BACKGROUND: While continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) effectively treats obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), adherence to CPAP is suboptimal. The short-term efficacy of and adherence with a convenient expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) nasal device was evaluated in OSA patients non-adherent with CPAP. METHODS: Participants were OSA patients who refused CPAP or used CPAP less than 3 h per night. After demonstrating tolerability to the EPAP device during approximately 1 week of home use, patients underwent a screening/baseline polysomnogram (PSG1) and a treatment PSG (PSG2). Patients meeting prespecified efficacy criteria underwent PSG3 after about 5 weeks of EPAP treatment. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 59 eligible patients (80%) tolerated the device and underwent PSG1. Forty-three patients (27 m, 16f; 53.7±10.9 years) met AHI entry criteria and underwent PSG2. Mean AHI decreased from 43.3±29.0 at baseline to 27.0±26.7 (p<0.001) at PSG2. Twenty-four patients (56%) met efficacy criteria; their mean AHI was 31.9±19.8, 11.0±7.9, 16.4±12.2 at PSG1, PSG2, and PSG3, respectively (p<0.001, PSG1 vs. both PSG2 and PSG3). Mean Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores were 12.3±4.8 at baseline, 11.1±5.1 at PSG1, and 8.7±4.4 at PSG3 (p=0.001 compared to baseline). Device use was reported an average of 92% of all sleep hours. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements in AHI and ESS, combined with the high degree of treatment adherence observed, suggest that the convenient EPAP device tested may become a useful therapeutic option for OSA.
BACKGROUND: While continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) effectively treats obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), adherence to CPAP is suboptimal. The short-term efficacy of and adherence with a convenient expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) nasal device was evaluated in OSA patients non-adherent with CPAP. METHODS:Participants were OSA patients who refused CPAP or used CPAP less than 3 h per night. After demonstrating tolerability to the EPAP device during approximately 1 week of home use, patients underwent a screening/baseline polysomnogram (PSG1) and a treatment PSG (PSG2). Patients meeting prespecified efficacy criteria underwent PSG3 after about 5 weeks of EPAP treatment. RESULTS: Forty-seven of 59 eligible patients (80%) tolerated the device and underwent PSG1. Forty-three patients (27 m, 16f; 53.7±10.9 years) met AHI entry criteria and underwent PSG2. Mean AHI decreased from 43.3±29.0 at baseline to 27.0±26.7 (p<0.001) at PSG2. Twenty-four patients (56%) met efficacy criteria; their mean AHI was 31.9±19.8, 11.0±7.9, 16.4±12.2 at PSG1, PSG2, and PSG3, respectively (p<0.001, PSG1 vs. both PSG2 and PSG3). Mean Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) scores were 12.3±4.8 at baseline, 11.1±5.1 at PSG1, and 8.7±4.4 at PSG3 (p=0.001 compared to baseline). Device use was reported an average of 92% of all sleep hours. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements in AHI and ESS, combined with the high degree of treatment adherence observed, suggest that the convenient EPAP device tested may become a useful therapeutic option for OSA.
Authors: Eric J Kezirian; Michael Simmons; Richard J Schwab; Peter Cistulli; Kasey K Li; Edward M Weaver; Andrew N Goldberg; Atul Malhotra Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ian M Colrain; Jed Black; Lawrence C Siegel; Richard K Bogan; Philip M Becker; Mehran Farid-Moayer; Rochelle Goldberg; D Alan Lankford; Andrew N Goldberg; Atul Malhotra Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: Terri E Weaver; Michael W Calik; Sarah S Farabi; Anne M Fink; Maria T Galang-Boquiren; Mary C Kapella; Bharati Prasad; David W Carley Journal: Nat Sci Sleep Date: 2014-11-18