ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Alternating pressure air mattresses in the intensive care unit as a cost-effective strategy for preventing stage III-IV pressure injuries: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressure Injuries (PIs) are frequent, preventable complications in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), leading to morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. Alternating Pressure Air Mattresses (APAMs) have been proposed to reduce PI incidence, but real-world data remain scarce.
objectivesTo assess the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of APAMs in preventing PIs among critically ill patients.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in a 10-bed tertiary ICU, comparing patients before and after APAM implementation. Multivariate logistic regression identified independent PI risk factors, and a cost-effectiveness model was developed using Number Needed to Treat (NNT) and treatment costs.
resultsAPAM use reduced overall PI risk by 33% (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.45-0.98) and Stage III-IV ulcer risk by 84% (RR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.05-0.53). The NNT was 23, corresponding to net savings of USD 121,750 over five years for a 10-bed ICU, with cost recovery achieved within 4.3-months. Length of Stay (LOS) and prolonged mechanical ventilation independently increased PI risk by 19% and 13% per day, respectively. APAMs' benefit was attenuated in patients with extended LOS and ventilation. Sepsis and respiratory failure increased PI risk in univariate analysis but lost significance after adjustment, indicating mediation by LOS and ventilation. APAMs eliminated the need for negative pressure wound therapy in this cohort.
conclusionsAPAMs significantly reduced severe PI incidence and treatment requirements in critically ill patients, demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Their protective effect was limited in patients with prolonged ICU stay or ventilation. Multicenter randomized trials are warranted, especially in diabetic and septic populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.