Literature DB >> 22367430

Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) for non-CPAP treatment selection in patients with sleep-disordered breathing.

Olivier M Vanderveken.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22367430      PMCID: PMC3575560          DOI: 10.1007/s11325-012-0671-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sleep Breath        ISSN: 1520-9512            Impact factor:   2.816


× No keyword cloud information.
The aim of upper airway (UA) evaluation in patients with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is not only to gain a better insight into the complex pathophysiology of UA collapse but also to improve treatment success rates while prospectively selecting the most appropriate therapeutic option for the individual patient [1]. UA assessment in SDB patients is often limited by the fact that the evaluation is static and/or performed during wakefulness, possibly not representing the actual dynamics of UA collapsibility during sleep, while investigations of the UA during natural sleep remain time and manpower consuming [1-3]. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) provides an alternative method of studying the UA while performing a fiberoptic endoscopy during sedation as pharmacologically induced with midazolam and/or propofol [1-4]. DISE allows to determine the pattern of UA narrowing and obstruction, as part of the therapeutic decision-making process towards UA surgery and/or oral appliance therapy in patients with SDB as there is a high interest in the prospective prediction of non-CPAP treatment outcome [2, 4, 5]. Recent studies have examined the validity as well as the test–retest and interrater reliability of DISE [6-8]. DISE procedures, however, lack uniformity in the methods used for the drug-induced sedation, while a consensus on DISE classification systems has not been established [3–5, 9]. In this issue of Sleep and Breathing, Eichler and colleagues compared the treatment recommendations that would be given after a clinical basic ENT examination (CBE) with the recommended therapy after conducting a DISE [10]. The results of the reported study indicate that DISE had a relevant impact on the treatment recommendation, and, thus, could possibly change the success rates of non-CPAP therapy in SDB patients [10]. Mandibular advancement device (MAD) treatment represents the main non-CPAP therapy for patients with SDB [11, 12]. A custom-made, titratable MAD has been recommended [13-15]. Currently, there is no reliable way to prospectively predict the outcome of MAD treatment in the individual patient [11]. As in previous reports, Eichler et al. have been using a simultaneous mandibular protrusion maneuver during DISE to assess whether mandibular advancement leads to a visible enhancement of the UA dimensions, as a possible predictor of successful MAD treatment [3–5, 10]. In the reported study, a modified jaw thrust maneuver (Esmarch) was performed, by closing the mouth and lightly pushing forward the mandible on both sides [10]. This approach has the potential disadvantage of not adequately accounting for the given thickness of a particular MAD, whereas each oral appliance inherently causes a certain amount of vertical mouth opening [16]. In addition, similar to the mandibular protrusion maneuver as reported by Johal et al., the Esmarch maneuver is not reproducible in terms of the degree of mandibular advancement [3, 5, 10]. Recently, a novel approach using a custom-made simulation bite in maximal comfortable protrusion during DISE has been described for the prediction of the outcome with MAD treatment [4]. This technique might at least offer the advantage of performing a reproducible mandibular maneuver, also accounting for the given thickness of a MAD, but does not take into account the titratable aspect of the currently recommended titratable MAD treatment neither. Sleep surgery procedures are directed at specific collapsible UA structures and, therefore, DISE may add to a proper selection of a specific surgical procedure for an individual patient [2, 10]. In the reported study the most frequent site of UA obstruction visualized by DISE was the palatal level, which is indeed in line with other recent reports [3]. For all treatment sites, except for the treatment of the tonsils, a statistically significant disagreement was noted as recommended by CBE versus DISE. Interestingly, the treatment recommendations towards tongue base interventions and MAD treatment had the highest range of change based on DISE as compared to CBE [10]. Eichler and colleagues have to be congratulated for this well-designed study with two different ENT specialists performing the CBE versus the DISE independently from each other, while a third ENT specialist compared CBE with DISE findings and recommendations towards the type of non-CPAP treatment. The detailed description of the clinical criteria used for the treatment recommendations based on CBE and DISE certainly adds to the quality of this publication by Eichler et al. [10]. Based on the results of the reported study, an improvement in success rates of non-CPAP therapies for SDB due to DISE can be assumed. The results of this study might suggest that DISE is most relevant when considering tongue base surgery or MAD therapy; and that DISE might turn out to provide less added value for the identification of indications for the treatment of the tonsils [10]. As discussed previously, a possible criticism of the reported study is that a non-reproducible and non-titratable mandibular protrusion maneuver has been performed during DISE, also not accounting for vertical opening while closing the mouth. DISE is increasingly performed offering the possibility of dynamic UA evaluation during artificial sleep as a promising technique to select the proper non-CPAP treatment for patients with SDB. On the other hand, DISE has potential limitations as a patient’s selection tool. First, DISE lacks a uniform method of sedation (bolus versus target controlled infusion; midazolam and/or propofol administration) [3–5, 10]. Secondly, many different DISE classification systems have been introduced in literature, without consensus [3–5, 9]. Finally, the mandibular advancement maneuvers performed during DISE lack reproducibility and standardization up to this date. As a result, the future challenges, among other research topics, are to outline a standardized method of sedation, to identify a uniform DISE classification system, and, to define a reproducible and titratable standard mandibular advancement maneuver during DISE.
  15 in total

1.  Complexity and efficacy of mandibular advancement splints: understanding their mode of action.

Authors:  Fernanda Ribeiro de Almeida
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 4.062

2.  Comparison of a custom-made and a thermoplastic oral appliance for the treatment of mild sleep apnea.

Authors:  Olivier M Vanderveken; Annick Devolder; Marie Marklund; An N Boudewyns; Marc J Braem; Walter Okkerse; Johan A Verbraecken; Karl A Franklin; Wilfried A De Backer; Paul H Van de Heyning
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2007-08-02       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  Drug-induced sleep endoscopy: the VOTE classification.

Authors:  Eric J Kezirian; Winfried Hohenhorst; Nico de Vries
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  One hundred consecutive patients undergoing drug-induced sleep endoscopy: results and evaluation.

Authors:  Madeline J L Ravesloot; Nico de Vries
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Videoendoscopic Assessment of Uncommon Sites of Upper Airway Obstruction during Sleep.

Authors:  Joachim T. Maurer; Boris A. Stuck; Gerd Hein; Karl Hörmann
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.816

6.  Interrater reliability of drug-induced sleep endoscopy.

Authors:  Eric J Kezirian; David P White; Atul Malhotra; Wendy Ma; Charles E McCulloch; Andrew N Goldberg
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2010-04

7.  Validity of sleep nasendoscopy in the investigation of sleep related breathing disorders.

Authors:  S Berry; G Roblin; A Williams; A Watkins; H B Whittet
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Test-retest reliability of drug-induced sleep endoscopy.

Authors:  Krista Rodriguez-Bruno; Andrew N Goldberg; Charles E McCulloch; Eric J Kezirian
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.497

Review 9.  Hypopharyngeal surgery in obstructive sleep apnea: an evidence-based medicine review.

Authors:  Eric J Kezirian; Andrew N Goldberg
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2006-02

Review 10.  Review of oral appliances for treatment of sleep-disordered breathing.

Authors:  Victor Hoffstein
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.816

View more
  19 in total

1.  Endoscopic upper airway evaluation in obstructive sleep apnea: Mueller's maneuver versus simulation of snoring.

Authors:  Hong Huo; Wuyi Li; Xu Tian; Chunxiao Xu; Jian Wang; Dahai Yang
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 2.816

2.  Evaluation of the impact of a clinical pathway on the organization of a multidisciplinary dental sleep clinic.

Authors:  D M Ten Berge; M J Braem; A Altenburg; M Dieltjens; P H Van de Heyning; K Vanhaecht; O M Vanderveken
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 2.816

3.  European position paper on drug-induced sedation endoscopy (DISE).

Authors:  Andrea De Vito; Marina Carrasco Llatas; Agnoletti Vanni; Marcello Bosi; Alberto Braghiroli; Aldo Campanini; Nico de Vries; Evert Hamans; Winfried Hohenhorst; Bhik T Kotecha; Joachim Maurer; Filippo Montevecchi; Ottavio Piccin; Giovanni Sorrenti; Olivier M Vanderveken; Claudio Vicini
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2014-05-26       Impact factor: 2.816

4.  The global and evident need to increase the validity and uniformity when performing drug-induced sleep endoscopy.

Authors:  Olivier M Vanderveken
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2017-08-08       Impact factor: 2.816

5.  Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) as a guide towards upper airway behavior and treatment outcome: the quest for a vigorous standardization of DISE.

Authors:  Olivier M Vanderveken
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 2.816

6.  Comparison of upper airway collapse patterns and its clinical significance: drug-induced sleep endoscopy in patients without obstructive sleep apnea, positional and non-positional obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  C Kastoer; L B L Benoist; M Dieltjens; B Torensma; L H de Vries; P E Vonk; M J L Ravesloot; N de Vries
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 2.816

7.  Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy as a Selection Tool for Surgical Management of Obstructive Sleep Apnoea Syndrome: Our Personal Experience.

Authors:  M B Bharathi; J Rajendra Prasad; K Satish
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-04-08

8.  Comparison of dexmedetomidine and propofol used for drug-induced sleep endoscopy in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome.

Authors:  Ufuk Kuyrukluyıldız; Orhan Binici; Didem Onk; Serap Ayhan Celik; Mumtaz Taner Torun; Edhem Unver; Adalet Ozcicek; Aysin Alagol
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-04-15

Review 9.  The Use of Remotely Controlled Mandibular Positioner as a Predictive Screening Tool for Mandibular Advancement Device Therapy in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea through Single-Night Progressive Titration of the Mandible: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Chloé Kastoer; Marijke Dieltjens; Eline Oorts; Evert Hamans; Marc J Braem; Paul H Van de Heyning; Olivier M Vanderveken
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2016-10-15       Impact factor: 4.062

10.  Evaluation of drug-induced sleep endoscopy as a patient selection tool for implanted upper airway stimulation for obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Olivier M Vanderveken; Joachim T Maurer; Winfried Hohenhorst; Evert Hamans; Ho-Sheng Lin; Anneclaire V Vroegop; Clemens Anders; Nico de Vries; Paul H Van de Heyning
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 4.062

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.