Comparison of portable oxygen concentrators in a simulated airplane environment
- PMID: 23085214
- DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.10.001
Comparison of portable oxygen concentrators in a simulated airplane environment
Abstract
Portable oxygen concentrators (POC) are highly desirable for patients with lung disease traveling by airplane, as these devices allow theoretically much higher travel times if additional batteries can be used. However, it is unclear whether POCs produce enough oxygen in airplanes at cruising altitude, even if complying with aviation regulations. We evaluated five frequently used POCs (XPO2 (Invacare, USA), Freestyle (AirSep C., USA), Evergo (Philipps Healthcare, Germany), Inogen One (Inogen, USA), Eclipse 3 (Sequal, USA)) at an altitude of 2650 m (as simulated airplane environment) in 11 patients with chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) and compared theses POCs with the standard oxygen system (WS120, EMS Ltd., Germany) used by Lufthansa. Oxygen was delivered by each POC for 30 min to each patient at rest, blood gases were then drawn from the arterialized ear lobe. All POCs were able to deliver enough oxygen to increase the PaO(2) of our subjects by at least 1.40 kPa (10 mmHg). However, to achieve this increase, the two most lightweight POCs (Freestyle and Invacare XPO2) had to be run at their maximum level. This causes a significant reduction of battery life. The three other POCs (EverGo, Inogen One, Eclipse 3) and the WS120 were able to increase the PaO(2) by more than 2.55 kPa (20 mmHg), which provides extra safety for patients with more severe basal hypoxemia. When choosing the right oxygen system for air travel in patients in COPD, not only weight, but also battery life and maximum possible oxygen output must be considered carefully.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Performance comparison of 4 portable oxygen concentrators.Respir Care. 2010 Apr;55(4):433-42. Respir Care. 2010. PMID: 20406511
-
Effect of the anatomic reservoir on low-flow oxygen delivery via nasal cannula: constant flow versus pulse flow with portable oxygen concentrator.Respir Care. 2014 Aug;59(8):1199-209. doi: 10.4187/respcare.02878. Respir Care. 2014. PMID: 24803496
-
A comparative study of 3 portable oxygen concentrators during a 6-minute walk test in patients with chronic lung disease.Respir Care. 2013 Oct;58(10):1598-605. doi: 10.4187/respcare.02275. Epub 2013 Apr 2. Respir Care. 2013. PMID: 23550171 Clinical Trial.
-
Do lung disease patients need supplemental oxygen at high altitude?High Alt Med Biol. 2009 Winter;10(4):321-7. doi: 10.1089/ham.2009.1051. High Alt Med Biol. 2009. PMID: 20039812 Review.
-
[Preparing patients with chronic pulmonary disease for air travel].Orv Hetil. 2013 Mar 3;154(9):323-37. doi: 10.1556/OH.2013.29546. Orv Hetil. 2013. PMID: 23434882 Review. Hungarian.
Cited by
-
Should I stay or should I go? COPD and air travel.Eur Respir Rev. 2018 Jun 13;27(148):180030. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0030-2018. Print 2018 Jun 30. Eur Respir Rev. 2018. PMID: 29898904 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Fitness to fly in the paediatric population, how to assess and advice.Eur J Pediatr. 2018 May;177(5):633-639. doi: 10.1007/s00431-018-3119-9. Epub 2018 Feb 26. Eur J Pediatr. 2018. PMID: 29480461 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Oxygen devices and delivery systems.Breathe (Sheff). 2019 Sep;15(3):e108-e116. doi: 10.1183/20734735.0204-2019. Breathe (Sheff). 2019. PMID: 31777573 Free PMC article. Review.
-
BTS Clinical Statement on air travel for passengers with respiratory disease.Thorax. 2022 Apr;77(4):329-350. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-218110. Epub 2022 Feb 28. Thorax. 2022. PMID: 35228307 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical