BACKGROUND: Heated breathing tubes were developed to improve heated humidification in continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). OBJECTIVES: We wanted to investigate the influence of a heated breathing tube on patients' satisfaction with the treatment, the rate of side effects and the adherence to treatment. METHODS:Eighty-eight patients with primarily diagnosed OSAS were treated in a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial for 12 months either with a CPAP system plus conventional heated humidifier or with a CPAP system plus heated humidifier and an integrated heated breathing tube. RESULTS: Both systems improved the respiratory disturbances and the quality of sleep in a similar manner. The difference in the overall satisfaction with the treatment (subscale 3 of the visual analogue scale) between the two treatment groups was not statistically significant (mean difference -14.1, 95% CI -28.7 to 0.6; p = 0.059). The rate of side effects and the quality of life did not differ significantly between the two groups. The patients with the heated breathing tube used the treatment on average 1 h longer, but this was not statistically significant (4.96 ± 1.95 vs. 3.90 ± 2.54 h/night; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Controlled heated breathing tube humidification as compared to conventional heated humidification improves neither the adherence to treatment, nor the rate of side effects, nor the quality of life in nonselected OSAS patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Heated breathing tubes were developed to improve heated humidification in continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). OBJECTIVES: We wanted to investigate the influence of a heated breathing tube on patients' satisfaction with the treatment, the rate of side effects and the adherence to treatment. METHODS: Eighty-eight patients with primarily diagnosed OSAS were treated in a randomized, controlled, single-blind trial for 12 months either with a CPAP system plus conventional heated humidifier or with a CPAP system plus heated humidifier and an integrated heated breathing tube. RESULTS: Both systems improved the respiratory disturbances and the quality of sleep in a similar manner. The difference in the overall satisfaction with the treatment (subscale 3 of the visual analogue scale) between the two treatment groups was not statistically significant (mean difference -14.1, 95% CI -28.7 to 0.6; p = 0.059). The rate of side effects and the quality of life did not differ significantly between the two groups. The patients with the heated breathing tube used the treatment on average 1 h longer, but this was not statistically significant (4.96 ± 1.95 vs. 3.90 ± 2.54 h/night; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Controlled heated breathing tube humidification as compared to conventional heated humidification improves neither the adherence to treatment, nor the rate of side effects, nor the quality of life in nonselected OSAS patients.