| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2671003 | Journal of Tissue Viability | 2010 | 9 Pages |
BackgroundData on the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers (PU's) among ICU patients is sparse.ObjectiveTo compare PU outcomes in medial ICU patients nursed on either a reactive mattress overlay (ROHO®, ROHO Inc, Belleville, IL, USA) or an active alternating pressure mattress (NIMBUS®3, ArjoHuntleigh, Luton Bedfordshire, UK).DesignPilot prospective single blind randomised controlled clinical trial.InterventionTwo types of pressure redistributing mattress.PatientsTwo groups of eight patients.MethodsPatients included in the study were those at high risk (Norton scale <8) or with a PU on admission.ResultsThe two groups had similar patient characteristics. However, the NIMBUS 3 group presented with more ulcers per patient on admission (62.5%) and more severe ulcers (20% category 3) while four patients (50%) presented with a single superficial ulcer in the ROHO group.HealingThe progress of the ulcers showed significant decreases in PU surface area (p = 0.05), total PUSH tool score (p = 0.01) in the NIMBUS 3 group compared to the ROHO group. In the NIMBUS 3 group 82% of the ulcers improved versus none in the ROHO group (p = 0.002) and 18% remained stable versus 33%. None of the ulcers deteriorated in the NIMBUS 3 group versus 67% in the ROHO group (p = 0.006). Full thickness wounds (Category 3) were present in 22% of the NIMBUS 3 group versus 0% of the ROHO group on admission and in 0% versus 66.7% (p = 0.008) respectively at the end of the pilot study.PreventionNon-blanching erythema occurred equally in both arms at baseline; skin remained intact for the NIMBUS 3 group while 50% in the ROHO group worsened with superficial tissue loss.ConclusionThis small pilot study suggests that ‘active’ alternating therapy is a useful adjunct in the care of highly vulnerable patients, while the outcomes may be less favourable when using ‘reactive’, constant low pressure devices.
