disseminating information to the entire multidisciplinary team.

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 (DermalexTM 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the DermalexTM 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.

Understanding the Hawthorne effect in wound research-A scoping review

The Hawthorne Effect (HE) is considered a methodological artefact in research, although its definition and influence on research outcomes lack consensus. This review explored how this term has been mentioned and discussed in the area of wound research. A scoping review was conducted on ProQuest Central, Scopus, EbscoHost, and online databases of indexed wound journals using the methodological framework by Arksey and Malley. A review protocol was applied to detail key terms, truncation and Boolean operators, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search findings were reported using PRISMA guidelines. A total of 38 articles reporting primary evidence were identified. Three themes emerged from the review: wound researchers' awareness of HE, the acknowledgement of the existence or otherwise of HE, and the mentioning of HE in passing. These results reflect a lack of attention to and understanding and awareness of the HE in the area of wound research. It is suggested that the HE receives more attention as a methodological concern, and its potential influence is considered and mitigated when planning future studies. Recommendations are provided to minimise the impact of the HE on the rigour of the research and confidence afforded to research findings.

Evidence based synthesis for prevention of noninvasive ventilation related facial pressure ulcers

The last 2 decades have seen a growing trend towards the use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) therapy in the management of many conditions that cause acute respiratory failure. However, there is a serious side effect that results in using these devices; the development of facial skin pressure damage, specifically pressure ulcers. This skin damage has a considerable effect on patients’ quality of life, treatment adherence and patients’ comfort in addition to the therapy challenges of wound care. The aim of this clinical review is to discuss the different characteristics of NIV interfaces and to provide evidence based recommendations to facilitate the selection and application of such interfaces to reduce NIV interfaces related pressure ulcers.