Request a demo
Request a demo

Designed to guard, built to move

ALLEVYN◊ LIFE Foam Dressings

Enhanced pressure injury defense your patient needs the most.¹

Chronic wounds can cost you

Patients with HAPIs in the US: Cost an additional $21,784² and spend an extra 9.5 days in hospital²

1 out of 10 adults are affected by hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs)¹

Real world evidence shows a 46.5% reduction in HAPIs after switching to ALLEVYN LIFE3

Reasons to change to ALLEVYN LIFE Foam Dressings

west_white_24dp
east_white_24dp

Clinical evidence

68%

cost saving versus standard care alone12 Read more

1.48

fewer dressing changes per week13*** Read more

397

hours released per week6**** Read more

71%

reduction in HAPIs12** Read more

How it works

Discover how the 5-layer design of ALLEVYN Life Foam Dressings helps with the management of acute and chronic wounds.4,8,12
  • Breathable bacterial barrier
  • Absorbent hydrocellular foam
  • Gentle silicone adhesive
  • EXUMASK◊ visual indicator
  • EXULOCK◊ lock-in technology
Play Video

ALLEVYN application video

Patient support material

Connect with us to request a demo

Share your email address for more information about how ALLEVYN Dressings can help your facility reduce costs and patient recovery times.

*n=37; dressing retention was 1.92x longer.
**In a pragmatic, randomized, controlled, superiority trial. p=0.001; n=359. Estimated cost savings vs standard preventive care alone; n=359.

***Compared to previous dressings. Ambispective (retrospective and prospective) observational study. 1.66 ALLEVYN LIFE Dressings vs 3.14 previous dressings (foams or gelling fibres); n=94; p<0.001). €11.46 ALLEVYN LIFE Dressings vs €27.75 previous dressings (foams or gelling fibres); n=94; p<0.001).

****n=38. Time saving based on previous dressing, estimated for 169 patients requiring ≥3 visits per week.

  1. AHRQ National Scorecard on Hospital-Acquired Conditions Updated Baseline Rates and Preliminary Results 2014–2017.
  2. Wassel CL, Delhougne G, Gayle JA, Dreyfus J, Larson B. Risk of readmissions, mortality, and hospital-acquired conditions across hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) stages in a US National Hospital Discharge database. Int Wound J. 2020;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13482
  3. Black J, Cuddigan J, et al. Medical device related pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients. International Wound Journal. 2010,Vol7(5) 358-365.
  4. Pickham D, Berte N, Pihulic M, Valdez A, Mayer B, Desai M. Effect of a wearable patient sensor on care delivery for preventing pressure injuries in acutely ill adults: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial (LSHAPI study). Int J Nurs Stud. 2017;80:12-19.
  5. Data on File Report DS/15/025/R – May 2016, L. Daubney. Physical Testing ALLEVYN LIFE Gen2.
  6. Data on File Report DS/15/217/R – October 2015, L. Daubney. Pressure Transmission Testing.
  7. Forni C, D’Alessandro F, Gallerani P, et al. Effectiveness of using a new polyurethane foam multi-layer dressing in the sacral area to prevent the onset of pressure ulcer in the elderly with hip fractures: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Int Wound J. 2018; 15(3):383-390. ALLEVYN LIFE Package Insert. Hull, England: Smith & Nephew Medical Limited; 2014.
  8. Cutting of ALLEVYN variants. Data on File Report DS/14/318/R-January 2015.
  9. SECURA Protective Ointment [Instructions for Use]
  10. Schutt SC, Tarver C, Pezzani M. Pilot study: Assessing the effect of continual position monitoring technology on compliance with patient turning protocols. Nurs Open. 2017; 207, 1-8.
  11. Rogers M. Reducing Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries (HAPI) in Long-term Acute Care with Turn Cueing Technology. Poster presented at AONL 2020.
  12. Forni C, Searle R. Economic evaluation of the use of a multi-layer polyurethane foam dressing for the prevention of pressure ulcers in elderly patients with hip fractures. Poster presented at EPUAP annual meeting, September 2018.
  13. Bauer K, Rock K, Nazzal M, Jones O, Weikai Q. Pressure Ulcers in the United States’ Inpatient Population From 2008 to 2012: Results of a Retrospective Nationwide Study. Ostomy wound management. 2016;62(11):30-38.
  14. Roberts S. Data on file report DS/12/185/DOF. July 2012.
  15. Smith+Nephew 2018.Pressure Redistribution Testing of ALLEVYN Life vs Mepilex Border and Optifoam Gentle SA. Internal Report. DS/18/351/R.
  16. Rossington A, Drysdale K, Winter R. Clinical performance and positive impact on patient wellbeing of ALLEVYN Life. Wounds UK. 2013;9(4):91 – 95.
  17. Stephen-Haynes J, Bielby A, Searle R. The clinical performance of a silicone foam in an NHS community trust. Journal of Community Nursing. 2013;27(5):50 – 59.
  18. Smith+Nephew 2016.Product Performance of Next Generation ALLEVYN Life Internal Report. (HVT080) GMCA-DOF/08.
  19. Clarke R. Positive patient outcomes: The use of a new silicone adhesive foam dressing for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment. Paper presented at CAET, 2013.
  20. Lisco C. Evaluation of a new silicone gel-adhesive hydrocellular foam dressing as part of a pressure ulcer prevention plan for ICU patients. Paper presented at: WOCN; 2013.
  21. Stankiewicz M, Gordon J, Dulhunty JM, Brown W, Pollock H, Barker-Gregory N. A cluster-controlled clinical trial of two prophylactic silicone sacral dressings to prevent sacral pressure injuries in critically ill patients. Wound Practice and Research. 2019;27:21–26.
  22. Austin M. Implementation of a medical device related pressure injury prevention bundle: a multidisciplinary approach. Poster PI-002 presented at: Symposium on Advanced Wound Care Fall. October 12-14, 2019; Las Vegas, USA.
  23. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline. Emily Haesler (Ed.). EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA: 2019.
  24. Hurd T, Gregory L, Jones A, Brown S. “A multi-centre, in market evaluation of ALLEVYN Gentle Border,” Wounds UK, vol. 5, pp. 32-44, 2009.
  25. Rafter L, Reynolds T, Rafter M. An audit of patient outcomes in the management of skin tears using silicone dressings. Wounds UK. 2016;12(2):70-78.
  26. Smith & Nephew 2018. Volunteer Evaluation of Wound Care Dressing Product Features. Internal Report. AWM/AWC/001/v1.
  27. Smith & Nephew 2016. ALLEVYN Gentle Border Heel Gen 2 – physical evaluation. Internal Report. DS/16/465/R.
  28. Smith & Nephew 2017. ALLEVYN Gentle Border Gen 2 – Physical Evaluation. Internal Report. DS/16/424/R V3.
  29. Erakli D. ALLEVYN Gentle Border dressings assessment in terms of retention on thighs. Data on File Report GMCA-DOF/04-December 2015.
  30. Smith & Nephew 2017. An open, prospective, randomised, comparative study to compare the performance of ALLEVYN Gentle Border Multisite with an alternative silicone adhesive dressing. Internal Report. GMCA-DOF-09.
  31. Data on File 1010016 Bacterial Barrier Testing (wet-wet) on samples of Allevyn Gentle and Allevyn Gentle Border dressing with a 7 day test duration against S. marcescens
  32. Carter J. The use of a silicone adhesive dressing (ALLEVYN Gentle Border) on a patient with extremely fragile skin (Poster). Wounds UK; Nov 2008; Harrogate, UK.
  33. Lee YJ, Kim JY, Shin WY, Yeon YH. Use of prophylactic silicone adhesive dressings for maintaining skin integrity in intensive care unit patients: A randomised controlled trial. Int Wound J. 2019;16(Suppl. 1): 36–42. https://doi.org/10. 1111/iwj.13028.
  34. Smith+Nephew 2020. The justification of pH buffered claim for the total body foam cleanser (TBFCI). Internal report.
  35. Smith+Nephew 2020.SECURA Total Body Foam Cleanser and SECURA Personal Cleanser. Internal Report. PSS415.
  36. Smith+Nephew 2020. The justification of the ‘CHG compatible’ claim for the Total Body Foam Cleanser reformulation. Internal report.
  37. Microbac 2012. Chlorhexidine gluconate compatibility evaluation of skin treatment products. Internal report. 795-101.
  38. Nherera L, Cooley A, Delhougne G. Meta-analysis Shows Patient Wearable Sensor Reduces Incidence of Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injuries in Critically Ill Patients. Presented at NPIAP 2020 and WOCN 2020.
  39. Gabriel O. Reducing HAPIs through focusing on Braden Scale subcategories. Poster presented at: National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Annual Conference. March 1–2, 2019; St Louis, USA.
  40. Walters B, Jamison K, Zafer D, Sanders T. Transforming Pressure Ulcer Prevention in the ICU with Patient Wearable Technology and Nursing Leadership. Presented at the Texas Organization of Nurse Executives. February 2016.

 

*n=37; dressing retention was 1.92x longer.
**In a pragmatic, randomized, controlled, superiority trial. p=0.001; n=359. Estimated cost savings vs standard preventive care alone; n=359.

***Compared to previous dressings. Ambispective (retrospective and prospective) observational study. 1.66 ALLEVYN LIFE Dressings vs 3.14 previous dressings (foams or gelling fibres); n=94; p<0.001). €11.46 ALLEVYN LIFE Dressings vs €27.75 previous dressings (foams or gelling fibres); n=94; p<0.001).

****n=38. Time saving based on previous dressing, estimated for 169 patients requiring ≥3 visits per week.

Recall and Complaints

Customer will provide such support and assistance as S+N may reasonably request in the event of a general or limited voluntary or mandatory recall of the Product(s). Customer shall promptly report any complaint in respect of the Products to complaints@smith-nephew.com.

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin
© 2024 Smith+Nephew, Inc.

◇ Trademark of Smith+Nephew. All Trademarks acknowledged.

ALWE46-35033-0822

◊ Trademark of Smith+Nephew. The information on this website is intended for health care professionals only. Product information is for educational purposes only, and not all products or indications are licensed in every country. 

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin