A Cisternas1, F Aguilar2, J M Montserrat3,4,5,6, M Àvila7, M Torres3, A Iranzo3,5,6, J Berenguer8, I Vilaseca3,4,5. 1. Unidad de Medicina del Sueño, Instituto Nacional del Tórax, Santiago de Chile, Chile. 2. Servicio de Otorrinolaringología, Hospital General de Granollers, Av/ Francesc Ribas s/n, 08402, Granollers, Spain. francinaaguilar@hotmail.com. 3. Unidad Multidisciplinar de Trastornos del Sueño, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Ciber Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Bunyola, Spain. 5. Facultad de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Institut d'Investigació Biomédica August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain. 7. Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain. 8. Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study is to compare the effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on the nasal cavities of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and with or without allergic rhinitis (AR/nonAR). METHODS: This paper is a prospective, longitudinal study. Thirty-four consecutive CPAP treatment-adherent patients with OSA (17 AR and 17 nonAR) were evaluated before and 2 months after treatment, by means of clinical (otorhinolaryngological symptoms, daytime sleepiness, overall and rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life), anatomical (otorhinolaryngological examination), functional (auditory function, tubal function, nasal airflow, and mucociliary clearance), and biological variables (nasal cytology). No humidifier or anti-allergy medicines were used during treatment. RESULTS: Before treatment, patients with AR presented a higher score, compared to nonAR in rhinitis symptoms (4.82 ± 2.53 vs. 0.93 ± 1.02, p = 0.000), otologic symptoms (2.06 ± 1.95 vs. 0.44 ± 0.72, p = 0.004), cutaneous/ocular symptoms (2.12 ± 2.17 vs. 0.65 ± 1.17, p = 0.052), immunoglobulin E (181.82 ± 126.09 vs. 66.13 ± 97.97, p = 0.004), and nasal neutrophils (14.42 ± 31.94 vs. 0.16 ± 0.39, p = 0.031). After treatment, nonAR and AR groups improved in daytime sleepiness (11.53 ± 4.60 vs. 7.53 ± 2.87, p = 0.000 and 13.76 ± 4.93 vs. 7.53 ± 4.41, p = 0.001) respectively and increased nasal neutrophil (0.16 ± 0.39 vs. 5.78 ± 9.43, p = 0.001 and 14.42 ± 31.94 vs. 79.47 ± 202.08, p = 0.035). The symptoms and quality of life improved in patients with AR. NonAR patients, significantly increase nasal dryness (1.65 ± 1.27 vs. 0.00, p = 0.002) and mucociliary clearance times (38.59 ± 24.90 vs. 26.82 ± 23.18, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: CPAP produces inflammation with increased nasal neutrophil levels in AR and nonAR patients. Nevertheless, patients with AR observed an improvement in nasal symptoms and quality of life, whereas in patients without AR, a relevant worsening of nasal dryness and mucociliary transport was observed.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study is to compare the effects of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on the nasal cavities of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and with or without allergic rhinitis (AR/nonAR). METHODS: This paper is a prospective, longitudinal study. Thirty-four consecutive CPAP treatment-adherent patients with OSA (17 AR and 17 nonAR) were evaluated before and 2 months after treatment, by means of clinical (otorhinolaryngological symptoms, daytime sleepiness, overall and rhinoconjunctivitis-specific quality of life), anatomical (otorhinolaryngological examination), functional (auditory function, tubal function, nasal airflow, and mucociliary clearance), and biological variables (nasal cytology). No humidifier or anti-allergy medicines were used during treatment. RESULTS: Before treatment, patients with AR presented a higher score, compared to nonAR in rhinitis symptoms (4.82 ± 2.53 vs. 0.93 ± 1.02, p = 0.000), otologic symptoms (2.06 ± 1.95 vs. 0.44 ± 0.72, p = 0.004), cutaneous/ocular symptoms (2.12 ± 2.17 vs. 0.65 ± 1.17, p = 0.052), immunoglobulin E (181.82 ± 126.09 vs. 66.13 ± 97.97, p = 0.004), and nasal neutrophils (14.42 ± 31.94 vs. 0.16 ± 0.39, p = 0.031). After treatment, nonAR and AR groups improved in daytime sleepiness (11.53 ± 4.60 vs. 7.53 ± 2.87, p = 0.000 and 13.76 ± 4.93 vs. 7.53 ± 4.41, p = 0.001) respectively and increased nasal neutrophil (0.16 ± 0.39 vs. 5.78 ± 9.43, p = 0.001 and 14.42 ± 31.94 vs. 79.47 ± 202.08, p = 0.035). The symptoms and quality of life improved in patients with AR. NonAR patients, significantly increase nasal dryness (1.65 ± 1.27 vs. 0.00, p = 0.002) and mucociliary clearance times (38.59 ± 24.90 vs. 26.82 ± 23.18, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: CPAP produces inflammation with increased nasal neutrophil levels in AR and nonAR patients. Nevertheless, patients with AR observed an improvement in nasal symptoms and quality of life, whereas in patients without AR, a relevant worsening of nasal dryness and mucociliary transport was observed.
Authors: Michael G Stewart; David L Witsell; Timothy L Smith; Edward M Weaver; Bevan Yueh; Maureen T Hannley Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Patricia Lloberes; Joaquín Durán-Cantolla; Miguel Ángel Martínez-García; José María Marín; Antoni Ferrer; Jaime Corral; Juan Fernando Masa; Olga Parra; Mari Luz Alonso-Álvarez; Joaquín Terán-Santos Journal: Arch Bronconeumol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: I Vilaseca; E Lehrer-Coriat; M Torres; F Aguilar; I Almendros; B M Martínez-Vidal; R Farré; J M Montserrat Journal: Sleep Med Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 3.492