Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2002 Oct;28(10):1379-88.
doi: 10.1007/s00134-002-1487-z. Epub 2002 Sep 7.

Pressure ulcers in intensive care patients: a review of risks and prevention

Affiliations
Review

Pressure ulcers in intensive care patients: a review of risks and prevention

B Paul J A Keller et al. Intensive Care Med. 2002 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: Review of the literature concerning pressure ulcers in the intensive care setting. DATA SOURCE AND STUDY SELECTIONS: Computerized databases (Medline from 1980 until 1999 and CINAHL from 1982 until 1999). The indexing terms for article retrieval were: "pressure ulcers", "pressure sores", "decubitus", and "intensive care". Nineteen articles met the selection criteria, and seven more were found from the references of these articles. One thesis was also analyzed.

Results: Data on prevention, incidence, and costs of pressure ulcers in ICU patients are scarce. Overall there are no conclusive studies on the identification of pressure ulcer risk factors. None of the existing risk-assessment scales was developed especially for use in ICU patients. It is highly questionable to what extent these scales can be used in this setting as they are not even reliable in "standard care". The following risk factors might play a role in pressure ulcer development: duration of surgery and number of operations, fecal incontinence and/or diarrhea, low preoperative protein and albumin concentrations, disturbed sensory perception, moisture of the skin, impaired circulation, use of inotropic drugs, diabetes mellitus, too unstable to turn, decreased mobility, and high APACHE II score. The number of patients per study ranged from 5 from 638. The definition of "pressure ulcer" varied widely between authors or was not mentioned.

Conclusions: Meaningful comparison cannot be made between the various studies because of the use of different grading systems for pressure ulcers, different methods of data collection, different (or lack of) population characteristics, unreported preventive measures, and the use of different inclusion and exclusion criteria. There is a need for well-conducted studies covering all these aspects.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources