首页> 外文OA文献 >Effect of palliative oxygen versus room air in relief of breathlessness in patients with refractory dyspnoea: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial
【2h】

Effect of palliative oxygen versus room air in relief of breathlessness in patients with refractory dyspnoea: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

机译:缓解呼吸困难患者的姑息性氧气与室内空气对呼吸困难的缓解作用:一项双盲,随机对照试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Palliative oxygen therapy is widely used for treatment of dyspnoea in individuals with life-limiting illness who are ineligible for long-term oxygen therapy. We assessed the effectiveness of oxygen compared with room air delivered by nasal cannula for relief of breathlessness in this population of patients.Adults from outpatient clinics at nine sites in Australia, the USA, and the UK were eligible for enrolment in this double-blind, randomised controlled trial if they had life-limiting illness, refractory dyspnoea, and partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO(2)) more than 7.3 kPa. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by a central computer-generated system to receive oxygen or room air via a concentrator through a nasal cannula at 2 L per min for 7 days. Participants were instructed to use the concentrator for at least 15 h per day. The randomisation sequence was stratified by baseline PaO(2) with balanced blocks of four patients. The primary outcome measure was breathlessness (0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS]), measured twice a day (morning and evening). All randomised patients who completed an assessment were included in the primary analysis for that data point (no data were imputed). This study is registered, numbers NCT00327873 and ISRCTN67448752.239 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (oxygen, n=120; room air, n=119). 112 (93%) patients assigned to receive oxygen and 99 (83%) assigned to receive room air completed all 7 days of assessments. From baseline to day 6, mean morning breathlessness changed by -0.9 points (95% CI -1.3 to -0.5) in patients assigned to receive oxygen and by -0.7 points (-1.2 to -0.2) in patients assigned to receive room air (p=0.504). Mean evening breathlessness changed by -0.3 points (-0.7 to 0.1) in the oxygen group and by -0.5 (-0.9 to -0.1) in the room air group (p=0.554). The frequency of side-effects did not differ between groups. Extreme drowsiness was reported by 12 (10%) of 116 patients assigned to receive oxygen compared with 14 (13%) of 108 patients assigned to receive room air. Two (2%) patients in the oxygen group reported extreme symptoms of nasal irritation compared with seven (6%) in the room air group. One patient reported an extremely troublesome nose bleed (oxygen group).Since oxygen delivered by a nasal cannula provides no additional symptomatic benefit for relief of refractory dyspnoea in patients with life-limiting illness compared with room air, less burdensome strategies should be considered after brief assessment of the effect of oxygen therapy on the individual patient.US National Institutes of Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Duke Institute for Care at the End of Life, and Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.
机译:姑息性氧疗被广泛用于治疗不适合长期氧疗的生命受限患者的呼吸困难。我们评估了氧气与鼻导管输送的室内空气相比对缓解这类患者的呼吸困难的效果。澳大利亚,美国和英国的9个站点的门诊诊所的成年人都有资格参加该双盲研究,如果他们有限制生命的疾病,难治性呼吸困难和动脉血氧分压(PaO(2))大于7.3 kPa,则进行随机对照试验。参与者由中央计算机生成的系统以1:1的比例随机分配,以通过浓缩器通过鼻导管以每分钟2 L的速度接受氧气或室内空气,持续7天。参与者被指示每天至少使用15小时。随机序列按基线PaO(2)分层,其中四名患者平衡。主要结局指标为呼吸困难(0-10数字评分等级[NRS]),每天测量两次(早晨和晚上)。所有完成评估的随机患者均纳入该数据点的主要分析中(未估算数据)。该研究已经注册,编号为NCT00327873和ISRCTN67448752.239的参与者被随机分配到治疗组(氧气,n = 120;室内空气,n = 119)。在所有评估的7天中,有112名(93%)分配了氧气的患者和99名(83%)分配了房间的空气。从基线到第6天,分配氧气的患者的平均早晨呼吸急促改变了-0.9点(95%CI -1.3至-0.5),分配了室内空气的患者的平均早晨呼吸急促发生了-0.7点(-1.2至-0.2)( p = 0.504)。氧气组的平均夜间呼吸变化为-0.3点(-0.7至-0.1),室内空气组的平均夜间呼吸变化为-0.5(-0.9至-0.1)(p = 0.554)。两组之间的副作用发生频率没有差异。据报告,分配氧气的116名患者中有12名(10%)极度嗜睡,而分配房间空气的108名患者中有14名(13%)。氧气组中有2名(2%)患者报告了严重的鼻刺激症状,而室内空气组中有7名(6%)。一名患者报告了一个非常麻烦的流鼻血(氧气组)。由于鼻插管输送的氧气与限制生命的疾病相比,对于缓解难治性呼吸困难的患者没有任何其他症状上的益处,因此与室内空气相比,应考虑减轻负担氧疗对个体患者的疗效评估。美国国立卫生研究院,澳大利亚国家卫生与医学研究委员会,杜克生命尽头护理学院和多丽丝·杜克慈善基金会。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号