Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Top 10 Papers in 2020
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • Call for Abstracts 2021
    • 2020 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Portugûes
    • 国语

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Association for Respiratory Care
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
American Association for Respiratory Care

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Top 10 Papers in 2020
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • Call for Abstracts 2021
    • 2020 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Follow aarc on Twitter
  • Visit aarc on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Contributions

Nocturnal Oxygenation Using a Pulsed-Dose Oxygen-Conserving Device Compared to Continuous Flow

Robert L Chatburn, Joseph S Lewarski and Robert W McCoy
Respiratory Care March 2006, 51 (3) 252-256;
Robert L Chatburn
Respiratory Care Department, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio, and with the Department of Pediatrics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Ohio.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Joseph S Lewarski
Inogen Incorporated, Goleta, California.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert W McCoy
Valley Inspired Products, Apple Valley, Minnesota.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The pulsed-dose oxygen-conserving device (PDOCD) has gained wide acceptance as a tool to reduce the cost and inconvenience of portable oxygen delivery. Despite the widespread use of PDOCDs in awake and ambulating patients, few studies report their use during sleep. This study was designed to compare heart rate and oxygen saturation (measured via pulse oximetry [SpO2]) of sleeping patients using one brand of PDOCD versus continuous-flow oxygen.

METHODS: We studied 10 home-oxygen patients who were using various continuous-flow oxygen systems and prescriptions. Baseline asleep and awake SpO2 and heart rate were recorded while the patients used their existing home-oxygen systems (liquid oxygen or oxygen concentrator with nasal cannula) and continuous-flow oxygen prescription. Patients were then switched to a nasal cannula connected to a PDOCD. The PDOCD setting was adjusted to produce an SpO2 equal to the patient's awake baseline on continuous-flow. This setting was then used while the patient subsequently slept. Mean values for SpO2 and heart rate and hours of sleep were calculated by the software in the oximeter. Mean values for SpO2 and heart rate were compared with the paired Student's t test.

RESULTS: There was a statistically significant but clinically unimportant SpO2 difference between the patients who used continuous-flow oxygen and those who used the PDOCD (95.7% vs 93.2%, respectively, p = 0.043). There was no difference in heart rate (77.3 beats/min vs 77.9 beats/min, p = 0.70). The sample size was adequate to detect a difference in heart rate of 5 beats/min at a power of 80%. For the subset of patients whose PDOCD triggering sensitivity was set on sensitive (vs the default lower sensitivity) there was a statistically significant but clinically unimportant SpO2 difference (continuous-flow 95.6% vs PDOCD 93.2%, p = 0.044). All other comparisons showed no differences, but the samples sizes were too small to make any firm conclusions. One patient experienced an 11% SpO2 drop with the PDOCD because of an inadequate triggering sensitivity setting.

CONCLUSIONS: The PDOCD model we studied was able to deliver oxygen therapy (via nasal cannula) comparable to continuous-flow in 9 of 10 patients. The resting daytime SpO2 on continuous-flow appears to be an appropriate target for setting the PDOCD to ensure adequate oxygenation, even during sleep, with the PDOCD we tested. We conclude that the PDOCD we tested is able to maintain adequate SpO2 during sleep in selected patients. Because of differences in design, triggering-signal sensitivity, and oxygen-pulse volume, these results cannot be generalized to all patients or all oxygen-conserving devices. Further research is needed to determine the general performance of PDOCDs on larger populations of oxygen-dependent patients and patients with sleep-disordered breathing.

  • oxygen
  • pulsed-dose
  • conserving device
  • COPD
  • long-term oxygen therapy
  • oxygen inhalation therapy/methods

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Robert L Chatburn RRT-NPS FAARC, Respiratory Care Department, University Hospitals of Cleveland, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland OH 44106. E-mail: robert.chatburn{at}uhhs.com.
  • Copyright © 2006 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 51 (3)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 51, Issue 3
1 Mar 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Association for Respiratory Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Nocturnal Oxygenation Using a Pulsed-Dose Oxygen-Conserving Device Compared to Continuous Flow
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Association for Respiratory Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Association for Respiratory Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Nocturnal Oxygenation Using a Pulsed-Dose Oxygen-Conserving Device Compared to Continuous Flow
Robert L Chatburn, Joseph S Lewarski, Robert W McCoy
Respiratory Care Mar 2006, 51 (3) 252-256;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Nocturnal Oxygenation Using a Pulsed-Dose Oxygen-Conserving Device Compared to Continuous Flow
Robert L Chatburn, Joseph S Lewarski, Robert W McCoy
Respiratory Care Mar 2006, 51 (3) 252-256;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • oxygen
  • pulsed-dose
  • conserving device
  • COPD
  • long-term oxygen therapy
  • oxygen inhalation therapy/methods

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board
  • Reprints/Permissions

AARC

  • Membership
  • Meetings
  • Clinical Practice Guidelines

More

  • Contact Us
  • RSS
American Association for Respiratory Care

Print ISSN: 0020-1324        Online ISSN: 1943-3654

© Daedalus Enterprises, Inc.

Powered by HighWire