The effectiveness of faecal collection devices in preventing incontinence-associated dermatitis in critically ill patients with faecal incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Yan Zhang,Minmin Leng,Jinli Guo,Junfang Duan,Zhiwen Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2020.04.152
IF: 3.265
2021-01-01
Australian Critical Care
Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objective</h3><p>The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of different types of faecal collection devices on incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) in critically ill patients with faecal incontinence.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Review method used</h3><p>This was a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Data sources</h3><p>A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane library, China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and WeiPu. All the databases were searched from their inception to July 31, 2019, and the data were updated on November 2, 2019.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Review methods</h3><p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies were included. Participants were critically ill patients with faecal incontinence, and the interventions involved care with faecal collection devices. Comparisons were usual care, and the outcome was the incidence of IAD. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to calculate the pooled effect sizes. Heterogeneity was tested using the inconsistency index (<em>I</em><sup><em>2</em></sup>) method.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>Nineteen studies were included in this systematic review including 16 RCTs and three quasi-experimental studies. Twelve RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, which showed that the use of faecal collection devices significantly reduced the incidence of IAD. Subgroup analyses based on device type showed significant effects for anal pouch collection devices (OR, 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.07–0.26; <em>P</em> < 0.00001), anal pouch connected to negative-pressure suction devices (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.08–0.42; <em>P</em> < 0.00001), anal catheter/tube collection devices (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13–0.44; <em>P</em> < 0.00001), and anal catheter/tube connected to negative-pressure suction devices (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07–0.59, <em>P</em> < 0.00001).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>Faecal collection devices can reduce the incidence of IAD in critically ill patients with faecal incontinence. It is suggested that when using a device to care for critically ill patients with faecal incontinence, an anal pouch connected to continuous low-negative-pressure suction device should be preferred. Further high-quality research is still needed regarding anal catheter/tube collection devices and anal catheter/tube connected to continuous low-negative-pressure suction devices.</p>
nursing,critical care medicine