CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03976986Updated Jun 6, 2019

Assessment of Portable Oxygen Concentrators in Infants Undergoing Hypoxic Challenge Testing.

An interventional study of continuous-flow portable oxygen concentrator (cPOC) and pulsed-flow portable oxygen concentrator (pPOC) in Hypoxia, Altitude, sponsored by Hospital Son Espases. Completed at 1 site in Spain. Open to participants aged Up to 16 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-06-06.

Sponsored by Hospital Son Espases · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Registered 3 years 3 months after the study started (first participant enrolled Feb 2016, registered May 2019).
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
26
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
Up to 16 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Hypoxic Challenge Testing (HCT) is the recommended method for inflight hypoxia risk assessment. Onboard oxygen administration remains controversial. The Federal Aviation Administration approved portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) for onboard oxygen supply but there is lack of evidence about the use, especially in children. The aim of our study is to establish the effectiveness and safety of POCs in infants undergoing HCT.

Read the detailed description

According to a forecast by International Air Transport Association the number of people travelling on commercial aircrafts is predicted to rise up to 8.2 billion passengers in 2037. Therefore evidence-based flight recommendations will gain importance in the future, especially for patients suffering from chronic diseases. Hypoxic Challenge Testing (HCT) is the recommended method for inflight hypoxia risk assessment where nitrogen is introduced in a plethysmograph reducing FiO2 (fraction of inspired oxygen) to 0.15. Oxygen supply is recommended if PaO2 (partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood) drops \<50-55 mmHg (in adults) or Sat.O2 (oxygen saturation) ≤ 85% (in infants) where non-invasive pulse oximetry is the recommended method for hypoxia assessment. Onboard oxygen administration remains controversial. The effectiveness of pulsed-dosed systems remains unclear in small patients due to shallow breathing patterns. The aim of our study is to establish the effectiveness and safety of POCs in infants undergoing HCT.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hypoxia, Altitude

Keywords

  • Infants
  • Hypoxia Altitude Simulation Test
  • Oxygen Delivery Device
  • Portable Oxygen Concentrator
  • Hypoxic Challenge Testing
03

In context

Altitude Sickness

189 studies on the registry are indexed under Altitude Sickness; 44 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 26 is below the median of 33 across 157 interventional studies indexed under Altitude Sickness.

Browse Altitude Sickness studies →

Lead sponsor

Hospital Son Espases is the lead sponsor of 10 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Up to 16 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

Patients with baseline Sat.O2 >94% AND

  • \<1 year with neonatal respiratory disease
  • required oxygen supply in the last 6 months
  • chronic respiratory disease (eg cystic fibrosis, obstructive or restrictive pulmonary disease) with FEV 1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) or FVC (forced vital capacity) \<50%.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • acute respiratory infection
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
26 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    cPOC - pPOC

    Randomized crossover study (according to a random number table): Patients are allocated randomly to two study groups (cPOC/pPOC). In case of Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85% during HCT, oxygen is administered by cPOC (continuous-flow). For patients who show a positive POC hypoxic reversal, HCT is repeated at 24 hours and oxygen is administered by pPOC (pulsed-flow).

    Device: continuous-flow portable oxygen concentrator (cPOC) · Device: pulsed-flow portable oxygen concentrator (pPOC)

  • Experimental
    pPOC - cPOC

    Randomized crossover study (according to a random number table): Patients are allocated randomly to two study groups (cPOC/pPOC). In case of Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85% during HCT, oxygen is administered by pPOC (pulsed-flow). For patients who show a positive POC hypoxic reversal, HCT is repeated at 24 hours and oxygen is administered by cPOC (continuous-flow).

    Device: continuous-flow portable oxygen concentrator (cPOC) · Device: pulsed-flow portable oxygen concentrator (pPOC)

Interventions

  • Devicecontinuous-flow portable oxygen concentrator (cPOC)

    SeQal Eclipse 3® on continuous-flow (SeQual,Ball Ground,GA): flow rate 2 litre per minute (lpm).

  • Devicepulsed-flow portable oxygen concentrator (pPOC)

    InogenOne G3® (Inogen,Goleta,CA) on pulsed-flow mode: setting 2 (flow rate 420 ml/min, 16.8 ml +/- 3ml per bolus at 25 rpm).

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Assessment of portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) to change HCT induced hypoxia (Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85%).

    Hypoxia (Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85%) measured by Masimo SET Radical-7 Electron® pulse oximeter is induced performing HCT. Thereafter oxygen is administered through cPOC or pPOC until baseline Sat.O2 (Sat.O2 \>93%) is achieved.

    Time frame: 20 minutes

Secondary outcomes

  1. POC comparison to change HCT induced hypoxia (Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85%).

    Compare the capacity of different POCs: continuous flow (cPOC) versus pulsed flow (pPOC) to change HCT induced hypoxia (Sat.O2 ≤ 85%) until baseline Sat.O2 (Sat.O2 \>93%) is achieved.

    Time frame: 20 minutes

  2. Relate patient age (months) to POCs capacity to change HCT induced hypoxia (Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85%).

    Relationship between patient age (months) and POCs capacity to change hypoxic state (≤ 85%) to baseline Sat.O2 (\>93%) measured by Masimo SET Radical-7 Electron®

    Time frame: 20 minutes

  3. Relate patient weight (kilograms) to POCs capacity to change HCT induced hypoxia (Sat.O2 drop ≤ 85%).

    Relationship between patient weight (kilograms) and POCs capacity to change hypoxic state (≤ 85%) to baseline Sat.O2 (\>93%) measured by Masimo SET Radical-7 Electron®

    Time frame: 20 minutes

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Hospital Son Espases
    Palma Mallorca, Mallorca, Spain
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Ahmedzai S, Balfour-Lynn IM, Bewick T, Buchdahl R, Coker RK, Cummin AR, Gradwell DP, Howard L, Innes JA, Johnson AO, Lim E, Lim WS, McKinlay KP, Partridge MR, Popplestone M, Pozniak A, Robson A, Shovlin CL, Shrikrishna D, Simonds A, Tait P, Thomas M; British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee. Managing passengers with stable respiratory disease planning air travel: British Thoracic Society recommendations. Thorax. 2011 Sep;66 Suppl 1:i1-30. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200295. No abstract available. PubMed 21856702 ↗
  • Gong H Jr, Tashkin DP, Lee EY, Simmons MS. Hypoxia-altitude simulation test. Evaluation of patients with chronic airway obstruction. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1984 Dec;130(6):980-6. doi: 10.1164/arrd.1984.130.6.980. PubMed 6508019 ↗
  • Blakeman TC, Rodriquez D Jr, Gerlach TW, Dorlac WC, Johannigman JA, Branson RD. Oxygen requirement to reverse altitude-induced hypoxemia with continuous flow and pulsed dose oxygen. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2015 Apr;86(4):351-6. doi: 10.3357/AMHP.4184.2015. PubMed 25945551 ↗
  • Fischer R, Wanka ER, Einhaeupl F, Voll K, Schiffl H, Lang SM, Gruss M, Ferrari U. Comparison of portable oxygen concentrators in a simulated airplane environment. Respir Med. 2013 Jan;107(1):147-9. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.10.001. Epub 2012 Oct 22. PubMed 23085214 ↗
  • Bunel V, Shoukri A, Choin F, Roblin S, Smith C, Similowski T, Morelot-Panzini C, Gonzalez J. Bench Evaluation of Four Portable Oxygen Concentrators Under Different Conditions Representing Altitudes of 2438, 4200, and 8000 m. High Alt Med Biol. 2016 Dec;17(4):370-374. doi: 10.1089/ham.2016.0056. PubMed 27959667 ↗
  • Chen JZ, Katz IM, Pichelin M, Zhu K, Caillibotte G, Finlay WH, Martin AR. In Vitro-In Silico Comparison of Pulsed Oxygen Delivery From Portable Oxygen Concentrators Versus Continuous Flow Oxygen Delivery. Respir Care. 2019 Feb;64(2):117-129. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06359. Epub 2019 Jan 29. PubMed 30696754 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 6, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03976986
Lead sponsor
Hospital Son Espases
Responsible party
Sebastian Sailer (Principal Investigator, Hospital Son Espases) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jun 6, 2019
Start date
Feb 11, 2016
Primary completion
Feb 4, 2019
Completion
Feb 4, 2019
Last update
Jun 6, 2019

Study contacts

Sebastian Sailer, MD
principal investigator · Hospital Son Espases

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jun 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion