Skip to main content
 

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Editor's Commentary
    • Coming Next Month
    • Archives
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • 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
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal

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
    • Most-Read Papers of 2021
  • 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
    • 2022 Call for Abstracts
    • 2021 Abstracts
    • Previous Open Forums
  • Podcast
    • English
    • Español
    • Portugûes
    • 国语
  • Videos
    • Video Abstracts
    • Author Interviews
    • Highlighted Articles
    • The Journal
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
Meeting ReportAerosol and Oxygen Therapy

Comparison of Portable Oxygen Concentrators and Inspired Oxygen Levels Using a Simulation of COPD

Rachel Culbreth, Robert Brent Murray, Kyle Brandenberger and Douglas S Gardenhire
Respiratory Care October 2021, 66 (Suppl 10) 3599013;
Rachel Culbreth
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Brent Murray
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kyle Brandenberger
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Douglas S Gardenhire
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

Background: Portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) have shown efficacy in delivering adequate oxygen for various patient scenarios; however, there is a lack of research on POCs’ efficacy across different respiratory rates specifically among COPD patients.

Methods: This bench study was conducted using the IngMar Medical Active Servo Lung 5000 attached to flexible tubing, which simulated an adult patient’s nares. An oxygen analyzer (Maxtec Handi+) was connected to the tubing 6 inches below the nares to estimate the inspired oxygen concentration at the adult trachea. A standard nasal cannula was placed in the simulated patient nares, which was also attached to each POC. The IngMar Lung was programmed to simulate a COPD patient at the following respiratory rates: 15, 20, 30, and 40 breaths/min. POC devices were then compared to an oxygen wall outlet and a standard oxygen concentrator (non-portable CAIRE device). The POCs included the CAIRE FreeStyle Comfort (with Autosat), CAIRE FreeStyle Comfort (without Autosat), Inogen G4, Inogen G5, Phillips SimplyGo Mini, GCE Zen-O lite, Drive Medical iGo2, and Kingon POCs. Descriptive statistics and ANOVAs were computed to determine statistically significant differences between POCS and control devices (wall oxygen and standalone oxygen concentrator).

Results: Across most respiratory rate scenarios, the wall oxygen and standalone oxygen concentrator (control group) resulted higher oxygen measurements compared to the POCs. Among the POCs on setting 2, the highest oxygen measurement for 15, 30, and 40 breaths/min was the CAIRE FreeStyle Comfort with AutoSat on sensitivity 5 (24.43%, 24.81%, and 25.0%, respectively). On setting 2, the 20 breaths/min highest oxygen measurement was the Inogen G4 (24.43%). For setting 5, the highest oxygen measurement for 15 breaths/min and 40 breaths/min was the CAIRE FreeStyle Comfort without AutoSat (31.56% and 26.13%, respectively), while the highest oxygen measurement for 20 breaths/min was the Inogen G5 (30.26%), and the highest oxygen measurement for 30 breaths/min was the CAIRE FreeStyle Comfort with AutoSat on sensitivity level 5 (27.89%).

Conclusions: The oxygen administered through the wall and the standalone CAIRE oxygen concentrator all delivered higher oxygen levels compared to the POCs (with the exception of the 40 breaths/min scenario on setting 2). However, among the POCs, the CAIRE Freestyle Comfort with AutoSat, CAIRE Freestyle Comfort without AutoSat, and the Inogen G4 all performed the best among the various breathing rate scenarios.

Footnotes

  • Commercial Relationships: The authors, Dr. Culbreth, Dr. Gardenhire, and Dr. Brandenberger, were all investigators on a grant funded by CAIRE for this bench study. The study was conducted at GSU's respiratory lab, independent of any CAIRE input or involvement. The investigators, however, do not have any personal or proprietary financial interests in CAIRE.

  • Support: CAIRE funded this independent study but was not involved in any aspect of the research, including data collection, analysis, and conclusions.

  • Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Respiratory Care
Vol. 66, Issue Suppl 10
1 Oct 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

 

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.
Comparison of Portable Oxygen Concentrators and Inspired Oxygen Levels Using a Simulation of COPD
(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
Comparison of Portable Oxygen Concentrators and Inspired Oxygen Levels Using a Simulation of COPD
Rachel Culbreth, Robert Brent Murray, Kyle Brandenberger, Douglas S Gardenhire
Respiratory Care Oct 2021, 66 (Suppl 10) 3599013;

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Comparison of Portable Oxygen Concentrators and Inspired Oxygen Levels Using a Simulation of COPD
Rachel Culbreth, Robert Brent Murray, Kyle Brandenberger, Douglas S Gardenhire
Respiratory Care Oct 2021, 66 (Suppl 10) 3599013;
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

Related Articles

Cited By...

Info For

  • Subscribers
  • Institutions
  • Advertisers

About Us

  • About the Journal
  • 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