Patient Use Patterns of Portable Oxygen Concentrators.

INTRODUCTION: Portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) are medical devices that provide supplemental oxygen to patients requiring long-term oxygen therapy. However, little information is available on day-to-day patterns of how or even whether patients actively switch between their POC mobility features and flow setting options. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted to assess POC usage among patients who used an Inogen One G5 POC in the USA. This study aimed (1) to describe the patterns of use of POCs, (2) to analyze their compatibility with the prescribed oxygen therapy settings, and (3) to demonstrate the contribution of POC usage to get a standardized long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). Data were directly downloaded from the devices returned for service or at the end of the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment rental period and streamed via a mobile application from 2018 to 2022. Daily usage, disconnections from the device, use of prescribed pulse delivery settings, breaths per minute, power sources, and movement with the POC were assessed. Device alert histories were also examined. RESULTS: Data revealed a mean daily usage of 4.29 ± 3.23 h/day, ranging from 0.35 to 15.52 h/day. The prescribed pulse delivery setting was used by 31.34% of patients for at least 80% of their POC use time. When the POC was on battery power, patients were moving/mobile 41.99 ± 33.33% of the time. On the basis of the device-generated alerts, some patients continued to use their POC very close to or even beyond the lifetime of the column/sieve bed. Alerts or alarms potentially requiring repair occurred at a rate of 1.63 events per 100 years of use, indicating that device reliability did not significantly influence the use patterns. CONCLUSION: Patients used their POCs when mobile and at rest. A large proportion of patients adjust their POC settings during the day, which potentially indicates the need for the dynamic individualization of oxygen dose delivery to match activities of daily living or sleep. Patients require follow-up to ensure timely replacement of POC columns.

This study aimed to (1) describe the patterns of use of portable oxygen concentrators (POCs), (2) analyze their compatibility with the prescribed oxygen therapy settings, and (3) demonstrate the contribution of POC usage to get a standardized long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). A retrospective analysis was conducted on data downloaded directly from devices and streamed via a mobile application. Daily usage, disconnections from the device, use of prescribed pulse delivery settings, breaths per minute, power sources, and movement with the device were assessed. Device alert histories were also examined. Patients used their portable oxygen concentrators when mobile and at rest, and large proportion of patients adjust their settings during the day. There was a low incidence of alarms or alerts requiring repairs, indicating device reliability. Patients require follow-up to ensure timely replacement of columns.

Effect of a Ventilatory Assist Device in Addition to Supplemental Oxygen on Exercise Endurance in Subjects With COPD.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the clinical effects of a ventilatory assist (VA) device in addition to supplemental O2 (VA+O2) on exercise endurance in subjects with severe to very severe COPD managed with long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT). METHODS: This was a crossover clinical feasibility study of the effects of VA+O2 in subjects with severe to very severe COPD managed with LTOT (N = 15). At visit 1, physiologic measures were obtained, and subjects were tested on the cycle ergometer with VA. Peak work rate and flow for continuous supplemental O2/VA+O2 were established. At visit 2, subjects exercised at a constant work rate of 80% peak work rate to maximum endurance after allocation to VA+O2 or O2. Cardiorespiratory variables, work rate, and dyspnea were included to define potential clinical benefits of VA+O2. Data were analyzed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Fifteen subjects with COPD (mean ± SD, age 67.9 ± 9.0 y, FEV1 0.89 ± 0.35 observed) completed the study. Exercise duration in minutes was significantly longer with VA+O2 versus O2 (least squares mean [standard error], 12.0 [2.0] vs 6.2 [2.0], P = .01). VA+O2 versus O2 was also associated with significantly greater isotime improvements in Borg dyspnea scores (3.6 [0.5] vs 5.7 [0.5], P < .001), SpO2 (96.9 [0.9] vs 91.4 [0.9], P < .001), leg fatigue scores (3.8 [0.6] vs 5.2 [0.6], P = .008), and breathing frequency (22.8 [0.9] vs 25.8 [0.9] breaths/min, P = .01). There were no differences in heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic subjects with severe to very severe COPD, VA+O2 significantly increased exercise time and improved dyspnea, SpO2 , breathing frequency, and leg fatigue versus O2 alone.

Formative and Validation Human Factors studies of a new disposable autoinjector for subcutaneous delivery of chronic disease therapies.

BACKGROUND: Use-related risks related to autoinjector devices have been previously identified. To minimize these problems, the identification of potential use errors is a critical task during device development. METHODS: This article presents iterative human factor studies, which aim to assess user interaction with the tested push-on-skin BD Intevia™ 1 mL Disposable Autoinjector, across a wide range of indications, and a broad user population. RESULTS: Through the different human factor studies, use errors were recorded when the participants completed the critical tasks, but their occurrence continuously decreased. First, the incidence of use errors was reduced when the participants read the IFU. In addition, the IFU updates and design change implemented contributed to improve the usability performance. During the validation study, some use errors were still observed, mainly during the first uses. Nevertheless, providing a training to the participants almost fully eliminated the remaining use errors. CONCLUSION: Thus, these results demonstrated that this new autoinjector can be safely and efficiently used for its intended uses and under the expected use conditions by all tested user groups.

Injection Technique: Development of a Novel Questionnaire and User Guide.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 200 million people worldwide use injectable therapies as part of diabetes management. There appears to be a significant gap between insulin injection technique recommendations and injection practice for many. We aimed to develop and validate a novel, brief, self-administered injection technique assessment questionnaire. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: An iterative codesign process was conducted. Focus groups and interviews with adults (or parents of children) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and health care providers (HCPs) elicited views and refined the tool for broader distribution to the target audience. Questions addressed ease of understanding; relevance; included items and potential missing questions; feelings about diabetes; and any discomfort or judgment felt when completing the tool. A user guide was developed with cognitive interviewing performed to ensure relevance, acceptability, readability, and understanding. Statistical analyses included propensity score matching to identify a subset of the Worldwide Injection Technique Questionnaire with similar characteristics. Boruta feature selection, Cramér's V, and multiple correspondence analysis were conducted. RESULTS: HCPs and 16 people with diabetes participated in the initial focus groups and interviews. Questions were reported as clinically relevant, simple to complete, "about the right length," relevant, and easy to understand. A total of 267 participants completed the survey reviewing the questionnaire. A further 16 participants underwent cognitive interviews. The complete resource was then reviewed by another 23 people with diabetes as a final check for completeness and usability. Statistical analyses demonstrated high validity and reliability. CONCLUSION: This novel resource is clinically relevant, acceptable, and easy to use as both a clinical tool and a self-assessment tool for people using injectable therapies for diabetes.

User experiences with second-generation 32-gauge × 4 mm vs. thinner comparator pen needles: prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Two similarly designed studies compared user experiences with a second-generation extra-thin-wall, 5-bevel 32 G × 4 mm pen needle (PN) with redesigned hub versus four thinner commercially available PNs. METHODS: Adults (18-75 years old) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and ≥3 months of experience with pen injectors qualified for single-visit, single-blinded randomized studies. The investigational 32 G PN was compared with three 33-34 G × 3.5-4 mm PNs in Study 1 and one 34 G × 4 mm PN in Study 2. Participants completed 12 abdominal injections of 0.3 mL sterile saline using insulin pens in 6 pairs, each comprising one investigational 32 G PN and one comparator PN in random order. After each injection pair, participants compared injection pain via relative 150 mm visual analog scale (VAS) and perceived dose delivery force via relative 5 point Likert scale. Adjusted models tested injection pain scores (primary endpoint) for noninferiority and, if met, then for superiority. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03878758 and NCT03878745. RESULTS: The investigational 32 G PN met noninferiority as well as superiority criteria for less injection pain vs. each comparator (p < .01), with adjusted mean relative VAS scores 9.1-17.6 in Study 1 (n = 154) and 7.3 in Study 2 (n = 55). The investigational 32 G PN was also superior vs. each comparator PN in requiring less relative perceived force to deliver the dose (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The investigational 32 G PN was associated with less participant-reported injection pain and less perceived dose delivery force compared with four thinner PNs, suggesting no additional pain reduction or force reduction benefit conferred by the thinner PNs.

User experience for manual injection of 2 mL viscous solutions is enhanced by a new prefillable syringe with a staked 8 mm ultra-thin wall needle.

OBJECTIVES: User experience was compared between a new pre-fillable 2.25 mL glass syringe equipped with an ultra-thin-wall (UTW) 8 mm staked needle and a marketed BD Neopak™ syringe equipped with a special-thin-wall (STW) 12.7 mm staked needle. METHODS: Participants simulated subcutaneous injections with both syringes alone (formative Human Factors study) and in combination with a needlestick-prevention device (validation Human Factors study). RESULTS: Usability results of both studies showed higher success rates for delivering the full dose of 2 mL viscous solution (30 cP) with the 8mmUTW syringe than with the 12.7mmSTW one (63% vs. 42% in the formative study). The use of the 8mmUTW syringe demonstrated also better ease of use and acceptance results and 72% of formative study participants preferred this new syringe over the current one when delivering the viscous solution. Using a shorter needle also showed a benefit in decreasing the injection-related anxiety. Besides, in the case of a non-recommended injection technique, the calculated risk of accidental intramuscular injection is reduced by 2 to 13 times with the 8mmUTW syringe. CONCLUSION: Altogether, the results obtained demonstrated an improvement of the user experience with this new syringe compared to the current one in the manual delivery of 2 mL viscous solutions.

Bleeding complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing early invasive management can be reduced with radial access, smaller sheath sizes, and timely sheath removal.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to analyze the impact of arterial access site, sheath size, timing of sheath removal, and use of access site closure devices on high-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: In the SYNERGY trial, 9,978 patients with ACS were randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. METHODS: This analysis includes 9,404 patients for whom sheath access information was obtained for the first PCI procedure or diagnostic catheterization. Comparisons of baseline, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were carried out according to access site and sheath size. RESULTS: Overall, 9,404 (94%) patients underwent angiography at a median of 21 hr (25th and 75th percentiles: 5, 42) and 4,687 (50%) underwent PCI at a median of 23 hr (6,49) of enrollment. The access site was femoral for 94.9% of cases, radial for 4.4%, and brachial for 0.7%. Radial access was associated with fewer transfusions than femoral access (0.9% vs. 4.8%, P=0.007). For femoral access, the rates of noncoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related TIMI major bleeding by sheath size was 1.5% for 4 or 5 French (Fr), 1.6% for 6 Fr, 3.3% for 7 Fr, and 3.8% for >or=8 Fr (P<0.0001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, femoral access site, larger sheath size, and delayed sheath removal were independent predictors of need for transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Smaller sheaths, radial access, and timely sheath removal may mitigate the bleeding risk associated with potent antithrombotic/platelet therapy and early catheterization.

Multicenter evaluation of the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients has been shown to be safe and effective. Underutilization of this patient safety practice may result in avoidable mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the proportion of hospitalized, acutely ill medical patients across Canada who were eligible to receive thromboprophylaxis and to evaluate the frequency, determinants and appropriateness of its use. PATIENTS/METHODS: CURVE is a national, multicenter chart audit of 29 Canadian hospitals. Data were collected on consecutive patients admitted to hospital for an acute medical illness during a defined 3-week study period. Information on demographic and clinical characteristics, risk factors for VTE and bleeding and use of VTE prophylaxis were recorded. The indications for and appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis were assessed using pre-specified criteria based on international consensus guidelines. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify determinants of prophylaxis use. RESULTS: Of the 4124 medical admissions screened over the study period, 1894 patients (46%) were eligible for study inclusion. The most common specified admitting diagnoses were severe infection (28%), COPD exacerbation or respiratory failure (12%), malignancy (9%) and congestive heart failure (8%). Thromboprophylaxis was indicated in 1702 (90%) study patients. Overall, some form of prophylaxis was administered to 23% of all patients. However, only 16% received appropriate thromboprophylaxis. Factors independently associated with greater use of prophylaxis included internist (vs. other specialty) as attending physician (OR 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.03, 1.71]), university-associated (vs. community) hospital (OR 1.46, 95% CI [1.03, 2.07]), immobilization (per day) (OR 1.60, 95% CI [1.45, 1.77]), presence of >or=1 VTE risk factors (OR=1.78, 95% CI [1.35, 2.34]) and duration of hospitalization (per day of stay) (OR 1.05, 95% CI [1.03, 1.07]), however, use of prophylaxis was unacceptably low in all groups. Patients with cancer had a significantly reduced likelihood of receiving prophylaxis (OR=0.40, 95% CI [0.24, 0.68]). Presence of risk factors for bleeding did not influence the use or choice of prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Most patients hospitalized for medical illness had indications for thromboprophylaxis, yet only 16% received appropriate prophylaxis. Efforts should be made to elucidate the reasons that underlie the very low rate of thromboprophylaxis in medical patients and to develop and test strategies to improve implementation of this patient safety practice.