The incidence and prevalence of medical device-related pressure ulcers in intensive care: a systematic review

Objective: The objective of this review was to synthesise the literature and evaluate the incidence, prevalence and severity of medical device-related pressure ulcers (MDRPU) in adult intensive care patients. Method: Electronic databases and additional grey literature were searched for publications between 2000 and 2017. Outcome measures included cumulative incidence or incidence rate, point prevalence or period prevalence as a primary outcome and the severity and location of the pressure ulcer (PU) as secondary outcome measures. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a nine-item checklist for prevalence studies. The heterogeneity was evaluated using 12 statistic. Results: We included 13 studies in this review. Prevalence was reported more frequently than incidence. Pooled data demonstrated a high variation in the incidence and prevalence rates ranging from 0.9% to 41.2% in incidence and 1.4% to 121% in prevalence. Heterogeneity was high. Mucosal pressure injuries were the most common stage reported in the incidence studies whereas category II followed by category I were most commonly reported in the prevalence studies. In the incidence studies, the most common location was the ear and in the prevalence studies it was the nose. Conclusion: While MDRPU are common in intensive care patients, it is an understudied area. Inconsistency in the staging of MDRPU, along with variations in data collection methods, study design and reporting affect the reported incidence and prevalence rates. Standardisation of data reporting and collection method is essential for pooling of future studies.

Download Full-text

Medical Device–Related Pressure Ulcers and Intensive Care Patients

Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing ◽

10.1016/j.jopan.2015.05.004 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 30 (4) ◽

pp. 336-337 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Mary Beth Flynn Makic

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care ◽

Medical Device ◽

Pressure Ulcers ◽

Intensive Care Patients

Download Full-text

Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers and risk of hospital mortality in intensive care patients on mechanical ventilation

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice ◽

10.1111/jep.12137 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 20 (4) ◽

pp. 362-368 ◽

Cited By ~ 25

Author(s):

Francisco Manzano ◽

Ana M. Pérez-Pérez ◽

Susana Martínez-Ruiz ◽

Cristina Garrido-Colmenero ◽

Delphine Roldan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Pressure Ulcers ◽

Intensive Care Patients ◽

Hospital Acquired

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Diltiazem for the Control of Blood Pressure in Puerperal Patients with Severe Preeclampsia: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Controlled Trial

International Journal of Hypertension ◽

10.1155/2020/5347918 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Gilberto Arias-Hernández ◽

Cruz Vargas-De-León ◽

Claudia C Calzada-Mendoza ◽

María Esther Ocharan-Hernández

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Intensive Care Unit ◽

Heart Rate ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Repeated Measures ◽

Severe Preeclampsia ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Control Group ◽

Single Blind

Background. Postpartum preeclampsia is a serious disease related to high blood pressure that occurs commonly within the first six days after delivery. Objective. To evaluate if diltiazem improves blood pressure parameters in early puerperium patients with severe preeclampsia. Methodology. A randomized, single-blind longitudinal clinical trial of 42 puerperal patients with severe preeclampsia was carried out. Patients were randomized into two groups: the experimental group (n = 21) received diltiazem (60 mg) and the control group (n = 21) received nifedipine (10 mg). Both drugs were orally administered every 8 hours. Systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressures as well as the heart rate were recorded and analyzed (two-way repeated measures ANOVA) at baseline and after 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, and 48 hours. Primary outcome measures were all the aforementioned blood pressure parameters. Secondary outcome measures included the number of hypertension and hypotension episodes along with the length of stay in the intensive care unit. Results. No statistical differences were found between groups (diltiazem vs. nifedipine) regarding basal blood pressure parameters. Interarm differences in blood pressure (systolic, diastolic, and mean) and heart rate were statistically significant between treatment groups from 6 to 48 hours. Patients in the diltiazem group had lower blood pressure levels than patients in the nifedipine group. Significantly, patients who received diltiazem had fewer hypertension and hypotension episodes and stayed fewer days in the intensive care unit than those treated with nifedipine. Conclusions. Diltiazem controlled arterial hypertension in a more effective and uniform manner in patients under study than nifedipine. Patients treated with diltiazem had fewer collateral effects and spent less time in the hospital. This trial is registered with NCT04222855.

Download Full-text