Madhuri Reddy1, Sudeep S Gill, Paula A Rochon. 1. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. madhuri.reddy@sw.ca
Abstract
CONTEXT: Pressure ulcers are common in a variety of patient settings and are associated with adverse health outcomes and high treatment costs. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence examining interventions to prevent pressure ulcers. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from inception through June 2006) and Cochrane databases (through issue 1, 2006) were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations, ISI Web of Science, and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts were also searched. All searches used the terms pressure ulcer, pressure sore, decubitus, bedsore, prevention, prophylactic, reduction, randomized, and clinical trials. Bibliographies of identified articles were further reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-nine RCTs were selected. Interventions assessed in these studies were grouped into 3 categories, ie, those addressing impairments in mobility, nutrition, or skin health. Methodological quality for the RCTs was variable and generally suboptimal. Effective strategies that addressed impaired mobility included the use of support surfaces, mattress overlays on operating tables, and specialized foam and specialized sheepskin overlays. While repositioning is a mainstay in most pressure ulcer prevention protocols, there is insufficient evidence to recommend specific turning regimens for patients with impaired mobility. In patients with nutritional impairments, dietary supplements may be beneficial. The incremental benefit of specific topical agents over simple moisturizers for patients with impaired skin health is unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Given current evidence, using support surfaces, repositioning the patient, optimizing nutritional status, and moisturizing sacral skin are appropriate strategies to prevent pressure ulcers. Although a number of RCTs have evaluated preventive strategies for pressure ulcers, many of them had important methodological limitations. There is a need for well-designed RCTs that follow standard criteria for reporting nonpharmacological interventions and that provide data on cost-effectiveness for these interventions.
CONTEXT: Pressure ulcers are common in a variety of patient settings and are associated with adverse health outcomes and high treatment costs. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence examining interventions to prevent pressure ulcers. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (from inception through June 2006) and Cochrane databases (through issue 1, 2006) were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). UMI Proquest Digital Dissertations, ISI Web of Science, and Cambridge Scientific Abstracts were also searched. All searches used the terms pressure ulcer, pressure sore, decubitus, bedsore, prevention, prophylactic, reduction, randomized, and clinical trials. Bibliographies of identified articles were further reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-nine RCTs were selected. Interventions assessed in these studies were grouped into 3 categories, ie, those addressing impairments in mobility, nutrition, or skin health. Methodological quality for the RCTs was variable and generally suboptimal. Effective strategies that addressed impaired mobility included the use of support surfaces, mattress overlays on operating tables, and specialized foam and specialized sheepskin overlays. While repositioning is a mainstay in most pressure ulcer prevention protocols, there is insufficient evidence to recommend specific turning regimens for patients with impaired mobility. In patients with nutritional impairments, dietary supplements may be beneficial. The incremental benefit of specific topical agents over simple moisturizers for patients with impaired skin health is unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Given current evidence, using support surfaces, repositioning the patient, optimizing nutritional status, and moisturizing sacral skin are appropriate strategies to prevent pressure ulcers. Although a number of RCTs have evaluated preventive strategies for pressure ulcers, many of them had important methodological limitations. There is a need for well-designed RCTs that follow standard criteria for reporting nonpharmacological interventions and that provide data on cost-effectiveness for these interventions.
Authors: Sookyung Hyun; Xiaobai Li; Brenda Vermillion; Cheryl Newton; Monica Fall; Pacharmon Kaewprag; Susan Moffatt-Bruce; Elizabeth R Lenz Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Katarzyna Skórkowska-Telichowska; Anna Kulma; Magdalena Zuk; Tadeusz Czuj; Jan Szopa Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: David Brienza; Sheryl Kelsey; Patricia Karg; Ana Allegretti; Marian Olson; Mark Schmeler; Jeanne Zanca; Mary Jo Geyer; Marybeth Kusturiss; Margo Holm Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: M C Fleisch; D Bremerich; W Schulte-Mattler; A Tannen; A T Teichmann; W Bader; K Balzer; S P Renner; T Römer; S Roth; F Schütz; M Thill; H Tinneberg; K Zarras Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Giovanni Marfia; Stefania Elena Navone; Clara Di Vito; Nicola Ughi; Silvia Tabano; Monica Miozzo; Carlo Tremolada; Gianni Bolla; Chiara Crotti; Francesca Ingegnoli; Paolo Rampini; Laura Riboni; Roberta Gualtierotti; Rolando Campanella Journal: Organogenesis Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Cynthia A Fleck; Laurie M Rappl; Richard Simman; Virginia Titterington; Jill Conwill; Cathy Koerner; Pam Locke; Dawn Bechtold; Cathie Papantonio; Deborah P Gray; Kathleen Lawrence Journal: J Am Col Certif Wound Spec Date: 2010-03-21