Evaluating the Pegasus Trinova: a data hierarchy approach

Abstract

Understanding the efficacy of patient support surfaces is essential if pressure sore management is to be both efficient and effective. However, laboratory and clinical studies in this area are fraught with well recognized problems. This investigation reports a combination of laboratory, randomized controlled trial (efficacy data) and measures of effectiveness to illustrate the beneficial role of a new dynamic integrated mattress and seat cushion system: the Pegasus Trinova. Successful prevention of sores among a vulnerable patient population, along with positive comments regarding the system's comfort and 'user-friendliness' are supported by laboratory measures of interface pressure to provide a hierarchy of data. Such an approach may present one solution to the lack of timeliness of most mattress clinical trials, thus allowing decisions regarding new support surfaces to be made upon the basis of evidence, not on anecdote or solely upon marketing claims.

Pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation

“…82 The study by Conine and colleagues 82 studied patients quite dissimilar from those in this trial, namely, people with neurological disease aged between 18 and 55 years. The studies most similar to this one, evaluating some form of alternating pressure mattress in (mainly) older hospital patients, reported pressure ulcer risk on alternating pressure as follows: Hampton 0, 80 Taylor 0 and 9%, 81 Price 2%, 83 Gebhardt 16%, 84 Exton-Smith 16% and 39% 85 and Stapleton 34%. 86 Clearly, the risk of ulceration reported in the PRESSURE Trial (10%) is consistent with these wide-ranging figures.…”

Comparison of alternating pressure mattresses and overlays for prevention of pressure ulcers in ventilated intensive care patients: a quasi‐experimental study

“…Furthermore, the cell height of the overlays used by Nixon's group was 12Á5 cm vs. 6Á5 cm in the present study. The other clinical trials on the effectiveness of different alternating pressure air supports had only small sample sizes and found no significant differences (Hampton 1997, Taylor 1999, Theaker et al 2005. Thus, our quasi-experimental study is the first to report that the use as support surface of alternating pressure air mattresses in comparison with alternating pressure air overlays is a protective factor against pressure ulcer onset, with an adjusted risk of 0Á44 (95% CI: 0Á21-0Á92) in critical care patients on MV.…”

“…Furthermore, the cell height of the overlays used by Nixon's group was 12·5 cm vs. 6·5 cm in the present study. The other clinical trials on the effectiveness of different alternating pressure air supports had only small sample sizes and found no significant differences (Hampton , Taylor , Theaker et al . ).…”

“…A Cochrane review and various clinical trials found no differences in the effectiveness of the different types of alternating pressure air surface to prevent pressure ulcers (Exton‐Smith et al . , Hampton , Taylor , Theaker et al . , Nixon et al .…”

“…mattress or overlay (Vanderwee et al 2008). A Cochrane review and various clinical trials found no differences in the effectiveness of the different types of alternating pressure air surface to prevent pressure ulcers (Exton-Smith et al 1982, Hampton 1997, Taylor 1999, Theaker et al 2005, Nixon et al 2006, McInnes et al 2008. However, the methods used in some of these trials have been questioned (McInnes et al 2008), and most were conducted in care centres for the older people or in non-critical hospitalized patients.…”