Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial: cost effectiveness analysis

Abstract 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 per patient on average, 95% confidence interval - £377.59 to £976.79) 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.

[1]  E. A. Nelson,et al.  Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation. , 2006, Health technology assessment.

[2]  E. A. Nelson,et al.  Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers , 2006 .

[3]  Jane Nixon,et al.  Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers: PRESSURE (pressure relieving support surfaces) trial , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  R. Fleurence.  Cost-effectiveness of pressure-relieving devices for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers , 2005, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[5]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in people at different levels of vascular disease risk: economic analysis of a randomised trial in 20 536 individuals , 2005, The Lancet.

[6]  S. Thompson,et al.  Multiple regression of cost data: use of generalised linear models , 2004, Journal of health services research & policy.

[7]  Andrew Briggs,et al.  Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves--facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. , 2004, Health economics.

[8]  J. Posnett,et al.  The cost of pressure ulcers in the UK. , 2004, Age and ageing.

[9]  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.

[10]  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.

[11]  D. Berlowitz,et al.  Are pressure ulcers preventable? A survey of experts. , 2001, Advances in skin & wound care.

[12]  S. Thompson,et al.  How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  K Claxton,et al.  The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. , 1999, Journal of health economics.

[14]  J. Lindsey,et al.  Choosing among generalized linear models applied to medical data. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

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