Assessment of Portable Oxygen Concentrators in Infants Undergoing Hypoxic Challenge Testing.

NCT ID: NCT03976986

Last Updated: 2019-06-06

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

26 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2016-02-11

Study Completion Date

2019-02-04

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Hypoxic Challenge Testing (HCT) is the recommended method for inflight hypoxia risk assessment. Onboard oxygen administration remains controversial. The Federal Aviation Administration approved portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) for onboard oxygen supply but there is lack of evidence about the use, especially in children. The aim of our study is to establish the effectiveness and safety of POCs in infants undergoing HCT.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

According to a forecast by International Air Transport Association the number of people travelling on commercial aircrafts is predicted to rise up to 8.2 billion passengers in 2037. Therefore evidence-based flight recommendations will gain importance in the future, especially for patients suffering from chronic diseases. Hypoxic Challenge Testing (HCT) is the recommended method for inflight hypoxia risk assessment where nitrogen is introduced in a plethysmograph reducing FiO2 (fraction of inspired oxygen) to 0.15. Oxygen supply is recommended if PaO2 (partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood) drops \<50-55 mmHg (in adults) or Sat.O2 (oxygen saturation) ≤ 85% (in infants) where non-invasive pulse oximetry is the recommended method for hypoxia assessment. Onboard oxygen administration remains controversial. The effectiveness of pulsed-dosed systems remains unclear in small patients due to shallow breathing patterns. The aim of our study is to establish the effectiveness and safety of POCs in infants undergoing HCT.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Hypoxia, Altitude

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

CROSSOVER

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

cPOC - pPOC

Randomized crossover study (according to a random number table): Patients are allocated randomly to two study groups (cPOC/pPOC). In case of Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85% during HCT, oxygen is administered by cPOC (continuous-flow). For patients who show a positive POC hypoxic reversal, HCT is repeated at 24 hours and oxygen is administered by pPOC (pulsed-flow).

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

continuous-flow portable oxygen concentrator (cPOC)

Intervention Type DEVICE

SeQal Eclipse 3® on continuous-flow (SeQual,Ball Ground,GA): flow rate 2 litre per minute (lpm).

pulsed-flow portable oxygen concentrator (pPOC)

Intervention Type DEVICE

InogenOne G3® (Inogen,Goleta,CA) on pulsed-flow mode: setting 2 (flow rate 420 ml/min, 16.8 ml +/- 3ml per bolus at 25 rpm).

pPOC - cPOC

Randomized crossover study (according to a random number table): Patients are allocated randomly to two study groups (cPOC/pPOC). In case of Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85% during HCT, oxygen is administered by pPOC (pulsed-flow). For patients who show a positive POC hypoxic reversal, HCT is repeated at 24 hours and oxygen is administered by cPOC (continuous-flow).

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

continuous-flow portable oxygen concentrator (cPOC)

Intervention Type DEVICE

SeQal Eclipse 3® on continuous-flow (SeQual,Ball Ground,GA): flow rate 2 litre per minute (lpm).

pulsed-flow portable oxygen concentrator (pPOC)

Intervention Type DEVICE

InogenOne G3® (Inogen,Goleta,CA) on pulsed-flow mode: setting 2 (flow rate 420 ml/min, 16.8 ml +/- 3ml per bolus at 25 rpm).

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

continuous-flow portable oxygen concentrator (cPOC)

SeQal Eclipse 3® on continuous-flow (SeQual,Ball Ground,GA): flow rate 2 litre per minute (lpm).

Intervention Type DEVICE

pulsed-flow portable oxygen concentrator (pPOC)

InogenOne G3® (Inogen,Goleta,CA) on pulsed-flow mode: setting 2 (flow rate 420 ml/min, 16.8 ml +/- 3ml per bolus at 25 rpm).

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

Patients with baseline Sat.O2 \>94% AND

* \<1 year with neonatal respiratory disease
* required oxygen supply in the last 6 months
* chronic respiratory disease (eg cystic fibrosis, obstructive or restrictive pulmonary disease) with FEV 1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) or FVC (forced vital capacity) \<50%.

Exclusion Criteria

* acute respiratory infection
Maximum Eligible Age

16 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Hospital Son Espases

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Sebastian Sailer

Principal Investigator

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Sebastian Sailer, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Hospital Son Espases

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Hospital Son Espases

Palma Mallorca, Mallorca, Spain

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Spain

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Ahmedzai S, Balfour-Lynn IM, Bewick T, Buchdahl R, Coker RK, Cummin AR, Gradwell DP, Howard L, Innes JA, Johnson AO, Lim E, Lim WS, McKinlay KP, Partridge MR, Popplestone M, Pozniak A, Robson A, Shovlin CL, Shrikrishna D, Simonds A, Tait P, Thomas M; British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee. Managing passengers with stable respiratory disease planning air travel: British Thoracic Society recommendations. Thorax. 2011 Sep;66 Suppl 1:i1-30. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200295. No abstract available.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 21856702 (View on PubMed)

Gong H Jr, Tashkin DP, Lee EY, Simmons MS. Hypoxia-altitude simulation test. Evaluation of patients with chronic airway obstruction. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1984 Dec;130(6):980-6. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1984.130.6.980.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 6508019 (View on PubMed)

Blakeman TC, Rodriquez D Jr, Gerlach TW, Dorlac WC, Johannigman JA, Branson RD. Oxygen requirement to reverse altitude-induced hypoxemia with continuous flow and pulsed dose oxygen. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2015 Apr;86(4):351-6. doi: 10.3357/AMHP.4184.2015.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 25945551 (View on PubMed)

Fischer R, Wanka ER, Einhaeupl F, Voll K, Schiffl H, Lang SM, Gruss M, Ferrari U. Comparison of portable oxygen concentrators in a simulated airplane environment. Respir Med. 2013 Jan;107(1):147-9. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.10.001. Epub 2012 Oct 22.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 23085214 (View on PubMed)

Bunel V, Shoukri A, Choin F, Roblin S, Smith C, Similowski T, Morelot-Panzini C, Gonzalez J. Bench Evaluation of Four Portable Oxygen Concentrators Under Different Conditions Representing Altitudes of 2438, 4200, and 8000 m. High Alt Med Biol. 2016 Dec;17(4):370-374. doi: 10.1089/ham.2016.0056.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 27959667 (View on PubMed)

Chen JZ, Katz IM, Pichelin M, Zhu K, Caillibotte G, Finlay WH, Martin AR. In Vitro-In Silico Comparison of Pulsed Oxygen Delivery From Portable Oxygen Concentrators Versus Continuous Flow Oxygen Delivery. Respir Care. 2019 Feb;64(2):117-129. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06359. Epub 2019 Jan 29.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 30696754 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

cop2016

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

SpO2 Accuracy in Children
NCT07168798 ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION
Pulse Oximetry Performance Comparison in Newborns
NCT06637917 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING