Sophie Vermette1, Isabelle Reeves2, Jacques Lemaire2. 1. Lakeshore General Hospital, Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada; email: svermette.odi@ssss.gouv.qc.ca. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke (Longueuil), Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Numerous pressure-relieving surfaces of varying costs are available for the prevention of pressure ulcers. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy or merits of using more expensive technologies. The purpose of this unblinded, randomized, prospective study was to compare the clinical and the cost effectiveness of an inflated overlay with rented, pressure-relieving surfaces for the prevention of pressure ulcers. METHODS:Patients in a 257-bed acute care facility were included if they had a Braden score of ≤ 14, had no skin lesion(s), were ≥ 18 years, weighed < 300 lb, and submitted signed consent. One hundred, ten patients (110) were randomized into a control group using either a microfluid static overlay (MSO) or a low-air-loss dynamic mattress (LALDM) with pulsation (n = 55) or into an experimental group using an inflated static overlay (ISO) (n = 55). Both groups had identical positioning protocols. No statistically significant differences were noted between the 2 groups with regard to age, gender, weight, or Braden scale score. Head-to-toe assessments were performed 3 times a week for a maximum of 14 days to deter- mine presence of pressure ulcers and comfort; Fisher's exact and chi- squared tests were used to assess categorical data, and unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney statistic tests were used to compare continuous variables. Comparative cost of support surface use was determined at the end of the study. RESULTS: In the control group, 50 patients used an MSO and 5 patients used an LALDM; in the experimental group, 55 patients used an ISO. No significant difference in pressure ulcer incidence was found between the control (n = 6) and experimental groups (n = 2) (11% versus 4%, respectively; P = 0.2706), and there was no significant difference in comfort (90% versus 85%; P = 0.7129). However, a significant difference was noted in total cost ($13,606 CAD versus $3,364 CAD, P ≤ 0.001); the ISO was less expensive. CONCLUSION: The use of an ISO offers a cost-effective option for the prevention of pressure ulcers in a moderate to very high-risk population. .
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Numerous pressure-relieving surfaces of varying costs are available for the prevention of pressure ulcers. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the efficacy or merits of using more expensive technologies. The purpose of this unblinded, randomized, prospective study was to compare the clinical and the cost effectiveness of an inflated overlay with rented, pressure-relieving surfaces for the prevention of pressure ulcers. METHODS:Patients in a 257-bed acute care facility were included if they had a Braden score of ≤ 14, had no skin lesion(s), were ≥ 18 years, weighed < 300 lb, and submitted signed consent. One hundred, ten patients (110) were randomized into a control group using either a microfluid static overlay (MSO) or a low-air-loss dynamic mattress (LALDM) with pulsation (n = 55) or into an experimental group using an inflated static overlay (ISO) (n = 55). Both groups had identical positioning protocols. No statistically significant differences were noted between the 2 groups with regard to age, gender, weight, or Braden scale score. Head-to-toe assessments were performed 3 times a week for a maximum of 14 days to deter- mine presence of pressure ulcers and comfort; Fisher's exact and chi- squared tests were used to assess categorical data, and unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney statistic tests were used to compare continuous variables. Comparative cost of support surface use was determined at the end of the study. RESULTS: In the control group, 50 patients used an MSO and 5 patients used an LALDM; in the experimental group, 55 patients used an ISO. No significant difference in pressure ulcer incidence was found between the control (n = 6) and experimental groups (n = 2) (11% versus 4%, respectively; P = 0.2706), and there was no significant difference in comfort (90% versus 85%; P = 0.7129). However, a significant difference was noted in total cost ($13,606 CAD versus $3,364 CAD, P ≤ 0.001); the ISO was less expensive. CONCLUSION: The use of an ISO offers a cost-effective option for the prevention of pressure ulcers in a moderate to very high-risk population. .
Authors: Brecht Serraes; Ann Van Hecke; Hanne Van Tiggelen; Charlotte Anrys; Sofie Verhaeghe; Dimitri Beeckman Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Brecht Serraes; Martin van Leen; Jos Schols; Ann Van Hecke; Sofie Verhaeghe; Dimitri Beeckman Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2018-03-05 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
Authors: Chunhu Shi; Jo C Dumville; Nicky Cullum; Sarah Rhodes; Asmara Jammali-Blasi; Victoria Ramsden; Elizabeth McInnes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-05-10