Strickland Shawna L, Hogan Timothy M, Hogan Rosemary G, Sohal Harjyot S, McKenzie Wayland N, Petroski Gregory F
Cardiopulmonary and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Missouri School of Health Professions, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.
Respir Care. 2009 Mar;54(3):344-9.
Ambulatory oxygen is an important component of long-term oxygen therapy. Pulse-dose technology conserves oxygen and thus increases the operation time of a portable oxygen system.
We tested 4 ambulatory oxygen systems (Helios, HomeFill, FreeStyle, and the compressed-oxygen cylinder system we regularly provide for long-term oxygen therapy at our Veterans Affairs hospital) with 39 subjects with stage-IV chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Each subject performed one 6-min walk test with each oxygen system, and we measured blood oxygen saturation (via pulse oximetry [S(pO(2))]), heart rate, and modified Borg dyspnea score, and surveyed the subjects' preferences about the oxygen systems. We also studied whether the 2 systems that provide gas with a lower oxygen concentration (from a home concentrator or portable concentrator) showed any evidence of not providing adequate oxygenation.
With all 4 systems the mean pre-walk S(pO(2)) at the prescribed pulse-dose setting was 95-96%. The mean post-walk S(pO(2)) was 88-90% after each of the 4 walk tests. Between the 4 systems there were no statistically significant differences between the pre-walk-versus-post-walk S(pO(2)) ( = .42). With each system, the pre-walk-versus-post-walk S(pO(2)) difference was between -8% and -6%.
Between these 4 ambulatory oxygen systems there were no significant differences in S(pO(2)), walk time, or walk distance, and there was no evidence of inadequate oxygenation with the 2 systems that provide a lower oxygen concentration.
门诊吸氧是长期氧疗的重要组成部分。脉冲剂量技术可节省氧气,从而延长便携式氧气系统的使用时间。
我们对4种门诊氧气系统(太阳神、家庭充氧器、自由式和我们退伍军人事务医院长期氧疗常规提供的压缩氧气瓶系统)在39例IV期慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者中进行了测试。每位受试者使用每种氧气系统进行一次6分钟步行试验,我们测量血氧饱和度(通过脉搏血氧饱和度仪[S(pO₂)])、心率和改良的博格呼吸困难评分,并调查受试者对氧气系统的偏好。我们还研究了两种提供较低氧浓度气体的系统(来自家用制氧机或便携式制氧机)是否有任何未提供充足氧合的证据。
使用所有4种系统时,在规定的脉冲剂量设置下,步行前平均S(pO₂)为95% - 96%。4次步行试验后每次步行后的平均S(pO₂)为88% - 90%。4种系统之间,步行前与步行后的S(pO₂)无统计学显著差异(P = 0.42)。使用每种系统时,步行前与步行后的S(pO₂)差异在 - 8%至 - 6%之间。
这4种门诊氧气系统在S(pO₂)、步行时间或步行距离方面无显著差异,且没有证据表明提供较低氧浓度的2种系统存在氧合不足的情况。