Effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Issue 2 (March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lovegrove, Josephine; Fulbrook, Paul; Miles, Sandra; Steele, Michael
• Is Part Of: Australian critical care. Volume 35:Issue 2(2022)
• Page Start: 186
• Page End: 203
• Publication Date: 2022-03
• Subjects: Critical care -- Critical care nursing -- Intensive care units -- Intervention trials -- Meta-analysis -- Nursing -- Nursing interventions -- Pressure ulcer -- Pressure injury -- Systematic review; Intensive care nursing -- Periodicals; Intensive care nursing -- Australia -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 616.028
• DOI: 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.04.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1036-7314

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. Review method used: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources: Five databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched in mid-2019. Searches were updated (in April 2020) to year end 2019. Review methods: From an overarching systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of pressure injury preventative interventions in adults admitted to acute hospital settings, trials conducted in intensive care were separated for an intensive care–specific synthesis. Two reviewers, with a third as an arbitrator, undertook study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Included trials were grouped by intervention type for narrative synthesis and for random-effects meta-analysis using intention-to-treat data where appropriate. Results: Overall, 26 trials were included. Ten intervention types were found (support surfaces, prophylactic dressings, positioning, topical preparations, continence management, endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, noninvasive ventilation masks, and bundled interventions). All trials, except one, were at high or unclear risk of bias. Four intervention types (endotracheal tube securement, heel protection devices, medication, and noninvasive ventilation masks) comprised single trials. Support surface trials were limited to type (active, reactive, seating, other). Meta-analysis was undertaken for reactive surfaces, but the intervention effect was not significant (risk ratio = 0.24, p = 0.12, I 2 = 51%). Meta-analyses demonstrated the effectiveness of sacral (risk ratio = 0.22, p < 0.001, I 2 = 0%) and heel (risk ratio = 0.31, p = 0.02; I 2 = 0%) prophylactic dressings for pressure injury prevention. Conclusions: Only prophylactic sacral and heel dressings demonstrated effectiveness in preventing pressure injury in adults admitted to intensive care settings. Further intensive care–specific trials are required across all intervention types. To minimise bias, we recommend that all future trials are conducted and reported as per relevant guidelines and recommendations.