Couillard A, Foret D, Barel P, Bajon D, Didier A, Melloni B, Sauder P, Muir J-F, Veale D
Fédération ANTADIR, 66, boulevard Saint-Michel, 75006 Paris, France.
Rev Mal Respir. 2010 Nov;27(9):1030-8. doi: 10.1016/j.rmr.2010.09.010. Epub 2010 Oct 18.
There is doubt concerning the clinical effectiveness of portable oxygen concentrators with a control valve (PCDV) and their appreciation by patients. Objectives. To compare the effectiveness and appreciation of oxygen therapy by PCDV and liquid oxygen by continuous f low (O(2)Liq).
Nineteen patients with COPD were randomised to receive PCDV or O(2)Liq at rest and during a 6 minute walk test (6MWT). For each mechanism they assessed, by visual analogue scales, the convenience and portability, the noise, and the discomfort of the nasal oxygen delivery.
The 6MW distance was 315 ± 120 m with PCDV and 325 ± 114 m with O(2)Liq (P>0.05). Dyspnoea and the desaturation induced by the 6MWT were identical with both systems (P>0.05). The time spent with a SaO(2)<90 % was 289 ± 69 s with PCDV and 242 ± 130 s with O(2)Liq (P=0.08). PCDV was noisier than O(2)Liq (P<0.05); there was no difference in convenience and portability or in nasal discomfort.
The PCDV model that we tested was equally effective to O(2)Liq. However, the prescription of this type of system is a matter of personal choice.
对于带有控制阀的便携式氧气浓缩器（PCDV）的临床有效性及其在患者中的接受度存在疑问。目的：比较PCDV和持续流动液态氧（O₂Liq）氧疗的有效性和接受度。
19例慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）患者被随机分组，在静息状态和6分钟步行试验（6MWT）期间接受PCDV或O₂Liq。对于每种设备，他们通过视觉模拟量表评估鼻导管吸氧的便利性、便携性、噪音和不适感。
使用PCDV时6MW距离为315±120米，使用O₂Liq时为325±114米（P>0.05）。两种系统在6MWT时引起的呼吸困难和血氧饱和度下降相同（P>0.05）。使用PCDV时血氧饱和度<90%的时间为289±69秒，使用O₂Liq时为242±130秒（P=0.08）。PCDV比O₂Liq噪音更大（P<0.05）；在便利性、便携性或鼻部不适感方面没有差异。
我们测试的PCDV型号与O₂Liq同样有效。然而，这种类型系统的处方是个人选择的问题。
