PubMed2004
Although many different type of alternating pressure air mattresses (APAMs) are used for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers, few high quality randomised controlled trials are available on which to base purchasing decisions. Faced with this situation, physiological measurements are increasingly being used as a surrogate. Laboratory evaluation techniques have centred largely on interface pressure (IP) measurement, typically analysing discrete maximum and minimum levels, or average pressure. However, since pressure relief is time varying, a time-based analysis technique may be more suitable for performance assessment. Measurements of IP, mattress air cell pressure (AP), skin tissue perfusion using laser Doppler fluxmetry (LDF), transcutaneous oxygen (tcPO2) and carbon dioxide (tcPCO2) were taken simultaneously on the sacrum, heels, trochanters and buttock over at least two alternating cycles. Duration of IP below three thresholds (30, 20, and 10 mmHg) as well as the area under the tcPO2, tcPCO2 and LDF curves were calculated automatically. Ten healthy volunteers were recruited to evaluate the pressure-relieving characteristics of two different designs of APAMs. Results indicated significant differences between the products. During the deflation phase of the cycle contact pressures on the heel were significantly lower (p < 0.0001) on the device whose inflation pressure was significantly higher, although there was no significant difference in deflation pressure. Therefore, it is important to note that low APs do not necessarily produce lower IPs under the heel, contrary to the intuitive classical notion. These techniques could assist in the selection of alternating or dynamic surfaces of any description confirmed by further clinical validation.