Effects of cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure on sacral skin blood flow responses
There are no guidelines on selecting alternating pressure (AP) configurations on increasing sacral skin blood flow (SBF). The specific aims were to compare different cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of AP on sacral SBF responses in healthy people to establish the efficacy and safety of the prot...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of tissue viability 2020-11, Vol.29 (4), p.264-268 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 268 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 264 |
| container_title | Journal of tissue viability |
| container_volume | 29 |
| creator | Wu, Fu-Lien Zheng, Zhi Ma, Yinyin Weng, Kaixiang Liao, Fuyuan Jan, Yih-Kuen |
| description | There are no guidelines on selecting alternating pressure (AP) configurations on increasing sacral skin blood flow (SBF).
The specific aims were to compare different cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of AP on sacral SBF responses in healthy people to establish the efficacy and safety of the protocols.
Two studies were tested, including the cycle period study (8 2.5-min vs 4 5-min protocols) and the pressure amplitude study (75/5 vs 65/15 mmHg protocols). Sacral SBF was measured using laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) in 20 participants. AP loads were randomly applied using an indenter through the rigid LDF probe. Each protocol included a 10-min baseline, 20-min AP and 10-min recovery periods. A 30-min washout period was provided. The SBF response was normalized to the baseline SBF of each condition of each participant.
For the cycle period study, the 4 5-min cycle protocol partially restored more SBF than the 8 2.5-min cycle protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.04 vs 0.71 ± 0.03, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.09.004 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2446670719</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0965206X20301194</els_id><sourcerecordid>2446670719</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-d9b7f06d42fdced4c9ed784c59ee6bdb8e80376bd3053e10b65df5f5cb0612803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1v2zAQhjm0qF23P6BLwDGLlaM-KAudAiNJAxjIkgLdCIo8FnRoUeVJCfLvy9RusmW6A-55X-Aexr4JKAQIebEv9tNjUUIJBXQFQP2BLaGTzboE-WvBPhPtASRAIz6xRVV27QbqcsnClXNoJuLRcfNsAvIRk4-WuB4sHxMSzQm5PozBT7PFf6AOE6ZBT374_YbEgZM2SQdOD37gfYjRchfiE8_EGAdC-sI-Oh0Iv57miv28vrrf_ljv7m5ut5e7tamaalrbrm8dSFuXzhq0tenQtpvaNB2i7G2_wQ1Ubd4qaCoU0MvGusY1pgcpynxbsfNj75jinxlpUgdPBkPQA8aZVFnXUrbQii6j4oiaFIkSOjUmf9DpWQlQL2LVXmWx6kWsgk5lsTlzdqqf-wPa18R_qxn4fgQwP_noMSkyHof8i09ZtrLRv1P_F6NmjdE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2446670719</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure on sacral skin blood flow responses</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Wu, Fu-Lien ; Zheng, Zhi ; Ma, Yinyin ; Weng, Kaixiang ; Liao, Fuyuan ; Jan, Yih-Kuen</creator><creatorcontrib>Wu, Fu-Lien ; Zheng, Zhi ; Ma, Yinyin ; Weng, Kaixiang ; Liao, Fuyuan ; Jan, Yih-Kuen</creatorcontrib><description>There are no guidelines on selecting alternating pressure (AP) configurations on increasing sacral skin blood flow (SBF).
The specific aims were to compare different cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of AP on sacral SBF responses in healthy people to establish the efficacy and safety of the protocols.
Two studies were tested, including the cycle period study (8 2.5-min vs 4 5-min protocols) and the pressure amplitude study (75/5 vs 65/15 mmHg protocols). Sacral SBF was measured using laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) in 20 participants. AP loads were randomly applied using an indenter through the rigid LDF probe. Each protocol included a 10-min baseline, 20-min AP and 10-min recovery periods. A 30-min washout period was provided. The SBF response was normalized to the baseline SBF of each condition of each participant.
For the cycle period study, the 4 5-min cycle protocol partially restored more SBF than the 8 2.5-min cycle protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.04 vs 0.71 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) and at the high-pressure phase (0.25 ± 0.03 vs 0.19 ± 0.03, p < 0.05). For the pressure amplitude study, the 75/5 mmHg protocol partially restored more sacral SBF than the 65/15 mmHg protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.1 vs 0.25 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) but not at the high-pressure phase (0.23 ± 0.02 vs 0.21 ± 0.02, non-significant).
This study demonstrated that 1) a cycle period of 5 min was better than 2.5 min and 2) a pressure amplitude of 75/5 mmHg was better than 65/15 mmHg. The finding provides insights for selecting the AP configurations for increasing SBF.
•The cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure (AP) affect sacral skin blood flow (SBF) responses.•The 5-min cycle period of AP partially restored more sacral SBF compared to the 2.5-min AP under the same average pressure.•The 75/5 mmHg of AP partially restored more sacral SBF compared to the 65/15 mmHg of AP under the same average pressure.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0965-206X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jtv.2020.09.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32978042</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Alternating pressure ; Blood flow ; Nursing ; Pressure ulcer ; Support surface</subject><ispartof>Journal of tissue viability, 2020-11, Vol.29 (4), p.264-268</ispartof><rights>2020 Tissue Viability Society</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Tissue Viability Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-d9b7f06d42fdced4c9ed784c59ee6bdb8e80376bd3053e10b65df5f5cb0612803</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-d9b7f06d42fdced4c9ed784c59ee6bdb8e80376bd3053e10b65df5f5cb0612803</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6622-7959 ; 0000-0001-7149-4034</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtv.2020.09.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3541,27915,27916,45986</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32978042$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wu, Fu-Lien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Zhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Yinyin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weng, Kaixiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liao, Fuyuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jan, Yih-Kuen</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure on sacral skin blood flow responses</title><title>Journal of tissue viability</title><addtitle>J Tissue Viability</addtitle><description>There are no guidelines on selecting alternating pressure (AP) configurations on increasing sacral skin blood flow (SBF).
The specific aims were to compare different cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of AP on sacral SBF responses in healthy people to establish the efficacy and safety of the protocols.
Two studies were tested, including the cycle period study (8 2.5-min vs 4 5-min protocols) and the pressure amplitude study (75/5 vs 65/15 mmHg protocols). Sacral SBF was measured using laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) in 20 participants. AP loads were randomly applied using an indenter through the rigid LDF probe. Each protocol included a 10-min baseline, 20-min AP and 10-min recovery periods. A 30-min washout period was provided. The SBF response was normalized to the baseline SBF of each condition of each participant.
For the cycle period study, the 4 5-min cycle protocol partially restored more SBF than the 8 2.5-min cycle protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.04 vs 0.71 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) and at the high-pressure phase (0.25 ± 0.03 vs 0.19 ± 0.03, p < 0.05). For the pressure amplitude study, the 75/5 mmHg protocol partially restored more sacral SBF than the 65/15 mmHg protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.1 vs 0.25 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) but not at the high-pressure phase (0.23 ± 0.02 vs 0.21 ± 0.02, non-significant).
This study demonstrated that 1) a cycle period of 5 min was better than 2.5 min and 2) a pressure amplitude of 75/5 mmHg was better than 65/15 mmHg. The finding provides insights for selecting the AP configurations for increasing SBF.
•The cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure (AP) affect sacral skin blood flow (SBF) responses.•The 5-min cycle period of AP partially restored more sacral SBF compared to the 2.5-min AP under the same average pressure.•The 75/5 mmHg of AP partially restored more sacral SBF compared to the 65/15 mmHg of AP under the same average pressure.</description><subject>Alternating pressure</subject><subject>Blood flow</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Pressure ulcer</subject><subject>Support surface</subject><issn>0965-206X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kD1v2zAQhjm0qF23P6BLwDGLlaM-KAudAiNJAxjIkgLdCIo8FnRoUeVJCfLvy9RusmW6A-55X-Aexr4JKAQIebEv9tNjUUIJBXQFQP2BLaGTzboE-WvBPhPtASRAIz6xRVV27QbqcsnClXNoJuLRcfNsAvIRk4-WuB4sHxMSzQm5PozBT7PFf6AOE6ZBT374_YbEgZM2SQdOD37gfYjRchfiE8_EGAdC-sI-Oh0Iv57miv28vrrf_ljv7m5ut5e7tamaalrbrm8dSFuXzhq0tenQtpvaNB2i7G2_wQ1Ubd4qaCoU0MvGusY1pgcpynxbsfNj75jinxlpUgdPBkPQA8aZVFnXUrbQii6j4oiaFIkSOjUmf9DpWQlQL2LVXmWx6kWsgk5lsTlzdqqf-wPa18R_qxn4fgQwP_noMSkyHof8i09ZtrLRv1P_F6NmjdE</recordid><startdate>202011</startdate><enddate>202011</enddate><creator>Wu, Fu-Lien</creator><creator>Zheng, Zhi</creator><creator>Ma, Yinyin</creator><creator>Weng, Kaixiang</creator><creator>Liao, Fuyuan</creator><creator>Jan, Yih-Kuen</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6622-7959</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7149-4034</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202011</creationdate><title>Effects of cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure on sacral skin blood flow responses</title><author>Wu, Fu-Lien ; Zheng, Zhi ; Ma, Yinyin ; Weng, Kaixiang ; Liao, Fuyuan ; Jan, Yih-Kuen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c353t-d9b7f06d42fdced4c9ed784c59ee6bdb8e80376bd3053e10b65df5f5cb0612803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Alternating pressure</topic><topic>Blood flow</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Pressure ulcer</topic><topic>Support surface</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wu, Fu-Lien</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zheng, Zhi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ma, Yinyin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weng, Kaixiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liao, Fuyuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jan, Yih-Kuen</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of tissue viability</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wu, Fu-Lien</au><au>Zheng, Zhi</au><au>Ma, Yinyin</au><au>Weng, Kaixiang</au><au>Liao, Fuyuan</au><au>Jan, Yih-Kuen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure on sacral skin blood flow responses</atitle><jtitle>Journal of tissue viability</jtitle><addtitle>J Tissue Viability</addtitle><date>2020-11</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>264</spage><epage>268</epage><pages>264-268</pages><issn>0965-206X</issn><abstract>There are no guidelines on selecting alternating pressure (AP) configurations on increasing sacral skin blood flow (SBF).
The specific aims were to compare different cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of AP on sacral SBF responses in healthy people to establish the efficacy and safety of the protocols.
Two studies were tested, including the cycle period study (8 2.5-min vs 4 5-min protocols) and the pressure amplitude study (75/5 vs 65/15 mmHg protocols). Sacral SBF was measured using laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) in 20 participants. AP loads were randomly applied using an indenter through the rigid LDF probe. Each protocol included a 10-min baseline, 20-min AP and 10-min recovery periods. A 30-min washout period was provided. The SBF response was normalized to the baseline SBF of each condition of each participant.
For the cycle period study, the 4 5-min cycle protocol partially restored more SBF than the 8 2.5-min cycle protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.04 vs 0.71 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) and at the high-pressure phase (0.25 ± 0.03 vs 0.19 ± 0.03, p < 0.05). For the pressure amplitude study, the 75/5 mmHg protocol partially restored more sacral SBF than the 65/15 mmHg protocol at the low-pressure phase (0.87 ± 0.1 vs 0.25 ± 0.03, p < 0.05) but not at the high-pressure phase (0.23 ± 0.02 vs 0.21 ± 0.02, non-significant).
This study demonstrated that 1) a cycle period of 5 min was better than 2.5 min and 2) a pressure amplitude of 75/5 mmHg was better than 65/15 mmHg. The finding provides insights for selecting the AP configurations for increasing SBF.
•The cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure (AP) affect sacral skin blood flow (SBF) responses.•The 5-min cycle period of AP partially restored more sacral SBF compared to the 2.5-min AP under the same average pressure.•The 75/5 mmHg of AP partially restored more sacral SBF compared to the 65/15 mmHg of AP under the same average pressure.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32978042</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jtv.2020.09.004</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6622-7959</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7149-4034</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0965-206X |
| ispartof | Journal of tissue viability, 2020-11, Vol.29 (4), p.264-268 |
| issn | 0965-206X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2446670719 |
| source | ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Alternating pressure Blood flow Nursing Pressure ulcer Support surface |
| title | Effects of cycle periods and pressure amplitudes of alternating pressure on sacral skin blood flow responses |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T01%3A46%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20cycle%20periods%20and%20pressure%20amplitudes%20of%20alternating%20pressure%20on%20sacral%20skin%20blood%20flow%20responses&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20tissue%20viability&rft.au=Wu,%20Fu-Lien&rft.date=2020-11&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=264&rft.epage=268&rft.pages=264-268&rft.issn=0965-206X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jtv.2020.09.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2446670719%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2446670719&rft_id=info:pmid/32978042&rft_els_id=S0965206X20301194&rfr_iscdi=true |