Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial. Harper, J., Kearns, N., Bird, G., Braithwaite, I., Eathorne, A., Shortt, N., Weatherall, M., & Beasley, R. BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 8(1):e000843, August, 2021.
Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   1 download  
Background Guideline recommendations state oxygen should be administered to acutely unwell patients to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) range. The current practice of manual oxygen titration frequently results in SpO 2 outside of a prescribed range. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of automatic oxygen titration using a closed-loop feedback system to achieve SpO 2 within a prescribed target range Methods An open-label randomised parallel group trial was undertaken comparing automatic oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device to manual oxygen titration using nasal high flow. Medical inpatients requiring oxygen therapy in Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand with a prescribed target SpO 2 range of 88%–92% or 92%–96% were recruited and randomised equally between the interventions for a period of 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of time spent with SpO 2 within the prescribed range. Results 20 patients were included in the analysis. Automatic oxygen titration resulted in a median (IQR) 96.2% (95.2–97.8) of time within the target range compared with 71% (59.4–88.3) with manual titration; difference (95% CI) 24.2% (7.9% to 35%), p\textless0.001. There was a reduction in the time spent with SpO 2 ≥2% above and ≥2% below range in the automatic titration group, although the point estimate for the differences were small; −1% (−8.2% to −0.04%), p=0.017 and −2.4% (−11.5% to 0.3%), p=0.05 respectively. Conclusions Nasal high-flow with automatic oxygen titration resulted in a greater proportion of time spent with SpO 2 in target range compared with manual titration. Trial registration The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000901101).
@article{harper_automatic_2021,
	title = {Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness: a randomised controlled trial},
	volume = {8},
	issn = {2052-4439},
	shorttitle = {Automatic versus manual oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device in medical inpatients with an acute illness},
	url = {https://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000843},
	doi = {10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000843},
	abstract = {Background
              
                Guideline recommendations state oxygen should be administered to acutely unwell patients to achieve a target oxygen saturation (SpO
                2
                ) range. The current practice of manual oxygen titration frequently results in SpO
                2
                outside of a prescribed range. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of automatic oxygen titration using a closed-loop feedback system to achieve SpO
                2
                within a prescribed target range
              
            
            
              Methods
              
                An open-label randomised parallel group trial was undertaken comparing automatic oxygen titration using a novel nasal high-flow device to manual oxygen titration using nasal high flow. Medical inpatients requiring oxygen therapy in Wellington Regional Hospital, New Zealand with a prescribed target SpO
                2
                range of 88\%–92\% or 92\%–96\% were recruited and randomised equally between the interventions for a period of 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of time spent with SpO
                2
                within the prescribed range.
              
            
            
              Results
              
                20 patients were included in the analysis. Automatic oxygen titration resulted in a median (IQR) 96.2\% (95.2–97.8) of time within the target range compared with 71\% (59.4–88.3) with manual titration; difference (95\% CI) 24.2\% (7.9\% to 35\%), p{\textless}0.001. There was a reduction in the time spent with SpO
                2
                ≥2\% above and ≥2\% below range in the automatic titration group, although the point estimate for the differences were small; −1\% (−8.2\% to −0.04\%), p=0.017 and −2.4\% (−11.5\% to 0.3\%), p=0.05 respectively.
              
            
            
              Conclusions
              
                Nasal high-flow with automatic oxygen titration resulted in a greater proportion of time spent with SpO
                2
                in target range compared with manual titration.
              
            
            
              Trial registration
              The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000901101).},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2021-10-02},
	journal = {BMJ Open Respiratory Research},
	author = {Harper, James and Kearns, Nethmi and Bird, Grace and Braithwaite, Irene and Eathorne, Allie and Shortt, Nicholas and Weatherall, Mark and Beasley, Richard},
	month = aug,
	year = {2021},
	pages = {e000843},
}

Downloads: 1