OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients admitted to hospital. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis carried out alongside the pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial; a multicentre UK based pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING:11 hospitals in six UK NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Intention to treat population comprising 1971 participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kaplan Meier estimates of restricted mean time to development of pressure ulcers and total costs for treatment in hospital. RESULTS:Alternating pressure mattresses were associated with lower overall costs (283.6 pounds sterling per patient on average, 95% confidence interval--377.59 pounds sterling to 976.79 pounds sterling) mainly due to reduced length of stay in hospital, and greater benefits (a delay in time to ulceration of 10.64 days on average,--24.40 to 3.09). The differences in health benefits and total costs for hospital stay between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays were not statistically significant; however, a cost effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that on average alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays were associated with an 80% probability of being cost saving. CONCLUSION:Alternating pressure mattresses for the prevention of pressure ulcers are more likely to be cost effective and are more acceptable to patients than alternating pressure overlays.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients admitted to hospital. DESIGN: Cost effectiveness analysis carried out alongside the pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial; a multicentre UK based pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 11 hospitals in six UK NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Intention to treat population comprising 1971 participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kaplan Meier estimates of restricted mean time to development of pressure ulcers and total costs for treatment in hospital. RESULTS: Alternating pressure mattresses were associated with lower overall costs (283.6 pounds sterling per patient on average, 95% confidence interval--377.59 pounds sterling to 976.79 pounds sterling) mainly due to reduced length of stay in hospital, and greater benefits (a delay in time to ulceration of 10.64 days on average,--24.40 to 3.09). The differences in health benefits and total costs for hospital stay between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays were not statistically significant; however, a cost effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that on average alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays were associated with an 80% probability of being cost saving. CONCLUSION: Alternating pressure mattresses for the prevention of pressure ulcers are more likely to be cost effective and are more acceptable to patients than alternating pressure overlays.
Authors: J Nixon; E A Nelson; G Cranny; C P Iglesias; K Hawkins; N A Cullum; A Phillips; K Spilsbury; D J Torgerson; S Mason Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Jane Nixon; Gillian Cranny; Cynthia Iglesias; E Andrea Nelson; Kim Hawkins; Angela Phillips; David Torgerson; Su Mason; Nicky Cullum Journal: BMJ Date: 2006-06-01
Authors: Mona Baumgarten; David Margolis; Jesse A Berlin; Brian L Strom; Jonathan Garino; Sarah H Kagan; William Kavesh; Jeffrey L Carson Journal: Wound Repair Regen Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.617
Authors: Rosana E Norman; Michelle Gibb; Anthony Dyer; Jennifer Prentice; Stephen Yelland; Qinglu Cheng; Peter A Lazzarini; Keryln Carville; Karen Innes-Walker; Kathleen Finlayson; Helen Edwards; Edward Burn; Nicholas Graves Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Elizabeth McInnes; Asmara Jammali-Blasi; Sally E M Bell-Syer; Jo C Dumville; Victoria Middleton; Nicky Cullum Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-09-03