Aina Akerø1, Anne Edvardsen2, Carl C Christensen3, Jan O Owe4, Morten Ryg2, Ole H Skjønsberg5. 1. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo. Electronic address: aina.akero@medisin.uio.no. 2. Department of Respiratory Physiology, Glittreklinikken, Hakadal, Norway. 3. The Institute of Aviation Medicine, Oslo; Department of Respiratory Physiology, Glittreklinikken, Hakadal, Norway. 4. The Institute of Aviation Medicine, Oslo. 5. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Patients with COPD may need supplemental oxygen during air travel to avoid development of severe hypoxemia. The current study evaluated whether the hypoxia-altitude simulation test (HAST), in which patients breathe 15.1% oxygen simulating aircraft conditions, can be used to establish the optimal dose of supplemental oxygen. Also, the various types of oxygen-delivery equipment allowed for air travel were compared. METHODS: In a randomized crossover trial, 16 patients with COPD were exposed to alveolar hypoxia: in a hypobaric chamber (HC) at 2,438 m (8,000 ft) and with a HAST. During both tests, supplemental oxygen was given by nasal cannula (NC) with (1) continuous flow, (2) an oxygen-conserving device, and (3) a portable oxygen concentrator (POC). RESULTS:PaO(2) kPa (mm Hg) while in the HC and during the HAST with supplemental oxygen at 2 L/min (pulse setting 2) on devices 1 to 3 was (1) 8.6 ± 1.0 (65 ± 8) vs 12.5 ± 2.4 (94 ± 18) (P < .001), (2) 8.6 ± 1.6 (64 ± 12) vs 9.7 ± 1.5 (73 ± 11) (P < .001), and (3) 7.7 ± 0.9 (58 ± 7) vs 8.2 ± 1.1 (62 ± 8) (P= .003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The HAST may be used to identify patients needing supplemental oxygen during air travel. However, oxygen titration using an NC during a HAST causes accumulation of oxygen within the facemask and underestimates the oxygen dose required. When comparing the various types of oxygen-delivery equipment in an HC at 2,438 m (8,000 ft), compressed gaseous oxygen with continuous flow or with an oxygen-conserving device resulted in the same PaO(2), whereas a POC showed significantly lower PaO(2) values. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: Identifier: NCT01019538; URL: clinicaltrials.gov.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patients with COPD may need supplemental oxygen during air travel to avoid development of severe hypoxemia. The current study evaluated whether the hypoxia-altitude simulation test (HAST), in which patients breathe 15.1% oxygen simulating aircraft conditions, can be used to establish the optimal dose of supplemental oxygen. Also, the various types of oxygen-delivery equipment allowed for air travel were compared. METHODS: In a randomized crossover trial, 16 patients with COPD were exposed to alveolar hypoxia: in a hypobaric chamber (HC) at 2,438 m (8,000 ft) and with a HAST. During both tests, supplemental oxygen was given by nasal cannula (NC) with (1) continuous flow, (2) an oxygen-conserving device, and (3) a portable oxygen concentrator (POC). RESULTS: PaO(2) kPa (mm Hg) while in the HC and during the HAST with supplemental oxygen at 2 L/min (pulse setting 2) on devices 1 to 3 was (1) 8.6 ± 1.0 (65 ± 8) vs 12.5 ± 2.4 (94 ± 18) (P < .001), (2) 8.6 ± 1.6 (64 ± 12) vs 9.7 ± 1.5 (73 ± 11) (P < .001), and (3) 7.7 ± 0.9 (58 ± 7) vs 8.2 ± 1.1 (62 ± 8) (P= .003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The HAST may be used to identify patients needing supplemental oxygen during air travel. However, oxygen titration using an NC during a HAST causes accumulation of oxygen within the facemask and underestimates the oxygen dose required. When comparing the various types of oxygen-delivery equipment in an HC at 2,438 m (8,000 ft), compressed gaseous oxygen with continuous flow or with an oxygen-conserving device resulted in the same PaO(2), whereas a POC showed significantly lower PaO(2) values. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: Identifier: NCT01019538; URL: clinicaltrials.gov.
Authors: Nareg Roubinian; C Gregory Elliott; Christopher F Barnett; Paul D Blanc; Joan Chen; Teresa De Marco; Hubert Chen Journal: Chest Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Simon R Schneider; Mona Lichtblau; Michael Furian; Laura C Mayer; Charlotte Berlier; Julian Müller; Stéphanie Saxer; Esther I Schwarz; Konrad E Bloch; Silvia Ulrich Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-14 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Lu Tan; Tsogyal D Latshang; Sayaka S Aeschbacher; Fabienne Huber; Deborah Flueck; Mona Lichtblau; Stefanie Ulrich; Elisabeth D Hasler; Philipp M Scheiwiller; Silvia Ulrich; Konrad E Bloch; Michael Furian Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-06-01
Authors: Robina Kate Coker; Alison Armstrong; Alistair Colin Church; Steve Holmes; Jonathan Naylor; Katharine Pike; Peter Saunders; Kristofer John Spurling; Pamela Vaughn Journal: Thorax Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 9.139