6Pressure redistributing devices

Publication Details

6.1. Introduction

Pressure relieving and redistributing devices are widely accepted methods of both preventing and treating pressure ulcers. A vast range of devices, including different types of mattresses, overlays, cushions and seating, are available which vary considerably in both cost and mechanism. Generally, these devices work by reducing pressure, friction or shearing forces and may be unpowered and considered ‘low-tech’ or ‘static’, or powered devices which are ‘high-tech’.

The selection of device by the healthcare professional is likely to depend upon the person's mobility, the result of skin assessment, the severity and site of the pressure ulcer, weight, staff availability and skill. The choice of a pressure redistributing device by a healthcare professional should also account for a person's wishes and tolerability of the device.

It is generally accepted that these devices should be used in conjunction with other treatment strategies such as repositioning and management of the pressure ulcer (for example, by use of an appropriate dressing).

The GDG were interested in what the most clinically and cost effective pressure redistributing devices are for the management of pressure ulcers.

Recommendations on the use of pressure redistributing devices for the prevention of pressure ulcers can be found in part 1 of the guideline.

6.2. Review question: What are the most clinically and cost effective pressure redistributing devices for the management of pressure ulcers?

For full details see review protocol in Appendix D.

6.2.1. Clinical evidence (adults)

A Cochrane Review looking at support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers was retrieved from the search and this was used as the basis for our review. It included 17 randomised trials6,29,44,51,55-57,59,73,89,123,126,136,145,161,162,180 Two additional randomised trials were found via systematic searches and were used to update the Cochrane review.39,108 Evidence from the RCTs are summarised in the clinical GRADE evidence profile below. See also the study selection flow chart in Appendix D, forest plots in Appendix I, study evidence tables in Appendix G and exclusion list in Appendix J.

Various types of devices were used to redistribute pressure, and for the purposes of the Cochrane review, these were categorised as ‘low-tech’ (non-powered), constant low pressure (CLP), high-tech and other devices.

The ‘low-tech’ CLP devices included:

  • Standard foam mattresses
  • Alternative foam mattresses or overlays
  • Gel-filled mattresses or overlays
  • Fibre-filled mattresses or overlays
  • Air-filled mattresses or overlays
  • Water-filled mattresses or overlays
  • Bead-filled mattresses or overlays
  • Sheepskins

The high-tech support surfaces included:

  • Alternating-pressure mattresses or overlays
  • Air-fluidised beds
  • Low-air-loss beds

The other support surfaces included:

  • Turning beds or frames
  • Operating table overlays
  • Wheelchair cushions

The Cochrane Review notes that this classification has since been updated by the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP & NPUAP 2009) and will be considered in future updates of their review.

Summary of included studies.

Table

Summary of included studies.

6.2.1.1. Low tech constant pressure devices

Table 42. Clinical evidence profile: water mattress overlay versus low-tech mattress.

Table 42

Clinical evidence profile: water mattress overlay versus low-tech mattress.

Table 43. Clinical evidence profile: 3 dimensional macroporous overlay versus gel overlay.

Table 43

Clinical evidence profile: 3 dimensional macroporous overlay versus gel overlay.

6.2.1.2. High-tech pressure devices

Table 44. Clinical evidence profile: low-air-loss bed versus low-tech foam mattress overlay.

Table 44

Clinical evidence profile: low-air-loss bed versus low-tech foam mattress overlay.

Table 45. Clinical evidence profile: low-air-loss bed versus low-air-loss overlay.

Table 45

Clinical evidence profile: low-air-loss bed versus low-air-loss overlay.

Table 46. Clinical evidence profile: air-fluidised therapy (AFT) versus standard or conventional therapies.

Table 46

Clinical evidence profile: air-fluidised therapy (AFT) versus standard or conventional therapies.

Table 47. Clinical evidence profile: alternating-pressure mattress versus alternating-pressure mattress.

Table 47

Clinical evidence profile: alternating-pressure mattress versus alternating-pressure mattress.

Table 48. Clinical evidence profile: alternating-pressure mattress overlay versus alternating-pressure mattress.

Table 48

Clinical evidence profile: alternating-pressure mattress overlay versus alternating-pressure mattress.

Table 49. Clinical evidence profile: air-filled devices versus alternating pressure mattress.

Table 49

Clinical evidence profile: air-filled devices versus alternating pressure mattress.

Table 50. Clinical evidence profile: alternating-pressure cushion versus dry flotation cushion.

Table 50

Clinical evidence profile: alternating-pressure cushion versus dry flotation cushion.

Table 51. Clinical evidence profile: profiling bed versus foam mattress.

Table 51

Clinical evidence profile: profiling bed versus foam mattress.

Table 52. Clinical evidence profile: constant force mattress versus low-air-loss mattress.

Table 52

Clinical evidence profile: constant force mattress versus low-air-loss mattress.

Table 53. Clinical evidence profile: wheelchair cushion with equipped with individualised cyclic pressure-relief protocol versus standard wheelchair cushion.

Table 53

Clinical evidence profile: wheelchair cushion with equipped with individualised cyclic pressure-relief protocol versus standard wheelchair cushion.

6.2.1. Economic evidence (adults)

Published literature

One study was included with a relevant comparison.61 This is summarised in the economic evidence profile below (Table 54). See also the study selection flow chart in Appendix D and study evidence tables in Appendix H.

Table 54. Economic evidence profile: alternating pressure overlays verses alternating pressure mattress replacements verses high specification foam mattresses.

Table 54

Economic evidence profile: alternating pressure overlays verses alternating pressure mattress replacements verses high specification foam mattresses.

One study that met the inclusion criteria was selectively excluded196 – this is summarised in Appendix H, with reasons for exclusion given.

One additional study was found which included devices for the management of pressure ulcers as part of a more complex management strategy.193 This study was not included as the cost-effectiveness of the strategy as a whole is evaluated, and does not provide information on the cost-effectiveness of the device alone.

Unit costs

Unit costs were presented to aid consideration of cost effectiveness (see Table 55).

Table 55. Unit costs.

Table 55

Unit costs.

Note - these prices have been obtained directly from manufacturers, and represent the list price for the NHS. It is acknowledged that prices vary locally; therefore these prices are illustrative only. The devices included in the table are those identified by GDG members as being commonly used, and should not be interpreted as recommended devices.

6.2.2. Clinical evidence (neonates, infants, children and young people)

No RCTs or cohort studies were identified. Recommendations were developed using a modified Delphi consensus technique. Further details can be found in Appendix N.

6.2.3. Economic evidence (neonates, infants, children and young people)

Published literature

No relevant economic evaluations were identified.

Economic considerations

In the absence of economic evidence, the GDG considered relevant UK NHS unit costs of various mattresses and overlays (see Table 56) These were considered alongside clinical evidence obtained from the Delphi consensus panel to inform qualitative judgement about cost-effectiveness.

Table 56. Unit costs.

Table 56

Unit costs.

Note: the costs above are included for illustrative purposes only and should not be interpreted as recommendations in favour of these particular devices. These are list prices only and local prices may vary.

6.2.4. Evidence statements

6.2.4.1. Clinical (adults)

6.2.4.1.1. Water mattress overlay versus low-tech mattress
  • One study (n=120) showed there may be no clinical difference between a water mattress overlay and a low-tech mattress for the proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed within trial period, but the direction of the estimate of effect favoured the low-tech mattress (very low quality).
  • One study (n=120) showed there may be a clinical benefit for a water mattress overlay compared to a low tech mattress for reducing reduction in pain. No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Rate of reduction in size of ulcers
    • Reduction in size and/or volume of pressure ulcer
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Patient acceptability
    • Side effects
    • Mortality (all cause)
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.2. 3-D macroporous overlay versus gel overlay
  • One study (n=72) showed there may be no clinical difference between a 3-D macroporous overlay and a gel overlay for the proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed. The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the gel overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=72) showed a 3-D macroporous overlay may be more clinically effective for reducing mortality (all-cause) when compared to a gel overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=72) showed a 3-D macroporous overlay is potentially more clinically effective for reducing suspension due to worsening of pressure ulcers when compared to a gel overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=72) showed a 3-D macroporous overlay may be more clinically effective for reducing suspension due to intolerance when compared to a gel overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=72) showed a 3-D macroporous overlay is potentially more clinically effective for reducing unchanged/worsened pressure ulcers when compared to a gel overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=72) showed a 3-D macroporous overlay is potentially more clinically effective for improving pressure ulcers when compared to a gel overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=72) showed a 3-D macroporous overlay may be more clinically effective for increased comfort when compared to a gel overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=72) showed a 3-D macroporous overlay is potentially more clinically effective for reducing discomfort when compared to a gel overlay (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing (time to event data)
    • Rate of healing (continuous data)
    • Rate of change in size of ulcer (absolute and relative) (continuous data)
    • Reduction in size of ulcer and volume of ulcer
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care (continuous data)
    • Side effects
    • Health-related quality of life (continuous data)
6.2.4.1.3. Low-air loss-bed versus low-tech foam mattress overlay
  • One study (n=84) showed a low-air-loss bed is potentially more clinically effective for the proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed within the trial period when compared to a low-tech foam mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=49) showed there may be no clinical harm between a low-air-loss bed and a low tech foam mattress overlay for the proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed within the trial period, but the direction of the estimate of effect could favour the low-tech foam mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • Two studies (n=133) showed a low-air-loss bed is potentially more clinically effective for the proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed within the trial period at when compared to a low-tech foam mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=49) showed there may be no clinical difference between a low-air-loss bed and a low-tech foam mattress overlay for pressure ulcers reduced by 1 grade or more, including completely healed (very low quality).
  • One study (n=84) reported there is potentially a clinical benefit for a low-air-loss bed compared to a low-tech foam mattress overlay for rate of ulcer healing. No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=48) reported a mean difference for change in pressure ulcer size for stage 2 pressure ulcers was 2 higher (0.73 to 3.27) in a low-air-loss bed compared with a low-tech foam mattress overlay. The clinical importance is unknown (very low quality).
  • One study (n=29) reported a mean difference for change in pressure ulcer size for stage 3 and stage 4 pressure ulcers was 24.7 higher (20.37 to 29.03)in a low-air-loss bed compared with a low-tech foam mattress overlay. The clinical importance is unknown (very low quality).
  • One study (n=39) showed there is no clinical benefit of a low-air-loss bed for patient acceptability (mean comfort score) when compared with a low-tech foam mattress overlay (low quality).
  • One study (n=84) showed there may be a clinical harm for a low-air-loss bed compared to a low-tech foam mattress overlay for all-cause mortality (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Pain (prssure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Side effects
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.4. Low-air-loss bed versus low-air-loss overlay
  • One study (n=93) showed there may be a clinical benefit for a low-air-loss bed compared to a low-air-loss overlay for reduction in size of pressure ulcer (median change in pressure ulcer area). No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=93) showed there may be a clinical benefit for a low-air-loss bed compared to a low-air-loss overlay for reduction in size of pressure ulcer (mean change in pressure ulcer surface area). No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Rate of reduction in size of ulcers
    • Proportion of completely healed within trial period
    • Pain (pressure ulcer-related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Patient acceptability
    • Side effects
    • Mortality (all cause)
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.5. Air-fluidised therapy (AFT) versus standard/conventional therapies
  • One study (n=65) showed there may be no clinical difference between an air-fluidised therapy and a standard/conventional therapy for proportion of people with 50% reduction in total surface area (very low quality).
  • One study (n=35) showed air-fluidised therapy is potentially more clinically effective for proportion with improvement in pressure ulcers when compared to standard/conventional therapy (very low quality).
  • One study (n=65) showed air-fluidised therapy is potentially more clinically effective for proportion with improvement in pressure ulcers when compared to standard/conventional therapy (low quality).
  • Two studies (n=100) showed air-fluidised therapy is potentially more clinically effective for proportion with improvement in pressure ulcers when compared to standard/conventional therapy (low quality).
  • One study (n=40) showed there may be a clinical benefit for air-fluidised therapy compared to standard/conventional therapy for change in mean ulcer area (stage 2 or 3 ulcers). No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=65) showed there may be a clinical benefit for air-fluidised therapy compared to standard/conventional therapy for change in total pressure ulcer surface area (very low quality).
  • One study (n=18) showed air-fluidised therapy is more clinically effective for patient acceptability (patient satisfaction) when compared to standard/conventional therapy (low quality).
  • One study (n=27) showed air-fluidised therapy is potentially more clinically effective for patient acceptability (more people experiencing an increase in comfort) when compared to standard/conventional therapy (very low quality).
  • One study (n=27) showed there may be a clinical benefit for air-fluidised therapy compared to standard/conventional therapy for patient acceptability (fewer people experiencing a reduction in comfort) (very low quality).
  • One study (n=97) showed there may be a clinical benefit for air-fluidised therapy compared to standard/conventional therapy for time in hospital (very low quality).
  • One study (n=27) reported there may be no clinical difference between air-fluidised therapy and standard/conventional therapy length of stay in hospital after randomisation, but the direction of the estimate of effect could favour standard care. No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=27) showed air-fluidised therapy is potentially more clinically effective for pain (more people experiencing a reduction in pain) when compared to standard or conventional therapy (very low quality).
  • One study (n=27) showed there may be a clinical benefit for air-fluidised therapy compared to standard/conventional therapy for pain (fewer people experiencing an increase in pain) (very low quality).
  • One study (n=112) showed air-fluidised therapy is potentially more clinically effective at reducing all-cause mortality when compared to standard/conventional therapy (very low quality).
  • Two studies (n=177) showed there may be no clinical difference between an air-fluidised therapy and standard/conventional therapy at reducing all-cause mortality, the direction of the estimate of effect favoured air-fluidised therapy (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Rate of reduction in size of pressure ulcers
    • Proportion of completely healed within trial period
    • Side effects
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.6. Alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 1) versus. alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Airwave)
  • One study (n=30) showed an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 1) is potentially more clinically effective for proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed (grade 2 and above) when compared to an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Airwave) (very low quality).
  • One study (n=30) showed there may be a clinical harm for a alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 1) compared to an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Airwave) for proportion of people with decrease in pressure ulcer size (grade 2 and above) (very low quality).
  • One study (n=30) showed an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 1) may be more clinically effective than an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Airwave) for proportion of people with increase in pressure ulcer size (grade 2 and above) (very low quality).
  • One study (n=41) reported medians an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 1) and an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Airwave) for patient acceptability (comfort). The median for both interventions was 8/10. No estimate of effect or precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=41) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 1)and an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Airwave) for mortality, but the direction of the estimate of effect could favour either intervention (very low quality).
  • One study (n=41) reported there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 1) and an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Airwave) for rate of reduction in pressure ulcer surface area (grade 2 and above), but the direction of the estimate of effect could favour either intervention (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Side effects
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.7. Alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) with cushion (Aura) and 4-hourly turning versus an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Cairwave Therapy System) with seating cushion (Proactive 2) and 8-hourly turning
  • One study (n=141) showed no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) with cushion (Aura) and 4-hourly turning for proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed (grade 2 and above) when compared with an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Cairwave Therapy System) with seating cushion (Proactive 2) and 8-hourly turning, the direction of the estimate of effect favours the 4-hourly turning (moderate quality).
  • One study (n=112) reported the mean difference for time in hospital for an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) with cushion (Aura) and 4-hourly turning, and an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Cairwave Therapy System) with seating cushion (Proactive 2) and 8-hourly turning. The mean for the alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) was 21.6 days and 21.7 days for the alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Cairwave Therapy System). No estimate of effect or precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=141) showed an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) with cushion (Aura) and 4-hourly turning is potentially more clinically harmful for mortality when compared to an alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Cairwave Therapy System) with seating (Proactive 2)cushion and 8-hourly turning (low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Rate of reduction in size of ulcers
    • Reduction in size and/or volume of ulcer
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Patient acceptability
    • Side effects
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.8. Alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) versus alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro)
  • One study (n=32) reported medians for patient acceptability (comfort) for people in hospital for an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) and a different alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). The median for the alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) was 5 (very comfortable) and 4 (comfortable) for alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). No estimate of effect or precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=32) reported medians for patient acceptability (comfort)for elderly people in a hospital or nursing home for an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) and a different alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). The median for the alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) was 5 (very comfortable) and 4 (comfortable) for alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). No estimate of effect or precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=32) showed there may be a clinical harm for an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) compared to a different alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro) for mortality (very low quality).
  • One study (n=32) reported medians for absolute reduction in wound surface area per day (grade 2 and above) for people in hospital for an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) and a different alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). The median for the Nimbus 3 alternating-pressure mattress was 0.12cm2 (range 0 to 0.21cm2) and 0.08cm2(range 0.04 to 0.33cm2) for alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=32) reported medians for relative reduction in wound surface area (grade 2 and above) for people in hospital for an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) and a different alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro),. The median for the Nimbus 3 alternating-pressure mattress was 2.44% (range 0 to 7.14%) and 1.34% (range 1.11 to 2.88%) for alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=32) reported medians for absolute reduction in wound surface area per day (grade 2 and above) for elderly people in hospital or a nursing home for an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) and a different alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). The median for the Nimbus 3 alternating-pressure mattress was 0.11cm2 (range 0.04 to 0.41cm2) and 0.05cm2(range 0 to 0.48cm2) for alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=32) reported medians for relative reduction in wound surface area (grade 2 and above)for elderly people in hospital or a nursing home for an alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) and a different alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). The median for the alternating-pressure mattress (Nimbus 3) was 1.57% (range 0.45 to 5%) and 0.99% (range 0 to 2.54%) for alternating-pressure mattress (Pegasus Biwave, Pegasus Airwave, Pegasus Cairwave or AlphaXCell) or alternating-pressure mattress overlay (AlphaXCell or Quattro). No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Proportion of completely healed within trial period
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Side effects
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.9. Alternating-pressure mattress overlay versus alternating-pressure mattress
  • One study (n=113) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed (grade 2 and above), but the direction of the estimate of effect could favour the alternating-pressure mattress (very low quality).
  • One study (n=158) showed there is no clinical benefit of an alternating-pressure mattress overlay for pressure ulcer improvement (grade 1 or 2) when compared with an alternating-pressure mattress (low quality).
  • One study (n=158) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for worsening of pressure ulcers (grade 1 or 2), but the direction of the estimate of effect could favour either intervention (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1971) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (number requesting changes for comfort or other device-related reason) (low quality).
  • One study (n=158) reported the mean for time in hospital for an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress. The mean for an alternating-pressure mattress was 22.17 days and 20.02 days for an alternating-pressure mattress. No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=113) showed an alternating-pressure mattress overlay is potentially more clinically harmful for mortality when compared to an alternating-pressure mattress (very low quality).
  • One study (n=113) reported medians for an alternating-pressure mattress and an alternating-pressure mattress overlay for time to ulcer heading. The median for both interventions was 20 days. No estimate of precision could be derived (very low quality).
  • One study (n=69) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress and an alternating-pressure mattress overlay for absolute change in pressure ulcer surface area (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people with negative comments on mattress motion). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the air-filled devices (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay for patient acceptability (proportion of people with positive comments on mattress motion) when compared with an alternating-pressure mattress the direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress (low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people with negative comments on getting into/out of bed). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress (low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay for patient acceptability (proportion of people with negative comments on movement in bed) when compared with an alternating-pressure mattress. The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress (low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people with positive comments on movement in bed). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people commenting on temperature as hot orwarm). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people commenting on temperature as sweaty or sticky). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people commenting on temperature as cold/cool), but the direction of the estimate of effect favoured either intervention (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people reporting the mattress not working or not working properly). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people commenting that it was hard to tuck the sheet under, sheets come off or gather or the mattress cover slips). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people commenting the mattress/bed was too high). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people reporting the mattress as slippery). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people reporting the mattress as too softor edges soft or sloping). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for patient acceptability (proportion of people reporting they were not able to use backrest). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there is potentially no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for side effects (mattress related fall). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for side effects (mattress-related suspected contact dermatitis). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for side effects (mattress-related climbed over/fell through cot sides). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • One study (n=1820) showed there may be no clinical difference between an alternating-pressure mattress overlay and an alternating-pressure mattress for side effects (mattress deflation during transfer). The direction of the estimate of effect favoured the alternating-pressure mattress overlay (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Rate of reduction in size of pressure ulcers
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Side effects
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.10. Air-filled devices versus alternating-pressure mattress
  • One study (n=60) showed there may be a clinical benefit for an air filled device compared to an alternating-pressure mattress for the proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed (grade 2 and above) (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Rate of reduction in size of pressure ulcers
    • Reduction in size and/or volume of ulcer
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Patient acceptability
    • Side effects
    • Mortality (all cause)
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.11. Alternating-pressure cushion versus dry flotation cushion
  • One study (n=25) showed there may be a clinical benefit for a dry flotation cushion for proportion of people with pressure ulcers completely healed (grade 2 and above) compared to an alternating-pressure cushion (very low quality).
  • One study (n=25) showed there may be a clinical benefit for a dry flotation cushion for mortality when compared to an alternating-pressure cushion (very low quality).
  • One study (n=25) showed there may be a clinical benefit for a dry flotation cushion for rate of ulcer healing (area of ulcer) when compared to an alternating-pressure cushion (very low quality).
  • One study (n=25) showed there may be a clinical benefit for an alternating-pressure cushion compared to a dry flotation cushion for rate of ulcer healing (volume of ulcer) (very low quality).
  • One study (n=25) showed an alternating-pressure cushion is potentially more clinically effective for percentage change in pressure ulcer area per day when compared to a dry flotation cushion (very low quality).
  • One study (n=25) showed there may be a clinical benefit for an alternating-pressure cushion compared to a dry flotation cushion for percentage change in volume of pressure ulcer per day (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Reduction in size and/or volume of pressure ulcer
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Patient acceptability
    • Side effects
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.12. Profiling bed versus foam mattress
  • One study (n=14) showed there is potentially a clinical benefit for a profiling bed compared to a foam mattress for the proportion of people with completely healed pressure ulcers (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Rate of reduction in size of pressure ulcers
    • Reduction in size and/or volume of pressure ulcer
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Patient acceptability
    • Side effects
    • Mortality (all cause)
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.13. Constant force mattress versus low-air-loss mattress
  • One study (n=18) showed a constant force mattress is potentially more clinically effective for the percentage rate of pressure ulcer closure per week when compared to a low-air-loss mattress (very low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Reduction in size and/or volume of pressure ulcer
    • Proportion of completely healed within trial period
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Patient acceptability
    • Side effects
    • Mortality (all cause)
    • Health-related quality of life
6.2.4.1.14. Wheelchair cushion with equipped with individualised cyclic pressure-relief protocol versus standard wheelchair cushion
  • One study (n=44) showed a wheelchair cushion equipped with individualised cyclic pressure-relief protocol is more clinically effective for pressure ulcer closure rate (area) when compared to a standard wheelchair cushion (low quality).
  • One study (n=44) showed a wheelchair cushion equipped with individualised cyclic pressure-relief protocol is more clinically effective for PUSH score improvement when compared to a standard wheelchair cushion (low quality).
  • One study (n=44) showed a wheelchair cushion equipped with individualised cyclic pressure-relief protocol is more clinically effective for percentage surface area reduction improvement when compared to a standard wheelchair cushion (low quality).
  • One study (n=44) showed a wheelchair cushion equipped with individualised cyclic pressure-relief protocol is more clinically effective for PUSH score improvement when compared to a standard wheelchair cushion (low quality).
  • One study (n=44) showed a wheelchair cushion equipped with individualised cyclic pressure-relief protocol is more clinically effective for percentage PUSH score improvement when compared to a standard wheelchair cushion (low quality).
  • No evidence was found for the following outcomes:
    • Time to complete healing
    • Proportion of completely healed within trial period
    • Pain (pressure ulcer related)
    • Time in hospital or NHS care
    • Patient acceptability
    • Side effects
    • Mortality (all cause)
    • Health-related quality of life

6.2.4.2. Economic (adults)

  • One cost-utility analysis found that alternating pressure mattress replacements dominate alternating pressure overlays and standard care (high specification foam mattresses) in the treatment of pressure ulcers. This study was assessed to be directly applicable with potentially serious limitations.

6.2.4.3. Clinical (neonates, infants, children and young people)

No evidence was identified.

6.2.4.4. Economic (neonates, infants, children and young people)

No evidence was identified.

6.3. Recommendations and link to evidence

6.3.1. Adults

Image

Table

Use high-specification foam mattresses for adults with a pressure ulcer. If this is not sufficient to redistribute pressure, consider the use of a dynamic support surface. Do not use standard-specification foam mattresses for adults with a pressure ulcer. (more...)

6.3.2. Neonates, infants, children and young people

Image

Table

Use a high-specification cot or bed mattress or overlay for all neonates, infants, children and young people with a pressure ulcer.

Image

Table

If pressure on the affected area cannot be adequately relieved by other means (such as repositioning), consider a dynamic support surface, appropriate to the size and weight of the child or young person with a pressure ulcer, if this can be tolerated. (more...)

Image

Table

Consider using specialist support surfaces (including dynamic support surfaces where appropriate) for neonates, infants, children and young people with pressure ulcers, taking into account their current pressure ulcer risk and mobility. Tailor the support (more...)