Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers: PRESSURE (pressure relieving support surfaces) trial

Abstract Objective To compare whether differences exist between alternating pressure overlays and alternating pressure mattresses in the development of new pressure ulcers, healing of existing pressure ulcers, and patient acceptability. Design Pragmatic, open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting 11 hospitals in six NHS trusts. Participants 1972 people admitted to hospital as acute or elective patients. Interventions Participants were randomised to an alternating pressure mattress (n = 982) or an alternating pressure overlay (n = 990). Main outcome measures The proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer of grade 2 or worse; time to development of new pressure ulcers; proportions of participants developing a new ulcer within 30 days; healing of existing pressure ulcers; and patient acceptability. Results Intention to treat analysis found no difference in the proportions of participants developing a new pressure ulcer of grade 2 or worse (10.7% overlay patients, 10.3% mattress patients; difference 0.4%, 95% confidence interval - 2.3% to 3.1%, P = 0.75). More overlay patients requested change owing to dissatisfaction (23.3%) than mattress patients (18.9%, P = 0.02). Conclusion No difference was found between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays in the proportion of people who develop a pressure ulcer. Trial registration ISRCTN 78646179

[1]  N. Bergstrom,et al.  The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk , 1987, Nursing research.

[2]  R. Reed,et al.  Low Serum Albumin Levels, Confusion, and Fecal Incontinence: Are These Risk Factors for Pressure Ulcers in Mobility-Impaired Hospitalized Adults? , 2003, Gerontology.

[3]  J N Morris,et al.  Deriving a Risk‐Adjustment Model for Pressure Ulcer Development Using the Minimum Data Set , 2001, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[4]  L. Lipsitz,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Risk Factors Associated with the Formation of Pressure Ulcers in Nursing Homes , 1994, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[5]  R. Allman,et al.  Pressure ulcer risk factors among hospitalized patients with activity limitation. , 1995, JAMA.

[6]  Jane Nixon,et al.  Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial: cost effectiveness analysis , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  Jane Nixon,et al.  Reliability of pressure ulcer classification and diagnosis. , 2005, Journal of advanced nursing.

[8]  C. Theaker,et al.  Risk factors for pressure sores in the critically ill , 2000, Anaesthesia.

[9]  S. Paisley,et al.  UK, USA and Canada: how do their pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data compare? , 2001, Journal of wound care.

[10]  Jo C Dumville,et al.  Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  D. Margolis,et al.  Risk factors for pressure ulcers among elderly hip fracture patients , 2003, Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society.

[12]  P. Hinds,et al.  A triangulation of methods and paradigms to study nurse-given wellness care. , 1987, Nursing research.

[13]  P. Papanikolaou,et al.  Improving the accuracy of pressure ulcer risk calculators: some preliminary evidence. , 2002, International Journal of Nursing Studies.