Automated oxygen control with O2matic® during admission with exacerbation of COPD

Ejvind Frausing Hansen; Jens Dahlgaard Hove; Charlotte Sandau Bech; Jens Ulrik Stæhr Jensen; Thomas Kallemose; Jørgen Vestbo

doi:10.2147/COPD.S183762

Automated oxygen control with O2matic® during admission with exacerbation of COPD

Ejvind Frausing Hansen^*, Jens Dahlgaard Hove, Charlotte Sandau Bech, Jens Ulrik Stæhr Jensen, Thomas Kallemose, Jørgen Vestbo

^*Corresponding author for this work

Department of Clinical Medicine

6 Citations (Scopus)

8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

It is a challenge to control oxygen saturation (SpO ₂ ) in patients with exacerbations of COPD during admission. We tested a newly developed closed-loop system, O2matic®, and its ability to keep SpO ₂ within a specified interval compared with manual control by nursing staff. Patients and methods: We conducted a crossover trial with patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD and hypoxemia (SpO ₂ ≤88% on room air). Patients were monitored with continuous measurement of SpO ₂ . In random order, they had 4 hours with manually controlled oxygen and 4 hours with oxygen delivery controlled by O2matic. Primary outcome was time within a prespecified SpO ₂ target interval. Secondary outcomes were time with SpO ₂ <85%, time with SpO ₂ below target but not <85%, and time with SpO ₂ above target. Results: Twenty patients were randomized and 19 completed the study. Mean age was 72.4 years and mean FEV1 was 0.72 L (33% of predicted). Patients with O2matic-controlled treatment were within the SpOF target interval in 85.1% of the time vs 46.6% with manually controlled treatment (P<0.001). Time with SpO ₂ <85% was 1.3% with O2matic and 17.9% with manual control (P=0.01). Time with SpO ₂ below target but not <85% was 9.0% with O2matic and 25.0% with manual control (P=0.002). Time with SpO ₂ above target was not significantly different between treatments (4.6% vs 10.5%, P=0.2). Patients expressed high confidence and a sense of safety with automatic oxygen delivery. Conclusion: O2matic was able to effectively control SpO ₂ for patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD. O2matic was significantly better than manual control to maintain SpO ₂ within target interval and to reduce time with unintended hypoxemia.

Original language	English
Journal	International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Volume	13
Pages (from-to)	3997-4003
Number of pages	7
ISSN	1178-2005
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S183762
Publication status	Published - 2018

Keywords

Closed-loop
Hyperoxia
Hypoxia
Oxygen saturation
Oxygen therapy

Access to Document

10.2147/COPD.S183762Licence: CC BY-NC

Automated oxygen control with O2matic® during admission with exacerbation of COPDFinal published version, 1.8 MBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

@article{2af70242a1d64c0ba7b320bf402fde15,

title = "Automated oxygen control with O2matic{\textregistered} during admission with exacerbation of COPD",

abstract = " It is a challenge to control oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) in patients with exacerbations of COPD during admission. We tested a newly developed closed-loop system, O2matic{\textregistered}, and its ability to keep SpO 2 within a specified interval compared with manual control by nursing staff. Patients and methods: We conducted a crossover trial with patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD and hypoxemia (SpO 2 ≤88% on room air). Patients were monitored with continuous measurement of SpO 2 . In random order, they had 4 hours with manually controlled oxygen and 4 hours with oxygen delivery controlled by O2matic. Primary outcome was time within a prespecified SpO 2 target interval. Secondary outcomes were time with SpO 2 <85%, time with SpO 2 below target but not <85%, and time with SpO 2 above target. Results: Twenty patients were randomized and 19 completed the study. Mean age was 72.4 years and mean FEV1 was 0.72 L (33% of predicted). Patients with O2matic-controlled treatment were within the SpOF target interval in 85.1% of the time vs 46.6% with manually controlled treatment (P<0.001). Time with SpO 2 <85% was 1.3% with O2matic and 17.9% with manual control (P=0.01). Time with SpO 2 below target but not <85% was 9.0% with O2matic and 25.0% with manual control (P=0.002). Time with SpO 2 above target was not significantly different between treatments (4.6% vs 10.5%, P=0.2). Patients expressed high confidence and a sense of safety with automatic oxygen delivery. Conclusion: O2matic was able to effectively control SpO 2 for patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD. O2matic was significantly better than manual control to maintain SpO 2 within target interval and to reduce time with unintended hypoxemia. ",

keywords = "Closed-loop, Hyperoxia, Hypoxia, Oxygen saturation, Oxygen therapy",

author = "Hansen, {Ejvind Frausing} and Hove, {Jens Dahlgaard} and Bech, {Charlotte Sandau} and Jensen, {Jens Ulrik St{\ae}hr} and Thomas Kallemose and J{\o}rgen Vestbo",

year = "2018",

doi = "10.2147/COPD.S183762",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

pages = "3997--4003",

journal = "International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease",

issn = "1178-2005",

publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Automated oxygen control with O2matic® during admission with exacerbation of COPD

AU - Hansen, Ejvind Frausing

AU - Hove, Jens Dahlgaard

AU - Bech, Charlotte Sandau

AU - Jensen, Jens Ulrik Stæhr

AU - Kallemose, Thomas

AU - Vestbo, Jørgen

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - It is a challenge to control oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) in patients with exacerbations of COPD during admission. We tested a newly developed closed-loop system, O2matic®, and its ability to keep SpO 2 within a specified interval compared with manual control by nursing staff. Patients and methods: We conducted a crossover trial with patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD and hypoxemia (SpO 2 ≤88% on room air). Patients were monitored with continuous measurement of SpO 2 . In random order, they had 4 hours with manually controlled oxygen and 4 hours with oxygen delivery controlled by O2matic. Primary outcome was time within a prespecified SpO 2 target interval. Secondary outcomes were time with SpO 2 <85%, time with SpO 2 below target but not <85%, and time with SpO 2 above target. Results: Twenty patients were randomized and 19 completed the study. Mean age was 72.4 years and mean FEV1 was 0.72 L (33% of predicted). Patients with O2matic-controlled treatment were within the SpOF target interval in 85.1% of the time vs 46.6% with manually controlled treatment (P<0.001). Time with SpO 2 <85% was 1.3% with O2matic and 17.9% with manual control (P=0.01). Time with SpO 2 below target but not <85% was 9.0% with O2matic and 25.0% with manual control (P=0.002). Time with SpO 2 above target was not significantly different between treatments (4.6% vs 10.5%, P=0.2). Patients expressed high confidence and a sense of safety with automatic oxygen delivery. Conclusion: O2matic was able to effectively control SpO 2 for patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD. O2matic was significantly better than manual control to maintain SpO 2 within target interval and to reduce time with unintended hypoxemia.

AB - It is a challenge to control oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) in patients with exacerbations of COPD during admission. We tested a newly developed closed-loop system, O2matic®, and its ability to keep SpO 2 within a specified interval compared with manual control by nursing staff. Patients and methods: We conducted a crossover trial with patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD and hypoxemia (SpO 2 ≤88% on room air). Patients were monitored with continuous measurement of SpO 2 . In random order, they had 4 hours with manually controlled oxygen and 4 hours with oxygen delivery controlled by O2matic. Primary outcome was time within a prespecified SpO 2 target interval. Secondary outcomes were time with SpO 2 <85%, time with SpO 2 below target but not <85%, and time with SpO 2 above target. Results: Twenty patients were randomized and 19 completed the study. Mean age was 72.4 years and mean FEV1 was 0.72 L (33% of predicted). Patients with O2matic-controlled treatment were within the SpOF target interval in 85.1% of the time vs 46.6% with manually controlled treatment (P<0.001). Time with SpO 2 <85% was 1.3% with O2matic and 17.9% with manual control (P=0.01). Time with SpO 2 below target but not <85% was 9.0% with O2matic and 25.0% with manual control (P=0.002). Time with SpO 2 above target was not significantly different between treatments (4.6% vs 10.5%, P=0.2). Patients expressed high confidence and a sense of safety with automatic oxygen delivery. Conclusion: O2matic was able to effectively control SpO 2 for patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD. O2matic was significantly better than manual control to maintain SpO 2 within target interval and to reduce time with unintended hypoxemia.

KW - Closed-loop

KW - Hyperoxia

KW - Hypoxia

KW - Oxygen saturation

KW - Oxygen therapy

U2 - 10.2147/COPD.S183762

DO - 10.2147/COPD.S183762

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 30587955

AN - SCOPUS:85059245617

SN - 1178-2005

VL - 13

SP - 3997

EP - 4003

JO - International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

JF - International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

ER -

Automated oxygen control with O2matic® during admission with exacerbation of COPD

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this