Air-Fluidized Beds or Conventional Therapy for Pressure Sores

Abstract

Our findings suggest that air-fluidized beds are more effective than conventional therapy, particularly for large pressure sores. Studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of air-fluidized beds in long-term care settings.

Obesity Reduces the Risk of Pressure Ulcers in Elderly Hospitalized Patients

“…Malnutrition, typically defined as low albumin concentration (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) and/or weight loss (9,10), has been associated with PU in epidemiologic studies, although studies examining body weight as a risk factor are rare (2). Nursing practice reviews (11)(12)(13) and case studies (14,15) also suggest that nurses consider obesity a risk for PU.…”

Comparing the effectiveness of a specialized alternating air pressure mattress replacement system and an air-fluidized integrated bed in the management of post-operative flap patients: A randomized controlled pilot study

“…However, despite widespread use across a range of settings, clinicians, healthcare providers and those funding bodies responsible for treatment reimbursement are beginning to question whether these devices prove cost-effective or whether other modalities may be able to deliver similar clinical outcomes for less expenditure. Popularity among patients is also unclear, with studies reporting patient withdrawal, overheating, dry skin and difficulty exiting the bed for rehabilitation [4,5]. This is echoed by the author's experience whereby patients frequently report the surfaces to be uncomfortably warm, while physical therapists and nurses find it difficult to deliver care: this may include the necessary adoption of ergonomic postures, such as leaning over the bed, which can be associated with a high risk of back injury [6,7].…”

“…Those studies which directly compared the outcomes for patients cared for on air-fluidized beds (AFB) were generally outdated, at up to 20 years old, and had control groups which were unlikely to represent contemporary standards of care [4,5,11]. Contemporary studies are rare, and those that do exist may be based on weaker study designs such as retrospective chart review [12].…”

A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing reactive air and active alternating pressure mattresses in the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers among medical ICU patients

“…Where such comparative studies do exist, they are largely either of poor design, outdated and, as such, almost certainly fail to represent contemporary standards of care despite being cited as evidence [23], e.g. comparing sophisticated air fluidised therapy with a 'standard' mattress [24]; rendering the findings meaningless in current practice or they compare variations of the same modality, e.g. alternating mattress replacement with alternating mattress overlay [25].…”