Su Chien-Ling, Lee Chun-Nin, Chen Hui-Chin, Feng Ling-Pei, Lin Hui-Wen, Chiang Ling-Ling
School of Respiratory Therapy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Thoracic Internal Medicine, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
Department of Respiratory Care, Chang Gung University of Science and, Technology, Chiayi Campus, Taiwan.
J Formos Med Assoc. 2014 Jan;113(1):23-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2012.03.013. Epub 2012 Jun 21.
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Long-term oxygen therapy has become standard treatment for patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency. However, patterns of long-term home oxygen therapy have not been well studied in Taiwan. Oxygen concentrator systems are commonly used in Taiwan, but liquid oxygen delivery systems are portable and may provide advantages over the concentrator system. This study compared oxygen usage between patients from a liquid oxygen group (LOG) and an oxygen concentrator group (OCG). The authors also assessed the physiologic responses of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to ambulatory oxygen use at home.
The study used a retrospective, cross-sectional, observational survey design. The LOG comprised 42 patients, and the OCG comprised 102 patients. We recruited participants in northern Taiwan from July 2009 to April 2010. The questionnaire instruments that were used to collect data consisted of three parts: demographic characteristics, devices used in respiratory care, and activity status with portable oxygen. Two-minute walking tests were performed on COPD patients in their homes.
COPD was the most common diagnosis in our study, with more than 50% of patients who received oxygen long term in both groups having received this diagnosis. The LOG used oxygen for an average of 21.7 hours per day, whereas OCG averaged 15.2 hours per day (p<0.001). In the OCG, 92.2% of patients used a concentrator alone, whereas 23.8% of the LOG used liquid oxygen alone (p<0.001). The LOG patients were involved in significantly more outdoors activities (p=0.002) and reported traveling with oxygen more often (p<0.001) than the OCG patients. For patients with the same dyspnea level of COPD severity, those using liquid oxygen had a lower increase in pulse rate after the walking test, in comparison with the concentrator users.
Patients in the LOG used oxygen for longer hours, went on more outings, and were more likely to travel with oxygen than patients in the OCG. Being ambulatory with liquid oxygen might enable patients with COPD to walk more effectively.
背景/目的：长期氧疗已成为慢性呼吸功能不全患者的标准治疗方法。然而，台湾地区长期家庭氧疗的模式尚未得到充分研究。台湾地区普遍使用制氧机系统，但液氧输送系统便于携带，可能比制氧机系统更具优势。本研究比较了液氧组（LOG）和制氧机组（OCG）患者的氧气使用情况。作者还评估了慢性阻塞性肺疾病（COPD）患者在家中使用便携式氧气时的生理反应。
本研究采用回顾性、横断面观察性调查设计。液氧组有42例患者，制氧机组有102例患者。我们于2009年7月至2010年4月在台湾北部招募参与者。用于收集数据的问卷调查工具包括三个部分：人口统计学特征、呼吸护理中使用的设备以及使用便携式氧气时的活动状态。对家中的COPD患者进行了两分钟步行测试。
COPD是我们研究中最常见的诊断，两组中超过50%的长期吸氧患者被诊断为此病。液氧组患者平均每天使用氧气21.7小时，而制氧机组平均每天使用15.2小时（p<0.001）。在制氧机组中，92.2%的患者仅使用制氧机，而液氧组中23.8%的患者仅使用液氧（p<0.001）。与制氧机组患者相比，液氧组患者参与户外活动的次数明显更多（p=0.002），且报告携带氧气出行的频率更高（p<0.001）。对于COPD严重程度相同的呼吸困难患者，与使用制氧机的患者相比，使用液氧的患者在步行测试后心率升高幅度较小。
与制氧机组患者相比，液氧组患者使用氧气的时间更长，出行更多，且更有可能携带氧气出行。携带液氧行走可能使COPD患者行走更有效。
