This study evaluated the effectiveness of low-fractional concentration continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the prehospital setting. 340 patients with respiratory distress were treated with CPAP providing a fixed oxygen concentration of 28-30%. Improvements were seen in respiratory rate and oxygen saturation levels. CPAP was discontinued for 16.5% of patients, mostly due to anxiety or requiring intubation. 71.5% of patients' conditions were improved with CPAP treatment based on paramedic assessment. The results suggest CPAP with a low fixed oxygen concentration is effective for commonly encountered respiratory emergencies in the prehospital setting.

1. LOW–FRACTIONAL OXYGEN CONCENTRATION CONTINUOUS POSITIVE
AIRWAY PRESSURE IS EFFECTIVE IN THE PREHOSPITAL SETTING
Bryan E. Bledsoe, DO, Eric Anderson, MD, Ryan Hodnick, DO, Larry Johnson, Steven Johnson,
Eric Dievendorf
ABSTRACT
Objective. The objective of this study was to determine the
effects of low–fractional concentration of inspired oxygen
(FiO2) continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in pre-
hospital noninvasive ventilation (NIV). With increasing con-
cerns about the detrimental effects of hyperoxia, we sought
to determine whether CPAP using a low FiO2 (28%–30%) was
effective in the prehospital setting. Methods. The study was
a six-month prospective, nonblinded observational study
conducted in a large, busy urban emergency medical ser-
vices (EMS) system (Las Vegas, NV). Results. A total of
340 patients participated in the study. Most patients pre-
sented with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of con-
gestive heart failure/acute pulmonary edema (47.4%), fol-
lowed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
(40.9%), asthma (22.7%), and pneumonia (15.9%). Improve-
ments were seen in respiratory rate (p = 0.00) and oxy-
gen saturation (p = 0.00). The overall CPAP discontinua-
tion rate was 16.5%. The most common reason for CPAP
discontinuation was anxiety/claustrophobia. The total num-
ber of patients requiring prehospital intubation was 5.6%.
Subjective paramedic assessment of patient status at hospi-
tal delivery found that 71.5% of patients’ conditions were
improved, 15.1% remained unchanged, and 13.4% were
worse. Conclusions. CPAP using a low FiO2 (28%–30%) was
highly effective in the treatment of commonly encountered
prehospital respiratory emergencies. Keywords: prehospi-
tal CPAP; noninvasive ventilation; EMS; continuous positive
airway pressure
PREHOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARE 2012;Early Online:1–5
INTRODUCTION
The use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)
devices for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) have be-
Received September 13, 2011, from the Department of Emergency
Medicine, University of Nevada School of Medicine (BEB, RH), Las
Vegas, Nevada; MedicWest Ambulance (BEB, EA, LJ, SJ), North
Las Vegas, Nevada; and American Medical Response, Las Vegas,
Nevada. Revision received October 6, 2011; accepted for publication
October 7, 2011.
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Bryan E. Bledsoe,
DO, University of Nevada School of Medicine, Emergency Medicine,
901 Rancho Lane, Suite 135, Las Vegas, NV 89106. E-mail: bbled-
soe@me.com
doi: 10.3109/10903127.2011.640765
come common in the prehospital setting.1,2
These de-
vices have proven effective in acute pulmonary edema
and other respiratory conditions.3–5
They have also
been demonstrated to be cost-effective and can reduce
the subsequent need for intubation.6–8
Increasing con-
cerns about the untoward effects of hyperoxia and
oxidative stress have led to more restrictive prehos-
pital oxygen administration protocols.9
Hyperoxia has
been shown to decrease coronary blood flow and in-
duce free-radical formation with resultant oxidative
stress.10–12
It has been associated with worsened out-
comes in several conditions, including stroke, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cardiac
arrest.4,13–16
Most CPAP devices used in the prehos-
pital setting are oxygen-driven and deliver a variable
concentration of supplemental inspired oxygen. The
purpose of this study was to determine whether NIV
with fixed low–fractional supplemental oxygen deliv-
ery CPAP was effective in the prehospital setting, thus
lessening the possibility of hyperoxia.
METHODS
This study was a prospective, nonblinded observa-
tional study of prehospital CPAP usage in a large ur-
ban emergency medical services (EMS) system. The
study was conducted at American Medical Response
(AMR) and MedicWest Ambulance (MWA) in Clark
County (Las Vegas), Nevada. Both AMR and MWA are
advanced life support (ALS) 9-1-1 providers for Clark
County and transport over 175,000 patients annually.
They work cooperatively with area fire departments in
providing prehospital care. Las Vegas is located in the
high Mojave Desert with an altitude between 2,000 and
3,000 feet above sea level.
The inclusion criteria for this study were adults
greater than 18 years of age who exhibited respiratory
distress. Respiratory distress was defined as two or
more of the following conditions: sternal retractions or
accessory muscle usage, a respiratory rate greater than
or equal to 25 breaths per minute, and/or a saturation
of peripheral oxygen (SpO2) reading less than or equal
to 94%. The exclusion criteria were age less than 18
years, inability to follow commands, apnea, vomiting
or active gastrointestinal hemorrhage (increased risk of
aspiration), major trauma, pneumothorax, and/or pro-
tected subject status (e.g., prisoner, pregnant). Patients
with the following conditions were included in the
study: asthma, COPD, congestive heart failure (CHF),
1
PrehospEmergCareDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.comby107.10.9.14on12/25/11
Forpersonaluseonly.

2. 2 PREHOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARE APRIL/JUNE 2012 VOLUME EARLY ONLINE / NUMBER 2
and/or pneumonia. Paramedics made a presumptive
diagnosis on scene and determined whether the pa-
tient met the inclusion criteria.17
The enrollment crite-
ria and process are detailed in Figure 1.
The CPAP device selected for this study was the
Pulmodyne O2-RESQ (Pulmodyne, Inc., Indianapolis,
IN). The device is a single-use, disposable oxygen-
driven product that delivers a fixed fractional con-
centration of inspired oxygen (FiO2) of 28%–30%. The
CPAP pressure was preset at 10 cmH2O for all patients
in the study group. The device was left with the patient
upon delivery to the hospital. Oxygen cylinder deple-
tion with the device, based on standard 72-inch tubing
and a pressure setting of 10 cmH2O, was 44 minutes for
an E cylinder and 184 minutes for an M cylinder.18
The
devices were standard production products purchased
by AMR and MWA.
Institutional review board (IRB) approval was
granted by the University Medical Center of South-
ern Nevada. The consent requirement was waived. A
video education program on CPAP application and the
research protocol was conducted for all providers prior
to study initiation. The study began on February 21,
2011, and was terminated on August 30, 2011. Base-
line and treatment data were collected for every pa-
tient. Initial demographic and physiologic data were
FIGURE 1. The enrollment criteria and process. CPAP = continuous positive airway pressure; SpO2 = saturation of peripheral oxygen.
PrehospEmergCareDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.comby107.10.9.14on12/25/11
Forpersonaluseonly.

3. Bledsoe et al. LOW-FIO2 CPAP 3
obtained. Repeat physiologic data were gathered at 5,
10, and 15 minutes of treatment. All EMS units used
the Philips MRX patient monitor (Philips Electronics,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands) for physiologic moni-
toring. Summary data were collected after hospital de-
livery. Patient data sheets were forwarded to a site
coordinator for collection and data entry into a Mi-
crosoft Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corp., Redmond,
WA). Subsequent data and statistical analysis were
conducted using statistical features in Microsoft Excel.
The significance of measured physiologic changes was
determined using the paired t-test. Significance (α) was
set at 0.05.
RESULTS
A total of 340 patients were enrolled. Of these, 183
(54%) were male and 157 (46%) were female. The av-
erage age was 67.7 years (95% confidence interval [CI]:
66.2–69.2). Of the inclusion criteria, 324 (95.3%) pa-
tients had a respiratory rate greater than 25 breaths
per minute, 314 (92.4%) demonstrated accessory mus-
cle usage, and 312 (91.8%) had an SpO2 value less than
or equal to 94%. The presumptive medical conditions
encountered included the following: 161 (47.4%) had
CHF/acute pulmonary edema, 139 (40.9%) had COPD,
77 (22.7%) had asthma, and 54 (15.9%) had pneumonia.
Some patients were assigned more than one prehospi-
tal diagnosis.
Physiologic data findings with 95% CIs and over-
all changes are detailed in Table 1. CPAP was
discontinued in 56 (16.5%) patients. The most
common reasons for CPAP discontinuation were
anxiety/claustrophobia, 22 (39%); need for intubation,
19 (34%); apnea and bag–valve–mask ventilation, four
(7%); mask problems, four (7%); patient improved
and removed mask, three (5%); and other, five (9%).
Final subjective determination of patient condition
by the treating paramedic was as follows: 241 (71.5%)
improved, 51 (15.1%) stayed the same, and 45 (13.4%)
worsened. Overall, 19 patients (5.6%) in the study
group required field intubation.
DISCUSSION
Continuous positive airway pressure improves both
ventilation and oxygenation in patients with respira-
tory distress. This appears to result from improved gas
exchange, decreased work of breathing, and supple-
mental oxygenation.4
It has been somewhat unclear
whether the benefits of CPAP are more related to im-
proved ventilation, improved oxygenation, or both.
This study demonstrated improvement in respiratory
rate (p = 0.00) and pulse oximetry readings (p = 0.00)
when CPAP was applied. Despite an FiO2 of 28%–30%,
the SpO2 in most patients was improved by 5 minutes
and continued to improve throughout treatment. With
increasing concerns about the detrimental effects of hy-
peroxia and oxidative stress, CPAP using a low FiO2
may be beneficial in the prehospital setting.
Overall, most of our patients improved following ap-
plication of CPAP. Our findings were consistent with
those of other similar studies of prehospital CPAP
usage. Kallio et al. studied 121 prehospital patients
in Helsinki with presumed severe pulmonary edema
who received CPAP with a device that provided an
FiO2 of 30%–35% and a positive-end expiratory pres-
sure (PEEP) of 1 cmH2O/10 kg body weight. They
found improvement in SpO2, respiratory rate, systolic
blood pressure, and heart rate.4
Templier et al., in a
study of 46 prehospital patients, found improvement
in heart rate, blood pressure (systolic and diastolic),
respiratory rate, and transcutaneous oxygen saturation
using the Boussignac CPAP system. The Boussignac
system uses an FiO2 between 70% and 100% with a
reported PEEP of 10 cmH2O.19
Kosowsky et al., in an
Ohio study of 19 prehospital patients with presumed
pulmonary edema, found improvement in mean res-
piratory rate and SpO2. The FiO2 used in their study
varied from a minimum of 35% up to 95% with the
PEEP set at 10 cmH2O.20
Our overall intubation rate
for the study group was 5.6%. Hubble et al. reported a
decrease in the field intubation rate from 29.3% to 8.9%
with CPAP usage.3
Ducros et al. reported a decrease
in the field intubation rate from 14% to 4% with pre-
hospital CPAP in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary
edema.21
Dib et al. showed a decrease in prehospital
intubations from 4.6% to 2.6% with CPAP usage in a
cohort with severe CHF.22
Despite using a lower FiO2 than other similar pre-
hospital CPAP studies, we were able to demonstrate a
similar and satisfactory improvement in SpO2 and res-
piratory rate.
LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations to our study. First, it
was a nonrandomized, observational trial. Second,
the determination to enroll patients in the study was
based on subjective paramedic determination based
on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The accu-
racy of paramedic field diagnosis was not verified
with subsequent hospital records. There was discor-
dance in patient enrollment between the two partic-
ipating EMS operations despite similar total system
transports. AMR enrolled 137 (40%) patients, whereas
MWA enrolled 203 (60%) patients. The reasons for this
discordance were unclear. Furthermore, there was a
decrease in overall patient data in the 10- and 15-
minute physiologic measures because of the relatively
short EMS transport times in Las Vegas. Patients who
received prehospital CPAP may have exhibited further
improvement with longer CPAP treatment. The im-
provements in blood pressure and heart rate seen in
PrehospEmergCareDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.comby107.10.9.14on12/25/11
Forpersonaluseonly.

4. TABLE1.SampleSize,Mean,and95%ConfidenceIntervalsoverTimewithTotalChangeperParameter
0Minutes5Minutes10Minutes15MinutesSummary
ParameternMean95%CInMean95%CInMean95%CInMean95%CIp-Value
SystolicBP(mmHg)329160.1155.8–164.4279155.6151.2–160.0217149.4144.8–154.099152.5147.8–157.2–7.60.27(NS)
DiastolicBP(mmHg)32697.194.3–99.927994.591.7–97.321792.589.6–95.49990.487.5–93.3–6.70.29(NS)
Heartrate(bpm)335110.2107.9–112.5301109.2106.8–111.6235107.8105.1–110.5101106.8104.4–109.2–3.40.06(NS)
Respiratoryrate(bpm)33634.533.6–35.430130.829.9–31.722628.127.0–29.210027.926.9–28.9–6.60.00
Pulseoximetry(%)32781.079.7–82.328890.589.5–91.522092.291.1–96.910094.293.3–95.1+13.20.00
End-tidalCO2(mmHg)15236.634.0–39.319834.432.5–36.315033.930.9–36.96734.332.9–35.7–2.30.54(NS)
BP=bloodpressure;CI=confidenceinterval;CO2=carbondioxide;NS=notsignificant.
4
PrehospEmergCareDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.comby107.10.9.14on12/25/11
Forpersonaluseonly.

5. Bledsoe et al. LOW-FIO2 CPAP 5
other prehospital CPAP studies, and not in ours, may
have been related to longer EMS transports and as-
sociated increased CPAP treatment times. In addition,
the altitude in Las Vegas (>2,000 feet above sea level)
is significantly higher than that in other communities
where the referenced prehospital CPAP studies were
conducted (Cincinnati, Helsinki, and Paris) and may
have accounted for some of the differences seen.
There were some issues with the CPAP device. Ini-
tially, the CPAP devices on participating EMS units
were supplied with a single-size mask. A few patients
were initially encountered who required a smaller
mask. A smaller mask was added early in the study
period and this issue was corrected. Several patients
complained of anxiety. Some of these tolerated contin-
ued CPAP usage, whereas others did not. We did not
add an anxiolytic during the study period. Anxious
patients improving with CPAP might have benefited
from an anxiolytic. Capnography readings were gener-
ally suboptimal. These were obtained with a nasal sen-
sor placed under the CPAP mask. In some cases this
affected CPAP mask seal and made end-tidal carbon
dioxide (ETCO2) readings difficult to obtain. Using an
inline CO2 sensor might have improved the quality of
the capnography data.
There are additional limitations related to CPAP us-
age and our experimental protocol. The paramedics
were not allowed to modify the CPAP (FiO2 and PEEP)
settings during the study. While a setting of 10 cmH2O
of PEEP is common, some patients might have bene-
fited from a lower or higher PEEP setting.23
Also, there
may have been a subset of patients who might have
benefited from increased or decreased FiO2 levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Prehospital CPAP with low–fractional oxygen delivery
(28%–30%) CPAP is highly effective. Improvements in
respiratory rate and SpO2 were demonstrated. Over-
all, subjective improvements in symptoms were seen
in 71.5% of the patients treated. The device was easy to
use and inexpensive.
References
1. National Association of EMS Physicians. Noninvasive positive
pressure ventilation [National Association of EMS Physicians
position statement]. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15:418.
2. Daily JC, Wang HE. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation:
resource document for the National Association of EMS Physi-
cians position statement. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15:532–8.
3. Hubble MW, Richards ME, Jarvis R, Millikan T, Young D. Ef-
fectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure in the man-
agement of acute pulmonary edema. Prehosp Emerg Care.
2006;10:430–9.
4. Kallio T, Kuisma M, Alasp¨a¨a A, Rosenberg PH. The use of
prehospital continuous positive airway pressure treatment in
presumed acute severe pulmonary edema. Prehosp Emerg
Care. 2003;7:209–13.
5. Gray A, Goodacre S, Newby DE, et al. Noninvasive ventila-
tion in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. N Engl J Med.
2008;359:142–51.
6. Hubble MW, Richards ME, Wilfong DA. Estimates of cost-
effectiveness of prehospital continuous positive airway pres-
sure in the management of acute pulmonary edema. Prehosp
Emerg Care. 2008;12:277–85.
7. Simpson PM, Bendall JC. Prehospital non-invasive ventilation
for acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema: an evidence-based
review. Emerg Med J. 2011;28:609–12.
8. Wang HE, Balasubramani GK, Cook LJ, Yealey DM, Lave JR.
Medical conditions associated with out-of-hospital intubation.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15:338–46.
9. New A. Oxygen: kill or cure? Prehospital hyperoxia in the
COPD patient. Emerg Med J. 2006;23:144–6.
10. Becker LB. New concepts in reactive oxygen species and
cardiovascular reperfusion physiology. Cardiovasc Res.
2004;61:461–70.
11. Farquhar H, Weatherall M, Wijesinghe M, et al. Systematic
review of studies of the effects of hyperoxia on coronary blood
flow. Am Heart J. 2009;158:371–7.
12. Altemeier WA, Sinclair SE. Hyperoxia in the intensive care
unit: why more is not always better. Curr Opin Crit Care.
2007;13:73–8.
13. Austin MA, Wills KE, Blizzard L, Walters EH, Wood-Baker R.
Effect of high-flow oxygen on mortality in chronic obstruc-
tive pulmonary disease patients in the prehospital setting: a
randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;341:c5462.
14. Ronning OM, Guldvog B. Should stroke victims routinely
receive supplemental oxygen? A quasi-randomized controlled
trial. Stroke. 1999;30:2033–7.
15. Kilgannon JH, Jones AE, Parillo JE, et al., Emergency Medicine
Shock Research Network (EMShockNet) Investigators. Re-
lationship between supranormal oxygen tension and out-
come after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Circulation.
2011;14:2717–22.
16. Kilgannon JH, Jones AE, Shapiro NI, et al., Emergency
Medicine Shock Research Network (EMShockNet) Inves-
tigators. Association between arterial hyperoxia following
resuscitation from cardiac arrest and in-hospital mortality.
JAMA. 2010;303:2165–71.
17. Ackerman R, Waldron RL. Difficulty breathing: agreement
of paramedic and emergency physician diagnoses. Prehosp
Emerg Care. 2006;10:77–80.
18. Pulmodyne, Inc. Results of bench test of oxygen usage of
O2-RESQTM conducted on July 22–23, 2009. Personal commu-
nication, August 29, 2011.
19. Templier F, Dolveck F, Baer M, Chauvin, Fletcher D.
‘Boussignac’ continuous positive airway pressure system:
practical use in a prehospital medical care unit. Eur J Emerg
Med. 2003;10:87–9.
20. Kosowsky JM, Stephanides SL, Branson RD, Sayre MR. Pre-
hospital use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP)
for presumed pulmonary edema. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2001;5:
190–6.
21. Ducros L, Logeart D, Vicaut E, et al. CPAP for acute cardiogenic
pulmonary oedema from out-of-hospital to cardiac intensive
care unit: a randomized multicentre study. Intensive Care
Med. 2011;37:1501–9.
22. Dib JE, Maten SA, Luckert A. Prehospital use of continuous
positive airway pressure for acute severe congestive heart
failure. J Emerg Med. 2011;Sep 10 (Epub ahead of print).
23. Singh JM, Ferguson ND, MacDonald RD, Stewart TE, Schull
MJ. Ventilation practices and critical events during transport of
ventilated patients outside of hospital: a retrospective cohort
study. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009;13:316–23.
PrehospEmergCareDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.comby107.10.9.14on12/25/11
Forpersonaluseonly.