Cargando…

Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Majorski, Daniel Sebastian, Khan, Saba Gul, Stanzel, Sarah Bettina, Wollsching-Strobel, Maximilian, Kroppen, Doreen, Mathes, Tim, Zimmermann, Maximilian, Windisch, Wolfram, Magnet, Friederike Sophie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10649855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38022833
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S426749
_version_ 1785135645332602880
author Majorski, Daniel Sebastian
Khan, Saba Gul
Stanzel, Sarah Bettina
Wollsching-Strobel, Maximilian
Kroppen, Doreen
Mathes, Tim
Zimmermann, Maximilian
Windisch, Wolfram
Magnet, Friederike Sophie
author_facet Majorski, Daniel Sebastian
Khan, Saba Gul
Stanzel, Sarah Bettina
Wollsching-Strobel, Maximilian
Kroppen, Doreen
Mathes, Tim
Zimmermann, Maximilian
Windisch, Wolfram
Magnet, Friederike Sophie
author_sort Majorski, Daniel Sebastian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND METHODS: 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(2) ≥90% throughout 6MWT; ≥10% increase in walking distance from baseline; improvement in BORG of at least 1 point from baseline). RESULTS: 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(2) at rest without oxygen: 50.3mmHg (±5.9). For both systems, 24/25 patients (96%) were successfully recruited. The mean operating-level difference when success criteria were met was −0.58 in favor of the constant bolus device (95% CI: −0.88 to −0.28, P <0.001). Secondary endpoints (walking distance, respiratory rate and BORG dyspnea) showed no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences. An algorithm created especially for this study showed a high success rate in terms of titration for the required operating level. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10649855
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106498552023-11-11 Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems Majorski, Daniel Sebastian Khan, Saba Gul Stanzel, Sarah Bettina Wollsching-Strobel, Maximilian Kroppen, Doreen Mathes, Tim Zimmermann, Maximilian Windisch, Wolfram Magnet, Friederike Sophie Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Original Research BACKGROUND AND METHODS: 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(2) ≥90% throughout 6MWT; ≥10% increase in walking distance from baseline; improvement in BORG of at least 1 point from baseline). RESULTS: 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(2) at rest without oxygen: 50.3mmHg (±5.9). For both systems, 24/25 patients (96%) were successfully recruited. The mean operating-level difference when success criteria were met was −0.58 in favor of the constant bolus device (95% CI: −0.88 to −0.28, P <0.001). Secondary endpoints (walking distance, respiratory rate and BORG dyspnea) showed no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences. An algorithm created especially for this study showed a high success rate in terms of titration for the required operating level. CONCLUSION: 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. Dove 2023-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10649855/ /pubmed/38022833 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S426749 Text en © 2023 Majorski et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Majorski, Daniel Sebastian
Khan, Saba Gul
Stanzel, Sarah Bettina
Wollsching-Strobel, Maximilian
Kroppen, Doreen
Mathes, Tim
Zimmermann, Maximilian
Windisch, Wolfram
Magnet, Friederike Sophie
Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems
title Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems
title_full Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems
title_fullStr Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems
title_full_unstemmed Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems
title_short Ambulatory Long-Term Oxygen Therapy in Patients with Severe COPD: A Randomized Crossover Trial to Compare Constant-Minute-Volume and Constant-Bolus Systems
title_sort ambulatory long-term oxygen therapy in patients with severe copd: a randomized crossover trial to compare constant-minute-volume and constant-bolus systems
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10649855/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38022833
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S426749
work_keys_str_mv AT majorskidanielsebastian ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems
AT khansabagul ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems
AT stanzelsarahbettina ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems
AT wollschingstrobelmaximilian ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems
AT kroppendoreen ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems
AT mathestim ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems
AT zimmermannmaximilian ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems
AT windischwolfram ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems
AT magnetfriederikesophie ambulatorylongtermoxygentherapyinpatientswithseverecopdarandomizedcrossovertrialtocompareconstantminutevolumeandconstantbolussystems