Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Sarah Brown, Isabelle L Smith, Julia M Brown, Claire Hulme, Elizabeth McGinnis, Nikki Stubbs, E Andrea Nelson, Delia Muir, Claudia Rutherford, Kay Walker, Valerie Henderson, Lyn Wilson, Rachael Gilberts, Howard Collier, Catherine Fernandez, Suzanne Hartley, Moninder Bhogal, Susanne Coleman, Jane E Nixon, Sarah Brown, Isabelle L Smith, Julia M Brown, Claire Hulme, Elizabeth McGinnis, Nikki Stubbs, E Andrea Nelson, Delia Muir, Claudia Rutherford, Kay Walker, Valerie Henderson, Lyn Wilson, Rachael Gilberts, Howard Collier, Catherine Fernandez, Suzanne Hartley, Moninder Bhogal, Susanne Coleman, Jane E Nixon

Abstract

Background: Pressure ulcers represent a major burden to patients, carers and the healthcare system, affecting approximately 1 in 17 hospital and 1 in 20 community patients. They impact greatly on an individual's functional status and health-related quality of life. The mainstay of pressure ulcer prevention practice is the provision of pressure redistribution support surfaces and patient repositioning. The aim of the PRESSURE 2 study is to compare the two main mattress types utilised within the NHS: high-specification foam and alternating pressure mattresses, in the prevention of pressure ulcers.

Methods/design: PRESSURE 2 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, double triangular, group sequential, parallel group trial. A maximum of 2954 'high-risk' patients with evidence of acute illness will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either a high-specification foam mattress or alternating-pressure mattress in conjunction with an electric profiling bed frame. The primary objective of the trial is to compare mattresses in terms of the time to developing a new Category 2 or above pressure ulcer by 30 days post end of treatment phase. Secondary endpoints include time to developing new Category 1 and 3 or above pressure ulcers, time to healing of pre-existing Category 2 pressure ulcers, health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness, incidence of mattress change and safety. Validation objectives are to determine the responsiveness of the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life-Prevention instrument and the feasibility of having a blinded endpoint assessment using photography. The trial will have a maximum of three planned analyses with unequally spaced reviews at event-driven coherent cut-points. The futility boundaries are constructed as non-binding to allow a decision for stopping early to be overruled by the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee.

Discussion: The double triangular, group sequential design of the PRESSURE 2 trial will provide an efficient design through the possibility of early stopping for demonstrating either superiority, inferiority of mattresses or futility of the trial. The trial optimises the potential for producing robust clinical evidence on the effectiveness of two commonly used mattresses in clinical practice earlier than in a conventional design.

Trial registration: ISRCTN01151335 . Registered on 14 May 2013. Protocol version: 5.0, dated 25 September 2015 Trial sponsor: Clare Skinner, Faculty Head of Research Support, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT; 0113 343 4897; C.E.Skinner@leeds.ac.uk.

Keywords: Alternating pressure mattress; Double triangular group sequential design; Pressure ulcers; Quality of life; Randomised controlled trial; Standard foam mattress.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trial flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Double triangular group sequential design

References

    1. Kaltenthaler E, Withfield MD, Walters SJ, Akehurst RL, Paisley S. UK, USA and Canada: how do their pressure ulcer prevalence and incidence data compare? J Wound Care. 2001;10(1):530–5. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.1.26039.
    1. McGinnis E, Briggs M, Collinson M, Wilson L, Dealey C, Brown J, et al. Pressure ulcer related pain in community populations: a prevalence survey. BMC Nurs. 2014;13:16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6955-13-16.
    1. Smith IL, Nixon J, Brown S, Wilson L, Coleman S. Pressure ulcer and wounds reporting in NHS hospitals in England part 1: audit of monitoring systems. J Tissue Viability. 2016;25(1):3–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jtv.2015.11.001.
    1. Gorecki C, Brown JM, Nelson EA, Briggs M, Schoonhoven L, Dealey C, et al. Impact of pressure ulcers on quality of life in older patients: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(7):1175–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02307.x.
    1. Gorecki C, Closs SJ, Nixon J, Briggs M. Patient-reported pressure ulcer pain: a mixed-methods systematic review. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;42(3):443–59. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.11.016.
    1. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP) and National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) Prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: quick reference guide. Emily Haesler (ed.) Perth, Australia: Cambridge Media; 2014.
    1. NICE. Pressure ulcers: prevention and management. 2014. . Accessed 8 Dec 2016.
    1. Thomas DR, Goode PS, Tarquine PH, Allman RM. Hospital‐acquired pressure ulcers and risk of death. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996;44(12):1435–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb04067.x.
    1. Coleman S, Gorecki C, Nelson EA, Closs SJ, Defloor T, Halfens R, et al. Patient risk factors for pressure ulcer development: systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013;50(7):974–1003. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.11.019.
    1. McInnes E, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer S, Dumville JC, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;4:CD001735.
    1. McInnes E, Jammali-Blasi A, Bell-Syer SE, Dumville JC, Middleton V, Cullum N. Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;9:CD001735.
    1. Spilsbury K, Nelson A, Cullum N, Iglesias C, Nixon J, Mason S. Pressure ulcers and their treatment and effects on quality of life: hospital inpatient perspectives. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(5):494–504. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04140.x.
    1. Nixon J, Cranny G, Iglesias C, Nelson EA, Hawkins K, Phillips A, et al. Randomised, controlled trial of alternating pressure mattresses compared with alternating pressure overlays for the prevention of pressure ulcers: PRESSURE (pressure relieving support surfaces) trial. BMJ. 2006;332(7555):1413. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38849.478299.7C.
    1. Hopkins A, Dealey C, Bale S, Defloor T, Worboys F. Patient stories of living with a pressure ulcer. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56(4):345–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04007.x.
    1. Nixon J, Nelson EA, Rutherford C, Coleman S, Muir D, Keen J, et al. Pressure UlceR Programme Of reSEarch (PURPOSE): using mixed methods (systematic reviews, prospective cohort, case study, consensus and psychometrics) to identify patient and organisational risk, develop a risk assessment tool and patient-reported outcome Quality of Life and Health Utility measures. Programme Grants for Applied Research. 2015;3(6). Available from: doi:10.3310/pgfar03060.
    1. Smith I, Brown S, McGinnis E, Briggs M, Coleman S, Dealey C, et al. Exploring the role of pain as an early predictor of category 2 pressure ulcers: a prospective cohort study. Unpublished. 2016.
    1. British Standards Institute. BS 3379/2005 Combustion modified flexible polyurethane cellular materials for loadbearing applications. Specification. 2005.
    1. Coleman S, Nixon J, Keen J, Wilson L, McGinnis E, Dealey C, et al. A new pressure ulcer conceptual framework. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(10):2222–34. doi: 10.1111/jan.12405.
    1. Gorecki C, Brown JM, Cano S, Lamping DL, Briggs M, Coleman S, et al. Development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for patients with pressure ulcers: the PU-QOL instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):1. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-95.
    1. Braden B, Bergstrom N. A conceptual schema for the study of the etiology of pressure sores. Rehabil Nurs. 1987;12(1):8–16. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.1987.tb00541.x.
    1. Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1171–8. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00109-7.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5 L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. Vanderwee K, Grypdonck MH, Defloor T. Effectiveness of an alternating pressure air mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers. Age Ageing. 2005;34(3):261–7. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afi057.
    1. Cavicchioli A, Carella G. Clinical effectiveness of a low-tech versus high-tech pressure-redistributing mattress. J Wound Care. 2007;16(7):285–9. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2007.16.7.27060.
    1. Lan KG, DeMets DL. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika. 1983;70(3):659–63. doi: 10.2307/2336502.
    1. Whitehead J. The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials. Chichester: Wiley; 1997.
    1. Nixon J, McElvenny D, Mason S, Brown J, Bond S. A sequential randomised controlled trial comparing a dry visco-elastic polymer pad and standard operating table mattress in the prevention of post-operative pressure sores. Int J Nurs Stud. 1998;35(4):193–203. doi: 10.1016/S0020-7489(98)00023-6.
    1. Lan KKG, Lachin JM, Bautista O. Over-ruling a group sequential boundary—a stopping rule versus a guideline. Stat Med. 2003;22(21):3347–55. doi: 10.1002/sim.1636.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, revised ed. New York: Academic; 1977.
    1. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28(7):632–42. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008.
    1. Department of Health . Reference costs 2014 to 2015. London: Department of Health; 2015.
    1. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit costs of health and social care. Kent: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2015.
    1. Padula WV, Mishra MK, Makic MB, Sullivan PW. Improving the quality of pressure ulcer care with prevention: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 2011;49(4):385–92. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31820292b3.
    1. NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. . Accessed 8 Dec 2016.
    1. Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health‐care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.00234.x.
    1. Ades A, Lu G, Claxton K. Expected value of sample information calculations in medical decision modeling. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24(2):207–27. doi: 10.1177/0272989X04263162.
    1. Nixon J. Pressure RElieving Support SUrfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2) 2015.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe