Effect of supplements/intensive nutrition on pressure ulcer healing: a multicentre, randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of an intensive nutrition intervention or use of wound healing supplements compared with standard nutritional care in pressure ulcer (PU) healing in hospitalised patients. METHOD: Adult patients with a Stage II or greater PU and predicted length of stay (LOS) of at least seven days were eligible for inclusion in this pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Patients with a PU were randomised to receive either: standard nutritional care (n=46); intensive nutritional care delivered by a dietitian (n=42); or standard care plus provision of a wound healing nutritional formula (n=43). Relevant nutritional and PU parameters were collected at baseline and then weekly or until discharge. RESULTS: Of the 546 patients screened, 131 were included in the study. Participant mean age was 66.1±16.9 years, 75 (57.2%) were male and 50 (38.5%) were malnourished at recruitment. Median length of stay was 14 (IQR: 7-25) days and 62 (46.7%) had ≥2 PUs at the time of recruitment. Median change from baseline to day 14 in PU area was -0.75cm2 (IQR: -2.9_-0.03) and mean overall change in Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) score was -2.9 (SD 3.2). Being in the nutrition intervention group was not a predictor of change in PUSH score, when adjusted for PU stage or location on recruitment (p=0.28); it was not a predictor of PU area at day 14, when adjusted for PU stage or area on recruitment (p=0.89) or PU stage and PUSH score on recruitment (p=0.91), nor a predictor of time to heal. CONCLUSION: This study failed to confirm a significant positive impact on PU healing of use of an intensive nutrition intervention or wound healing supplements in hospitalised patients. Further research that focuses on practical mechanisms to meet protein and energy requirements is needed to guide practice.

Effect of infusion set replacement intervals on catheter-related bloodstream infections (RSVP): a randomised, controlled, equivalence (central venous access device)-non-inferiority (peripheral arterial catheter) trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of infusion set use to prevent life-threatening catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) is unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and costs of 7-day (intervention) versus 4-day (control) infusion set replacement to prevent CRBSI in patients with central venous access devices (tunnelled cuffed, non-tunnelled, peripherally inserted, and totally implanted) and peripheral arterial catheters. METHODS: We did a randomised, controlled, assessor-masked trial at ten Australian hospitals. Our hypothesis was CRBSI equivalence for central venous access devices and non-inferiority for peripheral arterial catheters (both 2% margin). Adults and children with expected greater than 24 h central venous access device-peripheral arterial catheter use were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by hospital, catheter type, and intensive care unit or ward) by a centralised, web-based service (concealed before allocation) to infusion set replacement every 7 days, or 4 days. This included crystalloids, non-lipid parenteral nutrition, and medication infusions. Patients and clinicians were not masked, but the primary outcome (CRBSI) was adjudicated by masked infectious diseases physicians. The analysis was modified intention to treat (mITT). This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000505000 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec, 9, 2016, from 6007 patients assessed, we assigned 2944 patients to 7-day (n=1463) or 4-day (n=1481) infusion set replacement, with 2941 in the mITT analysis. For central venous access devices, 20 (1·78%) of 1124 patients (7-day group) and 16 (1·46%) of 1097 patients (4-day group) had CRBSI (absolute risk difference [ARD] 0·32%, 95% CI -0·73 to 1·37). For peripheral arterial catheters, one (0·28%) of 357 patients in the 7-day group and none of 363 patients in the 4-day group had CRBSI (ARD 0·28%, -0·27% to 0·83%). There were no treatment-related adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Infusion set use can be safely extended to 7 days with resultant cost and workload reductions. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Peripheral intravenous catheter non-infectious complications in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize and quantify peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications. DESIGN: This systematic review is reported by means of the Cochrane process for randomized controlled trials and the Meta-analysis of Observation Studies in Epidemiology for cohort studies. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the reference list of included studies were searched from 2000 -April 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Using a purpose designed data extraction tool, two authors independently identified studies for full review, data extraction and quality assessment. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled after Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation using random-effects meta-analysis; estimates of heterogeneity were taken from inverse-variance fixed-effect models. RESULTS: Seventy observational studies and 33 randomized controlled trials were included (76,977 catheters). Peripheral intravenous catheter-related complications were as follows: phlebitis (with definition) 19.3%, phlebitis (without definition) 4.5%, infiltration/extravasation 13.7%, occlusion 8%, leakage 7.3%, pain 6.4% and dislodgement 6.0%. Subgroup analysis found infiltration/extravasation for emergency department-inserted catheters was significantly higher (25.2%; p = .022) than for those inserted in other departments and pain was significantly higher (p < .001) in countries with developing economies compared with developed economies. CONCLUSION: Peripheral intravenous catheter complications are unacceptably common worldwide. This review suggests substantial and multi-specialty efforts are needed to address the sequalae associated with complications. The potential benefits for patients and health services are considerable if complications are reduced. IMPACT: Peripheral intravenous complications interrupt important treatment which can be distressing for patients and result in longer hospital stays with increased healthcare costs. This review found phlebitis and infiltration are the most prevalent reason for catheter failure. These results provide nurses with a strong evidence base for the development of effective interventions for practice which are vital for preventing poor outcomes for patients with peripheral intravenous catheters.

Dressings and securements for the prevention of peripheral intravenous catheter failure in adults (SAVE): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Two billion peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) are used globally each year, but optimal dressing and securement methods are not well established. We aimed to compare the efficacy and costs of three alternative approaches to standard non-bordered polyurethane dressings. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority trial at two hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and required PIVC insertion for clinical treatment, which was expected to be required for longer than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) via a centralised web-based randomisation service using random block sizes, stratified by hospital, to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane dressing, bordered polyurethane dressing, a securement device with polyurethane dressing, or polyurethane dressing (control). Randomisation was concealed before allocation. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were not masked because of the nature of the intervention, but infections were adjudicated by a physician who was masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was all-cause PIVC failure (as a composite of complete dislodgement, occlusion, phlebitis, and infection [primary bloodstream infection or local infection]). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000769987. FINDINGS: Between March 18, 2013, and Sept 9, 2014, we randomly assigned 1807 patients to receive tissue adhesive with polyurethane (n=446), bordered polyurethane (n=454), securement device with polyurethane (n=453), or polyurethane (n=454); 1697 patients comprised the modified intention-to-treat population. 163 (38%) of 427 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group (absolute risk difference -4·5% [95% CI -11·1 to 2·1%], p=0·19), 169 (40%) of 423 of patients in the bordered polyurethane group (-2·7% [-9·3 to 3·9%] p=0·44), 176 (41%) of 425 patients in the securement device with poplyurethane group (-1·2% [-7·9% to 5·4%], p=0·73), and 180 (43%) of 422 patients in the polyurethane group had PIVC failure. 17 patients in the tissue adhesive with polyurethane group, two patients in the bordered polyurethane group, eight patients in the securement device with polyurethane group, and seven patients in the polyurethane group had skin adverse events. Total costs of the trial interventions did not differ significantly between groups. INTERPRETATION: Current dressing and securement methods are commonly associated with PIVC failure and poor durability, with simultaneous use of multiple products commonly required. Cost is currently the main factor that determines product choice. Innovations to achieve effective, durable dressings and securements, and randomised controlled trials assessing their effectiveness are urgently needed. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation or infection. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is the third update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral intravenous catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 18 April 2018. We also undertook reference checking, and contacted researchers and manufacturers to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of PIVC with removal only when clinically indicated, in hospitalised or community-dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently reviewed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the overall evidence certainty. MAIN RESULTS: This update contains two new trials, taking the total to nine included studies with 7412 participants. Eight trials were conducted in acute hospitals and one in a community setting. We rated the overall certainty of evidence as moderate for most outcomes, due to serious risk of bias for unblinded outcome assessment or imprecision, or both. Because outcome assessment was unblinded in all of the trials, none met our criteria for high methodological quality.Primary outcomesSeven trials (7323 participants), assessed catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). There is no clear difference in the incidence of CRBSI between the clinically indicated (1/3590) and routine change (2/3733) groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 4.68), low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for serious imprecision).All trials reported incidence of thrombophlebitis and we combined the results from seven of these in the analysis (7323 participants). We excluded two studies in the meta-analysis because they contributed to high heterogeneity. There is no clear difference in the incidence of thrombophlebitis whether catheters were changed according to clinical indication or routinely (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.25; clinically indicated 317/3590; 3-day change 307/3733, moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias). The result was unaffected by whether the infusion was continuous or intermittent. Six trials provided thrombophlebitis rates by number of device days (32,709 device days). There is no clear difference between groups (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08; clinically indicated 248/17,251; 3-day change 236/15,458; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias).One trial (3283 participants), assessed all-cause blood stream infection (BSI). We found no clear difference in the all-cause BSI rate between the two groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.53; clinically indicated: 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level for serious imprecision).Three trials (4244 participants), investigated costs; clinically indicated removal probably reduces device-related costs by approximately AUD 7.00 compared with routine removal (MD -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias).Secondary outcomesSix trials assessed infiltration (7123 participants). Routine replacement probably reduces infiltration of fluid into surrounding tissues compared with a clinically indicated change (RR 1.16 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.26; routine replacement 747/3638 (20.5%); clinically indicated 834/3485 (23.9%); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias).Meta-analysis of seven trials (7323 participants), found that rates of catheter failure due to blockage were probably lower in the routine-replacement group compared to the clinically indicated group (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.29; routine-replacement 519/3733 (13.9%); clinically indicated 560/3590 (15.6%); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias).Four studies (4606 participants), reported local infection rates. It is uncertain if there are differences between groups (RR 4.96, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.98; clinically indicated 2/2260 (0.09%); routine replacement 0/2346 (0.0%); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and two levels for very serious imprecision).One trial (3283 participants), found no clear difference in the incidence of mortality when clinically indicated removal was compared with routine removal (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.23; low-certainty evidence, downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision).One small trial (198 participants) reported no clear difference in device-related pain between clinically indicated and routine removal groups (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.44 to 0.24; low-certainty evidence, downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious imprecision).The pre-planned outcomes 'number of catheter re-sites per patient', and 'satisfaction' were not reported by any studies included in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence of no clear difference in rates of CRBSI, thrombophlebitis, all-cause BSI, mortality and pain between clinically indicated or routine replacement of PIVC. We are uncertain if local infection is reduced or increased when catheters are changed when clinically indicated. There is moderate-certainty evidence that infiltration and catheter blockage is probably lower when PIVC are changed routinely; and moderate-certainty evidence that clinically indicated removal probably reduces device-related costs. The addition of two new trials for this update found no further evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if there is a clinical indication to do so, for example, if there were signs of infection, blockage or infiltration. This would provide significant cost savings, spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications and would reduce time spent by busy clinicians on this intervention. To minimise PIVC-related complications, staff should inspect the insertion site at each shift change and remove the catheter if signs of inflammation, infiltration, occlusion, infection or blockage are present, or if the catheter is no longer needed for therapy.

Negative pressure wound therapy for surgical wounds healing by primary closure.

BACKGROUND: Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). While existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT remains uncertain, new trials necessitated an updated review of the evidence for the effects of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for preventing surgical site infection in wounds healing through primary closure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another type of NPWT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and quality assessment according to GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: In this second update we added 25 intervention trials, resulting in a total of 30 intervention trials (2957 participants), and two economic studies nested in trials. Surgeries included abdominal and colorectal (n = 5); caesarean section (n = 5); knee or hip arthroplasties (n = 5); groin surgery (n = 5); fractures (n = 5); laparotomy (n = 1); vascular surgery (n = 1); sternotomy (n = 1); breast reduction mammoplasty (n = 1); and mixed (n = 1). In three key domains four studies were at low risk of bias; six studies were at high risk of bias; and 20 studies were at unclear risk of bias. We judged the evidence to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes, downgrading the level of the evidence on the basis of risk of bias and imprecision.Primary outcomesThree studies reported mortality (416 participants; follow-up 30 to 90 days or unspecified). It is uncertain whether NPWT has an impact on risk of death compared with standard dressings (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded once for serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Twenty-five studies reported on SSI. The evidence from 23 studies (2533 participants; 2547 wounds; follow-up 30 days to 12 months or unspecified) showed that NPWT may reduce the rate of SSIs (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias).Fourteen studies reported dehiscence. We combined results from 12 studies (1507 wounds; 1475 participants; follow-up 30 days to an average of 113 days or unspecified) that compared NPWT with standard dressings. It is uncertain whether NPWT reduces the risk of wound dehiscence compared with standard dressings (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision).Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether NPWT increases or decreases reoperation rates when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63; 6 trials; 1021 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision) or if there is any clinical benefit associated with NPWT for reducing wound-related readmission to hospital within 30 days (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.57; 7 studies; 1271 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). It is also uncertain whether NPWT reduces incidence of seroma compared with standard dressings (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00; 6 studies; 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and once for serious imprecision). It is uncertain if NPWT reduces or increases the risk of haematoma when compared with a standard dressing (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.42; 6 trials; 831 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. It is uncertain if there is a higher risk of developing blisters when NPWT is compared with a standard dressing (RR 6.64, 95% CI 3.16 to 13.95; 6 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very serious risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision).Quality of life was not reported separately by group but was used in two economic evaluations to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). There was no clear difference in incremental QALYs for NPWT relative to standard dressing when results from the two trials were combined (mean difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.00; moderate-certainty evidence).One trial concluded that NPWT may be more cost-effective than standard care, estimating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of GBP 20.65 per QALY gained. A second cost-effectiveness study estimated that when compared with standard dressings NPWT was cost saving and improved QALYs. We rated the overall quality of the reports as very good; we did not grade the evidence beyond this as it was based on modelling assumptions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the addition of 25 trials, results are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty for all outcomes. Consequently, uncertainty remains about whether NPWT compared with a standard dressing reduces or increases the incidence of important outcomes such as mortality, dehiscence, seroma, or if it increases costs. Given the cost and widespread use of NPWT for SSI prophylaxis, there is an urgent need for larger, well-designed and well-conducted trials to evaluate the effects of newer NPWT products designed for use on clean, closed surgical incisions. Such trials should initially focus on wounds that may be difficult to heal, such as sternal wounds or incisions on obese patients.

Eight-hour versus 12-h shifts in an ICU: Comparison of nursing responses and patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy remains about the impact of 12-h shift patterns on staff satisfaction and health and on patient outcomes. Consequently, the objective of the study was to investigate the effect on nurses and patients of 8-h rostering compared with 12-h rostering. METHODS: We conducted a two-phase survey. Intensive care nurses completed a purposefully designed 49-item questionnaire, which included open- and closed-ended questions. Phase 1 was conducted during 2015, while the 8-h shift pattern was in place. Data for phase 2 were collected in 2017, approximately 6 months after the trial of 12-h shifts began. We extracted data from the hospital's adverse event register to compare patient outcomes between the two phases. RESULTS: A total of 152/193 (78.8%) surveys were returned in phase 1. In phase 2, the response rate was 114/188 (60.6%). The proportion of nurses satisfied with the roster increased 3-fold after the introduction of 12-h shifts; risk ratios 3.36 (95% confidence intervals 2.62 to 4.28). Communication with all levels of senior staff improved, and the number of hours of professional development leave increased with the 12-h roster phase 1, 358 h versus 538 h in phase 2 (p = <0.0001). Most respondents believed that 12-h shifts would be beneficial for their health, and this belief was validated by official leave records; there was a reduction of 69 days for sick leave and 216 days for family leave. Adverse outcomes for patients were similar in the two periods. CONCLUSION: Twelve-hour shifts are popular with ICU nurses, days lost to sick and family leave are reduced, and patient outcomes are not compromised.

Dressings and topical agents for preventing pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. These wounds are difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. Prevention strategies include nutritional support and pressure redistribution. Dressing and topical agents aimed at prevention are also widely used, however, it remains unclear which, if any, are most effective. This is the first update of this review, which was originally published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age, without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting. SEARCH METHODS: In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction on language, date of trial or setting. In May 2018 we updated this search; as a result several trials are awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that enrolled people at risk of pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: The original search identified nine trials; the updated searches identified a further nine trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 trials (3629 participants), nine involved dressings; eight involved topical agents; and one included dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence.Topical agentsThere were five trials comparing fatty acid interventions to different treatments. Two trials compared fatty acid to olive oil. Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between groups, fatty acid versus olive oil (2 trials, n=1060; RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision; or fatty acid versus standard care (2 trials, n=187; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Trials reported that pressure ulcer incidence was lower with fatty acid-containing-treatment compared with a control compound of trisostearin and perfume (1 trial, n=331; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in incidence of adverse events between fatty acids and olive oil (1 trial, n=831; RR 2.22 95% CI 0.20 to 24.37; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).Four trials compared further different topical agents with placebo. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) cream may increase the risk of pressure ulcer incidence compared with placebo (1 trial, n=61; RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.57; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). The other three trials reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between active topical agents and control/placebo; active lotion (1 trial, n=167; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19), Conotrane (1 trial, n=258; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07), Prevasore (1 trial, n=120; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.11) (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). There was limited evidence from one trial to determine whether the application of a topical agent may delay or prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (DermalexTM 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the DermalexTM group compared with none out of 91 in the placebo group (RR 6.14, 95% CI 0.29 to 129.89; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision).DressingsSix trials (n = 1247) compared a silicone dressing with no dressing. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias). In the one trial (n=77) we rated as being at low risk of bias, there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between silicone dressing and placebo-treated groups (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.61; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).One trial (n=74) reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence when a thin polyurethane dressing was compared with no dressing (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07). In the same trial pressure ulcer incidence was reported to be higher in an adhesive foam dressing compared with no dressing (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.48). We rated evidence from this trial as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision).Four trials compared other dressings with different controls. Trials reported that there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the following comparisons: polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressing (n=160, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); Kang' huier versus routine care n=100; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05); 'pressure ulcer preventive dressing' (PPD) versus no dressing (n=74; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) We rated the evidence as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious or very serious imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the trials exploring the impact of topical applications on pressure ulcer incidence showed no clear benefit or harm. Use of fatty acid versus a control compound (a cream that does not include fatty acid) may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage). However the low level of evidence certainty means that additional research is required to confirm these results.

The Indigenous Birthing in an Urban Setting study: the IBUS study : A prospective birth cohort study comparing different models of care for women having Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies at two major maternity hospitals in urban South East Queensland, Australia.

BACKGROUND: With persisting maternal and infant health disparities, new models of maternity care are needed to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia. To date, there is limited evidence of successful and sustainable programs. Birthing on Country is a term used to describe an emerging evidence-based and community-led model of maternity care for Indigenous families; its impact requires evaluation. METHODS: Mixed-methods prospective birth cohort study comparing different models of care for women having Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies at two major maternity hospitals in urban South East Queensland (2015-2019). Includes women's surveys (approximately 20 weeks gestation, 36 weeks gestation, two and six months postnatal) and infant assessments (six months postnatal), clinical outcomes and cost comparison, and qualitative interviews with women and staff. DISCUSSION: This study aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, sustainability, clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Birthing on Country model of care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in an urban setting. If successful, findings will inform implementation of the model with similar communities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry # ACTRN12618001365257 . Registered 14 August 2018 (retrospectively registered).

Prophylactic insertion of large bore peripheral intravenous catheters in maternity patients for postpartum haemorrhage: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Insertion of a 16 or 18 gauge peripheral intravenous catheter is a potentially painful intervention but one frequently experienced by pregnant women when admitted to hospital. Although the rationale for this practice is 'in case of an emergency bleed', evidence for using large-bore catheters in this population is absent. AIMS: (i) To identify the proportion of 18 gauge or larger peripheral catheters inserted into maternity patients; and (ii) to investigate the proportion of women who require blood products during their perinatal period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from a sub-set of maternity patients who were included in a study of risk factors for peripheral intravenous access failure were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen catheters were inserted in 95 women. Of the 95 first-inserted catheters, 84 (88.4%) were 16 or 18 gauge and 69 (82.1%) of these were placed in the hand or wrist. Four women (4%) received blood products, all were for non-urgent transfusions. CONCLUSION: Postpartum haemorrhage requiring a blood transfusion remains a relatively rare event. Comprehensive risk assessment should be undertaken before inserting large-bore catheters in perinatal women. Small veins in the hand and wrist should not be used for large bore catheters.

End-of-life care pathways for improving outcomes in caring for the dying.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in Issue 11, 2013 in the Cochrane Library. In many clinical areas, integrated care pathways are utilised as structured multidisciplinary care plans that detail essential steps in caring for patients with specific clinical problems. In particular, care pathways for the dying have been developed as a model to improve care of patients who are in the last days of life. The care pathways were designed with an aim of ensuring that the most appropriate management occurs at the most appropriate time, and that it is provided by the most appropriate health professional. Since the last update, there have been sustained concerns about the safety of implementing end-of-life care pathways, particularly in the United Kingdom (UK). Therefore, there is a significant need for clinicians and policy makers to be informed about the effects of end-of-life care pathways via a systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of end-of-life care pathways, compared with usual care (no pathway) or with care guided by another end-of-life care pathway across all healthcare settings (e.g. hospitals, residential aged care facilities, community).In particular, we aimed to assess the effects on symptom severity and quality of life of people who are dying, or those related to the care, such as families, carers and health professionals, or a combination of these. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, review articles, trial registries and reference lists of relevant articles. We conducted the original search in September 2009, and the second updated search in July 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials or high quality controlled before-and-after studies comparing use versus non-use of an end-of-life care pathway in caring for the dying. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the results of the searches against the predetermined criteria for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 3028 titles, and included one Italian cluster RCT with 16 general medicine wards (inpatient units in hospitals) and 232 carers of cancer patients in this updated review. We judged the study to be at a high risk of bias overall, mainly due to a lack of blinding and rates of attrition. Only 34% of the participants (range 14% to 75% on individual wards) were cared for in accordance with the care pathway as planned. However, these issues were to be expected due to the nature of the intervention and condition. The study population was all cancer patients in their last days of life. Participants were allocated to care using the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP-I, Italian version of a continuous quality improvement programme of end-of-life care) or to standard care. The primary outcomes of this review were physical symptom severity, psychological symptom severity, quality of life, and any adverse effects. Physical symptom severity was assessed as overall control of pain, breathlessness, and nausea and vomiting. There was very low quality evidence of a difference in overall control of breathlessness that favoured the Liverpool Care Pathway group compared to usual care: the study reported an odds ratio (OR) of 2.0 with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.1 to 3.8. Very low quality evidence of no difference was found for pain (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7 to 2.6, P = 0.461) and nausea and vomiting (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.7 to 3.2, P = 0.252). None of the other primary outcomes were assessed by the study. Limited data on advance care planning were collected by the study authors, making results for this secondary outcome unreliable. None of our other secondary outcomes were assessed by the study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited available evidence concerning the clinical, physical, psychological or emotional effectiveness of end-of-life care pathways.

Frequency of dressing changes for central venous access devices on catheter-related infections.

BACKGROUND: People admitted to intensive care units and those with chronic health care problems often require long-term vascular access. Central venous access devices (CVADs) are used for administering intravenous medications and blood sampling. CVADs are covered with a dressing and secured with an adhesive or adhesive tape to protect them from infection and reduce movement. Dressings are changed when they become soiled with blood or start to come away from the skin. Repeated removal and application of dressings can cause damage to the skin. The skin is an important barrier that protects the body against infection. Less frequent dressing changes may reduce skin damage, but it is unclear whether this practice affects the frequency of catheter-related infections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections and other outcomes including pain and skin damage. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched clinical trials registries for registered trials. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of the frequency of CVAD dressing changes on the incidence of catheter-related infections on all patients in any healthcare setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane review methodology. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, performed risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We undertook meta-analysis where appropriate or otherwise synthesised data descriptively when heterogeneous. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (2277 participants) that compared different frequencies of CVAD dressing changes. The studies were all conducted in Europe and published between 1995 and 2009. Participants were recruited from the intensive care and cancer care departments of one children's and four adult hospitals. The studies used a variety of transparent dressings and compared a longer interval between dressing changes (5 to15 days; intervention) with a shorter interval between changes (2 to 5 days; control). In each study participants were followed up until the CVAD was removed or until discharge from ICU or hospital. Confirmed catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI)One trial randomised 995 people receiving central venous catheters to a longer or shorter interval between dressing changes and measured CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.98) (low quality evidence). Suspected catheter-related bloodstream infection Two trials randomised a total of 151 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured suspected CRBSI. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of suspected CRBSI between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.10) (low quality evidence). All cause mortalityThree trials randomised a total of 896 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured all cause mortality. It is unclear whether there is a difference in the risk of death from any cause between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25) (low quality evidence). Catheter-site infectionTwo trials randomised a total of 371 participants to longer or shorter dressing intervals and measured catheter-site infection. It is unclear whether there is a difference in risk of catheter-site infection between people having long or short intervals between dressing changes (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.63) (low quality evidence). Skin damage One small trial (112 children) and three trials (1475 adults) measured skin damage. There was very low quality evidence for the effect of long intervals between dressing changes on skin damage compared with short intervals (children: RR of scoring ≥ 2 on the skin damage scale 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.68; data for adults not pooled). PainTwo studies involving 193 participants measured pain. It is unclear if there is a difference between long and short interval dressing changes on pain during dressing removal (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.38) (low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence is currently inconclusive regarding whether longer intervals between CVAD dressing changes are associated with more or less catheter-related infection, mortality or pain than shorter intervals.

Point prevalence of suboptimal footwear features among ambulant older hospital patients: implications for fall prevention.

Objective The aim of the present study was to establish the point prevalence of 'suboptimal' features in footwear reported to have been used by older hospital patients when ambulating, and to explore underpinning factors for their choice of footwear. Method A cross-sectional investigation was undertaken on 95 of 149 eligible in-patients across 22 high fall-risk wards in a large metropolitan hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Results Over 70% of participants experienced an unplanned admission. Although most participants had access to some form of footwear in hospital (92%), nearly all reported ambulating in footwear with 'suboptimal' features (99%). Examples included slippers (27%), backless slippers (16%) or bare feet (27%). For patients who ambulated in bare feet, only one-third reported 'lack of access to footwear' as the primary cause, with others citing foot wounds, pain, oedema and personal choice as the main reason for bare foot ambulation. Conclusions Admitted patients frequently use footwear with 'suboptimal' features for ambulation in hospital. While some footwear options (for example well-fitting slippers) could be suited for limited in-hospital ambulation, others are clearly hazardous and might cause falls. Since footwear choices are influenced by multiple factors in this population, footwear education strategies alone may be insufficient to address the problem of hazardous footwear in at-risk patients. Footwear requirements may be more effectively addressed within a multidisciplinary team approach encompassing foot health, mobility and safety. What is known about the topic? Accidental falls while ambulating are an important health and safety concern for older people. Because certain footwear characteristics have been negatively linked to posture and balance, and specific footwear types linked to falls among seniors, the use of footwear with fewer suboptimal characteristics is generally recommended as a means of reducing the risk of falling. While footwear usage and choices have been explored in older people in the community and in residential care settings, there is little comparable data on acutely unwell older hospital patients. What does this paper add? This paper provides prevalence data on the use of footwear with suboptimal characteristics among ambulant older hospital patients, and identifies concurrent factors that may be relevant to patient footwear choices. What are the implications for practitioners? Pain, foot pathology and a desire to retain independence are important concerns for hospitalised patients and are likely to influence their choice of footwear used to ambulate with. Pragmatic team-based approaches that remain sensitive to key patient concerns may be more successful in optimising patient footwear usage than footwear education strategies alone.

Effects of frequent PATient moves on patient outcomes in a large tertiary Hospital (the PATH study): a prospective cohort study.

Objective The aim of the present study was to investigate the incidence of and patient outcomes associated with frequent patient moves. Methods In a prospective cohort study, any bed move and the reason for the move were documented. Patients were assessed on admission for anxiety, social support and delirium. Adverse events, length of stay and satisfaction were recorded. Patients moved three or more times were compared with those moved less than three times. Results In all, 566 patients admitted to a tertiary referral hospital were included in the study. Of these, 156 patients (27.6%) were moved once, 46 (8.1%) were moved twice and 28 (4.9%) were moved at least three times. Those moved three or more times were almost threefold more likely to have an adverse event recorded compared with those moved fewer times (relative risk (RR) 2.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18, 6.42; P=0.02) and to have a hospital stay twice as long (RR 7.10; 95% CI 2.60, 11.60; P=0.002). Levels of satisfaction and anxiety were not affected by frequent moves and there was no effect on delirium. Conclusion Frequent bed moves affect patient safety and prolong length of stay. What is known about the topic? Retrospective and qualitative studies suggest that patient safety and costs may be affected by frequent patient moves. What does this paper add? The present study is the first prospective study to assess the negative effects of frequent patient moves on specific patient outcomes, such as adverse events, length of stay and satisfaction with care. What are the implications for practitioners? Within- and between-ward moves may affect patient safety. Patients should be moved only when there is a clear and unavoidable reason for doing so.

Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection has been estimated to occur in about 15% of clean surgery and 30% of contaminated surgery cases. Using plastic adhesive drapes to protect the wound from organisms that may be present on the surrounding skin during surgery is one strategy used to prevent surgical site infection. Results from non-randomised studies have produced conflicting results about the efficacy of this approach. A systematic review was required to guide clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of adhesive drapes used during surgery on surgical site infection, cost, mortality and morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 4th March 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, 2012 to 3rd March 2015); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 3rd March 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to 4th March 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any plastic adhesive drape with no plastic adhesive drape, used alone or in combination with woven (material) drapes or disposable (paper) drapes, in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Ring drapes were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected and assessed studies for trial quality and both independently extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies for this fourth update. The review includes five studies involving 3082 participants comparing plastic adhesive drapes with no drapes and two studies involving 1113 participants comparing iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes with no drapes. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the adhesive drape group developed a surgical site infection when compared with no drapes (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.48, P = 0.03). Iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes had no effect on the surgical site infection rate (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.66, P = 0.89). Length of hospital stay was similar in the adhesive drape and non-adhesive drape groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence from the seven trials that plastic adhesive drapes reduce surgical site infection rates, and some evidence that they increase infection rates. Further trials may be justified, using blinded outcome assessment to examine the effect of adhesive drapes on surgical site infection, based on different wound classifications.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections. SEARCH METHODS: For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Devices and dressings to secure peripheral venous catheters to prevent complications.

BACKGROUND: A peripheral venous catheter (PVC) is typically used for short-term delivery of intravascular fluids and medications. It is an essential element of modern medicine and the most frequent invasive procedure performed in hospitals. However, PVCs often fail before intravenous treatment is completed: this can occur because the device is not adequately attached to the skin, allowing the PVC to fall out, leading to complications such as phlebitis (irritation or inflammation to the vein wall), infiltration (fluid leaking into surrounding tissues) or occlusion (blockage). An inadequately secured PVC also increases the risk of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), as the pistoning action (moving back and forth in the vein) of the catheter can allow migration of organisms along the catheter and into the bloodstream. Despite the many dressings and securement devices available, the impact of different securement techniques for increasing PVC dwell time is still unclear; there is a need to provide guidance for clinicians by reviewing current studies systematically. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PVC dressings and securement devices on the incidence of PVC failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases to identify reports of relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Wounds Group Register (searched 08 April 2015): The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to March 7 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, March 7 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to March 7 2015); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to March 8 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs or cluster RCTs comparing different dressings or securement devices for the stabilisation of PVCs. Cross-over trials were ineligible for inclusion, unless data for the first treatment period could be obtained. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for missing information. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (1539 participants) in this review. Trial sizes ranged from 50 to 703 participants. These six trials made four comparisons, namely: transparent dressings versus gauze; bordered transparent dressings versus a securement device; bordered transparent dressings versus tape; and transparent dressing versus sticking plaster. There is very low quality evidence of fewer catheter dislodgements or accidental removals with transparent dressings compared with gauze (two studies, 278 participants, RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.92, P = 0.03%). The relative effects of transparent dressings and gauze on phlebitis (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.68) and infiltration (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.33) are unclear. The relative effects on PVC failure of a bordered transparent dressing and a securement device have been assessed in only one small study and these were unclear. There was very low quality evidence from the same single study of less frequent dislodgement or accidental catheter removal with bordered transparent dressings than securement devices (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.63) but more phlebitis with bordered dressings (RR 8.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 64.02) (very low quality evidence). A small single study compared bordered transparent dressings with tape and found very low quality evidence of more PVC failure with the bordered dressing (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.11) but the relative effects on dislodgement were not clear (very low quality evidence). The relative effects of transparent dressings and a sticking plaster have only been compared in one small study and are unclear. More high quality RCTs are required to determine the relative effects of alternative PVC dressings and securement devices. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear if any one dressing or securement device is better than any other in securing peripheral venous catheters. There is a need for further, independent high quality trials to evaluate the many traditional as well as the newer, high use products. Given the large cost differences between some different dressings and securement devices, future trials should include a robust cost-effectiveness analysis.

Negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a treatment option for pressure ulcers; a clear, current overview of the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding its use. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy for treating pressure ulcers in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: For this review, we searched the following databases in May 2015: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers (stage II or above). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: The review contains four studies with a total of 149 participants. Two studies compared NPWT with dressings; one study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments and one study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing'. One study had a 24-week follow-up period, and two had a six-week follow-up period, the follow-up time was unclear for one study. Three of the four included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias from one or more 'Risk of bias' domains and all evidence was deemed to be of very low quality. Only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing), but this had only 12 participants and there were very few events (only one participant healed in the study). There was little other useful data available from the included studies on positive outcomes such as wound healing or negative outcomes such as adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the effects of NPWT compared with alternatives for the treatment of pressure ulcers. High uncertainty remains about the potential benefits or harms, or both, of using this treatment for pressure ulcer management.

Skin preparation with alcohol versus alcohol followed by any antiseptic for preventing bacteraemia or contamination of blood for transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Blood for transfusion may become contaminated at any point between collection and transfusion and may result in bacteraemia (the presence of bacteria in the blood), severe illness or even death for the blood recipient. Donor arm skin is one potential source of blood contamination, so it is usual to cleanse the skin with an antiseptic before blood donation. One-step and two-step alcohol based antiseptic regimens are both commonly advocated but there is uncertainty as to which is most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cleansing the skin of blood donors with alcohol in a one-step compared with alcohol in a two-step procedure to prevent contamination of collected blood or bacteraemia in the recipient. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2014, for this third update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials (RCTs) comparing alcohol based donor skin cleansing in a one-step versus a two-step process that includes alcohol and any other antiseptic for pre-venepuncture skin cleansing were considered. Quasi randomised trials were to have been considered in the absence of RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: No studies (RCTs or quasi RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in this review. It is therefore unclear whether a two-step, alcohol followed by antiseptic skin cleansing process prior to blood donation confers any reduction in the risk of blood contamination or bacteraemia in blood recipients, or conversely whether a one-step process increases risk above that associated with a two-step process.

Clinically-indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: US Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend replacement of peripheral intravenous (IV) catheters no more frequently than every 72 to 96 hours. Routine replacement is thought to reduce the risk of phlebitis and bloodstream infection. Catheter insertion is an unpleasant experience for patients and replacement may be unnecessary if the catheter remains functional and there are no signs of inflammation. Costs associated with routine replacement may be considerable. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of removing peripheral IV catheters when clinically indicated compared with removing and re-siting the catheter routinely. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (March 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3). We also searched clinical trials registries (April 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared routine removal of peripheral IV catheters with removal only when clinically indicated in hospitalised or community dwelling patients receiving continuous or intermittent infusions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials with a total of 4895 patients were included in the review. The quality of the evidence was high for most outcomes but was downgraded to moderate for the outcome catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). The downgrade was due to wide confidence intervals, which created a high level of uncertainty around the effect estimate. CRBSI was assessed in five trials (4806 patients). There was no significant between group difference in the CRBSI rate (clinically-indicated 1/2365; routine change 2/2441). The risk ratio (RR) was 0.61 (95% CI 0.08 to 4.68; P = 0.64). No difference in phlebitis rates was found whether catheters were changed according to clinical indications or routinely (clinically-indicated 186/2365; 3-day change 166/2441; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.39). This result was unaffected by whether infusion through the catheter was continuous or intermittent. We also analysed the data by number of device days and again no differences between groups were observed (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.75). One trial assessed all-cause bloodstream infection. There was no difference in this outcome between the two groups (clinically-indicated 4/1593 (0.02%); routine change 9/1690 (0.05%); P = 0.21). Cannulation costs were lower by approximately AUD 7.00 in the clinically-indicated group (mean difference (MD) -6.96, 95% CI -9.05 to -4.86; P ≤ 0.00001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found no evidence to support changing catheters every 72 to 96 hours. Consequently, healthcare organisations may consider changing to a policy whereby catheters are changed only if clinically indicated. This would provide significant cost savings and would spare patients the unnecessary pain of routine re-sites in the absence of clinical indications. To minimise peripheral catheter-related complications, the insertion site should be inspected at each shift change and the catheter removed if signs of inflammation, infiltration, or blockage are present.