Matthew R Ebben1,2, Mariya Narizhnaya3,4, Ana C Krieger3,4,5. 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 Neurology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 4. Center for Sleep Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, 425 East 61st Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous mathematical formulas have been developed to determine continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) without an in-laboratory titration study. Recent studies have shown that style of CPAP mask can affect the optimal pressure requirement. However, none of the current models take mask style into account. Therefore, the goal of this study was to develop new predictive models of CPAP that take into account the style of mask interface. METHODS: Data from 200 subjects with attended CPAP titrations during overnight polysomnograms using nasal masks and 132 subjects using oronasal masks were randomized and split into either a model development or validation group. Predictive models were then created in each model development group and the accuracy of the models was then tested in the model validation groups. RESULTS: The correlation between our new oronasal model and laboratory determined optimal CPAP was significant, r = 0.61, p < 0.001. Our nasal formula was also significantly related to laboratory determined optimal CPAP, r = 0.35, p < 0.001. The oronasal model created in our study significantly outperformed the original CPAP predictive model developed by Miljeteig and Hoffstein, z = 1.99, p < 0.05. The predictive performance of our new nasal model did not differ significantly from Miljeteig and Hoffstein's original model, z = -0.16, p < 0.90. The best predictors for the nasal mask group were AHI, lowest SaO2, and neck size, whereas the top predictors in the oronasal group were AHI and lowest SaO2. CONCLUSION: Our data show that predictive models of CPAP that take into account mask style can significantly improve the formula's accuracy. Most of the past models likely focused on model development with nasal masks (mask style used for model development was not typically reported in previous investigations) and are not well suited for patients using an oronasal interface. Our new oronasal CPAP prediction equation produced significantly improved performance compared to the well-known Miljeteig and Hoffstein formula in patients titrated on CPAP with an oronasal mask and was also significantly related to laboratory determined optimal CPAP.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Numerous mathematical formulas have been developed to determine continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) without an in-laboratory titration study. Recent studies have shown that style of CPAP mask can affect the optimal pressure requirement. However, none of the current models take mask style into account. Therefore, the goal of this study was to develop new predictive models of CPAP that take into account the style of mask interface. METHODS: Data from 200 subjects with attended CPAP titrations during overnight polysomnograms using nasal masks and 132 subjects using oronasal masks were randomized and split into either a model development or validation group. Predictive models were then created in each model development group and the accuracy of the models was then tested in the model validation groups. RESULTS: The correlation between our new oronasal model and laboratory determined optimal CPAP was significant, r = 0.61, p < 0.001. Our nasal formula was also significantly related to laboratory determined optimal CPAP, r = 0.35, p < 0.001. The oronasal model created in our study significantly outperformed the original CPAP predictive model developed by Miljeteig and Hoffstein, z = 1.99, p < 0.05. The predictive performance of our new nasal model did not differ significantly from Miljeteig and Hoffstein's original model, z = -0.16, p < 0.90. The best predictors for the nasal mask group were AHI, lowest SaO2, and neck size, whereas the top predictors in the oronasal group were AHI and lowest SaO2. CONCLUSION: Our data show that predictive models of CPAP that take into account mask style can significantly improve the formula's accuracy. Most of the past models likely focused on model development with nasal masks (mask style used for model development was not typically reported in previous investigations) and are not well suited for patients using an oronasal interface. Our new oronasal CPAP prediction equation produced significantly improved performance compared to the well-known Miljeteig and Hoffstein formula in patients titrated on CPAP with an oronasal mask and was also significantly related to laboratory determined optimal CPAP.
Authors: Nikolaus C Netzer; János Juhász; Markus Hofmann; Kathrin Hohl; Kingman P Strohl; Thomas E A H Küpper Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 2.816
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; 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