Trial of Portable Oxygen Cylinders Versus Battery Powered Portable Oxygen Concentrators
|
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01673685 |
|
Recruitment Status :
Completed
First Posted : August 28, 2012
Last Update Posted : April 10, 2017
|
Sponsor:
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Kristin Carson, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
- Study Details
- Tabular View
- No Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
Brief Summary:
Randomised cross-over study of portable oxygen concentrators compared to oxygen cylinders to improve quality of life and other outcomes for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
| Condition or disease | Intervention/treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
| COPD | Device: Portable Oxygen | Not Applicable |
Many patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) have limited activities of daily living (shopping, visiting friends, going for a walk) due to exertional dyspnoea. State Government funding provides up to 4 oxygen cylinders to be delivered to patients requiring portable oxygen per month. However, the more active and motivated COPD patients often find these gratis supplies run out well before the month is up. Recent technology has developed battery powered portable oxygen concentrators. The latest models weigh less than a typical oxygen cylinder and have the advantage that the battery plug can be plugged into a car cigarette lighter outlet, or into the power point of any house. This means that the COPD patient has the potential to be far more mobile for far longer periods of time and visit friends almost infinitely by recharging the battery pack during the course of their travels. The latest battery powered oxygen device weighs 2kgs which is about half that of an oxygen cylinder. However, there is an upfront expense to these devices and inevitably a sound business case with cost considerations (amortization of the initial purchase price, recharging the battery costing the patient's electricity etc) needs consideration. Also, before assuming these devices are superior (or at least as good as) oxygen cylinders, because they have a pulsed delivery of oxygen technology i.e. the oxygen is delivered in bursts with each inspiration that is detected, unlike oxygen cylinders which can run continuously, one cannot assume without rigorous evaluation that mobility and quality of life necessarily is good or superior with the new devices. Hence, quality of life evaluation with emphasis on enjoyed activities by each COPD patient are essential as well as costing issues for the funding stakeholder (i.e. hospital site specific funds). Should a sound business case be made (i.e. improved quality of life with less costs over a longer period of time), then a sound justification can be made to funding bodies that COPD patients are better off and the funding body is shouldering less cost by wider usage of these devices following evaluation of this project. The design will be a randomised crossover such that COPD patients will spend one month on oxygen or battery powered concentrator devices and then switch over to the other oxygen delivery. Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (Quality of Life) will be administered at the end of each month.
| Study Type : | Interventional (Clinical Trial) |
| Actual Enrollment : | 32 participants |
| Allocation: | Randomized |
| Intervention Model: | Crossover Assignment |
| Intervention Model Description: | Portable oxygen concentrators vs oxygen cylinders |
| Masking: | None (Open Label) |
| Primary Purpose: | Treatment |
| Official Title: | Randomised Crossover Trial of Portable Oxygen Cylinders Versus Battery Powered Portable Oxygen Concentrators |
| Study Start Date : | October 2010 |
| Actual Primary Completion Date : | July 2016 |
| Actual Study Completion Date : | September 2016 |
Resource links provided by the National Library of Medicine
MedlinePlus related topics:
Oxygen Therapy
| Arm | Intervention/treatment |
|---|---|
|
Placebo Comparator: Portable Oxygen Cylinder
Portable Oxygen Cylinder
|
Device: Portable Oxygen
Other Name: Respironics Airsep (rental) AssetNumber 38269 |
|
Active Comparator: Portable Oxygen Concentrator
Portable Oxygen Concentrator
|
Device: Portable Oxygen
Other Name: Respironics Airsep (rental) AssetNumber 38269 |
Primary Outcome Measures :
- Quality of life as measured through Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire [ Time Frame: One month ]only two subdomains of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) were used: the Shortness of Breath (SoB) domain and the Mastery domain
Secondary Outcome Measures :
- Patient Preference [ Time Frame: One month ]Five 7-point Likert Scales, ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 7 (all of the time) on portability ("the equipment was portable enough for my needs"), operation ("I was able to set up and operate the equipment properly"), noise ("Noise from the equipment affected me"), comprehension ("I was able to understand the functions of the equipment, e.g. alarms") and duration ("The oxygen lasted long enough for me to perform my normal activities"). Furthermore, patients were asked to provide comments on use of the POCs and the Cylinders after they completed the respective stage of the trial.
- Cost effectiveness of portable oxygen concentrator compared to cylinder [ Time Frame: one month ]Economic assessment based on treatment cost, readmission data and hospital utilisation
- Quality of life as measured through AQoL-8D [ Time Frame: One month ]Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument
Information from the National Library of Medicine
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.
| Ages Eligible for Study: | 18 Years to 85 Years (Adult, Older Adult) |
| Sexes Eligible for Study: | All |
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | No |
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- Outpatients diagnosed with stable COPD
- currently prescribed and using portable oxygen cylinders with a "pulsed" oxygen delivery for exertion.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Co-morbidities such as: other major respiratory conditions, cardiac or other substantial co-morbidities which significantly limit mobility independent of COPD
- Baseline step test which demonstrates a reduced effect on the battery device compared to oxygen cylinders.
Information from the National Library of Medicine
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01673685
Locations
| Australia, South Australia | |
| The Queen Elizabeth Hospital | |
| Woodville Road, Woodville, South Australia, Australia, 5022 | |
Sponsors and Collaborators
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Investigators
| Principal Investigator: | Brian J Smith, MBBS, FRACP, PhD | The Queen Elizabeth Hospital |
| Responsible Party: | Kristin Carson, Research Scientist, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT01673685 History of Changes |
| Other Study ID Numbers: |
2010090 |
| First Posted: | August 28, 2012 Key Record Dates |
| Last Update Posted: | April 10, 2017 |
| Last Verified: | April 2017 |
| Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement: | |
| Plan to Share IPD: | Yes |
| Plan Description: | IPD will be available upon request. |
Keywords provided by Kristin Carson, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital:
|
COPD Oxygen cylinder Portable oxygen cylinder Battery powered delivery device |
mobility dyspnoea Quality of Life Cost effectiveness |