BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bi-level positive airway pressure (BPAP) are the gold standard treatments for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), but CPAP/BPAP is not well tolerated and requires long-term follow-up. OBJECTIVE: We prospectively assessed subjective and objective adherence and factors that affect adherence in OSAS patients. METHODS: Subjects using CPAP/BPAP were questioned about adverse effects of CPAP/BPAP and were assessed with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) at the first, third, sixth, and twelfth month, and once every 6 months after the first year. CPAP/BPAP use and objective and subjective adherence were assessed. Subjects who used CPAP/BPAP for at least 4 hours per night for at least 70% of the days monitored were regarded as adherent, and those who did not were considered non-adherent. The relationships between adherence and demographic data, polysomnography findings, ESS scores, and adverse effects were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Six-hundred forty-eight subjects who were diagnosed with OSAS by polysomnography and accepted to use CPAP/BPAP in our sleep center between January 2005 and June 2011 were included. Four-hundred fifty-one subjects (69.6%) were men, and 197 (30.4%) were women. Two-hundred forty-eight (38.3%) subjects attended follow-ups, 246 (37.9%) were called by telephone, and 154 (23.8%) could not be reached. Of the whole population, 63.9% had obtained their CPAP/BPAP machine. In the 248 subjects who attended follow-ups, subjective adherence was 85.1% and objective adherence was 64.5%. Improvement in ESS score (P < .001) and satisfactory sleep (P < .001) were found to be significantly higher in the adherent group. Chest discomfort, difficulty falling asleep, and sleep disturbances were significantly higher in the non-adherent group (all P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Of the whole population, just 38.3% attended follow-ups. The objective adherence was lower than the subjective adherence in subjects who attended follow-ups. Younger subjects were more adherent, and the most important factors that correlated with adherence were substantial improvement of daytime sleepiness and effect of CPAP/BPAP on satisfactory sleep. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP/BPAP adherence should be followed with objective monitoring.
BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and bi-level positive airway pressure (BPAP) are the gold standard treatments for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), but CPAP/BPAP is not well tolerated and requires long-term follow-up. OBJECTIVE: We prospectively assessed subjective and objective adherence and factors that affect adherence in OSAS patients. METHODS: Subjects using CPAP/BPAP were questioned about adverse effects of CPAP/BPAP and were assessed with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) at the first, third, sixth, and twelfth month, and once every 6 months after the first year. CPAP/BPAP use and objective and subjective adherence were assessed. Subjects who used CPAP/BPAP for at least 4 hours per night for at least 70% of the days monitored were regarded as adherent, and those who did not were considered non-adherent. The relationships between adherence and demographic data, polysomnography findings, ESS scores, and adverse effects were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Six-hundred forty-eight subjects who were diagnosed with OSAS by polysomnography and accepted to use CPAP/BPAP in our sleep center between January 2005 and June 2011 were included. Four-hundred fifty-one subjects (69.6%) were men, and 197 (30.4%) were women. Two-hundred forty-eight (38.3%) subjects attended follow-ups, 246 (37.9%) were called by telephone, and 154 (23.8%) could not be reached. Of the whole population, 63.9% had obtained their CPAP/BPAP machine. In the 248 subjects who attended follow-ups, subjective adherence was 85.1% and objective adherence was 64.5%. Improvement in ESS score (P < .001) and satisfactory sleep (P < .001) were found to be significantly higher in the adherent group. Chest discomfort, difficulty falling asleep, and sleep disturbances were significantly higher in the non-adherent group (all P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Of the whole population, just 38.3% attended follow-ups. The objective adherence was lower than the subjective adherence in subjects who attended follow-ups. Younger subjects were more adherent, and the most important factors that correlated with adherence were substantial improvement of daytime sleepiness and effect of CPAP/BPAP on satisfactory sleep. CONCLUSIONS: CPAP/BPAP adherence should be followed with objective monitoring.
Authors: Bjorg Eysteinsdottir; Thorarinn Gislason; Allan I Pack; Bryndís Benediktsdottir; Erna S Arnardottir; Samuel T Kuna; Erla Björnsdottir Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Eldrin F Lewis; Rui Wang; Naresh Punjabi; Daniel J Gottlieb; Stuart F Quan; Deepak L Bhatt; Sanjay R Patel; Reena Mehra; Roger S Blumenthal; Jia Weng; Michael Rueschman; Susan Redline Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 4.749