Kaixian Zhu1,2,3, Gabriel Roisman2, Sami Aouf1, Pierre Escourrou2,3. 1. Air Liquide Healthcare, Gentilly, France. 2. Sleep Disorders Center, AP-HP Antoine-Béclère Hospital, Clamart, France. 3. EA3544, Faculty of Pharmacy, Paris-Sud University, Châtenay-Malabry, France.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study challenged on a bench-test the efficacy of auto-titrating positive airway pressure (APAP) devices for obstructive sleep disordered breathing treatment and evaluated the accuracy of the device reports. METHODS: Our bench consisted of an active lung simulator and a Starling resistor. Eleven commercially available APAP devices were evaluated on their reactions to single-type SDB sequences (obstructive apnea and hypopnea, central apnea, and snoring), and to a long general breathing scenario (5.75 h) simulating various SDB during four sleep cycles and to a short scenario (95 min) simulating one sleep cycle. RESULTS: In the single-type sequence of 30-minute repetitive obstructive apneas, only 5 devices normalized the airflow (> 70% of baseline breathing amplitude). Similarly, normalized breathing was recorded with 8 devices only for a 20-min obstructive hypopnea sequence. Five devices increased the pressure in response to snoring. Only 4 devices maintained a constant minimum pressure when subjected to repeated central apneas with an open upper airway. In the long general breathing scenario, the pressure responses and the treatment efficacy differed among devices: only 5 devices obtained a residual obstructive AHI < 5/h. During the short general breathing scenario, only 2 devices reached the same treatment efficacy (p < 0.001), and 3 devices underestimated the AHI by > 10% (p < 0.001). The long scenario led to more consistent device reports. CONCLUSION: Large differences between APAP devices in the treatment efficacy and the accuracy of report were evidenced in the current study.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: This study challenged on a bench-test the efficacy of auto-titrating positive airway pressure (APAP) devices for obstructive sleep disordered breathing treatment and evaluated the accuracy of the device reports. METHODS: Our bench consisted of an active lung simulator and a Starling resistor. Eleven commercially available APAP devices were evaluated on their reactions to single-type SDB sequences (obstructive apnea and hypopnea, central apnea, and snoring), and to a long general breathing scenario (5.75 h) simulating various SDB during four sleep cycles and to a short scenario (95 min) simulating one sleep cycle. RESULTS: In the single-type sequence of 30-minute repetitive obstructive apneas, only 5 devices normalized the airflow (> 70% of baseline breathing amplitude). Similarly, normalized breathing was recorded with 8 devices only for a 20-min obstructive hypopnea sequence. Five devices increased the pressure in response to snoring. Only 4 devices maintained a constant minimum pressure when subjected to repeated central apneas with an open upper airway. In the long general breathing scenario, the pressure responses and the treatment efficacy differed among devices: only 5 devices obtained a residual obstructive AHI < 5/h. During the short general breathing scenario, only 2 devices reached the same treatment efficacy (p < 0.001), and 3 devices underestimated the AHI by > 10% (p < 0.001). The long scenario led to more consistent device reports. CONCLUSION: Large differences between APAP devices in the treatment efficacy and the accuracy of report were evidenced in the current study.
Authors: Justin C T Pepperell; Sharon Ramdassingh-Dow; Nicky Crosthwaite; Rebecca Mullins; Crispin Jenkinson; John R Stradling; Robert J O Davies Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-01-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ramon Farré; Josep M Montserrat; Jordi Rigau; Xavier Trepat; Paula Pinto; Daniel Navajas Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Florian S Fuchs; Gunther H Wiest; Michael Frank; Igor A Harsch; S Pour Schahin; Eckhart G Hahn; Joachim H Ficker Journal: Sleep Date: 2002-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Vincenzo Patruno; Eleonora Tobaldini; Anna M Bianchi; Martin O Mendez; Orietta Coletti; Giorgio Costantino; Nicola Montano Journal: Eur J Intern Med Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 4.487
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: Nils Correvon; Lucas Fasquel; Pouyan Yazdani; Jean-Bernard Michotte; Jonathan Dugernier; Olivier Contal Journal: Front Med Technol Date: 2022-07-27