Colin Huntley1, Thomas Kaffenberger2, Karl Doghramji3, Ryan Soose4, Maurits Boon1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Jefferson Sleep Disorder Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Data from patients at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH) and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) undergoing upper airway stimulation (UAS) were analyzed. We hypothesize that treatment with UAS will improve both subjective and objective outcome measures and results will be reproducible between institutions. METHODS: We reviewed patients undergoing UAS between May 2014 and August 2016. We recorded demographic data, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and preoperative and postoperative polysomnographic information. We compared outcome data between institutions and subsequently combined the cohorts and compared baseline to posttreatment results. RESULTS: The TJUH cohort consisted of 30 males and 18 females with a mean age of 60.88 years and body mass index of 29.29. The mean preoperative apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), O2 nadir, and ESS were 35.88, 80.96, and 11.09, respectively. The mean postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 6.34, 88.04, and 5.77, respectively. The UPMC cohort consisted of 30 males and 19 females with a mean age of 62.84 years and body mass index of 27.74. The mean preoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 35.29, 79.58, and 10.94, respectively. The mean postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 6.28, 84.35, and 6.60, respectively. We found no difference in patients reaching a postoperative AHI less than 15, 10, and 5 when comparing the cohorts. After combining cohorts, we found a significant improvement in postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS compared to preoperative values. CONCLUSIONS: UAS appears to provide a viable alternative to continuous positive airway pressure, producing improvement in both polysomnographic and quality-of-life measures. Results are reproducible at high-volume centers.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Data from patients at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (TJUH) and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) undergoing upper airway stimulation (UAS) were analyzed. We hypothesize that treatment with UAS will improve both subjective and objective outcome measures and results will be reproducible between institutions. METHODS: We reviewed patients undergoing UAS between May 2014 and August 2016. We recorded demographic data, Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and preoperative and postoperative polysomnographic information. We compared outcome data between institutions and subsequently combined the cohorts and compared baseline to posttreatment results. RESULTS: The TJUH cohort consisted of 30 males and 18 females with a mean age of 60.88 years and body mass index of 29.29. The mean preoperative apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), O2 nadir, and ESS were 35.88, 80.96, and 11.09, respectively. The mean postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 6.34, 88.04, and 5.77, respectively. The UPMC cohort consisted of 30 males and 19 females with a mean age of 62.84 years and body mass index of 27.74. The mean preoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 35.29, 79.58, and 10.94, respectively. The mean postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS were 6.28, 84.35, and 6.60, respectively. We found no difference in patients reaching a postoperative AHI less than 15, 10, and 5 when comparing the cohorts. After combining cohorts, we found a significant improvement in postoperative AHI, O2 nadir, and ESS compared to preoperative values. CONCLUSIONS:UAS appears to provide a viable alternative to continuous positive airway pressure, producing improvement in both polysomnographic and quality-of-life measures. Results are reproducible at high-volume centers.
Authors: Patrick J Strollo; Ryan J Soose; Joachim T Maurer; Nico de Vries; Jason Cornelius; Oleg Froymovich; Ronald D Hanson; Tapan A Padhya; David L Steward; M Boyd Gillespie; B Tucker Woodson; Paul H Van de Heyning; Mark G Goetting; Oliver M Vanderveken; Neil Feldman; Lennart Knaack; Kingman P Strohl Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul E Peppard; Terry Young; Jodi H Barnet; Mari Palta; Erika W Hagen; Khin Mae Hla Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-04-14 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: B Tucker Woodson; Ryan J Soose; M Boyd Gillespie; Kingman P Strohl; Joachim T Maurer; Nico de Vries; David L Steward; Jonathan Z Baskin; M Safwan Badr; Ho-sheng Lin; Tapan A Padhya; Sam Mickelson; W McDowell Anderson; Olivier M Vanderveken; Patrick J Strollo Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Patrick J Strollo; M Boyd Gillespie; Ryan J Soose; Joachim T Maurer; Nico de Vries; Jason Cornelius; Ronald D Hanson; Tapan A Padhya; David L Steward; B Tucker Woodson; Johan Verbraecken; Olivier M Vanderveken; Mark G Goetting; Neil Feldman; Frédéric Chabolle; M Safwan Badr; Winfried Randerath; Kingman P Strohl Journal: Sleep Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Ryan J Soose; B Tucker Woodson; M Boyd Gillespie; Joachim T Maurer; Nico de Vries; David L Steward; Kingman P Strohl; Jonathan Z Baskin; Tapan A Padhya; M Safwan Badr; Ho-sheng Lin; Olivier M Vanderveken; Sam Mickelson; Eileen Chasens; Patrick J Strollo Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Katrin Hasselbacher; B Hofauer; J T Maurer; C Heiser; A Steffen; J U Sommer Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Armin Steffen; Clemens Heiser; Wolfgang Galetke; Simon-Dominik Herkenrath; Joachim T Maurer; Eck Günther; Boris A Stuck; Holger Woehrle; Jan Löhler; Winfried Randerath Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 2.503