Matthew R Ebben1,2, Sara Milrad3, Jonathan P Dyke4, C Douglas Phillips4, Ana C Krieger5,3. 1. Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. mae2001@med.cornell.edu. 2. Center for Sleep Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, 425 East 61st Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA. mae2001@med.cornell.edu. 3. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is known that oronasal masks are not as effective at opening the upper airway compared to nasal only continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) masks in patients with sleep-disordered breathing. However, the physiological mechanism for this difference in efficacy is not known; although, it has been hypothesized to involve the retroglossal and/or retropalatal region of the upper airway. The objective of this study was to investigate differences in retroglossal and retropalatal anterior-posterior space with the use of oronasal vs. nasal CPAP masks using real-time cine magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI). METHODS: Ten subjects (eight men, two women) with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were given cMRI with both nasal and oronasal CPAP masks. Each subject was imaged with each interface at pressures of 5, 10, and 15 cm of H2O, while in the supine position along the sagittal plane. RESULTS: The oronasal mask produced significantly less airway opening in the retropalatal region of the upper airway compared to the nasal mask interface. During exhalation, mask style had a significant effect on anterior-posterior distance p = 0.016. No differences were found in the retroglossal region between mask styles. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed previous findings showing differences in treatment efficacy between oronasal and nasal mask styles. We have shown anatomic evidence that the nasal mask is more effective in opening the upper airway compared to the oronasal mask in the retropalatal region.
PURPOSE: It is known that oronasal masks are not as effective at opening the upper airway compared to nasal only continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) masks in patients with sleep-disordered breathing. However, the physiological mechanism for this difference in efficacy is not known; although, it has been hypothesized to involve the retroglossal and/or retropalatal region of the upper airway. The objective of this study was to investigate differences in retroglossal and retropalatal anterior-posterior space with the use of oronasal vs. nasal CPAP masks using real-time cine magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI). METHODS: Ten subjects (eight men, two women) with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were given cMRI with both nasal and oronasal CPAP masks. Each subject was imaged with each interface at pressures of 5, 10, and 15 cm of H2O, while in the supine position along the sagittal plane. RESULTS: The oronasal mask produced significantly less airway opening in the retropalatal region of the upper airway compared to the nasal mask interface. During exhalation, mask style had a significant effect on anterior-posterior distance p = 0.016. No differences were found in the retroglossal region between mask styles. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed previous findings showing differences in treatment efficacy between oronasal and nasal mask styles. We have shown anatomic evidence that the nasal mask is more effective in opening the upper airway compared to the oronasal mask in the retropalatal region.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apnea; Cine magnetic resonance imaging; Mask; Nasal; Obstructive sleep apnea; Oronasal
Authors: Richard J Schwab; Michael Pasirstein; Laura Kaplan; Robert Pierson; Adonna Mackley; Robert Hachadoorian; Raanan Arens; Greg Maislin; Allan I Pack Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2005-10-06 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: F Javier Nieto; Paul E Peppard; Terry Young; Laurel Finn; Khin Mae Hla; Ramon Farré Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-05-20 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: S Javaheri; T J Parker; J D Liming; W S Corbett; H Nishiyama; L Wexler; G A Roselle Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-06-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Clete A Kushida; Deborah A Nichols; Tyson H Holmes; Stuart F Quan; James K Walsh; Daniel J Gottlieb; Richard D Simon; Christian Guilleminault; David P White; James L Goodwin; Paula K Schweitzer; Eileen B Leary; Pamela R Hyde; Max Hirshkowitz; Sylvan Green; Linda K McEvoy; Cynthia Chan; Alan Gevins; Gary G Kay; Daniel A Bloch; Tami Crabtree; William C Dement Journal: Sleep Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Clete A Kushida; Michael R Littner; Max Hirshkowitz; Timothy I Morgenthaler; Cathy A Alessi; Dennis Bailey; Brian Boehlecke; Terry M Brown; Jack Coleman; Leah Friedman; Sheldon Kapen; Vishesh K Kapur; Milton Kramer; Teofilo Lee-Chiong; Judith Owens; Jeffrey P Pancer; Todd J Swick; Merrill S Wise Journal: Sleep Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Justin R Ng; Vinod Aiyappan; Jeremy Mercer; Peter G Catcheside; Ching Li Chai-Coetzer; R Doug McEvoy; Nick Antic Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Sheetal Deshpande; Simon Joosten; Anthony Turton; Bradley A Edwards; Shane Landry; Darren R Mansfield; Garun S Hamilton Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 4.062