Use of a hydrocolloid dressing (HCD) is generally recommended to help prevent pressure ulcers (PUs) in high-risk patients, including ulcers caused by noninvasive ventilation (NIV). PURPOSE: The study was conducted to compare the effect of preventive use of HCD to other methods in the rate of facial PUs caused by NIV. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data were searched from date of index inception to August 2018 without language restrictions to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared HCD use to other NIV-related PU prevention measures. Publications were systematically reviewed, data were extracted, and study quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PU incidence in patients using HCD versus patients managed with gauze or standard skin care procedures (control) were calculated using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: The search yielded 80 publications; 40 met the study criteria for full-text and 22 met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria (total study participants = 2519). Patients who used a HCD (n = 1260) had a significantly decreased incidence of PU (OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.11-0.20) compared with control group patients (n = 1259). Subgroup analysis by age showed a lower incidence in children (OR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01-0.81) and adults (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.12-0.22) in the HCD group than in the control group. PU incidence using HCD was lower compared to gauze (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.10-0.28) and regular skin care (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.09-0.19). Funnel plot diagrams suggested a risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis using a random-effects model did not change the result of the main meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Using a HCD significantly decreased the incidence of facial PUs caused by NIV. Additional high-quality, prospective research to confirm the effectiveness of HCD in preventing NIV-related PUs is warranted.
Use of a hydrocolloid dressing (HCD) is generally recommended to help prevent pressure ulcers (PUs) in high-risk patients, including ulcers caused by noninvasive ventilation (NIV). PURPOSE: The study was conducted to compare the effect of preventive use of HCD to other methods in the rate of facial PUs caused by NIV. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data were searched from date of index inception to August 2018 without language restrictions to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared HCD use to other NIV-related PU prevention measures. Publications were systematically reviewed, data were extracted, and study quality was assessed using the Jadad scale. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PU incidence in patients using HCD versus patients managed with gauze or standard skin care procedures (control) were calculated using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: The search yielded 80 publications; 40 met the study criteria for full-text and 22 met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria (total study participants = 2519). Patients who used a HCD (n = 1260) had a significantly decreased incidence of PU (OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.11-0.20) compared with control group patients (n = 1259). Subgroup analysis by age showed a lower incidence in children (OR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01-0.81) and adults (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.12-0.22) in the HCD group than in the control group. PU incidence using HCD was lower compared to gauze (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.10-0.28) and regular skin care (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.09-0.19). Funnel plot diagrams suggested a risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis using a random-effects model did not change the result of the main meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Using a HCD significantly decreased the incidence of facial PUs caused by NIV. Additional high-quality, prospective research to confirm the effectiveness of HCD in preventing NIV-related PUs is warranted.
Authors: William V Padula; Janet Cuddigan; Lee Ruotsi; Joyce M Black; David Brienza; Virginia Capasso; Jill Cox; Barbara Delmore; Sarah Holden-Mount; Nancy Munoz; Ann Marie Nie; Joyce Pittman; Sharon E Sonenblum; Ann Tescher Journal: J Clin Nurs Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 4.423