Randomized comparison trial of the RIK and the Nimbus 3 mattresses

Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I² = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I² = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Beds, overlays and mattresses for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Beds, overlays or mattresses are widely used with the aim of treating pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on pressure ulcer healing in people with pressure ulcers of any stage, in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to pressure-redistributing beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for treating pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (972 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 72 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 64.0 to 86.5 years (median: 82.7 years) and all studies recruited people with existing pressure ulcers (the baseline ulcer area size ranging from 4.2 to 18.6 cm2,median 6.6 cm2). Participants were recruited from acute care settings (six studies) and community and long-term care settings (seven studies). Of the 13 studies, three (224 participants) involved surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. Additionally, six (46.2%) of the 13 studies presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias. We synthesised data for four comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces; reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and a comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces. We summarise key findings for these four comparisons below. (1) Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus foam surfaces: we are uncertain if there is a difference between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants whose pressure ulcers completely healed (two studies with 132 participants; the reported risk ratio (RR) in one study was 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 3.58). There is also uncertainty for the outcomes of patient comfort (one study with 83 participants) and adverse events (one study with 49 participants). These outcomes have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (2) Reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportion of participants with completely healed pressure ulcers between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). When time to complete pressure ulcer healing is considered using a hazard ratio, data from one small study (84 participants) suggests a greater hazard for complete ulcer healing on reactive air surfaces (hazard ratio 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). These results are sensitive to the choice of outcome measure so should be interpreted as uncertain. We are also uncertain whether there is any difference between these surfaces in patient comfort responses (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in adverse events (2 studies, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence that reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use (1 study, 87 participants). Included studies did not report health-related quality of life. (3) Reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between reactive water surfaces and foam surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 1 study, 101 participants) and in adverse events (1 study, 120 participants). All these have very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, patient comfort, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness. (4) Comparison between two types of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces: it is uncertain if there is a difference between Nimbus and Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in the proportion of participants with healed pressure ulcers, in patient comfort responses and in adverse events: each of these outcomes had four studies (256 participants) but very low-certainty evidence. Included studies did not report time to complete ulcer healing, health-related quality of life, or cost effectiveness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the relative effects of most different pressure-redistributing surfaces for pressure ulcer healing (types directly compared are alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces versus foam surfaces, reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and Nimbus versus Pegasus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces). There is also uncertainty regarding the effects of these different surfaces on the outcomes of comfort and adverse events. However, people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have pressure ulcers completely healed than those using foam surfaces over 37.5 days' follow-up, and reactive air surfaces may cost more for each ulcer-free day than foam surfaces. Future research in this area could consider the evaluation of alternating pressure air surfaces versus foam surfaces as a high priority. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Reactive air surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of reactive air beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to reactive air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses that were applied for preventing pressure ulcers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a reactive air surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then we recorded and described the concerned study but did not included it in further data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies (2604 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average participant age ranged from 56 to 87 years (median: 72 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings with the majority being acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in the regions of Europe and America. Of the 17 included studies, two (223 participants) compared reactive air surfaces with surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be classified. We analysed data for five comparisons: reactive air surfaces compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (seven studies with 1728 participants), (2) foam surfaces (four studies with 229 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive gel surfaces (one study with 66 participants), and (5) another type of reactive air surface (two studies with 223 participants). Of the 17 studies, seven (41.2%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Pressure ulcer incidence Reactive air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.96; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer on reactive air surfaces compared with: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (6 studies, 1648 participants); reactive water surfaces (1 study, 37 participants); reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 66 participants), or another type of reactive air surface (2 studies, 223 participants). Evidence for all these comparisons is of very low certainty. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for two comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer incidence is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), low-certainty evidence suggests that in the nursing home setting, people on reactive air surfaces may be less likely to develop a new pressure ulcer over 14 days' of follow-up than people on alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.96; 1 study, 308 participants). It is uncertain if there is a difference in the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 123 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies have data on this outcome for three comparisons. We could not pool any data as comfort outcome measures differed between included studies; therefore a narrative summary is provided. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces over the top of an alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants), and between those using reactive air surfaces and those using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (4 studies, 1364 participants). Evidence for these two comparisons is of very low certainty. It is also uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort responses between two types of reactive air surfaces (1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there were data on this outcome for one comparison: it is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive air surfaces and foam surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The included studies have no data for health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness for all five comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is uncertain regarding any differences in the relative effects of reactive air surfaces on ulcer incidence and patient comfort, when compared with reactive water surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, or another type of reactive air surface. Using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with using foam surfaces. Also, using reactive air surfaces may reduce the risk of developing new pressure ulcers within 14 days compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in people in a nursing home setting. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Foam surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Foam surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of foam beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to foam beds, mattresses or overlays. Comparators were any beds, mattresses or overlays.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a foam surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 studies (9566 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 101 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 47.0 to 85.3 years (median: 76.0 years). Participants were mainly from acute care settings. We analysed data for seven comparisons in the review: foam surfaces compared with: (1) alternating pressure air surfaces, (2) reactive air surfaces, (3) reactive fibre surfaces, (4) reactive gel surfaces, (5) reactive foam and gel surfaces, (6) reactive water surfaces, and (7) another type of foam surface. Of the 29 included studies, 17 (58.6%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

pressure ulcer incidence Low-certainty evidence suggests that foam surfaces may increase the risk of developing new pressure ulcers compared with (1) alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 2.95; I2 = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants), and (2) reactive air surfaces (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.54; I2 = 25%; 4 studies, 229 participants). We are uncertain regarding the difference in pressure ulcer incidence in people treated with foam surfaces and the following surfaces: (1) reactive fibre surfaces (1 study, 68 participants); (2) reactive gel surfaces (1 study, 135 participants); (3) reactive gel and foam surfaces (1 study, 91 participants); and (4) another type of foam surface (6 studies, 733 participants). These had very low-certainty evidence. Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer development for two comparisons. When time to ulcer development is considered using hazard ratios, the difference in the risk of having new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces is uncertain (2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two further studies comparing different types of foam surfaces also reported time-to-event data, suggesting that viscoelastic foam surfaces with a density of 40 to 60 kg/m3 may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over 11.5 days' follow-up compared with foam surfaces with a density of 33 kg/m3 (1 study, 62 participants); and solid foam surfaces may decrease the risk of having new pressure ulcers over one month's follow-up compared with convoluted foam surfaces (1 study, 84 participants). Both had low-certainty evidence. There was no analysable data for the comparison of foam surfaces with reactive water surfaces (one study with 117 participants). Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the review contains data for three comparisons for this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort measure between foam surfaces and alternating pressure air surfaces (1 study, 76 participants; very low-certainty evidence); foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and different types of foam surfaces (4 studies, 669 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: the review contains data for two comparisons for this outcome. We are uncertain about differences in adverse effects between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (3 studies, 2181 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between foam surfaces and reactive air surfaces (1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life: only one study reported data on this outcome. It is uncertain if there is a difference (low-certainty evidence) between foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces in health-related quality of life measured with two different questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L (267 participants) and the PU-QoL-UI (233 participants). Cost-effectiveness: one study reported trial-based cost-effectiveness evaluations. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing pressure ulcer incidence (2029 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests uncertainty about the differences in pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse events and health-related quality of life between using foam surfaces and other surfaces (reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces, reactive foam and gel surfaces, or reactive water surfaces). Foam surfaces may increase pressure ulcer incidence compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive air surfaces. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and by blinding adjudicators of the photographs to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

Alternative reactive support surfaces (non-foam and non-air-filled) for preventing pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (also known as injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive surfaces that are not made of foam or air cells can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-foam and non-air-filled reactive beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any other support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to non-foam or non-air-filled reactive beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses used.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a non-foam or non-air-filled surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies (4653 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 198 participants). The average participant age ranged from 37.2 to 85.4 years (median: 72.5 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings but were mainly from acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in Europe and America. Of the 20 studies, 11 (2826 participants) included surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be fully classified. We synthesised data for the following 12 comparisons: (1) reactive water surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (three studies with 414 participants), (2) reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 117 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 87 participants), (5) reactive fibre surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (four studies with 384 participants), (6) reactive fibre surfaces versus foam surfaces (two studies with 228 participants), (7) reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds (two studies with 415 participants), (8) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 74 participants), (9) reactive gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 135 participants), (10) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 113 participants), (11) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 166 participants) and (12) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 91 participants). Of the 20 studies, 16 (80%) presented findings which were considered to be at high overall risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Pressure ulcer incidence We did not find analysable data for two comparisons: reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (14/205 (6.8%)) may increase the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (3/210 (1.4%) (risk ratio 4.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 15.65; 2 studies, 415 participants; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For all other comparisons, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing new pressure ulcers as all data were of very low certainty. Included studies did not report time to pressure ulcer incidence for any comparison in this review. Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies provide data on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there is evidence on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive gel surfaces followed by foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (one study with 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find any health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness evidence for any comparison in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is generally uncertain about the differences between non-foam and non-air-filled reactive surfaces and other surfaces in terms of pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds may increase the risk of having new pressure ulcers compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.

An exploration of nursing home residents' experiences of a non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers

Pressure ulcers are injuries to the skin and underlying tissue and are associated with a negative impact on well-being and health-related quality of life. This explorative, qualitative study aimed to explore the true meaning of elderly nursing home residents' perspectives and critical success factors when implementing a new non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers. Individual, loosely structured interviews were conductedin 12 nursing homes in Flanders, the Northern region of Belgium, a convenience sampling of 14 nursing home residents were selected based on the following eligibility criteria: high risk for pressure ulcer and/or with category 1 pressure ulcer, being bedbound and/or chair-bound, aged >65 years, and use of an alternating air pressure mattress previous to the application of the non-powered static air mattress overlay. Interviews were conducted in the participants' personal rooms between June 2017 and March 2018. Interviews included broad, open-ended questions, to invite and encourage participants to openly discuss their perspectives and experiences. Participants were interviewed once during the 14-day observation period between day 3 and day 14. All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed by an experienced transcriber. Interviews were read several times to reveal emerging patterns and were marked with codes into NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software. During the process, (sub) themes were discussed by the authors until a consensus was reached. Three main themes emerged from the analysis process: rest and sleep; mobility; and discomfort and pain associated with the use of the support surface. Themes were divided into multiple subthemes: motion, noise, sensation, repositioning, and transfer in and out of bed. Through interviews, critical success factors associated with the implementation were identified, including the lack of information and time needed to evaluate the functionality and effects of a new mattress overlay. Implementation of a non-powered static air mattress overlay to prevent pressure ulcers has a far-reaching impact on nursing home residents' experiences. This study provides insight into the true meaning of patients' perspectives by focusing on learning from the patients' experiences that provide valuable information for healthcare professionals and other stakeholders.

Support surfaces for the treatment and prevention of pressure ulcers: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

Changes in technology have resulted in a lack of clarity regarding the comparative effectiveness between active and reactive support surfaces in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers (PUs). The purpose of this literature review was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of active and reactive mattresses for prevention and treatment of PUs.

METHOD

A literature search was completed using CINAHL, Medline Plus, Scopus, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases, as well as reference lists. A temporal limiter was placed excluding studies published before 2000 due to changes in care standards and support surface technology.

RESULTS

Of the 33 articles included, nine were systematic/literature reviews and 24 were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was a consensus that pressure mattresses are an effective prevention and treatment strategy, however comparisons of the two types were often inconclusive or conflicting. Studies were conducted in acute, sub-acute or residential facilities, with no studies in a domiciliary setting. The majority of studies were rated as moderate quality with significant methodological limitations.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to investigate the use of support surfaces in a domiciliary setting with an appropriate methodology aimed at minimising the limitations described in the existing literature.

Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are treated by reducing pressure on the areas of damaged skin. Special support surfaces (including beds, mattresses and cushions) designed to redistribute pressure, are widely used as treatments. The relative effects of different support surfaces are unclear. This is an update of an existing review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pressure-relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

In September 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), that assessed the effects of support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers, in any participant group or setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction, assessment of 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments were performed independently by two review authors. Trials with similar participants, comparisons and outcomes were considered for meta-analysis. Where meta-analysis was inappropriate, we reported the results of the trials narratively. Where possible, we planned to report data as either risk ratio or mean difference as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we identified one new trial of support surfaces for pressure ulcer treatment, bringing the total to 19 trials involving 3241 participants. Most trials were small, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 1971, and were generally at high or unclear risk of bias.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

healing of existing pressure ulcersLow-tech constant pressure support surfacesIt is uncertain whether profiling beds increase the proportion of pressure ulcer which heal compared with standard hospital beds as the evidence is of very low certainty: (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.28 to 12.24), downgraded for serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness (1 study; 70 participants).There is currently no clear difference in ulcer healing between water-filled support surfaces and foam replacement mattresses: (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.37); low-certainty evidence downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (1 study; 120 participants).Further analysis could not be performed for polyester overlays versus gel overlays (1 study; 72 participants), non-powered mattresses versus low-air-loss mattresses (1 study; 20 participants) or standard hospital mattresses with sheepskin overlays versus standard hospital mattresses (1 study; 36 participants).High-tech pressure support surfacesIt is currently unclear whether high-tech pressure support surfaces (such as low-air-loss beds, air suspension beds, and alternating pressure surfaces) improve the healing of pressure ulcers (14 studies; 2923 participants) or which intervention may be more effective. The certainty of the evidence is generally low, downgraded mostly for risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision.Secondary outcomesNo analyses were undertaken with respect to secondary outcomes including participant comfort and surface reliability and acceptability as reporting of these within the included trials was very limited.Overall, the evidence is of low to very low certainty and was primarily downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision with some indirectness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current evidence, it is unclear whether any particular type of low- or high-tech support surface is more effective at healing pressure ulcers than standard support surfaces.

Treatment of pressure ulcers: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION

The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations based on the comparative effectiveness of treatments of pressure ulcers.

METHODS

This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Health Technology Assessment database through February 2014. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include complete wound healing, wound size (surface area, volume, and depth) reduction, pain, prevention of sepsis, prevention of osteomyelitis, recurrence rate, and harms of treatment (including but not limited to pain, dermatologic complications, bleeding, and infection). This guideline grades the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is patients with pressure ulcers.

RECOMMENDATION 1

ACP recommends that clinicians use protein or amino acid supplementation in patients with pressure ulcers to reduce wound size. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2

ACP recommends that clinicians use hydrocolloid or foam dressings in patients with pressure ulcers to reduce wound size. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

ACP recommends that clinicians use electrical stimulation as adjunctive therapy in patients with pressure ulcers to accelerate wound healing. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Nonpharmacologic Interventions to Heal Pressure Ulcers in Older Patients: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (The SENATOR-ONTOP Series)

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are more frequent in older patients, and the healing process is usually challenging. Nonpharmacologic interventions may play a role in the treatment of older people with PUs, but most systematic reviews (SRs) have not addressed this specific population using convincing outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and critically appraise the evidence from SRs of the primary studies on nonpharmacologic interventions to treat PUs in older patients.

DESIGN

SR and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and CINHAL (from inception to October 2013) were searched. A new search for updates in the Cochrane Database was launched in July 2014. SRs that included at least 1 comparative study evaluating any nonpharmacologic intervention to treat PUs in older patients, in any health care setting, were included. Any primary study with experimental design was then identified and included. From each primary study, quality assessment was undertaken as specified by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Interventions were identified and compared among different studies to explore the possibility of performing a meta-analysis, using complete ulcer healing as the outcome measure.

RESULTS

One hundred ten SRs with 45 primary studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The most frequent interventions explored in these trials were support surfaces (13 studies), nutrition (8), and electrotherapy (6). High or moderate quality of evidence was found in none of the interventions, mainly because of the very serious risk of bias of most studies and imprecision in the treatment effect. Evidence grade is very low or insufficient to support the use of any support surface, nutrition intervention, multicomponent interventions, repositioning or other adjunctive therapy (ultrasound, negative pressure, laser, electromagnetic, light, shock wave, hydrotherapy, radiofrequency, or vibration therapy) to increase the rates of PU healing in older patients. Electrotherapy showed some beneficial effect in the treatment of PUs, although the quality of evidence is low.

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients with PUs, evidence to use any nonpharmacologic therapy to increase the rates of wound healing is inconclusive, except for low quality evidence that supports the use of electrotherapy. This situation is especially alarming for interventions that are usually standard clinical practice (repositioning, support surfaces). Although there is some evidence in younger populations and other types of ulcers, studies in older populations with PUs using sound methodology are needed.

Pressure-relieving devices for treating heel pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or shear. Pressure redistribution devices are used as part of the treatment to reduce the pressure on the ulcer. The anatomy of the heel and the susceptibility of the foot to vascular disease mean that pressure ulcers located there require a particular approach to pressure relief.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of pressure-relieving interventions for treating pressure ulcers on the heel.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2013, for this first update, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); and EBSCO CINAHL. No language or publication date restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of pressure-relieving devices on the healing of pressure ulcers of the heel. Participants were treated in any care setting. Interventions were any pressure-relieving devices including mattresses and specific heel devices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion. Both review authors independently extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

In our original review, only one study met the inclusion criteria. This study (141 participants) compared two mattress systems; however, losses to follow up were too great to permit reliable conclusions. We did not find any further relevant studies during this first update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified one small study at moderate to high risk of bias which provided no evidence to inform practice. More research is needed.

Support surfaces for treating pressure injury: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects on healing of pressure relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure injury.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Wound Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. The reference sections of included trials were searched for further trials.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials, published or unpublished, assessing the effect of support surfaces in treating all pressure injuries were sought. All included studies had to have reported objective measures of pressure injury healing. Where possible, findings from individual trials were calculated using risk ratio estimates or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Eighteen eligible trials involving 1309 participants were identified. There was no statistically significant effect on pressure injury size with low air loss devices compared with foam alternatives. One small trial at high risk of bias found that sheepskin positioned under the legs significantly reduced redness and a very small subgroup analysis favoured a profiling bed when compared with a standard bed in terms of the healing of grade 1 pressure injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was an absence of good evidence to support the superiority of any pressure relieving device in the treatment of pressure injuries. This review highlights that the current evidence base requires improving by undertaking robust trials to ascertain which support surfaces are most effective for the treatment of pressure injuries.

Support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are treated by reducing pressure on the areas of damaged skin. Special support surfaces (including beds, mattresses and cushions) designed to redistribute pressure, are widely used as treatments. The relative effects of different support surfaces are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pressure-relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure ulcers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 July 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE (2007 to July Week 1 2011); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 14, 2011); Ovid EMBASE (2007 to 2011 Week 27); EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 14 July 2011). The reference sections of included studies were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), that assessed the effects of support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers, in any patient group or setting, that reported an objective measure of wound healing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by two review authors. Trials with similar patients, comparisons and outcomes were considered for pooled analysis. Where pooling was inappropriate the results of the trials were reported narratively. Where possible, the risk ratio or mean difference was calculated for the results of individual studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 trials of support surfaces for pressure ulcer treatment, involving 1309 participants with samples sizes that ranged from 14 to 160. Of three trials comparing air-fluidized devices with conventional therapy, two reported significant reductions in pressure ulcer size associated with air-fluidized devices. Due to lack of reported variance data we could not replicate the analyses. In relation to three of the trials that reported significant reductions in pressure ulcer size favouring low air loss devices compared with foam alternatives, we found no significant differences. A small trial found that sheepskin placed under the legs significantly reduced redness and similarly a small subgroup analysis favoured a profiling bed compared with a standard bed in terms of the healing of existing grade 1 pressure ulcers. Poor reporting, clinical heterogeneity, lack of variance data and methodological limitations in the eligible trials meant that no pooled comparisons were undertaken.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no conclusive evidence about the superiority of any support surface for the treatment of existing pressure ulcers. Methodological issues included variations in outcomes measured, sample sizes and comparison groups. Many studies had small sample sizes and often there was inadequate description of the intervention, standard care and co-interventions. Individual study results were often inadequately reported, with failure to report variance data common, thus hindering the calculation of mean differences. Some studies did not report P values when reporting on differences in outcomes. In addition, the age of some trials (some being 20 years old), means that other technologies may have superseded those investigated.Further and rigorous studies are required to address these concerns and to improve the evidence base before firm conclusions can be drawn about the most effective support surfaces to treat pressure ulcers.

Pressure-relieving devices for treating heel pressure ulcers

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers are areas of localised damage to the skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure or shear. Pressure redistribution devices are used as part of the treatment to reduce the pressure on the ulcer. The anatomy of the heel and the susceptibility of the foot to vascular disease mean that pressure ulcers located there require a particular approach to pressure relief.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of pressure-relieving interventions for treating pressure ulcers on the heel.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 25 March 2011); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to March Week 3 2011); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 12);Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations March 29, 2011); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 25 March 2011). We applied no language or publication date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of pressure-relieving devices on the healing of pressure ulcers of the heel. Participants were treated in any care setting. Interventions were any pressure-relieving devices including mattresses and specific heel devices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion. Both review authors independently extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

One study met the inclusion criteria. This study (141 participants) compared two mattress systems however losses to follow up were too great to permit reliable conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review identified one small study at moderate to high risk of bias which provided no evidence to inform practice. More research is needed.

Assessment of a prognostic biochemical indicator of nutrition and inflammation for identification of pressure ulcer risk

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers represent a major cost to the healthcare systems of the world but preventative measures are expensive and could be better targeted. Current risk screening mechanisms are often subjective and could be improved.

AIMS

To evaluate whether a biochemical assessment tool (Prognostic Inflammatory and Nutritional Index; PINI) based on measurement of albumin, alpha1-acid glycoprotein, C-reactive protein, and prealbumin is of value in estimating the prognosis of patients with pressure ulcers of European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel grade 1 and above.

METHODS

Serum samples were collected from patients participating in a clinical trial of a pressure ulcer preventing mattress. These were analysed for the markers listed above and the PINI calculated. PINI was then evaluated against patient outcome.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference between PINI values in patients whose pressure ulcers improved and those whose ulcers worsened was found in parametric testing, but significance was not achieved in non-parametric testing. A receiver operating characteristic plot showed the PINI was superior to chance in estimating prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The PINI appears to offer a potential route to improving pressure ulcer risk estimation and thus allocation of scarce equipment to improve prevention.