Ahmadi Z, Björk J, Gilljam H, Gogineni M, Gustafsson T, Runold M, Ringbæk T, Wahlberg J, Wendel L, Ekström M. Smoking and home oxygen therapy: a review and consensus statement from a multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce.
Eur Respir Rev 2024;
33:230194. [PMID:
38296345 PMCID:
PMC10828833 DOI:
10.1183/16000617.0194-2023]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2023] [Accepted: 12/02/2023] [Indexed: 02/03/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Home oxygen therapy (HOT) improves survival in patients with hypoxaemic chronic respiratory disease. Most patients evaluated for HOT are former or active smokers. Oxygen accelerates combustion and smoking may increase the risk of burn injuries and fire hazards; therefore, it is considered a contraindication for HOT in many countries. However, there is variability in the practices and policies regarding this matter. This multidisciplinary Swedish taskforce aimed to review the potential benefits and risks of smoking in relation to HOT, including medical, practical, legal and ethical considerations.
METHODS
The taskforce of the Swedish Respiratory Society comprises 15 members across respiratory medicine, nursing, medical law and ethics. HOT effectiveness and adverse risks related to smoking, as well as practical, legal and ethical considerations, were reviewed, resulting in five general questions and four PICO (population-intervention-comparator-outcome) questions. The strength of each recommendation was rated according to the GRADE (grading of recommendation assessment, development and evaluation) methodology.
RESULTS
General questions about the practical, legal and ethical aspects of HOT were discussed and summarised in the document. The PICO questions resulted in recommendations about assessment, management and follow-up of smoking when considering HOT, if HOT should be offered to people that meet the eligibility criteria but who continue to smoke, if a specific length of time of smoking cessation should be considered before assessing eligibility for HOT, and identification of areas for further research.
CONCLUSIONS
Multiple factors need to be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of HOT in active smokers. A systematic approach is suggested to guide healthcare professionals in evaluating HOT in relation to smoking.
Collapse