对患有心肺疾病的低氧血症成人进行自动氧气滴定和无创通气:随机交叉试验。

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Louis Kirton, Stacey Kung, Georgina Bird, Melissa Black, Ruth Semprini, Allie Eathorne, Mark Weatherall, Alex Semprini, Richard Beasley
{"title":"对患有心肺疾病的低氧血症成人进行自动氧气滴定和无创通气:随机交叉试验。","authors":"Louis Kirton, Stacey Kung, Georgina Bird, Melissa Black, Ruth Semprini, Allie Eathorne, Mark Weatherall, Alex Semprini, Richard Beasley","doi":"10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Closed-loop oxygen control systems automatically adjust the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO<sub>2</sub>) to maintain oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>) within a predetermined target range. Their performance with low and high-flow oxygen therapies, but not with non-invasive ventilation, has been established. We compared the effect of automated oxygen on achieving and maintaining a target SpO<sub>2</sub> range with nasal high flow (NHF), bilevel positive airway pressure (bilevel) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), in stable hypoxaemic patients with chronic cardiorespiratory disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this open-label, three-way cross-over trial, participants with resting hypoxaemia (n=12) received each of NHF, bilevel and CPAP treatments, in random order, with automated oxygen titrated for 10 min, followed by 36 min of standardised manual oxygen adjustments. The primary outcome was the time taken to reach target SpO<sub>2</sub> range (92%-96%). Secondary outcomes included time spent within target range and physiological responses to automated and manual oxygen adjustments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two participants were randomised to each of six possible treatment orders. During automated oxygen control (n=12), the mean (±SD) time to reach target range was 114.8 (±87.9), 56.6 (±47.7) and 67.3 (±61) seconds for NHF, bilevel and CPAP, respectively, mean difference 58.3 (95% CI 25.0 to 91.5; p=0.002) and 47.5 (95% CI 14.3 to 80.7; p=0.007) seconds for bilevel and CPAP versus NHF, respectively. Proportions of time spent within target range were 68.5% (±16.3), 65.6% (±28.7) and 74.7% (±22.6) for NHF, bilevel and CPAP, respectively.Manually increasing, then decreasing, the FiO<sub>2</sub> resulted in similar increases and then decreases in SpO<sub>2</sub> and transcutaneous carbon dioxide (PtCO<sub>2</sub>) with NHF, bilevel and CPAP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The target SpO<sub>2</sub> range was achieved more quickly when automated oxygen control was initiated with bilevel and CPAP compared with NHF while time spent within the range across the three therapies was similar. Manually changing the FiO<sub>2</sub> had similar effects on SpO<sub>2</sub> and PtCO<sub>2</sub> across each of the three therapies.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>ACTRN12622000433707.</p>","PeriodicalId":9048,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11191803/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated oxygen titration with non-invasive ventilation in hypoxaemic adults with cardiorespiratory disease: a randomised cross-over trial.\",\"authors\":\"Louis Kirton, Stacey Kung, Georgina Bird, Melissa Black, Ruth Semprini, Allie Eathorne, Mark Weatherall, Alex Semprini, Richard Beasley\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Closed-loop oxygen control systems automatically adjust the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO<sub>2</sub>) to maintain oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>) within a predetermined target range. Their performance with low and high-flow oxygen therapies, but not with non-invasive ventilation, has been established. We compared the effect of automated oxygen on achieving and maintaining a target SpO<sub>2</sub> range with nasal high flow (NHF), bilevel positive airway pressure (bilevel) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), in stable hypoxaemic patients with chronic cardiorespiratory disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this open-label, three-way cross-over trial, participants with resting hypoxaemia (n=12) received each of NHF, bilevel and CPAP treatments, in random order, with automated oxygen titrated for 10 min, followed by 36 min of standardised manual oxygen adjustments. The primary outcome was the time taken to reach target SpO<sub>2</sub> range (92%-96%). Secondary outcomes included time spent within target range and physiological responses to automated and manual oxygen adjustments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two participants were randomised to each of six possible treatment orders. During automated oxygen control (n=12), the mean (±SD) time to reach target range was 114.8 (±87.9), 56.6 (±47.7) and 67.3 (±61) seconds for NHF, bilevel and CPAP, respectively, mean difference 58.3 (95% CI 25.0 to 91.5; p=0.002) and 47.5 (95% CI 14.3 to 80.7; p=0.007) seconds for bilevel and CPAP versus NHF, respectively. Proportions of time spent within target range were 68.5% (±16.3), 65.6% (±28.7) and 74.7% (±22.6) for NHF, bilevel and CPAP, respectively.Manually increasing, then decreasing, the FiO<sub>2</sub> resulted in similar increases and then decreases in SpO<sub>2</sub> and transcutaneous carbon dioxide (PtCO<sub>2</sub>) with NHF, bilevel and CPAP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The target SpO<sub>2</sub> range was achieved more quickly when automated oxygen control was initiated with bilevel and CPAP compared with NHF while time spent within the range across the three therapies was similar. Manually changing the FiO<sub>2</sub> had similar effects on SpO<sub>2</sub> and PtCO<sub>2</sub> across each of the three therapies.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>ACTRN12622000433707.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9048,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11191803/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Respiratory Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002196\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Respiratory Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2023-002196","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:闭环氧控制系统可自动调节吸入氧分压(FiO2),将血氧饱和度(SpO2)维持在预定的目标范围内。它们在低流量和高流量氧气疗法中的性能已经得到证实,但在无创通气中的性能尚未得到证实。我们比较了自动吸氧与鼻腔高流量(NHF)、双水平气道正压(bilevel)和持续气道正压(CPAP)对稳定低氧血症慢性心肺疾病患者达到和维持目标 SpO2 范围的影响:在这项开放标签、三向交叉试验中,静息低氧血症患者(12 人)按随机顺序分别接受 NHF、双水平和 CPAP 治疗,自动氧气滴定 10 分钟,然后进行 36 分钟的标准化手动氧气调整。主要结果是达到目标 SpO2 范围(92%-96%)所需的时间。次要结果包括在目标范围内所花费的时间以及对自动和手动氧气调整的生理反应:两名参与者被随机分配到六种可能的治疗顺序中的每一种。在自动氧气控制期间(n=12),NHF、双水平和 CPAP 达到目标范围的平均(±SD)时间分别为 114.8 秒(±87.9)、56.6 秒(±47.7)和 67.3 秒(±61),双水平和 CPAP 与 NHF 相比的平均差异分别为 58.3 秒(95% CI 25.0 至 91.5;p=0.002)和 47.5 秒(95% CI 14.3 至 80.7;p=0.007)。NHF、双水平和 CPAP 在目标范围内所用时间的比例分别为 68.5% (±16.3)、65.6% (±28.7) 和 74.7% (±22.6)。手动增加然后降低 FiO2 会导致 SpO2 和经皮二氧化碳 (PtCO2) 与 NHF、双水平和 CPAP 相似的增加和降低:结论:与 NHF 相比,使用双水平和 CPAP 启动自动氧控制时,能更快达到目标 SpO2 范围,而三种疗法在目标 SpO2 范围内花费的时间相似。在三种疗法中,手动改变 FiO2 对 SpO2 和 PtCO2 的影响相似:试验注册号:ACTRN12622000433707。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Automated oxygen titration with non-invasive ventilation in hypoxaemic adults with cardiorespiratory disease: a randomised cross-over trial.

Background: Closed-loop oxygen control systems automatically adjust the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) to maintain oxygen saturation (SpO2) within a predetermined target range. Their performance with low and high-flow oxygen therapies, but not with non-invasive ventilation, has been established. We compared the effect of automated oxygen on achieving and maintaining a target SpO2 range with nasal high flow (NHF), bilevel positive airway pressure (bilevel) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), in stable hypoxaemic patients with chronic cardiorespiratory disease.

Methods: In this open-label, three-way cross-over trial, participants with resting hypoxaemia (n=12) received each of NHF, bilevel and CPAP treatments, in random order, with automated oxygen titrated for 10 min, followed by 36 min of standardised manual oxygen adjustments. The primary outcome was the time taken to reach target SpO2 range (92%-96%). Secondary outcomes included time spent within target range and physiological responses to automated and manual oxygen adjustments.

Results: Two participants were randomised to each of six possible treatment orders. During automated oxygen control (n=12), the mean (±SD) time to reach target range was 114.8 (±87.9), 56.6 (±47.7) and 67.3 (±61) seconds for NHF, bilevel and CPAP, respectively, mean difference 58.3 (95% CI 25.0 to 91.5; p=0.002) and 47.5 (95% CI 14.3 to 80.7; p=0.007) seconds for bilevel and CPAP versus NHF, respectively. Proportions of time spent within target range were 68.5% (±16.3), 65.6% (±28.7) and 74.7% (±22.6) for NHF, bilevel and CPAP, respectively.Manually increasing, then decreasing, the FiO2 resulted in similar increases and then decreases in SpO2 and transcutaneous carbon dioxide (PtCO2) with NHF, bilevel and CPAP.

Conclusion: The target SpO2 range was achieved more quickly when automated oxygen control was initiated with bilevel and CPAP compared with NHF while time spent within the range across the three therapies was similar. Manually changing the FiO2 had similar effects on SpO2 and PtCO2 across each of the three therapies.

Trial registration number: ACTRN12622000433707.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
BMJ Open Respiratory Research RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
95
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open Respiratory Research is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing respiratory and critical care medicine. It is the sister journal to Thorax and co-owned by the British Thoracic Society and BMJ. The journal focuses on robustness of methodology and scientific rigour with less emphasis on novelty or perceived impact. BMJ Open Respiratory Research operates a rapid review process, with continuous publication online, ensuring timely, up-to-date research is available worldwide. The journal publishes review articles and all research study types: Basic science including laboratory based experiments and animal models, Pilot studies or proof of concept, Observational studies, Study protocols, Registries, Clinical trials from phase I to multicentre randomised clinical trials, Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信