The Inogen One is one of the most studied oxygen systems on the market today. It’s been put to the test numerous times, and shown its utility in virtually any circumstance—daytime, nighttime, travel, stationary, portable, you name it.
This page is meant to serve as a summary for some of the clinical studies that have been done with regard to the Inogen One and its capabilities.
Case & Hausmann
Use of a portable oxygen concentrator with a fixed minute volume oxygen conserving device to deliver oxygen to exercising pulmonary rehabilitation patients.” Respir Care Nov 2005;50(11):1510. Abstract.
Summary: The study concluded that the Inogen One is as clinically effective as continuous flow oxygen at maintaining target SpO2 levels in high-flow (4-5 lpm) oxygen users during intense (80-85% maximum estimated HR) controlled exercise.
Mobility, remote activity & power supply utilization among oxygen dependent patients using a lightweight portable oxygen concentrator system. Respir Care. Nov 2005;50(11):1507. Abstract.
Summary: The study suggests that the power supply strategy of the Inogen One is very effective in meeting the ambulatory and mobility needs of highly active oxygen users. The 2-3 hour battery duration of the Inogen One does not inhibit remote activity, as patients were consistently able to access external power (AC or DC) during the course of their activities.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and sleep. Respir Care. Jan 2004;49(1):39-51.
Summary: This is a comprehensive review of the clinical issues and related science regarding COPD and sleep. The paper reviews in detail the science and issues regarding oxygen use during sleep.
Chatburn R, Lewarski J, McCoy R.
Nocturnal oxygenation using a pulse-dosed oxygen-conserving device compared to continuous flow. Respir Care. March 2006;51(3):252-256.
Summary: This study showed that there are no clinical differences between continuous flow and PDOD from POC and that daytime titration is effective for nocturnal use (Inogen One is the POC).
Cuvelier A, Muir J, Czernichow P, et al.
Nocturnal efficiency and tolerance of a demand oxygen delivery System in COPD patients with nocturnal hypoxemia. Chest. 1999; 116(1):22-29.
Summary: This study compared efficacy of continuous flow versus pulse-dosed oxygen in sleeping hypoxemic patients measured through polysomnography. It concluded that the use of a pulse dosing oxygen delivery device did not induce any significant alteration physiologic parameters, as compared with continuous flow, in the majority of moderate to severe COPD patients requiring supplemental oxygen.
Kerby G, O’Donahue W, Romberger D, et al.
Clinical efficacy and cost benefit of pulse flow oxygen in hospitalized patients. Chest. 1990; 97:369-372.
Summary: Large (N=100), unblinded crossover study comparing continuous flow oxygen versus pulse-dosed oxygen delivery in hospitalized, hypoxemic patients. The researchers concluded that both oxygen delivery systems produce clinically similar SpO2 levels in hypoxemic patients over the course of day and night.
Bower J, Brook C, Zimmer K, Davis D.
Performance of a demand oxygen saver system during rest, exercise and sleep in hypoxemic patients. Chest. 1988; 94:77-80
Summary: Compared continuous flow to demand pulse-dosed oxygen during all patient activities, including sleep. The authors concluded that demand oxygen systems produced arterial oxygenation equivalent to continuous flow during all activities.