Vanderwee Katrien, Grypdonck Maria, Defloor Tom
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, UZ 2 Blok A, De Pintelaan 185, B 9000 Gent, Belgium.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2008 May;45(5):784-801. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.07.003. Epub 2007 Oct 4.
The purpose of this paper is to examine and synthesise the literature on alternating pressure air mattresses (APAMs) as a preventive measure for pressure ulcers.
Literature review.
PubMed, Cinahl, Central, Embase, and Medline databases were searched to identify original and relevant articles. Additional publications were retrieved from the references cited in the publications identified during the electronic database search.
Thirty-five studies were included. Effectiveness and comfort of APAMs were the main focuses of the studies evaluating APAMs. Pressure ulcer incidence, contact interface pressure, and blood perfusion were the most frequently used outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of APAMs. Fifteen randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed the pressure ulcer incidence. One RCT compared a standard hospital mattress with an APAM and found that the APAM was a more effective preventive measure. RCTs comparing APAMs with constant-low-air mattresses resulted in conflicting evidence. There was also no clear evidence as to which type of APAM performed better. All RCTs had methodological flaws. The use of contact interface pressure and blood perfusion measurements to evaluate the effectiveness of APAMs is questionable. Comfort of APAMs was the primary outcome measure in only four studies. Different methods for assessment were used and different types of APAMs were evaluated. Better measures for comfort are needed. A few studies discussed technical problems associated with APAMs. Educating nurses in the correct use of APAMs is advisable.
Taking into account the methodological issues, we can conclude that APAMs are likely to be more effective than standard hospital mattresses. Contact interface pressure and blood perfusion give only a hypothetical conclusion about APAMs' effectiveness. Additional large, high-quality RCTs are needed. No conclusions can be drawn regarding the comfort of APAMs. A number of technical problems associated with APAMs are related to nurses' improper use of the devices.
本文旨在研究并综合有关交替压力气垫床(APAMs)作为预防压疮措施的文献。
文献综述。
检索了PubMed、Cinahl、Central、Embase和Medline数据库,以识别原始且相关的文章。从电子数据库检索过程中识别出的出版物中引用的参考文献中获取了其他出版物。
纳入了35项研究。APAMs的有效性和舒适性是评估APAMs的研究的主要重点。压疮发生率、接触界面压力和血液灌注是评估APAMs有效性最常用的结局指标。15项随机对照试验(RCTs)分析了压疮发生率。一项RCT将标准医院床垫与APAM进行了比较,发现APAM是一种更有效的预防措施。将APAMs与持续低气压床垫进行比较的RCTs得出了相互矛盾的证据。也没有明确的证据表明哪种类型的APAM表现更好。所有RCTs都存在方法学缺陷。使用接触界面压力和血液灌注测量来评估APAMs的有效性存在疑问。APAMs的舒适性仅在四项研究中作为主要结局指标。使用了不同的评估方法并评估了不同类型的APAMs。需要更好的舒适性测量方法。一些研究讨论了与APAMs相关的技术问题。建议对护士进行正确使用APAMs的培训。
考虑到方法学问题,我们可以得出结论,APAMs可能比标准医院床垫更有效。接触界面压力和血液灌注仅对APAMs的有效性给出了假设性结论。需要更多大型、高质量的RCTs。关于APAMs的舒适性无法得出结论。与APAMs相关的一些技术问题与护士对设备的不当使用有关。