Literature DB >> 24560190

Selection of response criteria affects the success rate of oral appliance treatment for obstructive sleep apnea.

Tatsuya Fukuda1, Satoru Tsuiki2, Mina Kobayashi3, Hideaki Nakayama4, Yuichi Inoue3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In oral appliance therapy for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), treatment success is arbitrarily defined. We investigated if the selection of response criteria affected the success rate of oral appliance treatment.
METHODS: The effects of an oral appliance on apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and nadir percutaneous oxygen saturation (SpO2) were investigated in 224 OSA patients. Treatment success was defined as a reduction in AHI to <5 events per hour with a >50% reduction in baseline AHI (criterion 1), a follow-up AHI of <10 events per hour with a >50% reduction in baseline AHI (criterion 2), a >50% reduction in baseline AHI alone (criterion 3), or a >50% reduction in baseline AHI with the nadir SpO2 above 90% (criterion 4).
RESULTS: The baseline AHI was reduced with an oral appliance in place compared with the follow-up value (23 ± 11-8.5 ± 8.7 events/h; P<.05) in all of the participants. In every OSA subgroup, the success rate under criterion 3 (75% [mild], 71% [moderate], and 70% [severe]) was greater than that under criterion 1 (53%, 40%, and 24%, respectively). However, responders under criterion 3 in the severe OSA subgroup were still hypoxemic with a nadir SpO2 of 87 ± 8% even after treatment. This situation was improved by the use of criterion 4, in which a satisfactory improvement in AHI (from 38 ± 11 to 1 ± 1 events/h; P<.01) was associated with a sufficient increase in the nadir SpO2 (93 ± 2%).
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the selection of response criteria influences the success rate of oral appliance treatment. To avoid adverse health outcomes, an adjunct definition of treatment success using SpO2 may be effective for patients who have more severe OSA.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apnea–hypopnea index; Cardiovascular consequence; Hypoxemia; Obstructive sleep apnea; Oral appliance; Treatment success

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24560190     DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2013.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sleep Med        ISSN: 1389-9457            Impact factor:   3.492


  14 in total

1.  Oral Appliance Treatment Response and Polysomnographic Phenotypes of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Authors:  Kate Sutherland; Hisashi Takaya; Jin Qian; Peter Petocz; Andrew T Ng; Peter A Cistulli
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.062

2.  A Feedback-Controlled Mandibular Positioner Identifies Individuals With Sleep Apnea Who Will Respond to Oral Appliance Therapy.

Authors:  John E Remmers; Zbigniew Topor; Joshua Grosse; Nikola Vranjes; Erin V Mosca; Rollin Brant; Sabina Bruehlmann; Shouresh Charkhandeh; Seyed Abdolali Zareian Jahromi
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 4.062

3.  Phenotypic Labelling Using Drug-Induced Sleep Endoscopy Improves Patient Selection for Mandibular Advancement Device Outcome: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Sara Op de Beeck; Marijke Dieltjens; Annelies E Verbruggen; Anneclaire V Vroegop; Kristien Wouters; Evert Hamans; Marc Willemen; Johan Verbraecken; Wilfried A De Backer; Paul H Van de Heyning; Marc J Braem; Olivier M Vanderveken
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 4.062

4.  Effectiveness of a mandibular advancement device in obstructive sleep apnea patients: a prospective clinical trial.

Authors:  Rocío Marco Pitarch; Marina Selva García; Javier Puertas Cuesta; Jaime Marco Algarra; Enrique Fernández Julian; Antonio Fons Font
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-04-20       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  In-home mandibular repositioning during sleep using MATRx plus predicts outcome and efficacious positioning for oral appliance treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Erin V Mosca; Sabina Bruehlmann; Shaelynn M Zouboules; Alexandra E Chiew; Curtis Westersund; Dillon A Hambrook; Seyed A Zareian Jahromi; Joshua Grosse; Zbigniew L Topor; Shouresh Charkhandeh; John E Remmers
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 4.062

6.  The relationship between specific nasopharyngoscopic features and treatment deterioration with mandibular advancement devices: a prospective study.

Authors:  Eli Van de Perck; Sara Op de Beeck; Marijke Dieltjens; Anneclaire V Vroegop; Annelies E Verbruggen; Marc Willemen; Johan Verbraecken; Paul H Van de Heyning; Marc J Braem; Olivier M Vanderveken
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 4.062

7.  The effect of gradually increased mandibular advancement on the efficacy of an oral appliance in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Yanyan Ma; Min Yu; Xuemei Gao
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2020-08-15       Impact factor: 4.062

8.  Mandibular Advancement Device as a Comparable Treatment to Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure for Positional Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Authors:  Yoshikazu Takaesu; Satoru Tsuiki; Mina Kobayashi; Yoko Komada; Hideaki Nakayama; Yuichi Inoue
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 4.062

9.  Mandibular advancement device use in obstructive sleep apnea: ORCADES study 5-year follow-up data.

Authors:  Marie-Françoise Vecchierini; Valérie Attali; Jean-Marc Collet; Marie-Pia d'Ortho; Frederic Goutorbe; Jean-Baptiste Kerbrat; Damien Leger; Florent Lavergne; Christelle Monaca; Pierre-Jean Monteyrol; Eric Mullens; Bernard Pigearias; Francis Martin; Hauria Khemliche; Lionel Lerousseau; Jean-Claude Meurice
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 4.324

10.  Oral appliance treatment in moderate and severe obstructive sleep apnoea patients non-adherent to CPAP.

Authors:  K Gjerde; S Lehmann; M E Berge; A-K Johansson; A Johansson
Journal:  J Oral Rehabil       Date:  2015-12-27       Impact factor: 3.837

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.