White Rose University Consortium logo
University of Leeds logo University of Sheffield logo York University logo

Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial : cost effectiveness analysis

Iglesias, C. (orcid.org/0000-0002-3426-0930), Nixon, J., Cranny, G., Hawkins, K., Phillips, A., Torgerson, D. (orcid.org/0000-0002-1667-4275), Mason, S., Cullum, N. and Nelson, E.A. (2006) Pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial : cost effectiveness analysis. British Medical Journal. 1416. ISSN 0959-8146

Text (cullumn6.pdf)

Download (789Kb)
Text (cullumn6_correction.pdf)

Download (57Kb)


Objective To assess tire cost effectiveness of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients admitted to hospital. Design Cost effectiveness analysis carried out alongside the pressure relieving support surfaces (PRESSURE) trial; a multicentre UK based pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting 11 hospitals in six UK NHS trusts. Participants Intention to treat population comprising 1971 participants. Main outcome measures Kaplan Meier estimates of restricted mean time to development of pressure ulcers and total costs for treatment in hospital. Results Alternating pressure mattresses were associated with lower overall costs (283.6 pound per patient on average, 95% confidence interval -377.59 pound to. 976.79) pound mainly due to reduced length of stay in hospital, and greater benefits (a delay in time to ulceration of 10.64 days on average, - 24.40 to 3.09). The differences in health benefits and total costs for hospital stay between alternating pressure mattresses and alternating pressure overlays were not statistically significant; however, a cost effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that on average alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays were associated with air 80% probability of being cost saving. Conclusion Alternating pressure mattresses for the prevention of pressure ulcers are more likely to be cost effective and are more acceptable to patients than alternating pressure overlays.

Item Type: Article
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: © 2006 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.
Institution: The University of York
Academic Units: The University of York > Health Sciences (York)
Depositing User: Repository Officer
Date Deposited: 22 Nov 2006
Last Modified: 28 Jul 2016 05:57
Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38850.711435.7C
Status: Published
Refereed: Yes
URI: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/1749

Actions (repository staff only: login required)