RATIONALE: Adaptive servoventilation devices are marketed to overcome sleep disordered breathing with apneas and hypopneas of both central and obstructive mechanisms often experienced by patients with chronic heart failure. The clinical efficacy of these devices is still questioned. STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study challenged the detection and treatment capabilities of the three commercially available adaptive servoventilation devices in response to sleep disordered breathing events reproduced on an innovative bench test. METHODS: The bench test consisted of a computer-controlled piston and a Starling resistor. The three devices were subjected to a flow sequence composed of central and obstructive apneas and hypopneas including Cheyne-Stokes respiration derived from a patient. The responses of the devices were separately evaluated with the maximum and the clinical settings (titrated expiratory positive airway pressure), and the detected events were compared to the bench-scored values. RESULTS: The three devices responded similarly to central events, by increasing pressure support to raise airflow. All central apneas were eliminated, whereas hypopneas remained. The three devices responded differently to the obstructive events with the maximum settings. These obstructive events could be normalized with clinical settings. The residual events of all the devices were scored lower than bench test values with the maximum settings, but were in agreement with the clinical settings. However, their mechanisms were misclassified. CONCLUSION: The tested devices reacted as expected to the disordered breathing events, but not sufficiently to normalize the breathing flow. The device-scored results should be used with caution to judge efficacy, as their validity depends upon the initial settings.
RATIONALE: Adaptive servoventilation devices are marketed to overcome sleep disordered breathing with apneas and hypopneas of both central and obstructive mechanisms often experienced by patients with chronic heart failure. The clinical efficacy of these devices is still questioned. STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study challenged the detection and treatment capabilities of the three commercially available adaptive servoventilation devices in response to sleep disordered breathing events reproduced on an innovative bench test. METHODS: The bench test consisted of a computer-controlled piston and a Starling resistor. The three devices were subjected to a flow sequence composed of central and obstructive apneas and hypopneas including Cheyne-Stokes respiration derived from a patient. The responses of the devices were separately evaluated with the maximum and the clinical settings (titrated expiratory positive airway pressure), and the detected events were compared to the bench-scored values. RESULTS: The three devices responded similarly to central events, by increasing pressure support to raise airflow. All central apneas were eliminated, whereas hypopneas remained. The three devices responded differently to the obstructive events with the maximum settings. These obstructive events could be normalized with clinical settings. The residual events of all the devices were scored lower than bench test values with the maximum settings, but were in agreement with the clinical settings. However, their mechanisms were misclassified. CONCLUSION: The tested devices reacted as expected to the disordered breathing events, but not sufficiently to normalize the breathing flow. The device-scored results should be used with caution to judge efficacy, as their validity depends upon the initial settings.
Authors: C Philippe; M Stoïca-Herman; X Drouot; B Raffestin; P Escourrou; L Hittinger; P-L Michel; S Rouault; M-P d'Ortho Journal: Heart Date: 2005-06-17 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: H Teschler; M Berthon-Jones; A B Thompson; A Henkel; J Henry; N Konietzko Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 21.405