The effect of prophylactic silicone dressings on the incidence of pressure injuries on patients in the acute care setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: To explore the effect of silicone dressings on the prevention of pressure injuries in patients cared for in the acute care setting. Three main comparisons were explored: silicone dressing versus no dressing, all anatomical areas; silicone dressing versus no dressing on the sacrum; and silicone dressing versus no dressing on the heels. Methods: Using a systematic review methodology, published randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials were included. The search was conducted from December 2020 to January 2021 using CINAHL, full text on EBSCOhost, MEDLINE on EBSCOhost, and Cochrane databases. The search returned 130 studies; 10 met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a predesigned extraction tool. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence was appraised using a software program specifically designed for this purpose. Results: Silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries compared to no dressings (relative risk [RR]: 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.53; moderate certainty evidence). Furthermore, silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries on the sacrum compared to no dressings (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.62; moderate certainty evidence). Finally, silicone dressings probably reduce the incidence of pressure injuries on the heels compared to no dressings (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.31-0.62; moderate certainty evidence). Conclusion: There is moderate certainty evidence of the effect of silicone dressings as a component of a pressure injury prevention strategy. The main limiting factor in the study designs was a high risk of performance and detection bias. Although this is a challenge to achieve in trials such as these, consideration should be given to how the effect of this could be minimized. A further issue is the lack of head-to-head trials that limits clinicians' abilities to determine whether any of the products in this category are more effective than others.</p

Pressure ulcers in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing prone positioning in the intensive care unit: a pre- and post-intervention study

Background: Prone positioning has been widely used to improve oxygenation and reduce ventilator-induced lung injury in patients with severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). One major complication associated with prone positioning is the development of pressure ulcers (PUs). Aim: This study aimed to determine the impact of a prevention care bundle on the incidence of PUs in patients with COVID-19 ARDS undergoing prone positioning in the intensive care unit. Study design: This was a single-centre pre and post-test intervention study which adheres to the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) guidelines. The intervention included a care bundle addressing the following: increasing frequency of head turns, use of an open gel head ring, application of prophylactic dressings to bony prominences, use of a pressure redistribution air mattress, education of staff in the early identification of evolving PUs through regular and rigorous skin inspection and engaging in bedside training sessions with nursing and medical staff. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of PU development. The secondary outcomes of interest were severity of PU development and the anatomical location of the PUs. Results: In the pre-intervention study, 20 patients were included and 80% (n = 16) of these patients developed PUs, comprising 34 ulcers in total. In the post-intervention study, a further 20 patients were included and 60% (n = 12) of these patients developed PUs, comprising 32 ulcers in total. This marks a 25% reduction in the number of patients developing a PU, and a 6% decrease in the total number of PUs observed. Grade II PUs were the most prevalent in both study groups (65%, n = 22; 88%, n = 28, respectively). In the post-intervention study, there was a reduction in the incidence of grade III and deep tissue injuries (pre-intervention 6%, n = 2 grade III, 6% n = 2 deep tissue injuries; post-intervention no grade III ulcers, grade IV ulcers, or deep tissues injuries were recorded). However, there was an increase in the number of unstageable PUs in the post-intervention group with 6% (n = 2) of PUs being classified as unstageable, meanwhile there were no unstageable PUs in the pre-intervention group. This is an important finding to consider as unstageable PUs can indicate deep tissue damage and therefore need to be considered alongside PUs of a more severe grade (grade III, grade IV, and deep tissue injuries). Conclusion: The use of a new evidence-based care bundle for the prevention of PUs in the management of patients in the prone position has the potential to reduce the incidence of PU development. Although improvements were observed following alterations to standard practice, further research is needed to validate these findings. Relevance to clinical practice: The use of a new, evidence-based care bundle in the management of patients in the prone position has the potential to reduce the incidence of PUs.</p

Assessing the healthcare costs associated with venous leg ulcer compression bandages - a scoping review

Aim: To determine the monetary costs identified in economic evaluations of treatment with compression bandages among adults with venous leg ulcers (VLU). Method: A scoping review of existing publications was conducted in February 2023. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. To place the costs of treatment into context, these are reported in conjunction with the healing rates. Three comparisons were made: 1.4 layer compression versus no compression (3 studies). One study reported that 4 layer compression was more expensive than usual care (£804.03 vs £681.04, respectively), while the 2 other studies reported the converse (£145 vs £162, respectively) and all costs (£116.87 vs £240.28 respectively). Within the three studies, the odds of healing were statistically significantly greater with 4 layer bandaging (OR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.54-3.15; p = 0.001).; 2.4 layer compression versus other compression (6 studies). For the three studies reporting the mean costs per patient associated with treatment (bandages alone), over the treatment period, analysis identified a mean difference (MD) in costs for 4 layer vs comparator 1 (2 layer compression, short-stretch compression, 2 layer compression hosiery, 2 layer cohesive compression, 2 layer compression) of -41.60 (95% CI: 91.40 to 8.20; p = 0.10). The OR of healing for 4 layer compression vs comparator 1 (2 layer compression, short-stretch compression, 2 layer compression hosiery, 2 layer cohesive compression, 2 layer compression) is: 0.70 (95% CI: 0.57-0.85; p = 0.004). For 4 layer vs comparator 2 (2 layer compression) the MD is: 14.00 (95% CI: 53.66 to -25.66; p Conclusion: The results for the analysis of costs varied across the included studies. As with the primary outcome, the results indicated that the costs of compression therapy are inconsistent. Given the methodological heterogeneity among studies, future studies in this area are needed and these should use specific methodological guidelines to generate high-quality health economic studies.</p