Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces for Pressure Ulcer Prevention (PRESSURE 2): Clinical and Health Economic Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.
Medical device
Pressure ulcer
Prevention
Randomised controlled trial
Journal
EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
04
10
2018
revised:
15
04
2019
accepted:
30
07
2019
entrez:
12
11
2019
pubmed:
12
11
2019
medline:
12
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are complications of serious acute/chronic illness. Specialist mattresses used for prevention lack high quality effectiveness evidence. We aimed to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of 2 mattress types. Multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in 42 UK secondary/community in-patient facilities.2029 high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast and/or Category 1 PU/pain at PU site) adult in-patients were randomised (1:1, allocation concealment, minimisation with random element) factors including: centre, PU status, facility and consent type. Interventions were alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) or high specification foam (HSF) for maximum treatment phase 60 days. Primary outcome was time to development of new PU Category ≥ 2 from randomisation to 30 day post-treatment follow-up in intention-to treat population. Trial registration: ISRCTN 01151335. Between August 2013 and November 2016, we randomised 2029 patients (1016 APMs: 1013 HSF) who developed 160(7.9%) PUs. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU Category ≥ 2 Fine and Gray Model Hazard Ratio HR = 0.76, 95%CI0.56-1.04); exact P = 0.0890; absolute difference 2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the In high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast/Category 1 PU/ pain on a PU site) in-patients, we found insufficient evidence of a difference in time to PU development at 30-day final follow-up, which may be related to a low event rate affecting trial power. APMs conferred a small treatment phase benefit. Patient preference, low PU incidence and small group differences suggests the need for improved targeting of APMs with decision making informed by patient preference/comfort/rehabilitation needs and the presence of potentially modifiable risk factors such as being completely immobile, nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or altered skin/Category1 PU.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (PUs) are complications of serious acute/chronic illness. Specialist mattresses used for prevention lack high quality effectiveness evidence. We aimed to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of 2 mattress types.
METHODS
METHODS
Multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in 42 UK secondary/community in-patient facilities.2029 high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast and/or Category 1 PU/pain at PU site) adult in-patients were randomised (1:1, allocation concealment, minimisation with random element) factors including: centre, PU status, facility and consent type. Interventions were alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) or high specification foam (HSF) for maximum treatment phase 60 days. Primary outcome was time to development of new PU Category ≥ 2 from randomisation to 30 day post-treatment follow-up in intention-to treat population. Trial registration: ISRCTN 01151335.
FINDINGS
RESULTS
Between August 2013 and November 2016, we randomised 2029 patients (1016 APMs: 1013 HSF) who developed 160(7.9%) PUs. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU Category ≥ 2 Fine and Gray Model Hazard Ratio HR = 0.76, 95%CI0.56-1.04); exact P = 0.0890; absolute difference 2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the
INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
In high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast/Category 1 PU/ pain on a PU site) in-patients, we found insufficient evidence of a difference in time to PU development at 30-day final follow-up, which may be related to a low event rate affecting trial power. APMs conferred a small treatment phase benefit. Patient preference, low PU incidence and small group differences suggests the need for improved targeting of APMs with decision making informed by patient preference/comfort/rehabilitation needs and the presence of potentially modifiable risk factors such as being completely immobile, nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or altered skin/Category1 PU.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31709401
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.07.018
pii: S2589-5370(19)30138-5
pmc: PMC6833358
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
42-52Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 11/36/33
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 03;(9):CD001735
pubmed: 26333288
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Apr;13(2):145-51; discussion 151-2
pubmed: 15069223
J Med Econ. 2014 Mar;17(3):191-7
pubmed: 24451040
J Tissue Viability. 2016 Feb;25(1):3-15
pubmed: 26778371
Health Econ. 2018 Jan;27(1):7-22
pubmed: 28833869
Age Ageing. 2005 May;34(3):261-7
pubmed: 15764622
J Adv Nurs. 2014 Oct;70(10):2222-34
pubmed: 24684197
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Jul;10(22):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-163
pubmed: 16750060
Stat Methods Med Res. 2002 Dec;11(6):455-68
pubmed: 12516984
Health Econ. 2005 May;14(5):487-96
pubmed: 15497198
BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 20;7(1):e013623
pubmed: 28110286
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 Jul;50(7):974-1003
pubmed: 23375662
Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A513
pubmed: 27201583
J Adv Nurs. 2014 Oct;70(10):2339-52
pubmed: 24845398
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Jul;57(7):1175-83
pubmed: 19486198
Rehabil Nurs. 1987 Jan-Feb;12(1):8-12
pubmed: 3643620
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 23;13(2):e0192707
pubmed: 29474359
Trials. 2016 Dec 20;17(1):604
pubmed: 27993145
Trials. 2017 Mar 20;18(1):132
pubmed: 28320482