Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 8113068

Oxygen concentrators.

Abstract

This report is an Update Evaluation of oxygen concentrators. Since the publication of the original study in Health Devices, 22(1), January 1993, we have become increasingly concerned about the potential for oxygen concentrators to produce less-than-therapeutic levels of oxygen without an indication. Because of this concern, we have revised our oxygen concentration status indicator (OCSI) criteria. In this report, we describe our rationale for updating the criteria, list the new criteria, and present revised ratings of the previously evaluated units. As a result, only two of the previously evaluated units are now rated Acceptable; the other eight units are now rated Conditionally Acceptable. We also evaluated another oxygen concentrator, the Foothills EconoMate, using the criteria and test methods described in the previous study and the revised criteria for the OCSI test provided in this issue. We describe the Foothills unit and present the results of our testing; information about the previously evaluated units is included for comparison. We rate this unit Acceptable and rank it below the two previously evaluated Acceptable units. Our ratings and rankings of oxygen concentrators, in both the current and previous study, are based primarily on the availability of an OCSI that meets our criteria, as well as on electrical safety and maintenance issues. Readers are cautioned not to base purchasing decisions on our ratings alone, but on a thorough understanding of all issues surrounding the use of oxygen concentrators, which can be gained only by reading the original Evaluation and this Update in their entirety. In the original Evaluation issue, clinical and technical issues are discussed in detail in the Clinical and Technical Overview, and important factors to consider, such as required flow, OCSIs, high-temperature performance, electrical safety, noise, maintenance, and cost, are covered in the Discussion section, "Issues in Selecting, Purchasing, and Using Oxygen Concentrators." Also see "Add-on Oxygen Concentration Status Indicators" in this issue.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

1993. Oxygen concentrators.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8113068/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Microchip PCR.

Miniaturization of genetic tests has become an important goal. This review surveys the current progress towards the miniaturization of tests based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). It examines the different types of PCR microchip designs, fabrication methods,and the components of a microchip PCR device. It also discusses the problems attributable to surface chemistry of microchip components (inhibition of PCR), and the static and dynamic surface passivation strategies developed for the solution of these difficulties

Equipment Design↗

Fluid leakage past tracheal tube cuffs: evaluation of the new Microcuff endotracheal tube.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the recently introduced Microcuff endotracheal tube HVLP ICU featuring an ultrathin (7-microm) polyurethane cuff membrane with endotracheal tubes from different manufacturers regarding fluid leakage past the tube cuff. DESIGN: In vitro setup. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The following endotracheal tubes (ID 7.5 mm) were compared: Mallinckrodt HiLo, Microcuff HVLP ICU, Portex Profile Soft Seal, Rüsch Super Safety Clear, and Sheridan CF. A vertical PVC trachea model (ID 20 mm) was intubated, and cuffs were inflated to 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 60 cmH2O. Colored water (5 ml) was added to the top of the cuff. The amount of leaked fluid past the tube cuff within 5, 10, and 60 min was recorded. Experiments were performed four times using two examples of each tube brand. Fluid leakage past tube cuffs occurred in all conventional endotracheal tubes at cuff pressures from 10 to 60 cmH2O. In the Microcuff tube cuff pressure fluid leakage was observed within 10 min only at 10 cmH2O. Results with the Microcuff tube were significantly better than all other tube brands at cuff pressures of 10-30 cmH2O. CONCLUSIONS: Within the acceptable upper limit for tracheal cuff pressure (25-30 cmH2O) the Microcuff endotracheal tube was the only one of the tested tubes to prevent fluid leakage in our in vitro setup. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings.

Equipment Design↗