• A Couillard, D Foret, P Barel, D Bajon, A Didier, B Melloni, P Sauder, J-F Muir, and D Veale.
• Fédération ANTADIR, 66, boulevard Saint-Michel, 75006 Paris, France. annabelle.couillard@yahoo.fr
• Rev Mal Respir. 2010 Nov 1; 27 (9): 1030-8.

IntroductionThere 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).MethodsNineteen 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.Copyright © 2010 SPLF. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

9 keywords...

hide…