Introduction: 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).

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmr.2010.09.010DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

[oxygen therapy
4
therapy portable
4
portable concentrator
4
concentrator demand
4
demand valve
4
valve randomised
4
randomised controlled
4
controlled study
4
study effectiveness
4
effectiveness patients
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!