Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Semuloparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after major orthopedic surgery: Results from three randomized clinical trials, SAVE-HIP1, SAVE-HIP2 and SAVE-KNEE

Background: Semuloparin is a novel ultra-low-molecular-weight heparin under development for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in patients at increased risk, such as surgical and cancer patients. Objectives: Three Phase III studies compared semuloparin and enoxaparin after major orthopedic surgery: elective knee replacement (SAVE-KNEE), elective hip replacement (SAVE-HIP1) and hip fracture surgery (SAVE-HIP2). Patients/Methods: All studies were multinational, randomized and double-blind. Semuloparin and enoxaparin were administered for 7-10days after surgery. Mandatory bilateral venography was to be performed between days 7 and 11. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of any deep vein thrombosis, non-fatal pulmonary embolism or all-cause death. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding, and any clinically relevant bleeding (major bleeding plus CRNM). Results: In total, 1150, 2326 and 1003 patients were randomized in SAVE-KNEE, SAVE-HIP1 and SAVE-HIP2, respectively. In all studies, the incidences of the primary efficacy endpoint were numerically lower in the semuloparin group vs. the enoxaparin group, but the difference was statistically significant only in SAVE-HIP1. In SAVE-HIP1, clinically relevant bleeding and major bleeding were significantly lower in the semuloparin vs. the enoxaparin group. In SAVE-KNEE and SAVE-HIP2, clinically relevant bleeding tended to be higher in the semuloparin group, but rates of major bleeding were similar in the two groups. Other safety parameters were generally similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: Semuloparin was superior to enoxaparin for VTE prevention after hip replacement surgery, but failed to demonstrate superiority after knee replacement surgery and hip fracture surgery. Semuloparin and enoxaparin exhibited generally similar safety profiles. \ua9 2012 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis