便携式吸氧器与吸入氧水平在呼吸衰竭模型中的比较。

IF 3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM

Pulmonary Therapy Pub Date : 2025-09-16 DOI:10.1007/s41030-025-00314-1

Douglas S Gardenhire, Robert B Murray, Robin E Gardenhire, Kyle J Brandenberger, Gerald S Zavorsky

{"title":"便携式吸氧器与吸入氧水平在呼吸衰竭模型中的比较。","authors":"Douglas S Gardenhire, Robert B Murray, Robin E Gardenhire, Kyle J Brandenberger, Gerald S Zavorsky","doi":"10.1007/s41030-025-00314-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":20919,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Portable Oxygen Concentrators and Inspired Oxygen Levels in a Model of Respiratory Failure.\",\"authors\":\"Douglas S Gardenhire, Robert B Murray, Robin E Gardenhire, Kyle J Brandenberger, Gerald S Zavorsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41030-025-00314-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-025-00314-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-025-00314-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本实验评估了不同便携式氧气浓缩器（POCs）与壁式氧气和独立浓缩器（控制装置）相比的吸入氧分数（FiO2），使用呼吸衰竭特异性肺模拟器复制患有慢性呼吸疾病的成人，呼吸频率为每分钟15次、20次、30次和40次。方法：用肺模拟器模拟慢性肺病呼吸衰竭患者。POCs和对照在设备特定设置2、3、5和6下进行测试。单因素方差分析（ANOVA）评估两组以上比较时FiO2的差异；两组比较采用独立t检验。结果：在所有设置和呼吸速率下，壁氧通常提供更高的FiO2。然而，在40次呼吸/分钟和设置2时，带有autoSAT®的CAIRE FreeStyle®Comfort®提供的FiO2略高于壁氧(0.25 vs. 0.24, p®Comfort®（带或不带autoSAT®）在呼吸频率升高时达到最高的FiO2值，而Inogen G4®和G5®等设备的表现更为多变，并且在更高的呼吸频率下显示出更少的氧气输送。结论：在大多数呼吸条件下，壁氧和独立浓缩器的表现始终优于POCs。虽然CAIRE FreeStyle®Comfort®与autoSAT®在高呼吸频率下提供了相对优势，但大多数poc在运动或压力下可能无法充分维持氧合。这些发现为家庭氧疗决策提供了依据，强调了基于呼吸需求选择设备的重要性。这些实验结果的临床验证是必要的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

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

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.

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

Pulmonary Therapy Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

3.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6 weeks

期刊介绍： Aims and Scope Pulmonary Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from pre-clinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of pulmonary therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to: asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; pulmonary hypertension; cystic fibrosis; lung cancer; respiratory tract disorders; allergic rhinitis and other respiratory allergies; influenza, pneumococcal infection, respiratory syncytial virus and other respiratory infections; and inhalers and other device therapies. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Pulmonary Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of pulmonary therapies. Open Access All articles published by Pulmonary Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Pulmonary Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €4500/ $5100/ £3650. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Pulmonary Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.