Application of 222-nm ultraviolet radiation C device to heal wounds and control infections in pressure injuries in intensive care unit patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

Objective: This study examined the effects of 222-nm UVC on pressure injury (PI) wound healing in ICU patients, focusing on wound condition, bacterial count, and PI area.

Setting: Adult ICU patients at a medical center in Taiwan.

Research methodology: A total of 70 adult ICU patients in northern Taiwan were randomly assigned to either a 222-nm UVC group (n = 35) or a control group (n = 35). The UVC group received daily 60-second exposures (5 cm distance) before dressing changes from Day 1 to 7, then standard care from Day 8 to 14. The control group received standard care throughout. Data were collected at baseline (T0), Day 8 (T1), and Day 15 (T2), including Pressure Sore Status Tool (PSST) scores, bacterial counts, and PI area. After excluding patients transferred or needing special care before Day 15, 65 remained for final analysis (irradiation: n = 33; control: n = 32).

Results: Generalized estimating equations showed significant group × time interaction effects. The irradiation group had greater PSST improvement at T1 (B = -3.01, p = 0.006) and T2 (B = -4.79, p < 0.001), greater bacterial count reduction at T2 (B = -2214.33, p = 0.038), and PI area reduction at T1 (B = -7.04, p = 0.036).

Conclusion: The irradiation group exhibited significantly better improvements in PSST scores, bacterial count, and PI area than did the control group, suggesting potential benefits of 222-nm UVC in infection control and wound healing. However, the single-center design and small sample limit generalizability. Further large-scale, multi-center studies are needed to confirm its role in routine care.

Implications for clinical practice: The preliminary findings of this study indicate that 222-nm UVC may facilitate PI wound healing in ICU patients, which shows that it has potential value for auxiliary application in clinical nursing care. The current evidence is still preliminary in nature and requires more empirical validation.