PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the care receiver's satisfaction with the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) interfaces. METHODS: A questionnaire with visual analog scales was sent to all our CPAP patients (0 = absolutely unsatisfied, 100 = very satisfied). From the ResMed ResScan program, we obtained the CPAP daily use and air leak values. RESULTS: We received 730 answers (70 % of participants); females comprised 22 %. A total of 391 patients had ResMed interfaces, 227 had Respironics, 87 had Fisher & Paykel (F&P), and 25 patients had other interfaces. Interfaces were nasal for 79 %, nasal pillows for 9 %, oronasal for 9 %, and unidentified for 3 % of cases. The mean ± SD satisfaction rate was 68 ± 25. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the type or brand of interface, previous interface experience, or the age or gender of the patient. Users of ResMed interfaces had significantly (p < 0.01) fewer cases of disturbing leaks than did users of Respironics or F&P interfaces (60 vs. 70 and 72 %, respectively). The ResMed Ultra Mirage interface had the fewest cases of disturbing leaks. Values for the measured median leaks were a mean of 5.9 ± 7.2 l/min, and those for the maximum leaks were 39.3 ± 22.2 l/min with no differences between brands. The users of F&P interfaces experienced significantly (p < 0.01) more comfort and used the CPAP device significantly (p < 0.007) more than did users of ResMed or Respironics interfaces (88 % of cases vs. 65 and 57 % and 6.2 ± 2.6 vs. 5.3 ± 2.8 or 5.8 ± 2.8 h/day, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients consider the use of the CPAP interface disturbing even though the satisfaction rate is good with no differences between brands.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the care receiver's satisfaction with the continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) interfaces. METHODS: A questionnaire with visual analog scales was sent to all our CPAP patients (0 = absolutely unsatisfied, 100 = very satisfied). From the ResMed ResScan program, we obtained the CPAP daily use and air leak values. RESULTS: We received 730 answers (70 % of participants); females comprised 22 %. A total of 391 patients had ResMed interfaces, 227 had Respironics, 87 had Fisher & Paykel (F&P), and 25 patients had other interfaces. Interfaces were nasal for 79 %, nasal pillows for 9 %, oronasal for 9 %, and unidentified for 3 % of cases. The mean ± SD satisfaction rate was 68 ± 25. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the type or brand of interface, previous interface experience, or the age or gender of the patient. Users of ResMed interfaces had significantly (p < 0.01) fewer cases of disturbing leaks than did users of Respironics or F&P interfaces (60 vs. 70 and 72 %, respectively). The ResMed Ultra Mirage interface had the fewest cases of disturbing leaks. Values for the measured median leaks were a mean of 5.9 ± 7.2 l/min, and those for the maximum leaks were 39.3 ± 22.2 l/min with no differences between brands. The users of F&P interfaces experienced significantly (p < 0.01) more comfort and used the CPAP device significantly (p < 0.007) more than did users of ResMed or Respironics interfaces (88 % of cases vs. 65 and 57 % and 6.2 ± 2.6 vs. 5.3 ± 2.8 or 5.8 ± 2.8 h/day, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients consider the use of the CPAP interface disturbing even though the satisfaction rate is good with no differences between brands.
Authors: N McArdle; G Devereux; H Heidarnejad; H M Engleman; T W Mackay; N J Douglas Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Alexandra Valentin; Shyam Subramanian; Stuart F Quan; Richard B Berry; Sairam Parthasarathy Journal: Sleep Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Stefania Redolfi; Dai Yumino; Pimon Ruttanaumpawan; Brian Yau; Mao-Chang Su; Jennifer Lam; T Douglas Bradley Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Mika Kastarinen; Riitta Antikainen; Markku Peltonen; Tiina Laatikainen; Noel C Barengo; Antti Jula; Veikko Salomaa; Pekka Jousilahti; Aulikki Nissinen; Erkki Vartiainen; Jaakko Tuomilehto Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.844
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: Constance H Fung; Uyi Igodan; Cathy Alessi; Jennifer L Martin; Joseph M Dzierzewski; Karen Josephson; B Josea Kramer Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 2.554
Authors: Shelley R Knowles; Daniel T O'Brien; Shiling Zhang; Anupama Devara; James A Rowley Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2014-04-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Constance H Fung; Jennifer L Martin; Ron D Hays; Juan Carlos Rodriguez; Uyi Igodan; Stella Jouldjian; Joseph M Dzierzewski; B Josea Kramer; Karen Josephson; Cathy Alessi Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 3.492