Repositioning for pressure injury prevention in adults

BACKGROUND: A pressure injury (PI), also referred to as a 'pressure ulcer', or 'bedsore', is an area of localised tissue damage caused by unrelieved pressure, friction, or shearing on any part of the body. Immobility is a major risk factor and manual repositioning a common prevention strategy. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of repositioning regimens(i.e. repositioning schedules and patient positions) on the prevention of PI in adults regardless of risk in any setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus on 12 February 2019. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies.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 SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials (c-RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PI incidence in adults in any setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five additional trials and one economic substudy in this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of eight trials involving 3941 participants from acute and long-term care settings and two economic substudies in the review. Six studies reported the proportion of participants developing PI of any stage. Two of the eight trials reported within-trial cost evaluations. Follow-up periods were short (24 hours to 21 days). All studies were at high risk of bias. Funding sources were reported in five trials. Primary outcomes: proportion of new PI of any stage Repositioning frequencies: three trials compared different repositioning frequencies We pooled data from three trials (1074 participants) comparing 2-hourly with 4-hourly repositioning frequencies (fixed-effect; I² = 45%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.41). It is uncertain whether 2-hourly repositioning compared with 4-hourly repositioning used in conjunction with any support surface increases or decreases the incidence of PI. The certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, downgraded twice for risk of bias, and once for imprecision. One of these trials had three arms (967 participants) comparing 2-hourly, 3-hourly, and 4-hourly repositioning regimens on high-density mattresses; data for one comparison was included in the pooled analysis. Another comparison was based on 2-hourly versus 3-hourly repositioning. The RR for PI incidence was 4.06 (95% CI 0.87 to 18.98). The third study comparison was based on 3-hourly versus 4-hourly repositioning (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92). The certainty of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision. In one c-RCT, 262 participants in 32 ward clusters were randomised between 2-hourly and 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattresses and 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic mattresses. The RR for PI with 2-hourly repositioning compared with 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattress is imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16; very low-certainty evidence). The CI for PI include both a large reduction and no difference for the comparison of 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02). The certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded twice due to high risk of bias, and once for imprecision. Positioning regimens: four trials compared different tilt positions We pooled data from two trials (252 participants) that compared a 30° tilt with a 90° tilt (random-effects; I² = 69%). There was no clear difference in the incidence of stage 1 or 2 PI. The effect of tilt is uncertain because the certainty of evidence is very low (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97), downgraded due to serious design limitations and very serious imprecision. One trial involving 120 participants compared 30° tilt and 45° tilt with 'usual care' and reported no occurrence of PI events (low certainty evidence). Another trial involving 116 ICU patients compared prone with the usual supine positioning for PI. Reporting was incomplete and this is low certainty evidence. Secondary outcomes No studies reported health-related quality of life utility scores, procedural pain, or patient satisfaction. Cost analysis Two included trials also performed economic analyses. A cost-minimisation analysis compared the costs of 3-hourly and 4-hourly repositioning with 2-hourly repositioning schedule amongst nursing home residents. The cost of repositioning was estimated at CAD 11.05 and CAD 16.74 less per resident per day for the 3-hourly or 4-hourly regimen, respectively, compared with the 2-hourly regimen. The estimates of economic benefit were driven mostly by the value of freed nursing time. The analysis assumed that 2-, 3-, or 4-hourly repositioning is associated with a similar incidence of PI, as no difference in incidence was observed. A second study compared the nursing time cost of 3-hourly repositioning using a 30° tilt with standard care (6-hourly repositioning with a 90° lateral rotation) amongst nursing home residents. The intervention was reported to be cost-saving compared with standard care (nursing time cost per patient EUR 206.60 versus EUR 253.10, incremental difference EUR -46.50, 95% CI EUR -1.25 to EUR -74.60). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the addition of five trials, the results of this update are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty. There remains a lack of robust evaluations of repositioning frequency and positioning for PI prevention and uncertainty about their effectiveness. Since all comparisons were underpowered, there is a high level of uncertainty in the evidence base. Given the limited data from economic evaluations, it remains unclear whether repositioning every three hours using the 30° tilt versus "usual care" (90° tilt) or repositioning 3-to-4-hourly versus 2-hourly is less costly relative to nursing time

In Vivo Evaluation of the Biocompatibility of Surface Modified Hemodialysis Polysulfone Hollow Fibers in Rat

Polysulfone (Psf) hollow fiber membranes (HFMs) have been widely used in blood purification but their biocompatibility remains a concern. To enhance their biocompatibility, Psf/TPGS (d-α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate) composite HFMs and 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) coated Psf HFMs have been prepared. They have been evaluated for in vivo biocompatibility and graft acceptance and compared with sham and commercial membranes by intra-peritoneal implantation in rats at day 7 and 21. Normal body weights, tissue formation and angiogenesis indicate acceptance of implants by the animals. Hematological observations show presence of post-surgical stress which subsides over time. Serum biochemistry results reveal normal organ function and elevated liver ALP levels at day 21. Histological studies exhibit fibroblast recruitment cells, angiogenesis and collagen deposition at the implant surface indicating new tissue formation. Immuno-histochemistry studies show non-activation of MHC molecules signifying biocompatibilty. Additionally, Psf/TPGS exhibit most favorable tissue response as compared with other HFMs making them the material of choice for HFM preparation for hemodialysis applications

The effect of starch-based biomaterials on leukocyte adhesion and activation in vitro

Leukocyte adhesion to biomaterials has long been recognised as a key element to determine their inflammatory potential. Results regarding leukocyte adhesion and activation are contradictory in some aspects of the material’s effect in determining these events. It is clear that together with the wettability or hydrophilicity/hydrophobicity, the roughness of a substrate has a major effect on leukocyte adhesion. Both the chemical and physical properties of a material influence the adsorbed proteins layer which in turn determines the adhesion of cells. In this work polymorphonuclear (PMN) cells and a mixed population of monocytes/macrophages and lymphocytes (mononuclear cells) were cultured separately with a range of starch-based materials and composites with hydroxyapatite (HA). A combination of both reflected light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used in order to study the leukocyte morphology. The quantification of the enzyme lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) was used to determine the number of viable cells adhered to the polymers. Cell adhesion and activation was characterised by immunocytochemistry based on the expression of several adhesion molecules, crucial in the progress of an inflammatory response. This work supports previous in vitro studies with PMN and monocytes/macrophages, which demonstrated that there are several properties of the materials that can influence and determine their biological response. From our study, monocytes/macrophages and lymphocytes adhere in similar amounts to more hydrophobic (SPCL) and to moderately hydrophilic (SEVA-C) surfaces and do not preferentially adhere to rougher substrates (SCA). Contrarily, more hydrophilic surfaces (SCA) induced higher PMN adhesion and lower activation. In addition, the hydroxyapatite reinforcement induces changes in cell behaviour for some materials but not for others. The observed response to starch-based biodegradable polymers was not significantly different from the control materials. Thus, the results reported herein indicate the low potential of the starch-based biodegradable polymers to induce inflammation especially the HA reinforced composite materials

Non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis: a consensus of the Belgian Bone Club

This consensus article reviews the various aspects of the non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis, including the effects of nutriments, physical exercise, lifestyle, fall prevention, and hip protectors. Vertebroplasty is also briefly reviewed. Non-pharmacological management of osteoporosis is a broad concept. It must be viewed as an essential part of the prevention of fractures from childhood through adulthood and the old age. The topic also includes surgical procedures for the treatment of peripheral and vertebral fractures and the post-fracture rehabilitation. The present document is the result of a consensus, based on a systematic review and a critical appraisal of the literature. Diets deficient in calcium, proteins or vitamin D impair skeletal integrity. The effect of other nutriments is less clear, although an excessive consumption of sodium, caffeine, or fibres exerts negative effects on calcium balance. The deleterious effects of tobacco, excessive alcohol consumption and a low BMI are well accepted. Physical activity is of primary importance to reach optimal peak bone mass but, if numerous studies have shown the beneficial effects of various types of exercise on bone mass, fracture data as an endpoint are scanty. Fall prevention strategies are especially efficient in the community setting, but less evidence is available about their effectiveness in preventing fall-related injuries and fractures. The efficacy of hip protectors remains controversial. This is also true for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Several randomized controlled studies had reported a short-term advantage of vertebroplasty over medical treatment for pain relief, but these findings have been questioned by recent sham-controlled randomized clinical studies