Ejiofor Stanley I, Bayliss Susan, Gassamma Abubacarr, Turner Alice M
University of Birmingham, Edgbaston Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2016 Jan 6;3(1):419-434. doi: 10.15326/jcopdf.3.1.2015.0146.
: Ambulatory oxygen therapy is indicated in patients that use long term oxygen therapy (LTOT) and current guidelines suggest its use in patients who exhibit exertional desaturation if there is a demonstrable improvement in exercise capacity. Evidence for this is largely derived from single assessment studies which have shown clear benefit in this setting when oxygen versus air is used. The long term effects, however, of ambulatory oxygen therapy in this particular group of patients is controversial. We conducted a systematic review of published literature from 1980 to June 2014 for trials in which ambulatory oxygen was compared to placebo in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients not on LTOT. We also reviewed the effectiveness of devices delivering ambulatory oxygen. Outcome measures were focused towards exercise capacity, Borg scores and the ability of the delivery devices to maintain oxygen saturations on exercise. Twenty three studies (620 patients) were included in the review. Nine studies evaluated the clinical effectiveness of ambulatory oxygen and 14 studies evaluated the impact of the delivery devices Ambulatory oxygen had no statistical effect on improving exercise capacity when assessed by the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) or the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT);=0.44 and =0.29 respectively. End of test Borg scores showed no statistical improvement with ambulatory oxygen therapy during 6MWT (=0.68). Oxygen conserving devices significantly improved oxygen saturations on exercise compared with continuous flow nasal cannulae (=0.04). Ambulatory oxygen therapy has limited long term benefit in improving functional exercise capacity or Borg dyspnea scores.
动态氧疗适用于使用长期氧疗(LTOT)的患者,当前指南建议,对于运动时出现氧饱和度下降且运动能力有明显改善的患者可使用动态氧疗。这方面的证据主要来自单项评估研究,这些研究表明,在此种情况下使用氧气而非空气有明显益处。然而,动态氧疗对这一特定患者群体的长期影响存在争议。我们对1980年至2014年6月发表的文献进行了系统综述,纳入了比较慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)非LTOT患者动态氧疗与安慰剂的试验。我们还评估了动态氧疗设备的有效性。结果指标集中在运动能力、Borg评分以及设备在运动时维持氧饱和度的能力。该综述纳入了23项研究(620例患者)。9项研究评估了动态氧疗的临床有效性,14项研究评估了设备的影响。通过6分钟步行试验(6MWT)或耐力穿梭步行试验(ESWT)评估时,动态氧疗对提高运动能力无统计学意义(分别为=0.44和=0.29)。试验结束时,6MWT期间动态氧疗的Borg评分无统计学改善(=0.68)。与持续流量鼻导管相比,氧节约设备在运动时显著提高了氧饱和度(=0.04)。动态氧疗在改善功能性运动能力或Borg呼吸困难评分方面的长期益处有限。