Clifford A Massie1, Robert W Hart. 1. Center for Sleep Health of Suburban Lung Associates, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007, USA. clifford.massie@sublung.com
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of interface on objective compliance, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, quality of life, and residual sleep-disordered breathing in patients with obstructive sleepapnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). DESIGN: Randomized, cross-over. SETTING:Two suburban community-based hospital sleep laboratories. PATIENTS: Data were collected on 39 patients with OSAHS (mean age, 48.7 years), in whom CPAP was a novel treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were nasal pillows (Breeze; Mallinckrodt Corporation; Minneapolis, MN) and nasal mask (Contour; Respironics; Murrysville, PA). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Outcomes assessed at the completion of each 3-week treatment period were objective compliance, adverse effects, and satisfaction with CPAP (CPAP questionnaire), daytime sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale [ESS]), quality of life (Functional Outcomes of SleepQuestionnaire [FOSQ]), sleep diary, and residual sleep-disordered breathing (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]). Patients were randomly assigned to use the nasal pillows or the nasal mask following laboratory titration and initiated on CPAP (pressure range, 5 to 14 cm H(2)O). The percentage of days utilized favored the nasal pillows (94.1% vs 85.7%; p = 0.02), but minutes of use per night did not differ (nasal pillows, 223 min; nasal mask, 288 min). ESS scores were lower and the FOSQ total scores were higher following CPAP treatment (p < 0.001), but no differential treatment effects were noted. Fewer adverse effects, less trouble getting to sleep and staying asleep, and less air leak were reported with nasal pillows (p < 0.04). The mean +/- SD pretreatment AHI (47.1 +/- 35.1/h) was significantly lower following treatment with CPAP for both types of interface (nasal pillows, 10.2 +/- 9.8/h; nasal mask, 7.0 +/- 7.7/h; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal pillows are a well-tolerated and effective interface for OSAHS patients receiving CPAP at < or = 14 cm H(2)O. Use of nasal pillows was associated with fewer adverse effects and better sleep quality during the first 3 weeks of CPAP therapy. Further investigation is needed to determine whether interface type affects long-term CPAP use.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of interface on objective compliance, patient satisfaction, adverse effects, quality of life, and residual sleep-disordered breathing in patients with obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (OSAHS) using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). DESIGN: Randomized, cross-over. SETTING: Two suburban community-based hospital sleep laboratories. PATIENTS: Data were collected on 39 patients with OSAHS (mean age, 48.7 years), in whom CPAP was a novel treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were nasal pillows (Breeze; Mallinckrodt Corporation; Minneapolis, MN) and nasal mask (Contour; Respironics; Murrysville, PA). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Outcomes assessed at the completion of each 3-week treatment period were objective compliance, adverse effects, and satisfaction with CPAP (CPAP questionnaire), daytime sleepiness (Epworth sleepiness scale [ESS]), quality of life (Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire [FOSQ]), sleep diary, and residual sleep-disordered breathing (apnea-hypopnea index [AHI]). Patients were randomly assigned to use the nasal pillows or the nasal mask following laboratory titration and initiated on CPAP (pressure range, 5 to 14 cm H(2)O). The percentage of days utilized favored the nasal pillows (94.1% vs 85.7%; p = 0.02), but minutes of use per night did not differ (nasal pillows, 223 min; nasal mask, 288 min). ESS scores were lower and the FOSQ total scores were higher following CPAP treatment (p < 0.001), but no differential treatment effects were noted. Fewer adverse effects, less trouble getting to sleep and staying asleep, and less air leak were reported with nasal pillows (p < 0.04). The mean +/- SD pretreatment AHI (47.1 +/- 35.1/h) was significantly lower following treatment with CPAP for both types of interface (nasal pillows, 10.2 +/- 9.8/h; nasal mask, 7.0 +/- 7.7/h; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal pillows are a well-tolerated and effective interface for OSAHSpatients receiving CPAP at < or = 14 cm H(2)O. Use of nasal pillows was associated with fewer adverse effects and better sleep quality during the first 3 weeks of CPAP therapy. Further investigation is needed to determine whether interface type affects long-term CPAP use.
Authors: Andrey Zinchuk; Bradley A Edwards; Sangchoon Jeon; Brian B Koo; John Concato; Scott Sands; Andrew Wellman; Henry K Yaggi Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2018-05-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Amy M Sawyer; Nalaka S Gooneratne; Carole L Marcus; Dafna Ofer; Kathy C Richards; Terri E Weaver Journal: Sleep Med Rev Date: 2011-06-08 Impact factor: 11.609
Authors: Susheel P Patil; Indu A Ayappa; Sean M Caples; R Joh Kimoff; Sanjay R Patel; Christopher G Harrod Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Indu Ayappa; Robert G Norman; David Whiting; Albert H W Tsai; Fiona Anderson; Emma Donnely; David J Silberstein; David M Rapoport Journal: Sleep Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Joan E Broderick; Doerte U Junghaenel; Stefan Schneider; John J Pilosi; Arthur A Stone Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2012-12-03 Impact factor: 2.964