Louis Kirton, Stacey Kung, Georgina Bird, Melissa Black, Ruth Semprini, Allie Eathorne, Mark Weatherall, Alex Semprini, Richard Beasley
{"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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
