4.3 Article

BODY MASS INDEX AND PRESSURE ULCERS: IMPROVED PREDICTABILITY OF PRESSURE ULCERS IN INTENSIVE CARE PATIENTS

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 23, Issue 6, Pages 494-500

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CRITICAL CARE NURSES
DOI: 10.4037/ajcc2014535

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Center For Research Resources [UL1RR025755]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Obesity contributes to immobility and subsequent pressure on skin surfaces. Knowledge of the relationship between obesity and development of pressure ulcers in intensive care patients will provide better understanding of which patients are at high risk for pressure ulcers and allow more efficient prevention. Objectives To examine the incidence of pressure ulcers in patients who differ in body mass index and to determine whether inclusion of body mass index enhanced use of the Braden scale in the prediction of pressure ulcers. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from the medical records of 4 groups of patients with different body mass index values: underweight, normal weight, obese, and extremely obese. Data included patients' demographics, body weight, score on the Braden scale, and occurrence of pressure ulcers. Results The incidence of pressure ulcers in the underweight, normal weight, obese, and extremely obese groups was 8.6%, 5.5%, 2.8%, and 9.9%, respectively. When both the score on the Braden scale and the body mass index were predictive of pressure ulcers, extremely obese patients were about 2 times more likely to experience an ulcer than were normal weight patients. In the final model, the area under the curve was 0.71. The baseline area under the curve for the Braden scale was 0.68. Conclusions Body mass index and incidence of pressure ulcers were related in intensive care patients. Addition of body mass index did not appreciably improve the accuracy of the Braden scale for predicting pressure ulcers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available