These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of air-fluidized therapy with other support surfaces used to treat pressure ulcers in nursing home residents.
    Author: Ochs RF, Horn SD, van Rijswijk L, Pietsch C, Smout RJ.
    Journal: Ostomy Wound Manage; 2005 Feb; 51(2):38-68. PubMed ID: 15699554.
    Abstract:
    To provide empirical evidence comparing pressure ulcer healing rates between different support surfaces, data were analyzed from eligible residents with pressure ulcers (N = 664) enrolled in the National Pressure Ulcer Long-Term Care Study, a retrospective pressure ulcer prevention and treatment study. Support surfaces were categorized as: Group 1 (static overlays and replacement mattresses), Group 2 (low-air-loss beds, alternating pressure, and powered/non-powered overlays/mattresses), and Group 3 (air-fluidized beds). Calculation of healing rates, using the largest ulcer from each resident, found mean healing rates greatest for air-fluidized therapy (Group 3) (mean = 5.2 cm(2)/week) versus Group 1 (mean =1.5 cm(2)/week) and Group 2 (mean = 1.8 cm(2)/week) surfaces (P = 0.007). Healing rates also were assessed using 7- to 10-day "episodes"; each ulcer generated separate episode(s) that included all ulcers when residents had multiple ulcers. Mean healing rates were significantly greater for Stage III/IV ulcers on Group 3 surfaces (mean = 3.1 cm(2)/week) versus Group 1 (mean = 0.6 cm(2)/week) and Group 2 (mean = 0.7 cm(2)/week) surfaces (Group 2 versus Group 3: P = 0.0211). This finding persisted for ulcers with comparable initial baseline areas (20 cm(2) to 75 cm(2)) on Group 2 and Group 3 surfaces; healing improved on Group 3 surfaces (+2.3 cm(2)/week) versus Group 2 surfaces (-2.1 cm(2)/week, P = 0.0399). Residents on Group 3 (6 out of 82; 7.3%) and Group 1 (47 out of 461; 10.2%) surfaces had fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits than those on Group 2 surfaces (23 out of 121; 19.0%, P = 0.01) despite significantly greater illness in residents on Group 2 and 3 versus Group 1 surfaces (P is less than 0.0001). Despite limitations inherent in retrospective studies, ulcers on Group 3 surfaces versus Groups 1 and Group 2 surfaces had statistically significant faster healing rates (particularly for Stage III/IV ulcers) with significantly fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits (Group 3 versus Group 2), despite significantly more illness in residents on Group 2 or Group 3 versus Group 1 surfaces. Episode analyses -- providing greater power, uniform treatment duration, and comparable baseline sizes -- confirmed these findings. Air-fluidized support surfaces represent great healing potential that justifies further exploration.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]