Literature DB >> 25425710

Oxygenation With a Single Portable Pulse-Dose Oxygen-Conserving Device and Combined Stationary and Portable Oxygen Delivery Devices in Subjects With COPD.

Aina M Yáñez1, Jose P Prat2, José L Álvarez-Sala3, Myriam Calle3, Salvador Díaz Lobato4, José L García Gonzalez4, José M Rodríguez Gonzalez-Moro5, Raul Galera-Martínez6, Carlos Villasante6, Inmaculada Ramos2, Mercedes Franco-Gay2, Pilar de Lucas5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Portable oxygen devices simplify and facilitate patient therapy. This study was designed to compare S(pO2) and patient satisfaction with a portable oxygen concentrator or a combined system consisting of a fixed device with continuous-flow oxygen dispensation and a portable device with pulse dispensation for ambulation.
METHODS: This crossover trial assessed 25 subjects with COPD (92% men, mean age of 72.2 ± 7.4 y, mean FEV1 of 34.14 ± 12.51% of predicted) at 4 hospitals in Madrid. All subjects had previously used the combined system, consisting of a fixed oxygenation system and a portable system for ambulation, with 16 (64%) using stationary and portable concentrators and 9 (36%) using a stationary reservoir and portable liquid oxygen bag. Oxygenation settings at rest and while walking were determined at baseline. Subjects were maintained on the previous combined system for 1 week and then switched to the portable oxygen concentrator for 1 week. Mean S(pO2) over 24 h was calculated using the software in the oximeter, and compliance was monitored (Visionox).
RESULTS: Low S(pO2) (< 90%) was significantly more frequent during use of the portable concentrator alone than with the combined system (37.1% vs 18.4%, P < .05). The portable system alone was preferred by 43% of subjects, and the combined system was preferred by 36%, whereas 21% were not sure.
CONCLUSIONS: Subjects preferred using a single portable oxygenation system both at home and during ambulation. Portable systems alone, however, did not supply the same levels of oxygenation as the combination of fixed and portable systems. Before the widespread adoption of portable systems as a single device, additional studies are needed to determine best-practice protocols for adjustment of daytime and nighttime oxygenation settings. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02079753).
Copyright © 2015 by Daedalus Enterprises.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COPD; ambulation; chronic respiratory failure; oxygen concentrator; oxygen sources; portable concentrator

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25425710     DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Respir Care        ISSN: 0020-1324            Impact factor:   2.258


  4 in total

1.  An in silico analysis of oxygen uptake of a mild COPD patient during rest and exercise using a portable oxygen concentrator.

Authors:  Ira Katz; Marine Pichelin; Spyridon Montesantos; Min-Yeong Kang; Bernard Sapoval; Kaixian Zhu; Charles-Philippe Thevenin; Robert McCoy; Andrew R Martin; Georges Caillibotte
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2016-09-29

2.  Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison.

Authors:  Dion C Martin
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 3.317

3.  Normobaric oxygen treatment for mild-to-moderate depression: a randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept trial.

Authors:  Yehudit Bloch; R H Belmaker; Pesach Shvartzman; Pnina Romem; Arkady Bolotin; Yuly Bersudsky; Abed N Azab
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Comparison of pulsed versus continuous oxygen delivery using realistic adult nasal airway replicas.

Authors:  John Z Chen; Ira M Katz; Marine Pichelin; Kaixian Zhu; Georges Caillibotte; Michelle L Noga; Warren H Finlay; Andrew R Martin
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2017-08-24
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.