Scholarlink

Introduction <p>This bench study evaluated the inspired oxygen fraction (FiO<sub>2</sub>) delivered by different portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) compared to wall oxygen and a standalone concentrator (control device) using a respiratory failure-specific lung simulator replicating an adult with chronic respiratory disease at respiratory rates of 15, 20, 30, and 40 breaths per minute.</p> Methods <p>A lung simulator replicated an adult with chronic lung disease in respiratory failure. POCs and controls were tested at device-specific settings 2, 3, 5, and 6. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed FiO<sub>2</sub> differences when more than two groups were compared; independent<i> t</i>&#xa0;tests were used for two-group comparisons.</p> Results <p>Wall oxygen generally delivered higher FiO<sub>2</sub> across all settings and respiratory rates. At 40&#xa0;breaths/min and setting&#xa0;2, however, the CAIRE FreeStyle<sup>®</sup> Comfort<sup>®</sup> with autoSAT<sup>®</sup> delivered a slightly higher FiO<sub>2</sub> than wall oxygen (0.25 vs. 0.24, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01). Among POCs, the CAIRE FreeStyle<sup>®</sup> Comfort<sup>®</sup> (with or without autoSAT<sup>®</sup>) achieved the highest FiO<sub>2</sub> values at elevated respiratory rates, while devices like the Inogen&#xa0;G4<sup>®</sup> and G5<sup>®</sup> performed more variably and showed reduced oxygen delivery at higher breathing frequencies.</p> Conclusions <p>Wall oxygen and standalone concentrators consistently outperformed POCs across most breathing conditions. While the CAIRE FreeStyle<sup>®</sup> Comfort<sup>®</sup> with autoSAT<sup>®</sup> offered relative advantages at high respiratory rates, most POCs may not adequately sustain oxygenation during exertion or stress. These findings inform home oxygen therapy decisions, emphasizing the importance of device selection based on respiratory demand. Clinical validation of these bench findings is warranted.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of Portable Oxygen Concentrators and Inspired Oxygen Levels in a Model of Respiratory Failure

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月16日

查看全文
  • Douglas S. Gardenhire,
  • Robert B. Murray,
  • Robin E. Gardenhire,
  • Kyle J. Brandenberger,
  • Gerald S. Zavorsky

摘要

Introduction

This bench study evaluated the inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) delivered by different portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) compared to wall oxygen and a standalone concentrator (control device) using a respiratory failure-specific lung simulator replicating an adult with chronic respiratory disease at respiratory rates of 15, 20, 30, and 40 breaths per minute.

Methods

A lung simulator replicated an adult with chronic lung disease in respiratory failure. POCs and controls were tested at device-specific settings 2, 3, 5, and 6. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed FiO2 differences when more than two groups were compared; independent t tests were used for two-group comparisons.

Results

Wall oxygen generally delivered higher FiO2 across all settings and respiratory rates. At 40 breaths/min and setting 2, however, the CAIRE FreeStyle® Comfort® with autoSAT® delivered a slightly higher FiO2 than wall oxygen (0.25 vs. 0.24, p < 0.01). Among POCs, the CAIRE FreeStyle® Comfort® (with or without autoSAT®) achieved the highest FiO2 values at elevated respiratory rates, while devices like the Inogen G4® and G5® performed more variably and showed reduced oxygen delivery at higher breathing frequencies.

Conclusions

Wall oxygen and standalone concentrators consistently outperformed POCs across most breathing conditions. While the CAIRE FreeStyle® Comfort® with autoSAT® offered relative advantages at high respiratory rates, most POCs may not adequately sustain oxygenation during exertion or stress. These findings inform home oxygen therapy decisions, emphasizing the importance of device selection based on respiratory demand. Clinical validation of these bench findings is warranted.