Pressure UlcerNCT02689817
Monitoring Physiologic Data in the Development of Pressure Ulcers
A study testing Patch in people with Pressure Ulcer and Signs and Symptoms, run by Johns Hopkins University.
Trial summary
Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) are a well-established serious complication of hospitalization that have serious consequences on patient morbidity and mortality as well as the cost of care. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Pressure Ulcer, Signs and Symptoms
- What is being tested?
- Patch
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 0 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Oct 2019to Jan 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients undergoing an operation that is scheduled to last more than 2 hours
Who cannot join
- Existing sacral pressure ulcer, undergoing a cardiac procedure, or inability to provide informed consent.
About this study
Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) are a well-established serious complication of hospitalization that have serious consequences on patient morbidity and mortality as well as the cost of care. At the core of the problem for patient-centered targeted prevention of HAPUs is the lack of knowledge surrounding the magnitude and duration of pressure necessary to cause pressure ulcers, and the lack of immediate feedback on whether these interventions do anything to substantially offload at risk areas. Previous studies have been inconsistent in their findings of an association between duration of time and HAPU occurrence. While retrospectively this has been investigated, there is currently no substantial prospective, randomized study.
This study seeks to better understand the interface pressures between the patient and his or her support surface and how this relates to the development of pressure ulcers. The effect of patient characteristics and the relationship between total length of time on the operating table and pressure ulcer development will also be assessed.
The findings from this study will significantly add to strengthening the body of evidence regarding pressure ulcer development, specifically the relationship between the magnitude of interface pressure between the patient and the support surface for what duration of time leads to the development of a pressure ulcer. The results will provide critical insight into the physiologic targets healthcare providers should use to develop better pressure ulcer prevention programs, which could ultimately lead to a reduction in the incidence of pressure ulcers.
Read the detailed description
Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) are a well-established serious complication of hospitalization that have serious consequences on patient morbidity and mortality as well as the cost of care. Following CMS's changes to hospital reimbursements and penalization for hospitals with the highest rate of hospital-acquired complications, numerous quality improvement initiatives have been implemented. An overall reduction in the reported incidence of HAPUs from approximately 7 to 4.5% was observed, largely attributed to these interventions. Though there had been a drop in incidence, the overall number of hospitalized patients who develop HAPUs remains large and more recently HAPU frequency in hospitals has not continued to decrease, despite educational pressure ulcer prevention programs and clinical practice guidelines.
Due to the complications and costs associated with the development of a pressure ulcer, research has suggested that prevention is more effective than standard care. There are many current solutions for preventative interventions for HAPUs including leadership initiatives, data tracking, risk scales and many adjuvant pressure-offloading devices such as beds and mattress pads. Many of these devices have limited data supporting their effectiveness or are costly to implement in a purely prophylactic manner when current risk stratification methods fail to capture 60% of patients who go on to develop an ulcer. The vast majority of current preventative measures for pressure ulcers either seek to reduce the time a patient spends in one position or to reduce the magnitude of pressure that occurs on the high-risk areas for pressure ulcers. As such, manual repositioning (turning) is the most frequently used intervention as it is felt to be low-cost and part of standard care. Repositioning works by reducing or eliminating the interface pressure between the patient and the contact surface, but the standard recommendation on the 2 hour frequency were derived from animal studies and healthy volunteers. An expert consensus by Black et al. (2011) recommended the need for clinical decision-making based on the individual's needs and clinical situation when establishing a turning schedule, but there are very few objective tools that clinicians can use to make the decision.
At the core of the problem for patient-centered targeted prevention of HAPUs is the lack of knowledge surrounding the magnitude and duration of pressure necessary to cause pressure ulcers, and the lack of immediate feedback on whether these interventions do anything to substantially offload at risk areas. Previous studies have been inconsistent in their findings of an association between duration of surgery and HAPU occurrence, with results ranging from a negative association to a positive association.
This study seeks to better understand the interface pressures between the patient and his or her support surface and how this relates to the development of pressure ulcers. This data will provide critical insight into the physiologic targets healthcare providers should use to develop better pressure ulcer prevention programs and ultimately lead to a reduction in the incidence of pressure ulcers.
The primary outcome will be the interface pressure trend on the sacrum throughout the duration of time a patient is on the operating table and how that is correlated with pressure ulcer development. The effect of Braden scale score and other patient characteristics and the relationship between total length of time on the operating table and pressure ulcer development, and healthcare provider intervention in response to the pressure reading if in the second part of the study healthcare providers are not blinded to the pressure data.
This study will measure the interface pressure between a patient and his or her support surface in the operating room for prolonged (>2 hour) operative cases. Eligible patients will receive an adhesive padded bandage (similar to Mepilex Gentle Border) that collects interface pressure data. When the patient is being positioned in the operating room, this bandage will be applied to the sacrum. At the completion of the case the bandage will be removed and the status of the skin will be recorded and a photo of the sacrum will be taken for documentation. Skin status will be reassessed at 24 hours and at 1 week at regularly scheduled follow-ups with the surgeon. Pressure ulcer development will then be correlated with interface pressure characteristics during the operative case, using demographic data to check homogeneity between the experimental and control groups. If at interim analysis there is a clear relationship between a pressure threshold and pressure ulcer development, the second portion of the study will not blind healthcare providers to the live data. They would be able to see the pressure measurement and reposition the patient to effectively offload.
While retrospectively this has been investigated, there is currently no substantial prospective, randomized study. This study will significantly add to strengthening the body of evidence regarding pressure ulcer development, specifically the relationship between the magnitude of interface pressure between the patient and the support surface for what duration of time leads to the development of a pressure ulcer.
- Conditions
- Pressure Ulcer, Signs and Symptoms
- Being tested
- Patch
- Keywords
- Pressure ulcer, Monitoring, Pressure, Physiologic feedback
- Medical subject headings
- Pressure Ulcer, Signs and Symptoms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PatchDevice
A bandage applied to the sacrum with pressure offloading characteristics and pressure monitoring components in a low-profile housing.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Monitoring patch, no display | Experimental | Participants in this condition will receive a padded bandage that monitors pressure over time. In this arm, healthcare providers will not be able to view the pressure data collected. Receives: Device: Patch |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Interface pressure (mmHg) over time (minutes)
The interface pressure trend on the sacrum throughout the duration of time a patient is on the operating table and how that is correlated with pressure ulcer development
Measured: Duration of the surgery (>120 min, <1440 min)
Secondary outcomes (7)
Pressure ulcer development
Skin will be checked immediately after the surgery and at 1 week using National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) pressure ulcer staging system (grades I-IV).
Measured: 1 week
Effect of Braden Scale
The relationship between interface pressure (mmHg), pressure ulcer development and Braden Scale Score (0-23).
Measured: 1 week
Effect of Body Weight (kg)
The relationship between interface pressure (mmHg), pressure ulcer development and body weight (kilograms).
Measured: 1 week
Effect of Body Mass Index (kg/m^2)
The relationship between interface pressure (mmHg), pressure ulcer development and body mass index (kg/m^2).
Measured: 1 week
Effect of Age (years)
The relationship between interface pressure (mmHg), pressure ulcer development and age (years).
Measured: 1 week
Effect of American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (I-IV)
The relationship between interface pressure (mmHg), pressure ulcer development and American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (I-VI).
Measured: 1 week
Number of Repositioning events
The number of times a patient is repositioned (defined by a greater than 50% change in the interface pressure (mmHg)) throughout the duration of the surgery.
Measured: Duration of the surgery (>2 h, <24 h)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Feb 2016 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completionOct 2019 (estimated)
- Study completionJan 2020 (estimated)
Why it stopped: Study was withdrawn due to technical limitations to the device
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (18)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pressure UlcerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Johns Hopkins UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Johns Hopkins University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Justin Sacks, MD, Principal investigator, Johns Hopkins University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02689817
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IRB00093653
- Status last verified
- Oct 2019
- First submitted
- 16 Feb 2016
- Last updated
- 4 Nov 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Berlowitz D, VanDeusen Lukas C, Parker V, Niederhauser A, Silver J, Logan C, Ayello E, Zulkowski K. 2012. Preventing Pressure Ulcers in Hospitals: A Toolkit for Improving Quality of Care. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Black JM, Edsberg LE, Baharestani MM, Langemo D, Goldberg M, McNichol L, Cuddigan J; National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pressure ulcers: avoidable or unavoidable? Results of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Consensus Conference. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2011 Feb;57(2):24-37.
PubMed 21350270Feil M BJ. 2015. Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers Remain a Top Patient Safety Concern for Hospitals in Pennsylvania. :1-10.
Gillespie BM, Chaboyer WP, McInnes E, Kent B, Whitty JA, Thalib L. Repositioning for pressure ulcer prevention in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 3;2014(4):CD009958. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009958.pub2.
PubMed 24700291Hommel A, Bjorkelund KB, Thorngren KG, Ulander K. Nutritional status among patients with hip fracture in relation to pressure ulcers. Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;26(5):589-96. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2007.06.003. Epub 2007 Jul 26.
PubMed 17662510Houwing R, Rozendaal M, Wouters-Wesseling W, Buskens E, Keller P, Haalboom J. Pressure ulcer risk in hip fracture patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004 Aug;75(4):390-3. doi: 10.1080/00016470410001132-1.
PubMed 15370580KOSIAK M. Etiology and pathology of ischemic ulcers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1959 Feb;40(2):62-9. No abstract available.
PubMed 13618101KOSIAK M. Etiology of decubitus ulcers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1961 Jan;42:19-29. No abstract available.
PubMed 13753341Lindholm C, Sterner E, Romanelli M, Pina E, Torra y Bou J, Hietanen H, Iivanainen A, Gunningberg L, Hommel A, Klang B, Dealey C. Hip fracture and pressure ulcers - the Pan-European Pressure Ulcer Study - intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors. Int Wound J. 2008 Jun;5(2):315-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00452.x.
PubMed 18494637McInnes E, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SE, Dumville JC, Middleton V, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 3;2015(9):CD001735. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001735.pub5.
PubMed 26333288Meddings J. Using administrative discharge diagnoses to track hospital-acquired pressure ulcer incidence--limitations, links, and leaps. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Jun;41(6):243-5. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41033-5. No abstract available.
PubMed 25990889Padula WV, Makic MB, Mishra MK, Campbell JD, Nair KV, Wald HL, Valuck RJ. Comparative effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for pressure ulcer prevention in academic medical centers in the United States. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Jun;41(6):246-56. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41034-7.
PubMed 25990890Padula WV, Makic MB, Wald HL, Campbell JD, Nair KV, Mishra MK, Valuck RJ. Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers at Academic Medical Centers in the United States, 2008-2012: Tracking Changes Since the CMS Nonpayment Policy. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Jun;41(6):257-63. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41035-9.
PubMed 25990891Peich S, Calderon-Margalit R. Reduction of nosocomial pressure ulcers in patients with hip fractures: a quality improvement program. Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2004;17(2-3):75-80. doi: 10.1108/09526860410526682.
PubMed 15301263Qaseem A, Mir TP, Starkey M, Denberg TD; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. Risk assessment and prevention of pressure ulcers: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Mar 3;162(5):359-69. doi: 10.7326/M14-1567.
PubMed 25732278
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Nov 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Monitoring Physiologic Data in the Development of Pressure Ulcers
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02689817
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB00093653
- Conditions
- Pressure Ulcer, Signs and Symptoms
- Keywords
- Pressure ulcer, Monitoring, Pressure, Physiologic feedback
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- WithdrawnReason stopped: Study was withdrawn due to technical limitations to the device
- Enrolment
- 0 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Johns Hopkins UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Oct 2019 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Oct 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jan 2020 (estimated)
- First posted
- 24 Feb 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) are a well-established serious complication of hospitalization that have serious consequences on patient morbidity and mortality as well as the cost of care. At the core of the problem for patient-centered targeted prevention of HAPUs is the lack of knowledge surrounding the magnitude and duration of pressure necessary to cause pressure ulcers, and the lack of immediate feedback on whether these interventions do anything to substantially offload at risk areas. Previous studies have been inconsistent in their findings of an association between duration of time and HAPU occurrence. While retrospectively this has been investigated, there is currently no substantial prospective, randomized study.
This study seeks to better understand the interface pressures between the patient and his or her support surface and how this relates to the development of pressure ulcers. The effect of patient characteristics and the relationship between total length of time on the operating table and pressure ulcer development will also be assessed.
The findings from this study will significantly add to strengthening the body of evidence regarding pressure ulcer development, specifically the relationship between the magnitude of interface pressure between the patient and the support surface for what duration of time leads to the development of a pressure ulcer. The results will provide critical insight into the physiologic targets healthcare providers should use to develop better pressure ulcer prevention programs, which could ultimately lead to a reduction in the incidence of pressure ulcers.
Detailed description
Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) are a well-established serious complication of hospitalization that have serious consequences on patient morbidity and mortality as well as the cost of care. Following CMS's changes to hospital reimbursements and penalization for hospitals with the highest rate of hospital-acquired complications, numerous quality improvement initiatives have been implemented. An overall reduction in the reported incidence of HAPUs from approximately 7 to 4.5% was observed, largely attributed to these interventions. Though there had been a drop in incidence, the overall number of hospitalized patients who develop HAPUs remains large and more recently HAPU frequency in hospitals has not continued to decrease, despite educational pressure ulcer prevention programs and clinical practice guidelines.
Due to the complications and costs associated with the development of a pressure ulcer, research has suggested that prevention is more effective than standard care. There are many current solutions for preventative interventions for HAPUs including leadership initiatives, data tracking, risk scales and many adjuvant pressure-offloading devices such as beds and mattress pads. Many of these devices have limited data supporting their effectiveness or are costly to implement in a purely prophylactic manner when current risk stratification methods fail to capture 60% of patients who go on to develop an ulcer. The vast majority of current preventative measures for pressure ulcers either seek to reduce the time a patient spends in one position or to reduce the magnitude of pressure that occurs on the high-risk areas for pressure ulcers. As such, manual repositioning (turning) is the most frequently used intervention as it is felt to be low-cost and part of standard care. Repositioning works by reducing or eliminating the interface pressure between the patient and the contact surface, but the standard recommendation on the 2 hour frequency were derived from animal studies and healthy volunteers. An expert consensus by Black et al. (2011) recommended the need for clinical decision-making based on the individual's needs and clinical situation when establishing a turning schedule, but there are very few objective tools that clinicians can use to make the decision.
At the core of the problem for patient-centered targeted prevention of HAPUs is the lack of knowledge surrounding the magnitude and duration of pressure necessary to cause pressure ulcers, and the lack of immediate feedback on whether these interventions do anything to substantially offload at risk areas. Previous studies have been inconsistent in their findings of an association between duration of surgery and HAPU occurrence, with results ranging from a negative association to a positive association.
This study seeks to better understand the interface pressures between the patient and his or her support surface and how this relates to the development of pressure ulcers. This data will provide critical insight into the physiologic targets healthcare providers should use to develop better pressure ulcer prevention programs and ultimately lead to a reduction in the incidence of pressure ulcers.
The primary outcome will be the interface pressure trend on the sacrum throughout the duration of time a patient is on the operating table and how that is correlated with pressure ulcer development. The effect of Braden scale score and other patient characteristics and the relationship between total length of time on the operating table and pressure ulcer development, and healthcare provider intervention in response to the pressure reading if in the second part of the study healthcare providers are not blinded to the pressure data.
This study will measure the interface pressure between a patient and his or her support surface in the operating room for prolonged (>2 hour) operative cases. Eligible patients will receive an adhesive padded bandage (similar to Mepilex Gentle Border) that collects interface pressure data. When the patient is being positioned in the operating room, this bandage will be applied to the sacrum. At the completion of the case the bandage will be removed and the status of the skin will be recorded and a photo of the sacrum will be taken for documentation. Skin status will be reassessed at 24 hours and at 1 week at regularly scheduled follow-ups with the surgeon. Pressure ulcer development will then be correlated with interface pressure characteristics during the operative case, using demographic data to check homogeneity between the experimental and control groups. If at interim analysis there is a clear relationship between a pressure threshold and pressure ulcer development, the second portion of the study will not blind healthcare providers to the live data. They would be able to see the pressure measurement and reposition the patient to effectively offload.
While retrospectively this has been investigated, there is currently no substantial prospective, randomized study. This study will significantly add to strengthening the body of evidence regarding pressure ulcer development, specifically the relationship between the magnitude of interface pressure between the patient and the support surface for what duration of time leads to the development of a pressure ulcer.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Monitoring patch, no display | Experimental | Device: PatchParticipants in this condition will receive a padded bandage that monitors pressure over time. In this arm, healthcare providers will not be able to view the pressure data collected. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients undergoing an operation that is scheduled to last more than 2 hours
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Existing sacral pressure ulcer, undergoing a cardiac procedure, or inability to provide informed consent.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PatchA bandage applied to the sacrum with pressure offloading characteristics and pressure monitoring components in a low-profile housing. | Device | Monitoring patch, no display |
Primary outcome
Interface pressure (mmHg) over time (minutes)
Time frame: Duration of the surgery (>120 min, <1440 min)
The interface pressure trend on the sacrum throughout the duration of time a patient is on the operating table and how that is correlated with pressure ulcer development
7 secondary outcomes
Pressure ulcer development
Time frame: 1 week
Effect of Braden Scale
Time frame: 1 week
Effect of Body Weight (kg)
Time frame: 1 week
Effect of Body Mass Index (kg/m^2)
Time frame: 1 week
Effect of Age (years)
Time frame: 1 week
Effect of American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (I-IV)
Time frame: 1 week
Number of Repositioning events
Time frame: Duration of the surgery (>2 h, <24 h)
Results and safety
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Nov 2019.
- BackgroundBerlowitz D, VanDeusen Lukas C, Parker V, Niederhauser A, Silver J, Logan C, Ayello E, Zulkowski K. 2012. Preventing Pressure Ulcers in Hospitals: A Toolkit for Improving Quality of Care. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
- Background: PubMed 21350270Black JM, Edsberg LE, Baharestani MM, Langemo D, Goldberg M, McNichol L, Cuddigan J; National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel. Pressure ulcers: avoidable or unavoidable? Results of the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Consensus Conference. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2011 Feb;57(2):24-37.
- BackgroundFeil M BJ. 2015. Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers Remain a Top Patient Safety Concern for Hospitals in Pennsylvania. :1-10.
- Background: PubMed 24700291Gillespie BM, Chaboyer WP, McInnes E, Kent B, Whitty JA, Thalib L. Repositioning for pressure ulcer prevention in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 3;2014(4):CD009958. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009958.pub2.
- Background: PubMed 17662510Hommel A, Bjorkelund KB, Thorngren KG, Ulander K. Nutritional status among patients with hip fracture in relation to pressure ulcers. Clin Nutr. 2007 Oct;26(5):589-96. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2007.06.003. Epub 2007 Jul 26.
- Background: PubMed 15370580Houwing R, Rozendaal M, Wouters-Wesseling W, Buskens E, Keller P, Haalboom J. Pressure ulcer risk in hip fracture patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004 Aug;75(4):390-3. doi: 10.1080/00016470410001132-1.
- Background: PubMed 13618101KOSIAK M. Etiology and pathology of ischemic ulcers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1959 Feb;40(2):62-9. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 13753341KOSIAK M. Etiology of decubitus ulcers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1961 Jan;42:19-29. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 18494637Lindholm C, Sterner E, Romanelli M, Pina E, Torra y Bou J, Hietanen H, Iivanainen A, Gunningberg L, Hommel A, Klang B, Dealey C. Hip fracture and pressure ulcers - the Pan-European Pressure Ulcer Study - intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors. Int Wound J. 2008 Jun;5(2):315-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2008.00452.x.
- Background: PubMed 26333288McInnes E, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SE, Dumville JC, Middleton V, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 3;2015(9):CD001735. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001735.pub5.
- Background: PubMed 25990889Meddings J. Using administrative discharge diagnoses to track hospital-acquired pressure ulcer incidence--limitations, links, and leaps. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Jun;41(6):243-5. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41033-5. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 25990890Padula WV, Makic MB, Mishra MK, Campbell JD, Nair KV, Wald HL, Valuck RJ. Comparative effectiveness of quality improvement interventions for pressure ulcer prevention in academic medical centers in the United States. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Jun;41(6):246-56. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(15)41034-7.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Pressure Ulcer
Recruiting
PAW-Hydrogel for Chronic Wound Healing
Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU), Pressure Ulcer (PU)
Not yet recruiting
Pulsed High Intensity Laser Versus Negative Pressure Therapy On Neuropathic Ulcers
Neuropathic Ulcers
Recruiting
Efficacy and Safety of ZKARE® Gel and Its Accessory ZKAPI® in the Treatment of Chronic Ulcers.
Chronic Ulcers
Not yet recruiting
The Effectiveness of a Caregiver-Based Multicomponent Intervention to Prevent Pressure Ulcers in Home-Cared-For Individuals With Dementia
Dementia, Home Care for Elderly or Disabled Individuals
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Hypertrophic Scar Prosthetic Pressure in Burn Amputee
Amputation Stump, Burn Injury
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Justin Sacks, MD principal investigator
Johns Hopkins University
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Patch in people with Pressure Ulcer and Signs and Symptoms, run by Johns Hopkins University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: withdrawn, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Nov 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study was withdrawn before enrolling participants, so there are no results.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Interface pressure (mmHg) over time (minutes) (time frame: Duration of the surgery (>120 min, <1440 min)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02689817, which also lists 18 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Nov 2019.