Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Refillable oxygen cylinders may be an alternative for ambulatory oxygen therapy in COPD |
Cuvelier A, Nuir JF, Chakroun N, Aboab J, Onea G, Benhamou D |
Chest 2002 Aug;122(2):451-456 |
clinical trial |
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare, in clinical conditions, the efficacy of refilled oxygen cylinders (O2-HFs) in improving oxygenation and exercise capacity of patients with COPD during a 6-min walking test. DESIGN: Prospective randomized study with a cross-over design. SETTING: A university teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Ten patients with COPD, in a stable state and previously treated with long-term domiciliary oxygen therapy. Baseline characteristics were as follows: age 65 +/- 7 years; PaO2 on room air 55.4 +/- 6.3 mmHg; PaCO2 on room air 46.2 +/- 7.4 mmHg; FEV1/vital capacity 47 +/- 7%; and FEV1 30 +/- 7% of predicted value (mean +/- SD). DESIGN: All patients performed three successive 6-min walking tests, the first test in room air and the other tests in a randomized order with either a conventional oxygen cylinder (O2-C) or an O2-HF. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) delivered by O2-HFs was significantly lower than the FIO2 delivered by O2-Cs (94.2 +/- 2.6% versus 98.8 +/- 4.9%, p = 0.02). Mean O2-HF and O2-C weights before the walking tests were similar (3,510 +/- 251 g and 3,770 +/- 142 g, respectively; p = 0.09). Mean transcutaneous oxygen saturation was similarly improved with both oxygen delivery systems. Mean distances with O2-C (373.5 +/- 81 m) and O2-HF (375 +/- 97 m) were not different but significantly improved, as compared with room air (334.5 +/- 90 m; p = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively). Dyspnea sensations were similar for the three tests. CONCLUSION: O2-HFs are as efficient as O2-Cs for performing short-term exercises. Because of a lower cost, pressurizing units may be worthwhile for improving ambulatory oxygen therapy and pulmonary rehabilitation programs.
|