{Reference Type}: Comparative Study
{Title}: A Multicenter, Comparative Study of Two Pressure-Redistribution Mattresses with Repositioning Intervals for Critical Care Patients.
{Author}: Jiang Q;Liu Y;Yu H;Song S;Li G;Liu H;Zhou Y;Zhu Y;Jia J;Huang Y;Wang J;
{Journal}: Adv Skin Wound Care
{Volume}: 33
{Issue}: 3
{Year}: Mar 2020
{Factor}: 2.373
{DOI}: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000653160.13611.5d
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To compare the effectiveness of two protocols for preventing pressure injuries (PIs) in Chinese hospitals.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A multicenter, open-label, comparative study conducted in seven Chinese acute care hospitals.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>In total, 1,654 eligible patients were identified, and 1,204 were enrolled in the study. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned into the trial group (4-hour repositioning combined with a viscoelastic foam mattress; n = 602) or the control group (2-hour repositioning combined with a powered air pressure redistribution mattress; n = 602). Participants received their respective protocols until they were discharged, died, or for at least 7 days.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>The incidence of PIs, Braden Scale scores, and the time to development of PIs.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Ultimately, 596 trial group patients and 598 control group patients were analyzed. Thirteen patients had single new stage 2 or worse PIs. The total incidence of PIs was 1.1%. The difference between the two groups was significant (0.3% vs 1.8%). However, the difference between the groups' Braden Scale score median during the intervention was not significant (13 vs 13.5).<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>The 4-hour repositioning interval combined with a viscoelastic foam mattress did not increase PI incidence or risk. These findings could help providers select the right pressure redistribution mattresses and repositioning intervals for critical care patients.