減壓墊於BiPAP壓傷之預防成效：次級資料庫分析

目的：透過雙相型陽壓呼吸器(BiPAP)通報資料庫分析，探討減壓墊於BiPAP相關壓傷之預防成效。方法：方便取樣南部某區域教學醫院成人內科加護病房之BiPAP通報資料庫，次級資料分析減壓墊於BiPAP相關壓傷之預防成效。結果：減壓墊組的壓傷發生率為6.06%，無減壓墊組為7.78%，兩組無統計顯著差異(p =.5863)。壓傷個案相關變項比較，減壓墊組比無減壓墊組平均延緩21.18小時產生壓傷(p =.8660)，平均減少0.12個壓傷(p =.5501)、減少1.96 cm2的壓傷表面積(p =.7334)，較低的重度壓傷發生風險(risk ratio = 0.44, p =.1666)，然礙於臨床發生壓傷的個案數偏少，故成效比較尚未達顯著差異。結論：兩組比較雖未達顯著差異，但次級資料庫的真實世界數據顯示減壓墊組具有較佳的預防壓傷臨床效益，建議臨床仍可善用減壓墊於預防BiPAP相關壓傷。  "Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of pressure relief pads in preventing bi-level positive airway pressure-related injuries by analyzing data from a medical reporting database. Methods: The authors took a convenience sample of records from the medical reporting database of the adult medical intensive care unit of a regional teaching hospital in southern Taiwan. Secondary database analysis was employed to examine the effectiveness of pressure relief pads in preventing pressure injuries. Results: The incidence of pressure-related injuries in the pressure relief pads group was 6.06%, whereas the incidence in the no relief pads group was 7.78% (p = .5863). Pressure relief pads delayed the occurrence of pressure injuries by 21.18 hours (p = .8660), reduced the number of pressure injury lesions by 0.12 (p = .5501), reduced the surface area of pressure injuries by 1.96 cm2 (p = .7334), and reduced the risk of severe pressure injury (risk ratio = 0.44, p = .1666). Due to the small number of clinical incident pressure injuries reported, the comparison of effectiveness did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: Although no significant difference was observed between the two groups, real-world data from the secondary database revealed that the pressure relief pads effectively and safely prevented pressure injuries.