Harm Reduction Journal (May 2024)

Physiologic oxygen responses to smoking opioids: an observational study using continuous pulse oximetry at overdose prevention services in British Columbia, Canada

  • Jessica Moe,
  • Jane A. Buxton,
  • Yueqiao Elle Wang,
  • Tamara Chavez,
  • Damian Feldman-Kiss,
  • Charotte Marr,
  • Roy A. Purssell,
  • Michael Otterstatter

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-024-01011-z
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background In British Columbia, Canada, smoking is the most common modality of drug use among people who die of opioid toxicity. We aimed to assess oxygen saturation (SpO2) while people smoked opioids during a pilot study that introduced continuous pulse oximetry at overdose prevention services (OPS) sites. Methods This was an observational cohort study, using a participatory design. We implemented our monitoring protocol from March to August 2021 at four OPS. We included adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to smoke opioids. A sensor taped to participants’ fingers transmitted real-time SpO2 readings to a remote monitor viewed by OPS staff. Peer researchers collected baseline data and observed the timing of participants’ inhalations. We analyzed SpO2 on a per-event basis. In mixed-effects logistic regression models, drop in minimum SpO2 ≤ 90% in the current minute was our main outcome variable. Inhalation in that same minute was our main predictor. We also examined inhalation in the previous minute, cumulative inhalations, inhalation rate, demographics, co-morbidities, and substance use variables. Results We recorded 599 smoking events; 72.8% (436/599) had analyzable SpO2 data. Participants’ mean age was 38.6 years (SD 11.3 years) and 73.1% were male. SpO2 was highly variable within and between individuals. Drop in SpO2 ≤ 90% was not significantly associated with inhalation in that same minute (OR: 1.2 [0.8–1.78], p = 0.261) or inhalation rate (OR 0.47 [0.20–1.10], p = 0.082). There was an association of SpO2 drop with six cumulative inhalations (OR 3.38 [1.04–11.03], p = 0.043); this was not maintained ≥ 7 inhalations. Demographics, co-morbidities, and drug use variables were non-contributory. Conclusions Continuous pulse oximetry SpO2 monitoring is a safe adjunct to monitoring people who smoke opioids at OPS. Our data reflect challenges of real-world monitoring, indicating that greater supports are needed for frontline responders at OPS. Inconsistent association between inhalations and SpO2 suggests that complex factors (e.g., inhalation depth/duration, opioid tolerance, drug use setting) contribute to hypoxemia and overdose risk while people smoke opioids.

Keywords