Effect of a Continuous Bedside Pressure Mapping System for Reducing Interface Pressures: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2025
Development of a Benchtop Model for Evaluating the Compatibility of Wound Dressing Materials with Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems
Published on: May 2, 2025
Chester Ho1,2, Wrechelle Ocampo2, Danielle A Southern3
1Division of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services Neurosciences, Rehabilitation & Vision Strategic Clinical Network, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Importance:
Continuous bedside pressure mapping (CBPM) technology can assist in detecting skin areas with excessive interface pressure and inform efficient patient repositioning to prevent the development of pressure injuries (PI).
Objective:
To evaluate the efficacy of CBPM technology in reducing interface pressure and the incidence of PIs.
Design, Setting, And Participants:
This parallel, 2-group randomized clinical trial was performed at a tertiary acute care center. The study started to enroll participants in December 2014 and was completed in May 2018. Participants included adults partially or completely dependent for bed mobility. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2018 to December 2022.
Intervention:
Nursing staff using visual feedback from CBPM technology for 72 hours.
Main Outcomes And Measures:
Absolute number of sensing points with pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg, mean interface pressure across all sensing points under a patient's body, proportion of participants who had pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg, and pressure-related skin and soft tissue changes.
Results:
There were 678 patients recruited. After attrition, 260 allocated to the control group (151 [58.1%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.9 [18.5] years) and 247 in the intervention group (147 [59.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 63.6 [18.1] years) were included in analyses. The absolute number of sensing points with pressures greater than 40 mm Hg were 11 033 in the control group vs 9314 in the intervention group (P = .16). The mean (SD) interface pressure was 6.80 (1.63) mm Hg in the control group vs 6.62 (1.51) mm Hg in the intervention group (P = .18). The proportion of participants who had pressure readings greater than 40 mm Hg was 99.6% in both the control and intervention groups.
Conclusions And Relevance:
In this randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of CBPM technology in the reduction of interface pressure and the incidence of PIs in a tertiary acute care center, no statistically significant benefit was seen for any of the primary outcomes. These results suggest that longer duration of monitoring and adequately powered studies where CBPM feedback is integrated into a multifaceted intervention to prevent PI are needed.
Trial Registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02325388.
More Related Videos
06:18A Bedside, Single Burr Hole Approach to Multimodality Monitoring in Severe Brain Injury
Published on: March 26, 2019
14:28Non-Invasive Monitoring of Microvascular Oxygenation and Reactive Hyperemia using Hybrid, Near-Infrared Diffuse Optical Spectroscopy for Critical Care
Published on: May 10, 2024
Related Concept Videos
01:21Sites for measruring blood pressure
The Brachial Artery: Primary Site for Blood Pressure Measurement
01:23Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
01:28Special considerations while measuring blood pressure
Monitoring Both Arms:
Monitoring BP in both arms during the initial assessment is advisable, as the systolic value may differ by five to ten mm Hg between arms. For subsequent BP assessments, use the arm with the higher reading.