Revue des maladies respiratoires · 2010
[Oxygen therapy by a portable concentrator with a demand valve: a randomised controlled study of its effectiveness in patients with COPD].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Couillard A, Foret D, Barel P, Bajon D, Didier A, Melloni B, Sauder P, Muir J-F, Veale D
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: There is doubt concerning the clinical effectiveness of portable oxygen concentrators with a control valve (PCDV) and their appreciation by patients. Objectives. To compare the effectiveness and appreciation of oxygen therapy by PCDV and liquid oxygen by continuous f low (O(2)Liq).
METHODS: Nineteen patients with COPD were randomised to receive PCDV or O(2)Liq at rest and during a 6 minute walk test (6MWT). For each mechanism they assessed, by visual analogue scales, the convenience and portability, the noise, and the discomfort of the nasal oxygen delivery.
RESULTS: The 6MW distance was 315 ± 120 m with PCDV and 325 ± 114 m with O(2)Liq (P>0.05). Dyspnoea and the desaturation induced by the 6MWT were identical with both systems (P>0.05). The time spent with a SaO(2)<90 % was 289 ± 69 s with PCDV and 242 ± 130 s with O(2)Liq (P=0.08). PCDV was noisier than O(2)Liq (P<0.05); there was no difference in convenience and portability or in nasal discomfort.
CONCLUSION: The PCDV model that we tested was equally effective to O(2)Liq. However, the prescription of this type of system is a matter of personal choice.
METHODS: Nineteen patients with COPD were randomised to receive PCDV or O(2)Liq at rest and during a 6 minute walk test (6MWT). For each mechanism they assessed, by visual analogue scales, the convenience and portability, the noise, and the discomfort of the nasal oxygen delivery.
RESULTS: The 6MW distance was 315 ± 120 m with PCDV and 325 ± 114 m with O(2)Liq (P>0.05). Dyspnoea and the desaturation induced by the 6MWT were identical with both systems (P>0.05). The time spent with a SaO(2)<90 % was 289 ± 69 s with PCDV and 242 ± 130 s with O(2)Liq (P=0.08). PCDV was noisier than O(2)Liq (P<0.05); there was no difference in convenience and portability or in nasal discomfort.
CONCLUSION: The PCDV model that we tested was equally effective to O(2)Liq. However, the prescription of this type of system is a matter of personal choice.