We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) are medical devices that use physical means to separate oxygen from the atmosphere to produce concentrated, medical-grade gas. Providing oxygen to low-resources environments, such as austere locations, military combat zones, rural Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and during disasters, becomes expensive and logistically intensive. Recent advances in separation technology have promoted the development of POC systems ruggedized for austere use. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the available data regarding POCs in these challenge environments.
Methods:
PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Defense Technical Information Center were searched from inception to November 2021. Articles addressing the use of POCs in low-resource settings were selected. Three authors were independently involved in the search, review, and synthesis of the articles. Evidence was graded using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines.
Results:
The initial search identified 349 articles, of which 40 articles were included in the review. A total of 724 study subjects were associated with the included articles. There were no Level I systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials.
Discussion:
Generally, POCs are a low-cost, light-weight tool that may fill gaps in austere, military, veterinary, EMS, and disaster medicine. They are cost-effective in low-resource areas, such as rural and high-altitude hospitals in developing nations, despite relatively high capital costs associated with initial equipment purchase. Implementation of POC in low-resource locations is limited primarily on access to electricity but can otherwise operate for thousands of hours without maintenance. They provide a unique advantage in combat operations as there is no risk of explosive if oxygen tanks are struck by high-velocity projectiles. Despite their deployment throughout the battlespace, there were no manuscripts identified during the review involving the efficacy of POCs for combat casualties or clinical outcomes in combat. Veterinary medicine and animal studies have provided the most robust data on the physiological effectiveness of POCs. The success of POCs during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlights the potential for POCs during future mass-casualty events. There is emerging technology available that combines a larger oxygen concentrator with a compressor system capable of refilling small oxygen cylinders, which could transform the delivery of oxygen in austere environments if ruggedized and miniaturized. Future clinical research is needed to quantify the clinical efficacy of POCs in low-resource settings.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.