Effect on comfort of administering bubble-humidified or dry oxygen: the Oxyrea non-inferiority randomized study

TitreEffect on comfort of administering bubble-humidified or dry oxygen: the Oxyrea non-inferiority randomized study
Type de publicationArticle de revue
AuteurPoiroux, Laurent, Piquilloud, Lise, Seegers, Valérie, Le Roy, Cyril, Colonval, Karine, Agasse, Carole, Zinzoni, Vanessa, Hodebert, Vanessa, Cambonie, Alexandre, Saletes, Josselin, Bourgeon, Irma, Beloncle, François , Mercat, Alain
OrganismeREVA Network
TypeArticle scientifique dans une revue à comité de lecture
Date17 Déc. 2018
Titre de la revueAnnals of intensive care
Mots-clésBubble humidification, Intensive Care Units, Nursing assessment, Oxygen therapy, Patient comfort
Résumé en anglais

BACKGROUND: The clinical interest of using bubble humidification of oxygen remains controversial. This study was designed to further explore whether delivering dry oxygen instead of bubble-moistened oxygen had an impact on discomfort of ICU patients.

METHODS: This randomized multicenter non-inferiority open trial included patients admitted in intensive care unit and receiving oxygen. Any patient receiving non-humidified oxygen (between 0 and 15 L/min) for less than 2 h could participate in the study. Randomization was stratified based on the flow rate at inclusion (less or more than 4 L/min). Discomfort was assessed 6-8 and 24 h after inclusion using a dedicated 15-item scale (quoted from 0 to 150).

RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-four ICU patients receiving non-humidified oxygen were randomized either in the humidified (HO) (n = 172), using bubble humidifiers, or in the non-humidified (NHO) (n = 182) arms. In modified intention-to-treat analysis at H6-H8, the 15-item score was 26.6 ± 19.4 and 29.8 ± 23.4 in the HO and NHO groups, respectively. The absolute difference between scores in both groups was 3.2 [90% CI 0.0; + 6.5] for a non-inferiority margin of 5.3, meaning that the non-inferiority analysis was not conclusive. This was also true for the subgroups of patients receiving either less or more than 4 L/min of oxygen. At H24, using NHO was not inferior compared to HO in the general population and in the subgroup of patients receiving 4 L/min or less of oxygen. However, for patients receiving more than 4 L/min, a post hoc superiority analysis suggested that patients receiving dry oxygen were less comfortable.

CONCLUSIONS: Oxygen therapy-related discomfort was low. Dry oxygen could not be demonstrated as non-inferior compared to bubble-moistened oxygen after 6-8 h of oxygen administration. At 24 h, dry oxygen was non-inferior compared to bubble-humidified oxygen for flows below 4 L/min.

URL de la noticehttp://okina.univ-angers.fr/publications/ua18538
Lien vers le document


Titre abrégéAnn Intensive Care
Identifiant (ID) PubMed30560440