Next Article in Journal
Neural Protection Through Health Education: Early Childhood Interventions to Prevent Neurological Conditions Requiring Surgical Care
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Slow Versus Rapid Advancement of Enteral Feeding on Intestinal Oxygenation in Preterm Infants
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Closed-Loop Automated Oxygen Control in Preterm Infants Receiving Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

by
Ourania Kaltsogianni
1,2,
Theodore Dassios
1,2 and
Anne Greenough
1,2,*
1
Women and Children’s Health, School of Life Course and Population Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London, London SE5 9RJ, UK
2
Neonatal Intensive Care Centre, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London SE5 9RS, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2025, 12(11), 1528; https://doi.org/10.3390/children12111528
Submission received: 29 September 2025 / Revised: 22 October 2025 / Accepted: 6 November 2025 / Published: 11 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Pediatric Neonatology)

Highlights

What are the main findings?
Closed-loop automated oxygen control (CLAC) systems improve the achievement of oxygen saturation targets in preterm infants on non-invasive ventilation.
The evidence regarding prolonged use of CLAC is limited, and there are no reports on clinical outcomes.
What are the implications of the main findings?
Future studies should explore the effect of the prolonged use of CLAC with different modes of non-invasive ventilation on oxygen saturation targeting and long-term outcomes.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Closed-loop automated oxygen control (CLAC) systems improve compliance with oxygen saturation targets and other outcomes in preterm ventilated infants. This narrative review aimed to explore the efficacy of CLAC systems in preterm infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support and identify areas that needed further research. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed. The search terms were ‘closed loop’ or ‘automat*’, ‘oxygen’ and ‘neonat*’. Results: Sixteen studies were identified: twelve randomised crossover studies, three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and a matched-cohort study. Nine studies included only infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support, and the remaining seven incorporated results from infants either on invasive or non-invasive ventilation. Overall, CLAC was associated with an increased percentage of time spent within the target oxygen saturation range and reduced time spent in extremes of oxygenation (SpO2 < 80% and SpO2 > 98%) when compared with manual oxygen control. CLAC was applied in infants receiving different modes of non-invasive respiratory support, including continuous positive airway pressure, high and low-flow nasal cannula oxygen. Some of the studies had limited power as they were prematurely stopped due to recruitment or equipment issues. Study periods were mostly less than or equal to 24 h. There were no data on longer-term clinical outcomes, including bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotising enterocolitis and mortality. Conclusions: CLAC improves the achievement of oxygen saturation targets in preterm infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support. Future research is needed to explore the effect of CLAC on clinical outcomes in this population.

1. Introduction

Preterm infants frequently require supplemental oxygen, but, although its use can be life-saving, it can increase the risk of complications [1]. Hyperoxia increases oxidative stress [2] and increases the risks of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) [3,4]. Hypoxia increases morbidity and mortality [5,6].
Targeting oxygen therapy to maintain peripheral oxygen saturation levels (SpO2) within a predefined range can reduce the risk of complications. Compliance with achievement of oxygen saturation targets, however, has been shown to be rather poor and variable [7].
Closed-loop automated oxygen control (CLAC) systems may represent a solution to poor compliance and may, therefore, reduce complications. CLAC systems monitor oxygen saturation values in real time to calculate and make an adjustment to the inspired oxygen concentration (FiO2) without any human intervention [8]. Several algorithms exist to model and account for the relationship between SpO2 and FiO2 in infants with different severities of respiratory disease [9]. Studies have demonstrated that automated compared to manual oxygen control systems in preterm ventilated infants result in an improvement in the achievement of oxygen saturation targets, reduced time spent in hypoxia and hyperoxia and fewer manual adjustments to the inspired oxygen concentration [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. In addition, CLAC has been associated with earlier weaning of the inspired oxygen [19,24]. In a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in preterm ventilated infants (n = 69), CLAC was associated with shorter durations of mechanical ventilation (MV) and supplemental oxygen and reductions in the incidence of BPD and the proportion of infants discharged on home oxygen [25].
Preterm infants are increasingly managed on non-invasive respiratory support with an aim to minimise lung injury and reduce respiratory morbidity [26]. Optimisation of supplemental oxygen treatment could further improve respiratory outcomes in this population. This narrative review aims to explore the efficacy of CLAC systems in preterm infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support and highlight areas for further research.

2. Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed for articles related to the use of CLAC in preterm infants. An advanced search was performed with a combination of search terms ((closed-loop) or (automat*) AND (oxygen) AND (neonat*). The reference list of relevant articles was also reviewed. We included published studies that compared closed-loop automated oxygen control to manual oxygen control in preterm infants (22 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestational age) on non-invasive respiratory support. Studies on CLAC that included only infants on invasive mechanical ventilation and studies comparing different automated oxygen controllers were excluded.

3. Results

Sixteen studies were identified that included preterm infants on non-invasive respiratory support: twelve randomised crossover studies, three RCTs and a matched-cohort study (Table 1). There were no studies involving term-born infants. A variety of algorithms, oxygen saturation targets, timing and durations of monitoring periods were used.

3.1. Current Evidence for the Use of Automated Oxygen Control in Preterm Infants on Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

3.1.1. CLAC with Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

Three randomised crossover studies compared CLAC with manual oxygen control in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) who were receiving continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen [17,22,28]. The studies demonstrated an improvement in the achievement of oxygen saturation targets [17,22,28], reduced frequency and duration of hypoxemic [22,28] and hyperoxemic episodes and fewer manual adjustments to the FiO2 with automated oxygen control [17,22,28].
In a two-centre, randomised crossover study, Schwarz and co-workers compared two versions of a CLAC algorithm, which had different response times to SpO2 changes (CLACfast and CLACslow) with manual oxygen control. The revised, faster algorithm for CLAC, which allowed more frequent FiO2 adjustments, improved SpO2 target achievement (68% versus 58%; p < 0.001), reduced the percentage of time spent below the targeted range (14% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and the number of manual FiO2 adjustments compared with manual control (p = 0.08). Moreover, there was a trend towards less time spent below oxygen saturation targets (SpO2 < 90%) with CLACfast compared with CLACslow (22% versus 17%; p = 0.16), suggesting that faster responsiveness may be more effective [27].
More recent data support that the efficacy of CLAC in infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support may differ over time. A single-centre RCT on the prolonged use (28 days) of automated oxygen control in extremely preterm infants found an increase in the time spent below the target range (SpO2 < 88% and SpO2 < 90%) in the first days of life that gradually declined. The opposite trend was observed during manual oxygen control [29].

3.1.2. High- or Low-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen

The beneficial effects of automated oxygen control on oxygen saturation targeting have also been observed in infants receiving high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen treatment [24,30,31,32]. A RCT in extremely low birth weight infants on day eight to nine of life, showed that automated oxygen control over 12 h was associated with improved SpO2 target achievement (58% versus 33%; p < 0.01) and a lower time spent in hyperoxia (SpO2 > 95%; 26.5% versus 54.8%, p < 0.01) but an increase in the percentage of time spent with SpO2 < 85% (14% versus 11%; p = 0.05). The frequencies of prolonged hypoxic episodes and the incidence of more severe hypoxemia (SpO2: 70–75%) were reduced [30]. In another study, the mean FiO2 was higher during automated oxygen control (mean difference 0.019 (95% CI 0.006 to 0.03); p = 0.003), but there was no significant difference in the time spent in severe hyperoxia (SpO2 > 98%). This was attributed to staff training in how to avoid hypoxia and a potentially oversensitive response of the CLAC algorithm that led to overshoot and hyperoxic episodes [31]. A larger RCT that enrolled participants within 72 h of life and for the whole duration of HFNC treatment demonstrated a 26% increase in the percentage of time spent within oxygen saturation targets (p < 0.001) and reduced the time spent in extremes of SpO2 (<80% and >98%; p = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively) [32].

3.1.3. CLAC with Mechanical Ventilation or Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP)

Many studies compared CLAC with manual oxygen control in preterm infants receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) or nasal CPAP. The majority of them have a randomised crossover design [12,20,23,27,33], and another two studies were parallel arm randomised controlled trials [34,35]. Two multi-centre randomised crossover studies demonstrated that CLAC significantly improved compliance with achievement of oxygen saturation targets and the number of manual adjustments to the FiO2 compared with routine manual oxygen control [12,33]. These effects were present across different SpO2 target ranges [12,33]. Subgroup analyses in infants receiving invasive and non-invasive respiratory support showed comparable treatment effects of CLAC and reduced time spent in hypoxia (SpO2 < 80%) or hyperoxia (SpO2 > 98%) in the two groups [33]. Those studies, however, were of limited duration (24 h periods of automated and manual oxygen control) and tested different devices operating different algorithms [12,33].
Waitz et al. demonstrated that automated oxygen control improved oxygen saturation targeting (76.3% versus 69.1%, p < 0.01) among preterm infants receiving different modes of respiratory support (one ventilated; five on non-invasive positive pressure ventilation; nine on CPAP), but did not significantly alter the stability of cerebral tissue oxygenation over 24 h [20]. In addition, CLAC in very-low-birth-weight (VLBW) infants led to a 10% increase in the time spent within the intended oxygen saturation range (77.8% versus 68.5%, p < 0.001) and reduced incidence of prolonged hypoxemic episodes (SpO2 < 88%, > 180 s), but oxygen tissue saturation was not significantly affected [23].
An RCT in preterm infants on MV or nasal CPAP did not demonstrate any significant differences in the time spent in the target SpO2 range (90–95%) and the time spent in hyperoxia (SpO2 > 97% when FiO2 > 0.21) between infants receiving automated or manual oxygen control [34]. CLAC use was associated with a significant reduction in the time spent in hypoxemia (SpO2 < 80%; 0.1% versus 0.6%, p = 0.03) and the number of prolonged hypoxemic episodes (0.3 versus 2 per day, p = 0.03). The intervention, though, was applied only for 40% of the duration of respiratory support, as infants exited the study if they received support from another device. Therefore, the study results may not be generalisable to other controllers or for the whole duration of oxygen treatment [34]. In a larger RCT that enrolled infants with a mean gestation of 28.8 weeks on day one of life, CLAC increased the total time spent in normoxemia (p < 0.001), reduced the frequency of hypoxic and hyperoxic episodes and the number of manual FiO2 adjustments, but the monitoring duration was less than 24 h [35].
A recent matched cohort study demonstrated a time-varying effect of CLAC on oxygen saturation targeting [36]. Among 25 extremely preterm infants on different types of respiratory support, there were no significant differences in the achievement of oxygen saturation targets over a seven-week period. Automated oxygen control, however, was associated with a significant increase in the percentage of time spent within SpO2 target range during the first two weeks of life for those receiving supplemental oxygen (an increase of 9.9%, p = 0.01 in week one and 9.5%, p = 0.02 in week two), along with a reduced percentage of time spent in hyperoxia (SpO2 > 95%; −9.9% (95% CI [−19.2, −0.2]; p = 0.04)).

4. Discussion

This review highlights that automated oxygen control improves achievement of oxygen saturation targets in preterm infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support. A systematic review and meta-analysis included five studies in a subgroup of preterm infants on non-invasive ventilation (n = 169) and demonstrated a 15% increase in the time spent in the target SpO2 range with automated oxygen control [11]. In addition, a recent Cochrane review and meta-analysis showed that CLAC reduced the percentage of time spent below SpO2 target range (MD −5.95% (95% CI −7.98% to −3.92; five studies, 153 infants)) and in hyperoxia (MD −2.31% (95% CI −3.89% to −0.72; five studies, 153 infants; p < 0.001)) in infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support but the evidence was of moderate certainty [37]. Zhang et al. included in their meta-analysis studies in infants receiving MV or non-invasive respiratory support, but they did not report subgroup analysis based on the mode of ventilation [38]. Our narrative review focuses on the effectiveness of CLAC in preterm infants receiving different modes of non-invasive respiratory support. In addition, we include studies with prolonged use of the intervention [29,36], which suggest that the effect of CLAC on oxygen saturation targeting may differ over time, with potentially important implications for their use in the early neonatal period. Among extremely preterm non-ventilated infants, CLAC was associated with increased time spent below the target SpO2 range in the first few days of life compared with manual oxygen control [29]. In another study, automated oxygen control led to a significant improvement in the achievement of oxygen saturation targets in the first two weeks of life compared with manual control, but the difference was not significant for the total study duration [36].
There are, however, some limitations regarding the included studies. Most of them had a randomised crossover design, a few were prematurely stopped before reaching their predefined sample size [12,29,36,39] and study periods were less than or equal to 24 h [12,17,20,22,23,24,27,30,31,33,35,39]. Therefore, there was limited data available for analysis. Further, as infants were studied at different timepoints, the results may not reflect the effectiveness of CLAC for the whole duration of respiratory support. Indeed, two studies showed a time-varying effect of the intervention [29,36]. Schouten et al. found an increase in the time spent below the target SpO2 range with CLAC in the first few days of life that gradually declined [29], but the study was stopped prematurely. Dijkman and co-workers’ results supported the clinical importance of the use of CLAC in the early neonatal period to avoid extremes of oxygen saturations, but their study was limited by the risk of selection bias due to the matched cohort design and the exclusion of non-surviving participants [36]. Furthermore, many of the studies included infants receiving different modes of non-invasive respiratory support or mechanical ventilation and did not report results of subgroups. There were no studies including term-born infants, although some may require non-invasive respiratory support at birth, and previous studies demonstrated that use of CLAC in that population may have similar benefits as in the preterm population [40,41,42]. Furthermore, no data were found on any clinical outcomes for infants on non-invasive respiratory support who were receiving CLAC.
These limitations highlight the need for an adequately powered RCT of CLAC versus manual oxygen control in preterm non-ventilated infants and for the whole duration of non-invasive respiratory support. The trial should aim to determine the effectiveness of automated oxygen control with different modes of non-invasive respiratory support. In addition, staff training along with the use of CLAC can help reduce the incidence of hypoxia and hyperoxia and the risks related to them.
In conclusion, automated oxygen control improves achievement of oxygen saturation targets in preterm infants receiving non-invasive respiratory support by reducing the time spent outside the target SpO2 range. Future research should determine the effectiveness of the prolonged use of CLAC with different modes of non-invasive ventilation, with less heterogeneity of the studies in terms of timepoints and monitoring durations, and explore whether it improves long-term outcomes related to oxygen toxicity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.D. and A.G.; methodology, O.K., T.D. and A.G.; data curation, O.K.; writing—original draft preparation, O.K.; writing—review and editing, T.D. and A.G.; visualization, T.D and A.G.; supervision, T.D. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Ourania Kaltsogianni is the King’s Medical Research Trust Clinical Lecturer and supported by the King’s College Hospital Charity.

Conflicts of Interest

Inspiration Healthcare loaned the equipment used for our studies on closed-loop automated oxygen control, but was not involved in the study design, data collection or data analysis of those studies.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BPDBronchopulmonary dysplasia
CLACClosed-loop automated oxygen control
CPAPContinuous positive airway pressure
FiO2Fraction of inspired oxygen
HFNCHigh-flow nasal cannula
MVMechanical ventilation
RCTRandomised controlled trial
RDSRespiratory distress syndrome
ROPRetinopathy of prematurity
SpO2Peripheral oxygen saturation
VLBWVery low birth weight

References

  1. Perrone, S.; Bracciali, C.; Di Virgilio, N.; Buonocore, G. Oxygen Use in Neonatal Care: A Two-edged Sword. Front. Pediatr. 2016, 4, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Baba, L.; McGrath, J.M. Oxygen free radicals: Effects in the newborn period. Adv. Neonatal Care 2008, 8, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Supplemental Therapeutic Oxygen for Prethreshold Retinopathy Of Prematurity (STOP-ROP), a randomized, controlled trial. I: Primary outcomes. Pediatrics 2000, 105, 295–310. [CrossRef]
  4. Askie, L.M.; Henderson-Smart, D.J.; Irwig, L.; Simpson, J.M. Oxygen-saturation targets and outcomes in extremely preterm infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 349, 959–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. The BOOST-II Australia; United Kingdom Collaborative Groups; Tarnow-Mordi, W.; Stenson, B.; Kirby, A.; Juszczak, E.; Donoghoe, M.; Deshpande, S.; Morley, C.; King, A.; et al. Outcomes of Two Trials of Oxygen-Saturation Targets in Preterm Infants. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 749–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Saugstad, O.D.; Aune, D. In search of the optimal oxygen saturation for extremely low birth weight infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neonatology 2011, 100, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Hagadorn, J.I.; Furey, A.M.; Nghiem, T.H.; Schmid, C.H.; Phelps, D.L.; Pillers, D.A.; Cole, C.H.; Group, A.V.S. Achieved versus intended pulse oximeter saturation in infants born less than 28 weeks’ gestation: The AVIOx study. Pediatrics 2006, 118, 1574–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dani, C. Automated control of inspired oxygen (FiO2) in preterm infants: Literature review. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2019, 54, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sturrock, S.; Williams, E.; Dassios, T.; Greenough, A. Closed loop automated oxygen control in neonates-A review. Acta Paediatr. 2020, 109, 914–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Morozoff, E.P.; Smyth, J.A. Evaluation of three automatic oxygen therapy control algorithms on ventilated low birth weight neonates. Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2009, 2009, 3079–3082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mitra, S.; Singh, B.; El-Naggar, W.; McMillan, D.D. Automated versus manual control of inspired oxygen to target oxygen saturation in preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Perinatol. 2018, 38, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hallenberger, A.; Poets, C.F.; Horn, W.; Seyfang, A.; Urschitz, M.S.; Group, C.S. Closed-loop automatic oxygen control (CLAC) in preterm infants: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics 2014, 133, e379–e385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hutten, M.C.; Goos, T.G.; Ophelders, D.; Nikiforou, M.; Kuypers, E.; Willems, M.; Niemarkt, H.J.; Dankelman, J.; Andriessen, P.; Mohns, T.; et al. Fully automated predictive intelligent control of oxygenation (PRICO) in resuscitation and ventilation of preterm lambs. Pediatr. Res. 2015, 78, 657–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Beddis, I.R.; Collins, P.; Levy, N.M.; Godfrey, S.; Silverman, M. New technique for servo-control of arterial oxygen tension in preterm infants. Arch. Dis. Child. 1979, 54, 278–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Claure, N.; Bancalari, E. Closed-loop control of inspired oxygen in premature infants. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015, 20, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Claure, N.; Gerhardt, T.; Everett, R.; Musante, G.; Herrera, C.; Bancalari, E. Closed-loop controlled inspired oxygen concentration for mechanically ventilated very low birth weight infants with frequent episodes of hypoxemia. Pediatrics 2001, 107, 1120–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Urschitz, M.S.; Horn, W.; Seyfang, A.; Hallenberger, A.; Herberts, T.; Miksch, S.; Popow, C.; Muller-Hansen, I.; Poets, C.F. Automatic control of the inspired oxygen fraction in preterm infants: A randomized crossover trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2004, 170, 1095–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Claure, N.; D’Ugard, C.; Bancalari, E. Automated adjustment of inspired oxygen in preterm infants with frequent fluctuations in oxygenation: A pilot clinical trial. J. Pediatr. 2009, 155, 640–645.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Claure, N.; Bancalari, E.; D’Ugard, C.; Nelin, L.; Stein, M.; Ramanathan, R.; Hernandez, R.; Donn, S.M.; Becker, M.; Bachman, T. Multicenter crossover study of automated control of inspired oxygen in ventilated preterm infants. Pediatrics 2011, 127, e76–e83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Waitz, M.; Schmid, M.B.; Fuchs, H.; Mendler, M.R.; Dreyhaupt, J.; Hummler, H.D. Effects of automated adjustment of the inspired oxygen on fluctuations of arterial and regional cerebral tissue oxygenation in preterm infants with frequent desaturations. J. Pediatr. 2015, 166, 240–244.e241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van Zanten, H.A.; Kuypers, K.; Stenson, B.J.; Bachman, T.E.; Pauws, S.C.; Te Pas, A.B. The effect of implementing an automated oxygen control on oxygen saturation in preterm infants. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017, 102, F395–F399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Plottier, G.K.; Wheeler, K.I.; Ali, S.K.; Fathabadi, O.S.; Jayakar, R.; Gale, T.J.; Dargaville, P.A. Clinical evaluation of a novel adaptive algorithm for automated control of oxygen therapy in preterm infants on non-invasive respiratory support. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017, 102, F37–F43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gajdos, M.; Waitz, M.; Mendler, M.R.; Braun, W.; Hummler, H. Effects of a new device for automated closed loop control of inspired oxygen concentration on fluctuations of arterial and different regional organ tissue oxygen saturations in preterm infants. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019, 104, F360–F365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Reynolds, P.R.; Miller, T.L.; Volakis, L.I.; Holland, N.; Dungan, G.C.; Roehr, C.C.; Ives, K. Randomised cross-over study of automated oxygen control for preterm infants receiving nasal high flow. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019, 104, F366–F371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kaltsogianni, O.; Dassios, T.; Jenkinson, A.; Ikeda, K.; Sugino, M.; Greenough, A. Optimising ventilation in preterms with closed-loop oxygen control: A randomised controlled trial. In Proceedings of the Neonatal Society Summer Meeting, Birmingham, UK, 19–20 June 2025. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sweet, D.G.; Carnielli, V.P.; Greisen, G.; Hallman, M.; Klebermass-Schrehof, K.; Ozek, E.; Te Pas, A.; Plavka, R.; Roehr, C.C.; Saugstad, O.D.; et al. European Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome: 2022 Update. Neonatology 2023, 120, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Schwarz, C.E.; Kidszun, A.; Bieder, N.S.; Franz, A.R.; Konig, J.; Mildenberger, E.; Poets, C.F.; Seyfang, A.; Urschitz, M.S. Is faster better? A randomised crossover study comparing algorithms for closed-loop automatic oxygen control. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020, 105, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dargaville, P.A.; Marshall, A.P.; Ladlow, O.J.; Bannink, C.; Jayakar, R.; Eastwood-Sutherland, C.; Lim, K.; Ali, S.K.M.; Gale, T.J. Automated control of oxygen titration in preterm infants on non-invasive respiratory support. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2022, 107, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Schouten, T.M.R.; Abu-Hanna, A.; van Kaam, A.H.; van den Heuvel, M.E.N.; Bachman, T.E.; van Leuteren, R.W.; Hutten, G.J.; Onland, W. Prolonged use of closed-loop inspired oxygen support in preterm infants: A randomised controlled trial. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2024, 109, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zapata, J.; Gomez, J.J.; Araque Campo, R.; Matiz Rubio, A.; Sola, A. A randomised controlled trial of an automated oxygen delivery algorithm for preterm neonates receiving supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Acta Paediatr. 2014, 103, 928–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dijkman, K.P.; Mohns, T.; Dieleman, J.P.; van Pul, C.; Goos, T.G.; Reiss, I.K.; Andriessen, P.; Niemarkt, H.J. Predictive Intelligent Control of Oxygenation (PRICO) in preterm infants on high flow nasal cannula support: A randomised cross-over study. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2021, 106, 621–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Nair, V.; Kannan Loganathan, P.; Lal, M.K.; Bachman, T.E.; Fantl, R. Randomised control trial of oxygen assist module in preterm infants on high-flow nasal cannula support. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2023, 109, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. van Kaam, A.H.; Hummler, H.D.; Wilinska, M.; Swietlinski, J.; Lal, M.K.; te Pas, A.B.; Lista, G.; Gupta, S.; Fajardo, C.A.; Onland, W.; et al. Automated versus Manual Oxygen Control with Different Saturation Targets and Modes of Respiratory Support in Preterm Infants. J. Pediatr. 2015, 167, 545–550.e42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Nair, V.; Loganathan, P.K.; Lal, M.K.; Pringleton, H.; Bachman, T.E.; Brodlie, M.; Dixon, P. Automatic oxygen control for reducing extremes of oxygen saturation: A randomised controlled trial. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2023, 108, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rocha, G.; Soares, P.; Flor-de-Lima, F.; Amaral, R. Automated Adjustment of the Fraction of Inspired Oxygen (FiO2) and the Time Spent in Normoxemia in Preterm Infants. Acta Med. Port. 2025, 38, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dijkman, K.P.; Delbressine, J.J.; Dieleman, J.P.; Mohns, T.; Andriessen, P.; Pul, C.V.; Reiss, I.K.M.; Franz, A.R.; Niemarkt, H.J. Continuous Application of Closed-Loop FiO2-Control in Extremely Preterm Infants: A Matched Cohort Single-Center Study. Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2025, 60, e71122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stafford, I.G.; Lai, N.M.; Tan, K. Automated oxygen delivery for preterm infants with respiratory dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2023, 11, CD013294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, Y.; Du, Y.; Shi, Y. The effectiveness of automated adjustment of inspired oxygen in preterm infants receiving respiratory support compared with manual: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr. Discov. 2024, 2, e57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Salverda, H.H.; Cramer, S.J.E.; Witlox, R.; Gale, T.J.; Dargaville, P.A.; Pauws, S.C.; Te Pas, A.B. Comparison of two devices for automated oxygen control in preterm infants: A randomised crossover trial. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2022, 107, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kaltsogianni, O.; Dassios, T.; Harris, C.; Jenkinson, A.; Lee, R.A.; Sugino, M.; Greenough, A. Closed-loop oxygen system in late preterm/term, ventilated infants with different severities of respiratory disease. Acta Paediatr. 2023, 112, 1185–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kaltsogianni, O.; Dassios, T.; Lee, R.; Harris, C.; Greenough, A. Closed-loop automated oxygen control in ventilated infants born at or near term: A crossover trial. Acta Paediatr. 2023, 112, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kaltsogianni, O.; Jenkinson, A.; Harris, C.; Jeffreys, E.; Sikdar, O.; Greenough, A.; Dassios, T. Closed-loop automated oxygen control in late preterm and term, ventilated infants: A randomised controlled trial. Acta Paediatr. 2025, 114, 1222–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Included studies.
Table 1. Included studies.
Author (Year)Type of StudyPopulationRespiratory SupportSample SizeAlgorithm/ControllerResults
Urschitz (2004) [17]Randomised crossover<34 weeks GACPAP and FiO2 > 0.2112Rule-based, non-fuzzy
(CLAC; Leoni plus; Lowenstein Medical GmbH; Bad Ems, Germany)
Increased time spent in target SpO2 range (87–96%)
(median (range): 90.5 (59–99.4)% vs. 81.7 (39–99.8)%, p = 0.01).
Reduced manual FiO2 adjustments.
Reduced frequency and duration of hyperoxic episodes.
Plottier (2017) [22]Randomised crossover <37 weeks GA and if ≤ 4 months, with oxygen requirement CPAP/nasal HF20VDL 1.0
Proportional integral derivative
Increase in time spent within SpO2 target range (91–95%)
(median (range): 81 (76–90)% vs. 56 (48–63)%, p < 0.001).
Reduced prolonged hypoxemic and hyperoxemic episodes.
Reduced manual FiO2 adjustments.
Schwarz (2020) [27]Two-centre randomised crossover ≤34 weeks GA and frequent hypoxemic episodes CPAP/MV19 Rule-based, non-fuzzy
Revised and faster algorithm
(CLAC; Leoni plus; Lowenstein Medical GmbH; Bad Ems, Germany)
Increased time spent in target SpO2 range
(90–95%)
(mean (SD): 68 (11)% CLACfast vs. 65 (11)% CLACslow vs. 58 (11) manual control, p < 0.001).
Non-inferiority of fast versus slow algorithm.
Dargaville (2022) [28]Randomised crossover study<32 weeks gestation and if ≤4 months, with FiO2 > 0.21 or hypoxic/apnoeic episodesBubble CPAP/HFNC35VDL 1.1
Adaptive proportional integral derivative
Increased time spent in target SpO2 range
(90–94%)
(median (range): 81 (72–85)% vs. 58 (51–64)%, p < 0.001).
Reduced prolonged hypoxemic and hyperoxemic episodes.
Reduced manual FiO2 adjustments.
Schouten (2024) [29]Randomised controlled <28 weeks GA and frequent desaturations and/or FiO2 > 0.25CPAP/NIPPV23Rule-based, adaptive
CLiO2; AVEA ventilator (Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, IL, USA)
Increased time spent in target SpO2 range (88–94% and 90–95%)
(median (range): 68.7 (59.6–78.6)% vs. 48 (43–56.5)% p < 0.001).
Reduced time spent in hyperoxia.
Varied effect on hypoxia over time.
Zapata (2014) [30]Randomised controlled<30 weeks GA and <1000 gHigh- or low-flow nasal cannula oxygen20Rule-based, fuzzy
Automixer
(Centro Medico, Imbanaco, Cali, Colombia)
Improved time spent in target SpO2 range
(85–93%)
(mean (SD): 5 (4)% vs. 33.7 (4.7)%, p < 0.01).
Reduced time spent in hyperoxia.
Reduced manual FiO2 adjustments.
Increased time with SpO2: 80–85%.
Reynolds (2019) [24]Randomised crossover<37 weeks GA and FiO2 ≥ 0.25 with frequent adjustmentsHFNC 30Adaptive
(IntellO2, Vapotherm precision flow)
Increase in time spent in target SpO2 range
(90–95%)
(median (IQR): 80 (70–87)% vs. 49 (40–57)%, p < 0.001).
Reduced incidence and duration of prolonged hypoxemic episodes.
Increased frequency and reduced duration of hyperoxemic episodes.
Dijkman (2021) [31]Randomised crossover <30 weeks GA and FIO2 > 0.25HFNC with Optiflow interface27Rule-based algorithm
PRICO; Fabian ventilator (Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, IL, USA)
Improved time spent in target SpO2 range
(88–95%)
(mean: 79.5% (95% CI: 76.6–82.5) vs. 68.8% (65.8–71.7), p < 0.001).
Reduced time spent above and below target range and in severe hypoxia (SpO2 < 80%).
Higher mean FiO2.
Nair (2023) [32]Randomised controlled<33 weeks GAHFNC60Adaptive
(Oxygen Assist Module, Vapotherm precision flow)
Reduced time in extremes of SpO2 (<80% and >98%).
Increased time in target SpO2 range (90–95%)
(median (range): 81 (74–93)% vs. 55 (48–72)%, p < 0.001).
Hallenberger (2014) [12]Multi-centre randomised crossover<37 weeks GA and FiO2 > 0.25Nasal CPAP/MV34Rule-based, non-fuzzy
CLAC; Leoni plus (Lowenstein Medical GmbH; Bad Ems, Germany)
Increase in time spent in target SpO2 range (centre 1: 90–95%, centre 2: 80–92%, centre 3: 83–93%, centre 4: 85–94%)
(median (range): 71.2 (44–95.4)% s 61.4 (31.5–99.5)%, p < 0.001).
Reduced manual FiO2 adjustments.
Van Kaam (2015) [33]Randomised crossover<33 weeks GAMV/non-invasive respiratory support80Adaptive
A-FiO2; AVEA ventilator (Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, IL, USA)
Increased time spent in target SpO2 range (89–93% or 91–95%)
(mean (SD): 62 (17)% vs. 54 (16)%, p < 0.001 in lower range and 62 (17)% vs. 58 (15)%, p < 0.001 in higher range).
Reduced time spent in hypoxemia and hyperoxemia.
Waitz (2015) [20]Randomised crossover<30 weeks GA and frequent hypoxemic episodesMV/CPAP/NIPPV15Rule-based, adaptive
CLiO2; AVEA ventilator (Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, IL, USA)
Increased time in target SpO2 range (88–96%) (mean (SD): 76.3 (9.2)% vs. 69.1 (8.2)%, p < 0.01).
Reduced incidence of prolonged hypoxemic episodes.
No effect on cerebral tissue oxygenation.
Gajdos (2019) [23]Randomised crossover<30 weeks GA and frequent hypoxemic episodesMV/CPAP/NIPPV12Proportional integral derivative
SPO2C; Sophie infant ventilator (Fritz Stephan Gackenbach, Germany)
Increased time in target SpO2 range (88–96%) (mean (SD): 77.8 (7.1)% vs. 68.5 (7.7)%, p < 0.001).
No effect on oxygen tissue saturation.
Nair (2023) [34]Randomised controlled <33 weeks GA, within 72 h of lifeNasal CPAP/MV44Rule-based, adaptive
CLiO2; AVEA ventilator (Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, IL, USA)
Reduced time spent in hypoxemia (SpO2 < 80%)
(median (IQR): 0.1 (0.07–0.7)% vs. 0.6 (0.2–2)%, p = 0.03).
Reduced incidence of prolonged hypoxemic episodes.
Rocha (2025) [35]Randomised controlled<33 weeks GA,
within 24 h of life
Nasal CPAP/MV89Rule-based
PRICO; Fabian ventilator (Acutronic, Hirzel, Switzerland)
Increased time spent in target SpO2 range
(90–94%)
β = 81.5; 95%CI: 47.9–115.2, p < 0.001.
Reduced number of manual adjustments to the FiO2.
Reduced frequency of hypoxemic and hyperoxemic episodes.
Dijkman (2025) [36]Matched cohort<28 weeks GACPAP, MV, HFOV25Rule-based
PRICO; Fabian ventilator; Vyaire Medical, Mettawa, IL, USA
Increased time spent in target SpO2 range during the first two weeks of life (88–95%).
1st week: mean difference: 9.9 (95% CI: 3.1–16.7)%, p = 0.01)
2nd week: mean difference: 9.5 (95% CI: 1.4, 17.6)%; p = 0.02
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kaltsogianni, O.; Dassios, T.; Greenough, A. Closed-Loop Automated Oxygen Control in Preterm Infants Receiving Non-Invasive Respiratory Support. Children 2025, 12, 1528. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12111528

AMA Style

Kaltsogianni O, Dassios T, Greenough A. Closed-Loop Automated Oxygen Control in Preterm Infants Receiving Non-Invasive Respiratory Support. Children. 2025; 12(11):1528. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12111528

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kaltsogianni, Ourania, Theodore Dassios, and Anne Greenough. 2025. "Closed-Loop Automated Oxygen Control in Preterm Infants Receiving Non-Invasive Respiratory Support" Children 12, no. 11: 1528. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12111528

APA Style

Kaltsogianni, O., Dassios, T., & Greenough, A. (2025). Closed-Loop Automated Oxygen Control in Preterm Infants Receiving Non-Invasive Respiratory Support. Children, 12(11), 1528. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12111528

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop