Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems.
6MWT
COPD
LTOT
ambulatory oxygen therapy
portable oxygen conserving devices
Journal
International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
ISSN: 1178-2005
Titre abrégé: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 101273481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
20
06
2023
accepted:
01
10
2023
medline:
1
12
2023
pubmed:
29
11
2023
entrez:
29
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Constant-minute-volume and constant-bolus devices serve as two different means of portable oxygen conservation. A prospective randomised crossover study was conducted in COPD GOLD IV patients to investigate the effect of these two devices on dyspnea, oxygenation and 6-minute walking test (6MWT) distance. The primary endpoint was the final operating level required (operating level range 1-5 for both devices) by either device to meet the success criteria for mobile oxygen therapy, as outlined in the British Thoracic Society guidelines (SpO Twenty-five patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to one of two sequences involving the use of each type of portable oxygen conservation device. 14 female, 67.9 years (±7.8); FEV1: 27.3%pred. (±8.4); PaO Both portable oxygen-conserving devices met the success criteria in 96% of patients in the 6MWT when they were titrated to the correct level. The constant-bolus device required a significantly lower operating level to achieve the success criteria, hereby reducing energy consumption. Individual titration of the respective device is recommended, which can be facilitated by the novel titration algorithm described here.
Sections du résumé
Background and Methods
UNASSIGNED
Constant-minute-volume and constant-bolus devices serve as two different means of portable oxygen conservation. A prospective randomised crossover study was conducted in COPD GOLD IV patients to investigate the effect of these two devices on dyspnea, oxygenation and 6-minute walking test (6MWT) distance. The primary endpoint was the final operating level required (operating level range 1-5 for both devices) by either device to meet the success criteria for mobile oxygen therapy, as outlined in the British Thoracic Society guidelines (SpO
Results
UNASSIGNED
Twenty-five patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to one of two sequences involving the use of each type of portable oxygen conservation device. 14 female, 67.9 years (±7.8); FEV1: 27.3%pred. (±8.4); PaO
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Both portable oxygen-conserving devices met the success criteria in 96% of patients in the 6MWT when they were titrated to the correct level. The constant-bolus device required a significantly lower operating level to achieve the success criteria, hereby reducing energy consumption. Individual titration of the respective device is recommended, which can be facilitated by the novel titration algorithm described here.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38022833
doi: 10.2147/COPD.S426749
pii: 426749
pmc: PMC10649855
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxygen
S88TT14065
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2543-2553Informations de copyright
© 2023 Majorski et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The Cologne study group (F.S.M., D.K., M.Z., S.B.S., D.S.M., M.WS and W.W.) received an open research grant from Weinmann/Germany, Vivisol/Germany, Heinen und Löwenstein/Germany, GCE Ltd. UK and VitalAire/Germany Philips Respironics/Netherlands and Löwenstein Medical/Germany. F.S.M., and S.B.S. received personal travel grants from companies dealing with LTOT. W.W. received speaking fees from companies dealing with LTOT. MZ reports personal fees from Resmed, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.
Références
Ann Intern Med. 1980 Sep;93(3):391-8
pubmed: 6776858
Respir Care. 1992 Aug;37(8):913-7
pubmed: 10145784
Lancet. 1981 Mar 28;1(8222):681-6
pubmed: 6110912
Chron Respir Dis. 2016 Mar 8;:
pubmed: 26961775
Chest. 1992 Sep;102(3):694-8
pubmed: 1516389
Respir Care. 2013 Oct;58(10):1606-13
pubmed: 23513249
Thorax. 2015 Jun;70 Suppl 1:i1-43
pubmed: 25870317
Chron Respir Dis. 2010;7(4):239-45
pubmed: 21084548
Respir Med. 2008 Jul;102(7):1021-5
pubmed: 18359215
J Formos Med Assoc. 2014 Jan;113(1):23-32
pubmed: 24445009
Respir Care. 2018 Nov;63(11):1321-1330
pubmed: 29921606
Expert Rev Respir Med. 2017 Jun;11(6):425-441
pubmed: 28454510
Pneumologie. 2018 Apr;72(4):253-308
pubmed: 29523017
Respirology. 2019 Apr;24(4):329-337
pubmed: 30556614
Respir Care. 2010 Apr;55(4):433-42
pubmed: 20406511
Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017 Sep 06;12:2647-2653
pubmed: 28919732
Respir Med. 2004 Oct;98(10):938-44
pubmed: 15481269
Pneumologie. 2020 Dec;74(12):813-841
pubmed: 33291162