A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Automated oxygen control with O2matic during admission with exacerbation of COPD. | LitMetric

Purpose: It is a challenge to control oxygen saturation (SpO) in patients with exacerbations of COPD during admission. We tested a newly developed closed-loop system, O2matic, and its ability to keep SpO within a specified interval compared with manual control by nursing staff.

Patients And Methods: We conducted a crossover trial with patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD and hypoxemia (SpO ≤88% on room air). Patients were monitored with continuous measurement of SpO. In random order, they had 4 hours with manually controlled oxygen and 4 hours with oxygen delivery controlled by O2matic. Primary outcome was time within a prespecified SpO target interval. Secondary outcomes were time with SpO <85%, time with SpO below target but not <85%, and time with SpO above target.

Results: Twenty patients were randomized and 19 completed the study. Mean age was 72.4 years and mean FEV was 0.72 L (33% of predicted). Patients with O2matic-controlled treatment were within the SpO target interval in 85.1% of the time vs 46.6% with manually controlled treatment (<0.001). Time with SpO <85% was 1.3% with O2matic and 17.9% with manual control (=0.01). Time with SpO below target but not <85% was 9.0% with O2matic and 25.0% with manual control (=0.002). Time with SpO above target was not significantly different between treatments (4.6% vs 10.5%, =0.2). Patients expressed high confidence and a sense of safety with automatic oxygen delivery.

Conclusion: O2matic was able to effectively control SpO for patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD. O2matic was significantly better than manual control to maintain SpO within target interval and to reduce time with unintended hypoxemia.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300382PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S183762DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

exacerbation copd
8
spo
6
automated oxygen
4
oxygen control
4
control o2matic
4
o2matic admission
4
admission exacerbation
4
copd purpose
4
purpose challenge
4
challenge control
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!