Comparison of portable oxygen concentrators using a COPD patient simulation model
Rachel Culbreth, PhD, MPH, RRT; Robert Murray, MS, RRT; Kyle Brandenberger, PhD; Douglas S. Gardenhire, EdD, RRT, RRT-NPS, FAARC
Department of Respiratory Therapy, Byrdine F. Lewis College of Nursing and Health Professions, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Introduction•Approximately 1.5 million Americans use home oxygentherapy.1•

Traditional in-home oxygen therapy requires heavyoxygen tanks for patients to transport, limiting mobilityand quality of life. 1-2•

With the advent of new portable oxygen concentrator(POC) technology, patients are able to travel with theiroxygen therapy and have reported a higher quality of
1-2life.

•However, studies have shown mixed efficacy indelivering adequate oxygen for various patient
1-5scenarios.

Objectives••

Determine differences in delivered FiO2 among POCs
at varying respiratory rates (15 breaths per minute(bpm), 20 bpm, 30 bpm, and 40 bpm).
Examine differences in delivered FiO2 among POCs
and control group oxygen delivery devices using a
COPD patient lung simulator.

Across most respiratory ratescenarios, the wall oxygen (control)
obtained a higher FiO2 comparedto the POCs.
Excluding control groups:
CAIRE FreeStyle Comfort achieved
a higher FiO2 for the majority of thescenarios.
Inogen G4 obtained a higher FiO2
on setting 2 for 20 bpm.
Setting 2: 15 BPM

Setting 2: 20 BPM

Methods•••

This study utilized IngMar Medical Active Servo Lung
5000 to simulate a COPD patient’s lungs.
POC devices were compared to control devices,
including wall oxygen and standalone oxygen
concentrators at settings 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Descriptive statistics and ANOVAs were computed todetermine statistically significant differences between
POCs and control devices.

ResultsSetting 5: 15 BPM

Setting 5: 20 BPM

Setting 5: 30 BPM

Setting 5: 40 BPM

Conclusions•FiO2 measurements varied across POCs dependingon the breathing rate scenario•

The CAIRE FreeStyle Comfort achieved a higher FiO2
compared to all other POCs in 7 out of the 8scenarios.

•Clinical providers should account for their patients’
respiratory rate demands when recommending
specific POCsAcknowledgement
This study was funded with unrestricted grant from CAIRE and conducted in an independent research lab at Georgia State University by theauthors.

Setting 2: 30 BPM

Setting 2: 40 BPM

References
1. Jacobs SS, Lederer DJ, Garvey CM, Hernandez C, Lindell KO, McLaughlin S, et al. Optimizing Home Oxygen Therapy. An Official
American Thoracic Society Workshop Report. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2018;15:1369–81. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201809627WS.
2. Martin DC. Contemporary portable oxygen concentrators and diverse breathing behaviours -- a bench comparison. BMC PulmMed 2019;19:. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-019-0980-x.
3. Khor YH, McDonald CF, Hazard A, Symons K, Westall G, Glaspole I, et al. Portable oxygen concentrators versus oxygen cylinder
during walking in interstitial lung disease: A randomized crossover trial. Respirol Carlton Vic 2017;22:1598–603.
https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.13083.
4. Yáñez AM, Prat JP, Álvarez-Sala JL, Calle M, Díaz Lobato S, García Gonzalez JL, et al. Oxygenation With a Single Portable
Pulse-Dose Oxygen-Conserving Device and Combined Stationary and Portable Oxygen Delivery Devices in Subjects With COPD.
Respir Care 2015;60:382–7. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.03470.
5. Chatburn RL, Williams TJ. Performance comparison of 4 portable oxygen concentrators. Respir Care 2010;55:433–42.