Gillian Cranny

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

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.

Pathology, diagnosis, and classification of pressure ulcers: comparing clinical and imaging techniques

Pressure ulcer classification systems are based on the clinical manifestations of the skin and tissue layer affected rather than underlying pathology. The objective of this study was to compare the validity of the clinical grading of erythema (blanching and nonblanching) with a measurement of skin perfusion. Therefore, an exploratory study comparing erythema with laser Doppler imaging of the sacrum and buttock skin areas was undertaken. Acute and major elective general, vascular, and orthopedic surgical in‐patients, aged 55 years or over with an expected length of hospital stay of 5 or more days were recruited. Fifty laser Doppler images from 37 patients were obtained and included in a discriminant analysis. Discriminant analysis suggested that blanching and nonblanching erythema were physiologically distinct from “normal” skin; clinically, these could be assessed with reasonable accuracy. Imaging also determined that high blood flow of differing intensity characterized blanching and nonblanching erythema. There was no evidence of the “no flow” phenomenon.

An economic model for the prevention of MRSA infections after surgery: non-glycopeptide or glycopeptide antibiotic prophylaxis?

AimSurgical site infection is commonly caused by Staphylococcus aureus. The multiresistant strains (MRSA) are resistant to most antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. Our aim was to explore whether there is a threshold of MRSA prevalence at which switching to routine glycopeptide-based antibiotic prophylaxis becomes cost-effective.MethodsAn indicative model was designed to explore the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin, cephalosporin or a combination, in patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty.ResultsIf the MRSA infection rate is equal to or above 0.25% and the rate of other infections with cephalosporin prophylaxis is equal to or above 0.2%, use of the combination antibiotic prophylaxis is optimal.DiscussionModelling the cost-effectiveness of interventions for MRSA prevention is complex due to uncertainty around resistance and effectiveness of glycopeptides.ConclusionsThe indicative model provides a framework for evaluation. More work is needed to understand the impact of antibiotic resistance over time in these currently effective antibiotics.