Dataset Information

Silicone adhesive multilayer foam dressings as adjuvant prophylactic therapy to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a pragmatic noncommercial multicentre randomized open-label parallel-group medical device trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Silicone adhesive multilayer foam dressings are used as adjuvant therapy to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (PUs).

Objectives

To determine whether silicone foam dressings in addition to standard prevention reduce the incidence of PUs of category 2 or worse compared with standard prevention alone.

Methods

This was a multicentre, randomized controlled medical device trial conducted in eight Belgian hospitals. At-risk adult patients were centrally randomized (n = 1633) to study groups based on a 1 : 1 : 1 allocation: experimental groups 1 (n = 542) and 2 (n = 545) - pooled as the treatment group - and the control group (n = 546). The experimental groups received PU prevention according to hospital protocol, and a silicone foam dressing on the relevant body sites. The control group received standard of care. The primary endpoint was the incidence of a new PU of category 2 or worse at the studied body sites.

Results

In the intention-to-treat population (n = 1605), PUs of category 2 or worse occurred in 4·0% of patients in the treatment group and 6·3% in the control group [relative risk (RR) 0·64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·41-0·99, P = 0·04]. Sacral PUs were observed in 2·8% and 4·8% of the patients in the treatment group and the control group, respectively (RR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-0·98, P = 0·04). Heel PUs occurred in 1·4% and 1·9% of patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively (RR 0·76, 95% CI 0·34-1·68, P = 0·49).

Conclusions

Silicone foam dressings reduce the incidence of PUs of category 2 or worse in hospitalized at-risk patients when used in addition to standard of care. The results show a decrease for the sacrum, but no statistical difference for the heel and trochanter areas.

SUBMITTER: Beeckman D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8359283 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPressure ulcers (PrUs) are ischemic wounds in the skin and underlying tissues caused by long-standing pressure force over an external bone or cartilaginous surface. PrUs are an important challenge for the overall health system because can prolong patient hospitalization and reduce quality of life. Moreover, 95% of PrUs are avoidable, suggesting they are caused by poor quality care assistance. PrUs are also costly, increasing national costs. For example, they represent about 5% of overall annual health expenses in Spain. Stages I and II PrUs have a combined prevalence of 65%. According main clinical guidelines, stage II PrUs (PrU-IIs) are usually treated by applying special dressings (polyurethane or hydrocolloid). However, little scientific evidence regarding their efficacy has been identified in scientific literature. Our aim is to assess the comparative efficacy of adhesive polyurethane foam and hydrocolloid dressings in the treatment of PrU-IIs in terms of healed ulcer after 8 weeks of follow-up.Methods/designThis paper describes the development and evaluation protocol of a randomized clinical trial of two parallel treatment arms. A total of 820 patients with at least 1 PrU-II will be recruited from primary health care and home care centers. All patients will receive standardized healing procedures and preventive measures (e.g. positional changes and pressure-relieving support surfaces), following standardized procedures. The main outcome will be the percentage of wounds healed after 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include cost-effectiveness, as evaluated by cost per healed ulcer and cost per treated patient and safety evaluated by adverse events.DiscussionThis trial will address the hypothesis that hydrocolloid dressings will heal at least 10% more stage II PrUs and be more cost-effective than polyurethane foam dressings after 8 weeks.Trial registrationThis trial has been registered with controlled-trials number ISCRCTN57842461 and EudraCT 2012-003945-14.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review the evidence of effectiveness of dressings applied to venous leg ulcers.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesHand searches of journals and searches of electronic databases, conference proceedings, and bibliographies up to April 2006; contacts with dressing manufacturers for unpublished studies.Studies reviewedAll randomised controlled trials that evaluated dressings applied to venous leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. Data from eligible studies were extracted and summarised independently by two reviewers using a data extraction sheet. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two reviewers.ResultsThe search strategy identified 254 studies; 42 of these fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Hydrocolloids were no more effective than simple low adherent dressings used beneath compression (eight trials; relative risk for healing with hydrocolloid 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). For other comparisons, insufficient evidence was available to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. None of the dressing comparisons showed evidence that a particular class of dressing healed more ulcers. Some differences existed between dressings in terms of subjective outcome measures and ulcer healing rates. The results were not affected by the size or quality of trials or the unit of randomisation. Insufficient data were available to allow conclusions to be drawn about the relative cost effectiveness of different dressings.ConclusionsThe type of dressing applied beneath compression was not shown to affect ulcer healing. The results of the meta-analysis showed that applying hydrocolloid dressings beneath compression produced no benefit in terms of ulcer healing compared with applying simple low adherent dressings. No conclusive recommendations can be made as to which type of dressing is most cost effective. Decisions on which dressing to apply should be based on the local costs of dressings and the preferences of the practitioner or patient.

Project description:This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of Technology Lipido-Colloid with Nano Oligo Saccharide Factor (TLC-NOSF) wound dressings versus neutral dressings in the management of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) from a French collective perspective. We used a Markov microsimulation cohort model to simulate the DFU monthly progression over the lifetime horizon. Our study employed a mixed method design with model inputs including data from interventional and observational studies, French databases and expert opinion. The demographic characteristics of the simulated population and clinical efficacy were based on the EXPLORER double-blind randomized controlled trial. Health-related quality of life, costs, and resource use inputs were taken from the literature relevant to the French context. The main outcomes included life-years without DFU (LYsw/DFU), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), amputations, and lifetime costs. To assess the robustness of the results, sensitivity and subgroup analyses based on the wound duration at treatment initiation were performed. Treatment with the TLC-NOSF dressing led to total cost savings per patient of EUR 35,489, associated with gains of 0.50 LYw/DFU and 0.16 QALY. TLC-NOSF dressings were established as the dominant strategy in the base case and all sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, the model revealed that, for every 100 patients treated with TLC-NOSF dressings, two amputations could be avoided. According to the subgroup analysis results, the sooner the TLC-NOSF treatment was initiated, the better were the outcomes, with the highest benefits for ulcers with a duration of two months or less (+0.65 LYw/DFU, +0.23 QALY, and cost savings of EUR 55,710). The results from the French perspective are consistent with the ones from the German and British perspectives. TLC-NOSF dressings are cost-saving compared to neutral dressings, leading to an increase in patients' health benefits and a decrease in the associated treatment costs. These results can thus be used to guide healthcare decisionmakers. The potential savings could represent EUR 3,345 per treated patient per year and even reach EUR 4,771 when TLC-NOSF dressings are used as first line treatment. The EXPLORER trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717183.