0
Abstract: Poster Presentations |

THE EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT CARRYING POSITIONS OF PORTABLE OXYGEN CONTAINERS (POCS) ON ENERGY EXPENDITURE IN HEALTHY SUBJECTS FREE TO VIEW

Matthew L. Krauza, MD*; Michele L. McCarroll, PhD; Rachael J. Pohle-Krauza, PhD; Terry A. Volsko, MS; Kathryn A. Tessmer, PhD
Author and Funding Information

North Eastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, OH


Chest


Chest. 2009;136(4_MeetingAbstracts):126S. doi:10.1378/chest.136.4_MeetingAbstracts.126S-a
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Abstract

PURPOSE:  The purpose of this study was to assess the metabolic costs of different supplemental oxygen delivery modalities (portable oxygen containers, POCs).

METHODS:  In this randomized, cross over study, 19 subjects aged 25.26 ± 8.16 yr performed a series of four six-minute walk tests (6MWT.) These consisted of three experimental 6MWTs, and one baseline. The experimental conditions included: 1. POC on right shoulder, 2. roller assist device, and 3. backpack. Measurements taken included: peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2) heart rate, 6MWT distances, and relative perceived exertion (RPE.).

RESULTS:  Data was analyzed using SPSS version 15. One-way repeated measures ANOVAs were used to compare the average SpO2, average heart rate, total distance, and VO2peak. No significant effect was found for oxygen saturation (p = 0.62,) HR (p = 0.99,) RPE (p = 0.35,) or VO2peak (p = 0.96.) between the three experimental conditions. A significant effect was found for total distance (p < 0.001.) Follow-up protected t tests revealed that the distance decreased between baseline (2071.79 ± 303.77) and the shoulder condition (1944.21 ± 282.19)(p < 0.003), the backpack condition (1985.53 ± 288.78) (p = 0.003), and the roller condition (1905.84 ± 275.87) (p < 0.001). The difference in distance walked between the backpack condition (1985.53 ± 288.78) and the roller condition (1905.84 ± 275.87) was also significant (p = 0.036.).

CONCLUSION:  In a healthy population performing standardized 6MWTs, there are no differences in metabolic expenditures associated with the use of a POC. Total distance of the 6MWT was reduced by POC use. There were differences in 6MWT distance associated with the type of POC used.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:  While there is no difference in metabolic demand or perceived exertion associated with POC use during a 6MWT, there are differences in distance walked. Further research on the effects of POC use in the COPD population with chronic respiratory failure is warranted.

DISCLOSURE:  Matthew Krauza, No Financial Disclosure Information; No Product/Research Disclosure Information

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

12:45 PM - 2:00 PM


Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543