Author:
Cortés Olga L.,Herrera Victor M.,Salazar Luz D.,Rojas Yudy A.,Esparza Maribel,Taborda Alejandra,Dennis Rodolfo José
Abstract
AbstractIt is uncertain whether hydrocolloid dressings, a more costly intervention than offering standard care with petrolatum, is superior to prevent pressure ulcers among hospitalized high-risk adults. Randomized, parallel-group, open-label, superiority trial with an active control group, blinded for investigators, event validators, and analysts (December 1, 2015 to December 12, 2017). Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years of age with intact skin judged as high-risk for skin ulcers (Braden scale), admitted to surgical or medical wards of two tertiary-level hospitals. Participants were randomized (1:1) to protection with hydrocolloid dressings or petrolatum. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of pressure ulcers (with post-injury photographs adjudicated by three judges) under intention-to-treat analysis. Based on prior cost analysis, and the available resources (assumed incidence of 6 ulcers/1000 patient-days in controls), inclusion of up to 1500 participants allowed to surpass a one-sided superiority threshold > 5% based on a target efficacy > 40% for dressings. We planned an economic analysis using a decision tree model based on the effectiveness of the study results from a perspective of the third payer of health care. After inclusion of 689 patients (69 events), the trial was stopped for futility after a planned interim analysis (conditional power < 0.1 for all scenarios if the trial was completed). Pressure ulcers had occurred in 34 (10.2%) patients in the intervention group [9.6 per 1000 patient-days] and 35 (9.9%) participants in the control group [7.9 per 1000 patient-days], HR = 1.07 [95% CI 0.67 to 1.71]. The estimated incremental cost for dressings (a dominated strategy) was USD 52.11 per patient. Using hydrocolloid dressings was found similar to petrolatum for preventing pressure ulcers among hospitalized high-risk patients. As it conveys additional costs, and in this study was unlikely to demonstrate enough superiority, this strategy did not overcome conventional skin care.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02565745 registered on December 1, 2015.
Funder
Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Minciencias
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference38 articles.
1. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury, Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Quick Reference Guide. (ed. Haesler, E.). EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA; http://www.internationalguideline.com/static/pdfs/Quick_Reference_Guide-10Mar2019.pdf.
2. Mervis, J. S. & Phillips, T. J. Pressure ulcers: Pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors, and presentation. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 81(4), 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.069 (2019) (Epub 2019 Jan 18).
3. Al Mutairi, K. B. & Hendrie, D. Global incidence and prevalence of pressure injuries in public hospitals: A systematic review. Wound Med. 22, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wndm.2018.05.004 (2018).
4. Li, Z., Lin, F., Thalib, L. & Chaboyer, W. Global prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries in hospitalised adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 105, 103546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103546 (2020) (Epub 2020 Jan 31).
5. Hajhosseini, B., Longaker, M. T. & Gurtner, G. C. Pressure injury. Ann. Surg. 271(4), 671–679. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003567 (2020).