Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Decades of clinical research into pulsed oxygen delivery has shown variable efficacy between users, and across a user’s behaviours (sleep, rest, activity). Modern portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) have been shown as effective as other oxygen delivery devices in many circumstances. How...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Martin, Dion C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6862795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31744499
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-0980-x
_version_ 1783471633814519808
author Martin, Dion C.
author_facet Martin, Dion C.
author_sort Martin, Dion C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Decades of clinical research into pulsed oxygen delivery has shown variable efficacy between users, and across a user’s behaviours (sleep, rest, activity). Modern portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) have been shown as effective as other oxygen delivery devices in many circumstances. However, there are concerns that they are not effective during sleep when the breathing is shallow, and at very high respiratory rates as during physical exertion. It can be challenging to examine the determinants of POC efficacy clinically due to the heterogeneity of lung function within oxygen users, the diversity of user behaviour, and measurement issues. Representative bench testing may help identify key determinants of pulsed-oxygen device efficacy. METHODS: Three contemporary devices were bench-evaluated across three simulated breathing behaviours: activity, rest, & oronasal breathing during sleep. Emphasis was placed on breathing patterns representative of oxygen users. RESULTS: All three POCs performed well during simulated breathing during exertion and at rest. Differences in triggering ability were noted for the scenario of oronasal breathing during sleep. CONCLUSIONS: The results are supportive of contemporary POC triggering abilities. The differences shown in ultimate trigger sensitivity may have relevance to oronasal breathing during sleep or other challenging scenarios for pulsed oxygen delivery, such as dominant mouth breathing during exertion or unfavourable nasal geometry.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6862795
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68627952019-12-11 Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison Martin, Dion C. BMC Pulm Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Decades of clinical research into pulsed oxygen delivery has shown variable efficacy between users, and across a user’s behaviours (sleep, rest, activity). Modern portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) have been shown as effective as other oxygen delivery devices in many circumstances. However, there are concerns that they are not effective during sleep when the breathing is shallow, and at very high respiratory rates as during physical exertion. It can be challenging to examine the determinants of POC efficacy clinically due to the heterogeneity of lung function within oxygen users, the diversity of user behaviour, and measurement issues. Representative bench testing may help identify key determinants of pulsed-oxygen device efficacy. METHODS: Three contemporary devices were bench-evaluated across three simulated breathing behaviours: activity, rest, & oronasal breathing during sleep. Emphasis was placed on breathing patterns representative of oxygen users. RESULTS: All three POCs performed well during simulated breathing during exertion and at rest. Differences in triggering ability were noted for the scenario of oronasal breathing during sleep. CONCLUSIONS: The results are supportive of contemporary POC triggering abilities. The differences shown in ultimate trigger sensitivity may have relevance to oronasal breathing during sleep or other challenging scenarios for pulsed oxygen delivery, such as dominant mouth breathing during exertion or unfavourable nasal geometry. BioMed Central 2019-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6862795/ /pubmed/31744499 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-0980-x Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Martin, Dion C.
Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison
title Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison
title_full Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison
title_fullStr Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison
title_full_unstemmed Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison
title_short Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison
title_sort contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6862795/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31744499
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-0980-x
work_keys_str_mv AT martindionc contemporaryportableoxygenconcentratorsanddiversebreathingbehavioursabenchcomparison