Prevention and treatment of pressure injuries: A meta-synthesis of Cochrane Reviews

BackgroundThere are many high-quality systematic reviews to inform practice around pressure injury (PI) prevention and treatment. However, they are often unable to provide recommendations for practice and research due to low quality trials.ObjectivesTo evaluate current systematic review evidence on the prevention and treatment of PI.MethodsThis meta-synthesis was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only Cochrane Reviews were included. Evidence from reviews was independently screened and assessed for risk of bias and certainty using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations by two authors, with a third resolving discrepancies. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using the second version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, and a narrative synthesis undertaken.ResultsTwenty-five Cochrane Reviews were included; eight for PI prevention and 19 for PI treatment. Prevention reviews included 102 studies (27,933 participants). Treatment reviews included 154 studies (over 16,936 participants). Three prevention reviews and nine treatment reviews reported risk of bias, judging the included trials as having low or very low certainty evidence. Two reviews reported moderate certainty evidence. Methodological quality of the systematic reviews was rated as high for eight reviews (7/19 for treatment and 1/6 for prevention). Recommendations for prevention included repositioning, nutrition and support surfaces. Recommendations for treatment focused on nutrition and repositioning.ConclusionsThis meta-synthesis confirms the low-certainty of PI prevention and treatment trials, resulting in few recommendations to inform clinical practice. Generation of high-quality evidence on PI prevention and treatment is imperative.     

Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries: The protocol for the second update of the international Clinical Practice Guideline 2019

Aim

The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance, and the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel are updating the ‘Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline’ (CPG) in 2019. The aim of this contribution is to summarize and to discuss the guideline development protocol for the 2019 update.

A systematic review of prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers/injuries in hospital emergency services

AimTo develop a systematic review on the prevalence and the incidence of pressure ulcers/injuries in adult patients in hospital emergency services.Materials and methodsSystematic review of prevalence and incidence studies developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items Form Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The inclusion criteria were based on the CoCoPop mnemonic. The main variables of interest were the “prevalence” and/or the “incidence” of “pressure ulcers/injuries” (Condition) reported in studies developed in hospital emergency services (Context) with adult participants (Population). The Systematic Review Protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CDR42021252906).ResultsThe pressure ulcer/injury (point) prevalence ranged from 5.2% (at admission) to 12.3% (at discharge) and the pressure ulcer/injury incidence ranged from 4.5% to 78.4%. Most of the pressure ulcers/injuries documented were category/stage I. The most problematic anatomical locations were the sacrococcygeal region and the heels. The preventive measures should be implemented as soon as possible and are important in patients older than 75 years, with multiple comorbidities, high C-Reative Protein levels, cervical spine immobilization, presented to hospital emergency service by ambulance or with hypotension at the time of admission.ConclusionsThe prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers/injuries in hospital emergency services remains an understudied topic which could limit the generalization of our data. This systematic review highlighted that the management of pressure ulcers/injuries is a real and current challenge in hospital emergency services. It is important to identify the patients at (higher) risk to establish an (earlier) preventive care plan according to patients and emergency services’ characteristics.     

How the COVID-19 pandemic influences the prevalence of pressure injuries in the Czech Republic: A nationwide analysis of a health registry in 2020

BackgroundCOVID-19 significantly influences the overall patient status and, in severe symptomatology, the ability to move and the low oxygenation of the tissue for the ventilated patient in Intensive Care Units (ICU). There is a higher risk for Pressure injuries (PIs) development.ObjectivesThe nationwide analyses of the National health register aimed to compare the prevalence of PIs reported before the pandemic COVID-19 started and during the pandemic in 2020.MethodA retrospective, nationwide cross-sectional analysis of data regarding the STROBE checklist collected by the National Health Information System (NHIS), focusing on the PIs reporting based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnoses L89.0-L89.9 for PIs in 2020. The data from the pandemic period of COVID-19 in 2020 were compared to the prevalence of PI cases in the period 2010–2019 in the Czech Republic in all hospitalized patients.ResultsThe total number of admissions for L89 in 2020 was 14,441, of which 1509 (10.4%) also had COVID-19. In the ICU were 4386 admissions, 12.1% of which also had COVID-19. A higher proportion of PIs is observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 than in patients without COVID-19 (2.62% vs 0.81%, respectively 1.05% vs 0.46% when standardized to the 2013 ESP = European Standard Population). In patients hospitalized in ICU, 3.68% with COVID-19 had PIs vs 1.42% without COVID-19 had PIs (1.97% vs 0.81% using the 2013 ESP).ConclusionThe national health registers analyses have proven that the prevalence of PIs was higher among patients hospitalized with the SARS-CoV-2 infection.     

Use of topical sevoflurane in pressure ulcer treatment in a double-lung transplant patient

Pain caused by wounds of different etiology is usually treated with oral analgesics. New topical use of products such as the ether anesthetic sevoflurane shows good results for pain control and has additional benefits. Pressure ulcers are painful and patients may benefit from the use of sevoflurane. We present the case of a double-lung transplant patient with a long-standing sacral pressure ulcer with poor pain control, for which sevoflurane dressings were used. The number of pain-free hours after application, the amount of daily analgesics and the size of the wound were monitored with the mobile wound application MOWA. After several days of sevoflurane application, the patient reduced analgesic consumption, remained longer free of pain, and the size of the wound decreased. Unfortunately, the patient had serious complications due to multiple comorbidities and died before the wound healed completely. Topical use of sevoflurane in pressure ulcers may be a good option to treat pain and improve patient quality of life.     

Moist dressings in the treatment of pressure injuries: A network meta-analysis

AimsThe aim of this network meta-analysis is to analyze the difference in therapeutic effects between moist dressings and traditional dressings in the treatment of pressure injury (PI), explore the healing, healing time, direct cost, and number of dressing changes of different moist dressings for the management of pressure injuries.BackgroundThe incidence of pressure injury is high and the burden of disease is high, but there is no consensus on how to choose moist dressing treatment.DesignA systematic review with network meta-analysis was performed.Data sourcesWe searched the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP database, PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE.com, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and CINAHL to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of PI with moist dressings.Review methodsR studio software and Stata 16.0 software were used to compare different moist dressings and traditional dressings.Results41 RCTs of moist dressings in the treatment of PI were included. A total of seven kinds of moist dressings, Vaseline gauze and traditional gauze dressing were involved. All RCTs were at a medium to high risk of bias. Overall, moist dressings had more advantages than traditional dressings in terms of various outcome indicators.ConclusionThe effect of moist dressings in treating PI is more advantageous than traditional dressings. However, in terms of direct cost and the number of dressings changes, more research is needed to improve the credibility of the network meta-analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis show that the silver ion dressing and alginate dressing are the best choices in the treatment of PI.No patient or public contributionThis study is a network meta-analysis, which does not require the participation of patients and the public.     

Community acquired pressure injuries in a work-related spinal cord injury population: Problem characterization and assessment of a working solution

BackgroundTo characterize the problem of community-acquired pressure injuries (CAPIs) in a work-related spinal cord injury (SCI) population in Canada and assess the benefits of a person-centered solution. Characterization of the problem and a solution, albeit in an insured Worker's Compensation Board of British Columbia (WorkSafeBC) cohort, may inform the supply of solutions in the larger SCI population with disparate access to healthcare.MethodsFor this observational study, data on 244 WorkSafeBC clients, who received an intervention featuring pressure injury (PI) assessment between 2011 and 2015, were used to characterize the problem. Data on observed injuries, risk, referrals, and outcomes were linked to healthcare service claims. Employing an activity-based costing methodology, total expenditures on attributed services were calculated for clients with 1 or more PIs. Intervention cost and benefits from the insurer's perspective are considered.Results84 of 244 clients had 1 or more PIs at assessment, with attributed mean cost of $56,092 in 2015 Canadian dollars (CAD). Mean cost by PI severity range from $9580 to $238,736. At an intervention cost of $820,618, detection of less severe injuries provided an opportunity to prevent progression and achieve $3 million in cost avoidance. Follow-up data suggest reasonable returns. Reductions in the incidence, number, and risk of pressure injuries were also observed.ConclusionsThe analysis establishes the cost of CAPIs in a Canadian-based work-related SCI population and suggests preventative and early intervention is not only feasible but also practical. Results are relevant to decisions regarding the use of proactive prevention-based treatment models as opposed to reactive, solutions in the larger SCI population.     

Assessing the impact of a patient education programme on pressure ulcer prevention in patients with spinal cord injuries

ObjectivesThere is currently a low level of evidence for the impact of patient education on the management of patients with chronic neurological disease at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a patient education programme on pressure ulcer prevention in patients with chronic spinal cord injuries.Materials and methodsThis study included adult patients with any spinal cord injury, regardless of the cause. Participants attended 2 group workshops focusing on pressure ulcer prevention.Various clinical data were gathered during an initial individual interview and at 3, 6 and 12 months, along with rating scale values from the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Rosenberg self-esteem scale, Schwarzer self-efficacy scale, a quality of life scale (SF-36) and the revised Skin Management Needs Assessment Checklist (Revised SMnac), which was used as the primary endpoint.ResultsTwenty patients were included in the study. The mean patient age was 52 years (SD: 9,8). Sixteen patients had traumatic spinal cord injuries, with a median injury duration of 234 months (IQR: 123–407). Seventy-five percent had had a pressure ulcer in the twelve months prior to the study. Patient education was shown to have a significant impact on skin management ability, with a highly significant increase in the overall revised SMnac score at 3 months. These results were stable over time, from 6 to 12 months. Six patients developed a pressure ulcer during the study (30%).ConclusionThis study supports the hypothesis that a therapeutic educational program conducted at the chronic phase in spinal cord injured individuals has an impact.     

Prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers/injuries in emergency services: A systematic review protocol

AimTo develop a systematic review protocol on the prevalence and/or the incidence of pressure ulcers/injuries in adult patients in emergency services.Materials and methodsThis protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items Form Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence studies. The inclusion criteria will be based on the CoCoPop mnemonic. The main variables of interest will be the “prevalence” and/or the “incidence” of “pressure ulcers/injuries” (Condition) reported in studies developed in emergency services (Context), with participants aged 18 or more (Population). This Systematic Review Protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CDR42021252906).ResultsIf meta-analysis is not possible, the syntheses of quantitative data will be presented in a narrative form to address the scope and objectives of this systematic review. Tables, graphs and/or figures will be designed to present the results of the prevalence and the incidence of pressure ulcers/injuries, their body locations and the respective categories/stages. The Systematic Review is currently ongoing.ConclusionsPrevalence and incidence systematic reviews are an emerging methodology in the field of evidence synthesis. We believe that the systematic review on prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers/injuries in emergency services can provide useful information for healthcare professionals and policy makers about the dimension of this problem in a specific context. The standardized approach outlined in this systematic review protocol offers a rigorous and transparent method to conduct the review.     

The uptake of the international pressure ulcer/injury prevention and treatment guidelines in the scientific literature: A systematic analysis of two major citation databases

BackgroundThe European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance developed international Clinical Practice Guidelines of the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers/injuries in 2009, 2014, and 2019. Despite substantial dissemination efforts, evidence about guideline dissemination and uptake in the international literature is lacking.AimThe aim of this review was to capture to the greatest detail possible the number of the citations of the three published Clinical Practice Guidelines.MethodsThe citation databases Web of Science and Scopus were searched for citations of the 2009, 2014 and 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines including all derivative products including short versions and translations. Two separate search strategies were iteratively developed to ensure highest sensitivity.ResultsThe Cited Reference Search in Web of Science identified hundreds of different referencing formats with more than 2000 citing articles. The Scopus search revealed 250 different reference formats and more than 2000 citation counts. After publication there was a gradual increase of citations that peaks approximately after four years.ConclusionThe three Clinical Practice Guidelines including all derivate versions had a substantial uptake in the scientific literature. This supports the assumption that the guideline dissemination strategies were and are successful.     

Translation and validation of the ELPO for Turkish population: Risk assessment scale for the development of pressure injuries due to surgical positioning

Aim of the studyThis study was conducted to translate the ELPO risk assessment scale for the development of pressure injuries due to surgical positioning to Turkish and to test its validity and reliability in the Turkish Population.Materials and methodsThe data were collected using the patient identification form, the risk assessment scale for the prevention of injuries due to surgical positioning, and the Braden Scale. This scale consisted of a total of seven items, each of which contained five sub-items. It is rated between 1 and 5 in the Likert type. The total score of the scale ranges between 7 and 35. The risk of developing pressure injuries increases in patients as the score increases.ResultsA total of 184 patients were included in the study sample. The mean age of the group was 55.96 ± 17.90, and the content validity index was 0.944. The sensitivity of the test was 60%, the specificity was 66%, and the accuracy was 66%. There was a negative, weak, statistically significant correlation between the total scores of the risk assessment scale for the prevention of injuries due to surgical positioning and the Braden scale. The mean total score of the scale was 18.45 ± 2.96 (12–26) and 35.9% (n = 66) of the group were at high risk.ConclusionsThe ELPO, which includes the risks specific to patients during surgery, can be used as an assessment scale for the development of pressure injury due to surgical positioning for Turkish population.     

Incidence of pressure ulcers in intensive care units and direct costs of treatment: Evidence from Iran

Background and objective

Pressure ulcer (PU) is one of the important and frequent complications of hospitalization, associated with high treatment costs. The present study was conducted to determine the incidence of PU and its direct treatment costs for patients in intensive care unit (ICU) in Iran.

Shifting loads as a result of chair articulations and associated perfusion responses in the context of pressure injuries: An investigation with able-bodied individuals

Wheelchair users with spinal cord injuries experience pressure injuries at high rates, causing a decrease in quality of life and an increased financial burden. The soft tissue in the buttocks (beneath the ischial tuberosities) and lower back (behind the sacrum) experience large interface pressures over long periods while seated, putting them at high risk of pressure injury development. The goals of this research were to evaluate the ability of an articulating chair design to redistribute pressures on the body and to affect blood perfusion in the buttocks tissue over the ischial tuberosities. Using a unique, custom-designed chair developed for this research, pressure and blood perfusion were obtained for numerous seated positions that included recline, seat pan tilt, and back articulations. Reclining the chair back increased maximum pressures in the buttocks and lower back regions, while it decreased maximum pressures in the upper back and thigh regions. Increasing seat pan tilt, or rotating the anterior edge of the seat pan above the posterior edge, decreased maximum pressures in the buttocks and lower back regions and increased perfusion in the buttocks. Results suggested that using back recline and seat pan tilt together to create a whole-body tilt increased pressures in the back and decreased pressures in the buttocks. Changes in back articulation redistributed pressure in all back regions. Thus, the articulating chair design redistributed pressures in all areas of the body and promoted blood perfusion in the buttocks while seated. Pressure redistribution and perfusion promotion are fundamental to reducing pressure injury risk.     

Development and preliminary validation of a tool measuring concordance and belief about performing pressure-relieving activities for pressure ulcer prevention in spinal cord injury

ObjectiveTo develop and examine the reliability, and validity of a questionnaire measuring concordance for performing pressure-relief for pressure ulcer (PrU) prevention in people with Spinal Cord Injury (SCI).MethodsPhase I included item development, content and face validity testing. In phase II, the questionnaire was evaluated for preliminary acceptability, reliability and validity among 48 wheelchair users with SCI.ResultsThirty-seven items were initially explored. Item and factor analysis resulted in a final 26-item questionnaire with four factors reflecting concordance, perceived benefits, perceived negative consequences, and personal practical barriers to performing pressure-relief activities. The internal consistency reliability for four domains were very good (Cronbach's α = 0.75-.89). Pearson correlation coefficient on a test-retest of the same subjects yielded significant correlations in concordance (r² = 0.91, p = .005), perceived benefit (r² = 0.71, p < .04), perceived negative consequences (r² = 0.98, p < .0001), personal barriers (r² = 0.93, p= .002). Participants with higher levels of concordance reported a greater amount of pressure-relieving performed. Individuals viewing PrU as a threatening illness were associated with higher scores of concordance and tended to report a greater amount of pressure-relieving performance which provides evidence of criterion related validity.ConclusionThe new questionnaire demonstrated good preliminary reliability and validity in people with SCI. Further evaluation is necessary to confirm these findings using larger samples with follow-up data for predictive validity. Such a questionnaire could be used by clinicians to identify high risk of patients and to design individualised education programme for PrU prevention.