Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2022
  • Authors
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Reviewers
    • Reviewer Information
    • Create Reviewer Account
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Original Research
    • Reviewer Guidelines: Reviews
    • Appreciation of Reviewers
  • CRCE
    • Through the Journal
    • JournalCasts
    • AARC University
    • PowerPoint Template
  • Open Forum
    • 2023 Open Forum
    • 2023 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Performance Comparison of 4 Portable Oxygen Concentrators

Robert L Chatburn and Thomas J Williams
Respiratory Care April 2010, 55 (4) 433-442;
Robert L Chatburn
Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic
Department of Medicine, Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Strategic Dynamics, Scottsdale, Arizona.
RRT-NPS FAARC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Thomas J Williams
Strategic Dynamics, Scottsdale, Arizona.
MBA RRT
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • CORRECTIONS - June 01, 2010

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) have become available in the United States. Technical trade-offs are made in designing POCs, so their performance is expected to differ.

METHODS: We tested 4 POC models (Invacare XPO2, Respironics EverGo, AirSep FreeStyle, and Inogen One) for oxygen delivery as a function of respiratory rate. We measured oxygen volume per pulse, pulse duration, trigger sensitivity, oxygen concentration in the gas delivered by the POC (measured with a ceramic-based oxygen sensor), and relative fraction of inspired oxygen (relative FIO2), measured with a setup that included an adult nasal cannula, a model nares, and a lung simulator that has a built-in oxygen sensor. We studied respiratory rates of 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 breaths/min, at a tidal volume of 500 mL.

RESULTS: The XPO2 had the highest pulse flow, and FreeStyle had the lowest, which corresponded to the highest and lowest pulse volumes (40.8 mL and 18.2 mL respectively) at POC setting 2, at 15 breaths/min. The range of oxygen purity was 91.9–94.4% (P = .36). The Inogen had the shortest pulse-delivery time, and the XPO2 had the longest (132 ms vs 281 ms, P < .001). The FreeStyle had the highest trigger sensitivity, and the Inogen the lowest (0.15 cm H2O vs 0.21 cm H2O, P < .001). At the maximum settings, with all 4 POCs, relative FIO2 decreased as respiratory rate increased (relative FIO2 range 28.6–31.4% at 15 breaths/min, 23.0–25.3% at 30 breaths/min).

CONCLUSIONS: These 4 POC models have markedly different performance, which emphasizes the need to adjust the POC setting to meet the specific patient's needs at rest and with activity.

  • oxygen
  • oxygen concentrator
  • nasal cannula
  • low flow oxygen therapy

Footnotes

  • Correspondence: Robert L Chatburn RRT-NPS FAARC, Respiratory Institute, M-56, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland OH 44195. E-mail: chatbur{at}ccf.org.
  • This research was partly supported by a grant from Invacare. The authors have disclosed no other conflicts of interest.

  • Mr Chatburn presented a version of this paper at the Open Forum of the 54th International Respiratory Congress of the American Association for Respiratory Care, held December 13-16, 2008, in Anaheim, California.

  • Copyright © 2010 by Daedalus Enterprises Inc.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care: 55 (4)
Respiratory Care
Vol. 55, Issue 4
1 Apr 2010
  • 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.
Performance Comparison of 4 Portable Oxygen Concentrators
(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
Performance Comparison of 4 Portable Oxygen Concentrators
Robert L Chatburn, Thomas J Williams
Respiratory Care Apr 2010, 55 (4) 433-442;

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Performance Comparison of 4 Portable Oxygen Concentrators
Robert L Chatburn, Thomas J Williams
Respiratory Care Apr 2010, 55 (4) 433-442;
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
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Keywords

  • oxygen
  • oxygen concentrator
  • nasal cannula
  • low flow oxygen therapy

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board

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