Burden and Unmet Needs with Portable Oxygen in Patients on Long-Term Oxygen Therapy
Burden and Unmet Needs with Portable Oxygen in Patients on Long-Term Oxygen Therapy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1513/annalsats.202005-487oc
复制
发表时间：
2021-09-01
影响因子：
8.3
通讯作者：
Danoff, Sonye K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dakkak, Jessica;Tang, Wilson;Danoff, Sonye K.
基本原理：超过150万美国人接受长期氧疗（LTOT）治疗慢性低氧血症，以优化功能状态和生活质量。然而，目前的便携式氧气设备，包括便携式气体罐（GT）、便携式液体罐（LT）和便携式氧气浓缩器（POC），都有可能妨碍患者移动和日常活动的局限性。目的：研究患者使用便携式氧气的经验，以指导设备创新，从而改善患者对氧气治疗的护理。通过在线调查，评估了836例慢性肺病（慢性阻塞性肺病[COPD]、间质性肺病和肺动脉高压）LTOT患者的便携式氧气设备负担和未满足的需求。调查包括多项选择、Likert量表、简短回答和开放式问题。分布是通过患者支持组织，包括美国COPD联盟，肺纤维化基金会，肺动脉高压Association.Results：改善便携性被列为最高优先级的患者在所有设备类型，其次是增加的持续时间的氧气供应GT，LT的可及性，和流动能力的POC。发现所有器械类型都是负担，GT使用者的负担最大，其中51%的人将GT使用描述为“费力”或“极其费力”（高负担）。POC被列为最常见（61%）和负担最轻的设备;然而，29%的POC用户仍然报告了较高的相关负担。47%的POC受访者描述了使用POC，尽管它不能满足他们的氧气需求，以受益于替代设备的优势。在非POC用户，有限的氧气流量能力和成本的首要原因，防止POC use.Conclusions：虽然已经取得了改进便携式氧气设备，这项研究强调了负担，仍然揭示了一个明确的需要，在技术进步，以改善功能状态和便携式LTOT用户的生活质量。
Rationale: Over 1.5 million Americans receive long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) for the treatment of chronic hypoxemia to optimize functional status and quality of life. However, current portable oxygen equipment, including portable gas tanks (GTs), portable liquid tanks (LTs), and portable oxygen concentrators (POCs), each have limitations that can hinder patient mobility and daily activities.Objectives: To examine patient experiences with portable oxygen to guide equipment innovation and thereby improve patient care on oxygen therapy.Methods: The burden and unmet needs with portable oxygen equipment were assessed in 836 LTOT patients with chronic lung disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary hypertension) through an online survey. The survey included a combination of multiple-choice, Likert-scale, short-answer, and open-ended questions. Distribution was achieved through patient support organizations, including the U.S. COPD Coalition, the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association.Results: Improvements in portability were ranked as the highest priority by patients across all equipment types, followed by increases in the duration of oxygen supply for GTs, accessibility for LTs, and flow capabilities for POCs. All device types were found to be burdensome, with the greatest burden among GT users, 51% of whom characterized GT use as "strenuous" or "extremely strenuous" (high burden). POCs ranked as the most common (61%) and least burdensome devices; however, 29% of POC users still reported a high associated burden. Forty-seven percent of POC respondents described using a POC despite it not meeting their oxygen needs to benefit from advantages over alternative equipment. Among non-POC users, limited oxygen flow rate capabilities and cost were the top reasons preventing POC use.Conclusions: Although improvements have been made to portable oxygen equipment, this study highlights the burden that remains and reveals a clear need for advances in technology to improve the functional status and quality of life of portable LTOT users.