Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several methodologies have been introduced to reduce oxygen (O2) usage during home O2 therapy. Pulse-dose O2 therapy has been reported to reduce O2 usage and costs. PURPOSE: Our purpose was to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost of pulse-dose O2 therapy to continuous-flow O2 therapy via nasal cannula in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who were living at home. METHODS: We analyzed arterial blood samples drawn from 20 patients with hypoxemia on room air (mean PaO2 52 torr) while they were using continuous-low O2 at 2 L/min and while they were using pulse-dose O2 at a dose of 33 mL/pulse. In addition, total O2 usage was determined by monitoring cylinder usage while patients used each delivery method at home. RESULTS: We found no difference in mean PaO2 (90 ± SD 13 vs 91 ± SD 11 torr) or PaCO2 (44 ± SD 8 vs 42 ± SD 6 torr) between the two delivery methods during home use. The cylinders lasted nearly three times longer with pulse-dose usage than with continuous-flow O2 (86 ± 2 vs 30 ± 1 h). Patients did not express a preference for one device over the other. CONCLUSION: Pulse-dose O2 therapy provides oxygenation equivalent to continuous-flow O2 while using only one third the amount of O2. This may reduce O2 cost and delivery costs and provide therapy for more patients when supplies are limited.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.