Department of Nursing, General Hospital, Sint-Niklaas, Belgium.
Martin's Geriatric & Wound Consultancy, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Int Wound J. 2018 Jun;15(3):333-343. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12870. Epub 2018 Mar 5.
The aims of this study were to identify, assess, and summarise available evidence about the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. The primary outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcers. Secondary outcomes included costs and patient comfort. This study was a systematic review. Six electronic databases were consulted: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed (Medline), CINAHL (EBSCOhost interface), Science direct, and Web of Science. In addition, a hand search through reviews, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of the included studies was performed to identify additional studies. Potential studies were reviewed and assessed by 2 independent authors based on the title and abstract. Decisions regarding inclusion or exclusion of the studies were based on a consensus between the authors. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: reporting an original study; the outcome was the incidence of pressure ulcer categories I to IV when using a static air mattress overlay and/or in comparison with other pressure-redistribution device(s); and studies published in English, French, and Dutch. No limitation was set on study setting, design, and date of publication. The methodological quality assessment was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Tool. Results were reported in a descriptive way to reflect the exploratory nature of the review. The searches included 13 studies: randomised controlled trials (n = 11) and cohort studies (n = 2). The mean pressure ulcer incidence figures found in the different settings were, respectively, 7.8% pressure ulcers of categories II to IV in nursing homes, 9.06% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in intensive care settings, and 12% pressure ulcers of categories I to IV in orthopaedic wards. Seven comparative studies reported a lower incidence in the groups of patients on a static air mattress overlay. Three studies reported a statistical (P < .1) lower incidence compared with a standard hospital mattress (10 cm thick, density 35 kg/m ), a foam mattress (15 cm thick), and a viscoelastic foam mattress (15 cm thick). No significant difference in incidence, purchase costs, and patient comfort was found compared with dynamic air mattresses. This review focused on the effectiveness of static air mattress overlays to prevent pressure ulcers. There are indications that these mattress overlays are more effective in preventing pressure ulcers compared with the use of a standard mattress or a pressure-reducing foam mattress in nursing homes and intensive care settings. However, interpretation of the evidence should be performed with caution due to the wide variety of methodological and/or reporting quality levels of the included studies.
本研究旨在确定、评估和总结现有的关于预防压力性溃疡的静态空气床垫垫的有效性证据。主要结局是压力性溃疡的发生率。次要结局包括成本和患者舒适度。本研究为系统评价。检索了 6 个电子数据库:Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE、PubMed(Medline)、CINAHL(EBSCOhost 界面)、Science Direct 和 Web of Science。此外,还通过综述、会议论文和纳入研究的参考文献进行了手工检索,以确定其他研究。由 2 位独立作者根据标题和摘要对潜在研究进行了审查和评估。纳入或排除研究的决定基于作者之间的共识。如果符合以下标准,则纳入研究:报告原始研究;结局为使用静态空气床垫垫和/或与其他压力重新分配装置相比时,I 至 IV 类压力性溃疡的发生率;研究发表于英语、法语和荷兰语。对研究环境、设计和出版日期没有限制。使用批判性评估技能计划工具评估方法学质量评估。结果以描述性方式报告,以反映综述的探索性性质。搜索共包括 13 项研究:随机对照试验(n = 11)和队列研究(n = 2)。在不同环境中发现的平均压力性溃疡发生率分别为养老院中 II 至 IV 类压力性溃疡为 7.8%,重症监护病房中 I 至 IV 类压力性溃疡为 9.06%,骨科病房中 I 至 IV 类压力性溃疡为 12%。有 7 项比较研究报告说,使用静态空气床垫垫的患者组的发生率较低。有 3 项研究报告说,与标准医院床垫(厚 10 厘米,密度 35 千克/米)、泡沫床垫(厚 15 厘米)和粘弹性泡沫床垫(厚 15 厘米)相比,发生率有统计学意义(P <.1)较低。与动态空气床垫相比,在发病率、购买成本和患者舒适度方面没有发现显著差异。本综述重点关注预防压力性溃疡的静态空气床垫垫的有效性。有迹象表明,与养老院和重症监护病房使用标准床垫或减压泡沫床垫相比,这些床垫垫在预防压力性溃疡方面更有效。然而,由于纳入研究的方法学和/或报告质量水平差异很大,因此应谨慎解释证据。