Clinical profile of the SEM Scanner - Modernizing pressure injury care pathways using Sub-Epidermal Moisture (SEM) scanning

INTRODUCTION

Pressure injuries (PIs) are a global health concern. Current PI care standards, including skin tissue assessments (STA) and health care professional (HCP) clinical judgment, diagnose visibly manifested PIs on the skin's surface, i.e. after the damage has already occurred. However, objective assessment of early-stage, non-visible, pressure-induced tissue damage is clinically impossible within the current standard of care. The SEM Scanner is the first device authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that addresses this unmet clinical need.

AREAS COVERED

This review describes the novel sub-epidermal moisture (SEM) scanning technology of the device and summarizes the clinical safety and efficacy data that support the use of the scanner in routine PI care practice.

EXPERT OPINION

The clinical strategy for developing the SEM Scanner is noteworthy. SEM technology using anatomy-specific data enables HCPs to provide early PI prevention interventions before visible signs of tissue damage develop while the damage is still reversible. When adopted into routine practice, the device identifies an increased risk of developing PIs 5 days (median) earlier than STA. FDA clearance was based on bench studies and data from three foundational trials that demonstrate the diagnostic accuracy of the device algorithm significantly exceeding clinical judgment (p < 0.001).

Wound cleansing for treating venous leg ulcers

BACKGROUND

Leg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur below the knee but above the foot. The majority of leg ulcers are venous in origin, occurring as a result of venous insufficiency, where the flow of blood through the veins is impaired; they commonly arise due to blood clots and varicose veins. Compression therapy, using bandages or stockings, is the primary treatment for venous leg ulcers. Wound cleansing can be used to remove surface contaminants, bacteria, dead tissue and excess wound fluid from the wound bed and surrounding skin, however, there is uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of cleansing and the best method or solution to use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wound cleansing, wound cleansing solutions and wound cleansing techniques for treating venous leg ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or RCTs comparing different wound cleansing solutions, or different wound cleansing techniques.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We screened studies for their appropriateness for inclusion, assessed their risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and used GRADE methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. Two review authors undertook these tasks independently, using predetermined criteria. We contacted study authors for missing data where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with a total of 254 participants. All studies included comparisons between different types of cleansing solutions, and three of these reported our primary outcomes of complete wound healing or change in ulcer size over time, or both. Two studies reported the secondary outcome, pain. One study (27 participants), which compared polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) solution with saline solution for cleansing venous leg ulcers, did not report any of the review's primary or secondary outcomes. We did not identify any studies that compared cleansing with no cleansing, or that explored comparisons between different cleansing techniques. One study (61 participants) compared aqueous oxygen peroxide with sterile water. We are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to the number of wounds completely healed after 12 months of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 3.20). Similarly, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to change in ulcer size after eight weeks of follow-up (mean difference (MD) -1.38 cm², 95% CI -4.35 to 1.59 cm²). Finally, we are uncertain whether aqueous oxygen peroxide makes any difference to pain reduction, assessed after eight weeks of follow-up using a 0 to 100 pain rating, (MD 3.80, 95% CI -10.83 to 18.43). The evidence for these outcomes is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision; for the pain outcome we also downgraded for indirectness). Another study (40 participants) compared propyl betaine and polihexanide with a saline solution. The authors did not present the raw data in the study report so we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of the data. We are uncertain whether propyl betaine and polihexanide make any difference to the number of wounds completely healed, change in ulcer size over time, or wound pain reduction. The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). The final study (126 participants) compared octenidine dihydrochloride/phenoxyethanol (OHP) with Ringer's solution. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of wounds healed (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72) or to the change in ulcer size over time (we were unable to conduct independent statistical analysis of available data). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision). None of the studies reported patient preference, ease of use of the method of cleansing, cost or health-related quality of life. In one study comparing propyl betaine and polihexanide with saline solution the authors do not report any adverse events occurring. We are uncertain whether OHP makes any difference to the number of adverse events compared with Ringer's solution (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.14). The evidence is of very low certainty (we downgraded for study limitations and imprecision).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a lack of RCT evidence to guide decision making about the effectiveness of wound cleansing compared with no cleansing and the optimal approaches to cleansing of venous leg ulcers. From the four studies identified, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the use of PHMB solution compared with saline solution; aqueous oxygen peroxide compared with sterile water; propyl betaine and polihexanide compared with a saline solution; or OHP compared with Ringer's solution makes any difference in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. Evidence from three of the studies is of very low certainty, due to study limitations and imprecision. One study did not present data for the primary or secondary outcomes. Further well-designed studies that address important clinical, quality of life and economic outcomes may be important, based on the clinical and patient priority of this uncertainty.

Patient and lay carer education for preventing pressure ulceration in at-risk populations

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are injuries to the skin and underlying tissues that occur most commonly over bony prominences, such as the hips and heels as a result of pressure and shear forces. PUs cause pain, discomfort, longer hospital stays, and decreased quality of life. They are also very costly to treat and consume substantial parts of healthcare budgets. PUs are largely preventable, and education targeted at patients and their carers is considered important.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient and/or lay carer education on preventing pressure ulceration in at-risk people, in any care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; Ovid PsycINFO and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies.  There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people of any age at risk of pressure ulceration, and RCTs that recruited people who informally care for someone at risk of pressure ulceration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 11 publications (2261 participants analysed). Seven targeted their intervention at people at risk of ulceration and measured outcomes on these at risk people; two targeted those at risk and their family carers and measured outcomes on the at risk people cared for by their families; and one targeted lay carers only and measured outcomes on the at risk people they cared for. There were two main types of interventions: the provision of information on prevention of pressure ulcers, and the use of different types of education programmes. Provision of information on the prevention of pressure ulcers Three studies (237 participants) reported data for this comparison: two provided information directly to those at risk and their carers, and the third provided information to lay carers. As data could not be pooled we present individual study data. The evidence for primary outcomes is of very low certainty (downgraded twice for study limitations and twice for imprecision). We are uncertain whether the combined use of a self-instruction manual and one-to-one patient training and counselling versus a self-instruction manual alone reduces the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU (risk ratio (RR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.18), or whether carer self-instruction and one-to-one counselling versus self-instruction alone reduces the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU (RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.70). We are uncertain whether the use of home-based training, compared with routine ward-based training, reduces the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02). One study explored the secondary outcome patient knowledge of pressure ulcer prevention; however, as usable data were not provided, we were unable to carry out further analysis, and no effect estimate could be calculated. Educational programmes on the prevention of pressure ulcers Seven studies (2024 participants analysed) provided data for this comparison. In all studies the intervention was aimed at people at risk of ulceration. Risk of pressure ulceration One secondary report of an included study reported the primary outcome as time to PU development or occurrence and three studies and one secondary report of an included study reported this as the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU. One study reported the secondary outcome grade of PU and five studies and one secondary report of an included study reported on patient knowledge. There is low certainty evidence of there being no clear difference in the proportion of participants developing a new PU between use of a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle (PUPCB) and standard care: HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.33 (downgraded twice for imprecision). One secondary report of an included study explored whether individualised PU education and monthly structured telephone follow-up reduces the mean time to PU occurrence. Not all participants in this study developed a pressure ulcer, therefore the mean time to pressure ulcer occurrence could not be calculated from the data. We are uncertain whether the following three interventions reduce the proportion of at risk people developing a new PU as we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low: individualised PU education and monthly structured telephone follow-up (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.30), education delivery (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.78 to 16.38), (downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision); and computerised feedback and one-to-one consultations (no clear data provided), (downgraded twice for risk of bias and once for indirectness). Grade of pressure ulcer There is low certainty evidence that use of a PU prevention care bundle may make no difference to the severity of new PU development when compared with standard care. Patient knowledge We are uncertain whether the following interventions improve patient knowledge: enhanced educational intervention and structured follow-up (mean difference (MD) 9.86, 95% CI 1.55 to 18.17); multi component motivational interviewing/self-management with a multi component education intervention (no clear data provided); Spinal Cord Injury Navigator programme (no clear data provided); individualised PU education and monthly structured telephone follow-up (no clear data provided); computerised feedback (no clear data provided), structured, patient-centric PU prevention education event (MD 30.15, 95% CI 23.56 to 36.74). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for this outcome as low or very low (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision, or indirectness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether educational interventions make any difference to the number of new PUs that develop, or to patient knowledge based on evidence from the 10 included studies, which we assessed as of low or very low certainty due to problems with risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness. The low certainty of evidence means that additional research is required to confirm these results.

Nutritional interventions for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes

BACKGROUND

Foot ulcers in people with diabetes are non-healing, or poorly healing, partial, or full-thickness wounds below the ankle. These ulcers are common, expensive to manage and cause significant morbidity and mortality. The presence of a wound has an impact on nutritional status because of the metabolic cost of repairing tissue damage, in addition to the nutrient losses via wound fluid. Nutritional interventions may improve wound healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2020 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors, working independently, assessed included RCTs for their risk of bias and rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology, using pre-determined inclusion and quality criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs (629 participants). Studies explored oral nutritional interventions as follows: a protein (20 g protein per 200 mL bottle), 1 kcal/mL ready-to-drink, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements; arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement; 220 mg zinc sulphate supplements; 250 mg magnesium oxide supplements; 1000 mg/day omega-3 fatty acid from flaxseed oil; 150,000 IU of vitamin D, versus 300,000 IU of vitamin D; 250 mg magnesium oxide plus 400 IU vitamin E and 50,000 IU vitamin D supplements. The comparator in eight studies was placebo, and in one study a different dose of vitamin D. Eight studies reported the primary outcome measure of ulcer healing; only two studies reported a measure of complete healing. Six further studies reported measures of change in ulcer dimension, these studies reported only individual parameters of ulcer dimensions (i.e. length, width and depth) and not change in ulcer volume. All of the evidence identified was very low certainty. We downgraded it for risks of bias, indirectness and imprecision. It is uncertain whether oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1 kcal/mL, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements, increases the proportion of ulcers healed at six months more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.53). It is also uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement increases the proportion of ulcers healed at 16 weeks compared with placebo (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.40). It is uncertain whether the following interventions change parameters of ulcer dimensions over time when compared with placebo; 220 mg zinc sulphate supplement containing 50 mg elemental zinc, 250 mg magnesium oxide supplement, 1000 mg/day omega-3 fatty acid from flaxseed oil supplement, magnesium and vitamin E co-supplementation and vitamin D supplementation. It is also uncertain whether 150,000 IU of vitamin D, impacts ulcer dimensions when compared with 300,000 IU of vitamin D. Two studies explored some of the secondary outcomes of interest for this review. It is uncertain whether oral nutritional supplement with 20 g protein per 200 mL bottle, 1 kcal/mL, nutritional supplement with added vitamins, minerals and trace elements, reduces the number of deaths (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.60) or amputations (RR 4.82, 95% CI 0.24 to 95.88) more than placebo. It is uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement increases health-related quality of life at 16 weeks more than placebo (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.03). It is also uncertain whether arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement reduces the numbers of new ulcers (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51), or amputations (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.69) more than placebo. None of the included studies reported the secondary outcomes cost of intervention, acceptability of the intervention (or satisfaction) with respect to patient comfort, length of patient hospital stay, surgical interventions, or osteomyelitis incidence. One study exploring the impact of arginine, glutamine and β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate supplement versus placebo did not report on any relevant outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the impact of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes compared with no nutritional supplementation, or compared with a different dose of nutritional supplementation, remains uncertain, with eight studies showing no clear benefit or harm. It is also uncertain whether there is a difference in rates of adverse events, amputation rate, development of new foot ulcers, or quality of life, between nutritional interventions and placebo. More research is needed to clarify the impact of nutritional interventions on the healing of foot ulcers in people with diabetes.

Interventions for preventing infectious complications in haemodialysis patients with central venous catheters

BACKGROUND

Central venous catheters (CVC) continue to play a prominent role in haemodialysis vascular access with 46% to 70% of patients commencing haemodialysis via a CVC. CVC access is associated with catheter-related infections, increased patient hospitalisations and death due to infection. A variety of interventions are used to prevent CVC infection.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic topical antimicrobials, topical antiseptics, medicated and non-medicated dressings on infectious complications among haemodialysis patients with CVC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of articles without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs investigating any intervention that prevented infectious complications among haemodialysis patients with CVC. We excluded antimicrobial impregnated CVC or CVC using locking solutions with antimicrobial properties.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors assessed study quality and extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD).

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies (786 patients) were included. Mupirocin ointment reduced the risk of catheter-related bacteraemia (RR 0.17, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.43) and had a significant effect on catheter-related infections caused by S. aureus. The risk of catheter-related bacteraemia was reduced by polysporin (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.86) and povidone-iodine ointment (RR 0.10, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.72). Subgroup analysis suggested mupirocin (RR 0.12, 95%CI 0.01 to 2.13) and povidone-iodine ointment (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.24 to 2.98) had no effect on all-cause mortality while polysporin ointment showed a significant reduction (RR 0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.74). Mortality related to infection was not reduced by mupirocin, polysporin or povidone-iodine ointment. Topical honey did not reduce the risk of exit site infection (RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.10 to 2.11) or catheter-related bacteraemia (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.37 to 1.73). Transparent polyurethane dressing compared to dry gauze dressing did not reduce the risk of CVC or exit site infection, or catheter-related bacteraemia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mupirocin ointment appears effective in reducing the risk of catheter-related bacteraemia. Insufficient reporting on mupirocin resistance was noted and needs to be considered in future studies. A lack of high quality data on the routine use of povidone-iodine ointment, polysporin ointment and topical honey warrant larger RCTs. Insufficient data were available to determine which dressing type (transparent polyurethane or dry gauze dressing) has the lowest risk of catheter-related infections.

Repositioning for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure, from lying or sitting on a particular part of the body, results in oxygen deprivation to the affected area. If a patient with an existing pressure ulcer continues to lie or bear weight on the affected area, the tissues become depleted of blood flow and there is no oxygen or nutrient supply to the wound, and no removal of waste products from the wound, all of which are necessary for healing. Patients who cannot reposition themselves require assistance. International best practice advocates the use of repositioning as an integral component of a pressure ulcer management strategy. This review has been conducted to clarify the role of repositioning in the management of patients with pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of repositioning patients on the healing rates of pressure ulcers.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (5 December 2008); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to November Week 3 2008); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2008 Week 49); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to November Week 4 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing repositioning with no repositioning, or RCTs comparing different repositioning techniques, or RCTs comparing different repositioning frequencies for the review. Controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were only to be considered in the absence of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed titles and, where available, abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategy for their eligibility. We obtained full versions of potentially relevant studies and two authors independently screened these against the inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the widespread use of repositioning as a component of the management plan for individuals with existing pressure ulcers, no randomised trials exist that assess the effects of repositioning patients on the healing rates of pressure ulcers. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether repositioning patients improves the healing rates of pressure ulcers. The effect of repositioning on pressure ulcer healing needs to be evaluated.