Archivos de bronconeumologia · 2026
Performance and Synchronization of Portable Oxygen Concentrators Delivering Pulsed Oxygen Therapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lebret Marius, Fresnel Emeline, Delrieu Jacqueline, Patout Maxime, Rabec Claudio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the performance of seven POCs, focusing on FiO2, bolus triggering delay, synchronization, and technical specifications, including weight, size, noise level, and battery autonomy.
METHODS: A bench study was conducted using a mechanical lung model (ASL 5000) equipped with a Fast Oxygen Measurement sensor. Seven devices available on the European market were tested: FreeStyle Comfort, iGo2, Inogen One G4, Inogen One G5, Platinum Mobile, Zen-O lite, and Horizon P5. 200 ventilatory cycles were simulated per device across various respiratory rates (RR). Measurements included FiO2, bolus triggering delay, synchronization, and bolus volume. Technical specifications were also compared. All devices were tested across their full range of settings, with each test replicated on a second device to confirm results within a 10% margin of error.
RESULTS: Significant differences in FiO2 delivery were observed (p<0.001), with all devices delivering at least 28% FiO2 at their lowest settings. The Inogen One G5 and Horizon P5 achieved the highest FiO2 levels (48.7% [38.4-56.9%] and 47.8% [35.6-56.4%], respectively). Synchronization was high across devices but declined at extreme RR (15 and 40bpm). FiO2 variations were influenced by RR, while bolus delays depended on device type and RR. Technical specifications varied widely across devices.
CONCLUSIONS: POCs demonstrate notable differences in performance, with RR and device type impacting FiO2 delivery and synchronization. These findings may help support more informed device selection according to the intended conditions of use and patient requirements.
METHODS: A bench study was conducted using a mechanical lung model (ASL 5000) equipped with a Fast Oxygen Measurement sensor. Seven devices available on the European market were tested: FreeStyle Comfort, iGo2, Inogen One G4, Inogen One G5, Platinum Mobile, Zen-O lite, and Horizon P5. 200 ventilatory cycles were simulated per device across various respiratory rates (RR). Measurements included FiO2, bolus triggering delay, synchronization, and bolus volume. Technical specifications were also compared. All devices were tested across their full range of settings, with each test replicated on a second device to confirm results within a 10% margin of error.
RESULTS: Significant differences in FiO2 delivery were observed (p<0.001), with all devices delivering at least 28% FiO2 at their lowest settings. The Inogen One G5 and Horizon P5 achieved the highest FiO2 levels (48.7% [38.4-56.9%] and 47.8% [35.6-56.4%], respectively). Synchronization was high across devices but declined at extreme RR (15 and 40bpm). FiO2 variations were influenced by RR, while bolus delays depended on device type and RR. Technical specifications varied widely across devices.
CONCLUSIONS: POCs demonstrate notable differences in performance, with RR and device type impacting FiO2 delivery and synchronization. These findings may help support more informed device selection according to the intended conditions of use and patient requirements.