Comparison of Allevyn Adhesive and Biatain Adhesive in the management of pressure ulcers.

OBJECTIVE The primary objective was to assess dressing delamination and the ensuing potential consequences during wear and/or removal, as well as the effect of residue remaining in the ulcer following foam breakdown. METHOD In this prospective multicentre study, 32 patients with a grade II or III pressure ulcer were randomised to receive either Allevyn Adhesive or Biatain Adhesive dressing. The performance of the dressings was assessed over seven dressing changes or a maximum of six weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients with at least one delaminated dressing (delamination being defined as the falling apart of a dressing during wear or removal, or the presence of residue from the dressing in the ulcer). RESULTS Allevyn Adhesive was significantly less likely to delaminate than Biatain Adhesive: 83% of patients given Biatain Adhesive had a dressing that delaminated compared with 14% for Allevyn Adhesive (p = 0.014). Furthermore, a greater proportion of the Biatain Adhesive dressings delaminated compared with the Allevyn Adhesive dressings: 50% versus 4% (p < 0.001). Allevyn Adhesive performed significantly better in the following parameters: handling exudate (p = 0.044), comfort (p = 0.007), ease of application (p = 0.004), conformability during application (p = 0.003) and removal (p < 0.0001), and adherence to the skin during application (p = 0.003) and prior to removal (p = 0.011). Three patients given Allevyn Adhesive (21%) reported three adverse events; six patients given Biatain Adhesive (33%) reported eight adverse events. CONCLUSION Allevyn Adhesive is effective and well tolerated in the management of pressure ulcers and less likely to delaminate than Biatain Adhesive.