» Articles » PMID: 28494507

Subepidermal Moisture Detection of Pressure Induced Tissue Damage on the Trunk: The Pressure Ulcer Detection Study Outcomes

Overview
Date 2017 May 12
PMID 28494507
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We examined the relationship between subepidermal moisture measured using surface electrical capacitance and visual skin assessment of pressure ulcers at the trunk location (sacral, ischial tuberosities) in 417 nursing home residents residing in 19 facilities. Participants were on average older (mean age of 77 years), 58% were female, over half were ethnic minorities (29% African American, 12% Asian American, and 21% Hispanic), and at risk for pressure ulcers (mean score for Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Ulcer Risk of 15.6). Concurrent visual assessments and subepidermal moisture were obtained at the sacrum and right and left ischium weekly for 16 weeks. Visual assessment was categorized as normal, erythema, stage 1 pressure ulcer, Deep Tissue Injury or stage 2+ pressure ulcer using the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel 2009 classification system. Incidence of any skin damage was 52%. Subepidermal moisture was measured with a dermal phase meter where higher readings indicate greater moisture (range: 0-70 tissue dielectric constant), with values increasing significantly with the presence of skin damage. Elevated subepidermal moisture values co-occurred with concurrent skin damage in generalized multinomial logistic models (to control for repeated observations) at the sacrum, adjusting for age and risk. Higher subepidermal moisture values were associated with visual damage 1 week later using similar models. Threshold values for subepidermal moisture were compared to visual ratings to predict skin damage 1 week later. Subepidermal moisture of 39 tissue dielectric constant units predicted 41% of future skin damage while visual ratings predicted 27%. Thus, this method of detecting early skin damage holds promise for clinicians, especially as it is objective and equally valid for all groups of patients.

Citing Articles

Medical Applications of Skin Tissue Dielectric Constant Measurements.

Mayrovitz H Cureus. 2024; 15(12):e50531.

PMID: 38222165 PMC: 10787628. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50531.


Modelling the cost-effectiveness of subepidermal moisture measurement as part of a process of assessment and intervention to prevent hospital-acquired pressure ulcers.

Posnett J, Moss J, Michaelwaite L Int Wound J. 2023; 20(7):2688-2699.

PMID: 37203247 PMC: 10410331. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14143.


Sub epidermal moisture measurement and targeted SSKIN bundle interventions, a winning combination for the treatment of early pressure ulcer development.

Byrne S, Patton D, Avsar P, Strapp H, Budri A, OConnor T Int Wound J. 2022; 20(6):1987-1999.

PMID: 36575149 PMC: 10333035. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14061.


A machine learning algorithm for early detection of heel deep tissue injuries based on a daily history of sub-epidermal moisture measurements.

Lustig M, Schwartz D, Bryant R, Gefen A Int Wound J. 2022; 19(6):1339-1348.

PMID: 35019208 PMC: 9493225. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13728.


Our contemporary understanding of the aetiology of pressure ulcers/pressure injuries.

Gefen A, Brienza D, Cuddigan J, Haesler E, Kottner J Int Wound J. 2021; 19(3):692-704.

PMID: 34382331 PMC: 8874092. DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13667.


References
1.
Mayrovitz H, McClymont A, Pandya N . Skin tissue water assessed via tissue dielectric constant measurements in persons with and without diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012; 15(1):60-5. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2012.0197. View

2.
Niederhauser A, VanDeusen Lukas C, Parker V, Ayello E, Zulkowski K, Berlowitz D . Comprehensive programs for preventing pressure ulcers: a review of the literature. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2012; 25(4):167-88. DOI: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000413598.97566.d7. View

3.
Baumgarten M, Margolis D, van Doorn C, Gruber-Baldini A, Hebel J, Zimmerman S . Black/White differences in pressure ulcer incidence in nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004; 52(8):1293-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52358.x. View

4.
Harris C, Bates-Jensen B, Parslow N, Raizman R, Singh M, Ketchen R . Bates-Jensen wound assessment tool: pictorial guide validation project. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2010; 37(3):253-9. DOI: 10.1097/WON.0b013e3181d73aab. View

5.
Bender R, Grouven U . Using binary logistic regression models for ordinal data with non-proportional odds. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51(10):809-16. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00066-3. View