Jolien Beyers1,2, Marijke Dieltjens1,2,3, Chloé Kastoer1,2, Lynn Opdebeeck2, An N Boudewyns1,2, Ilse De Volder4,5, Ann Van Gastel4,5, Johan A Verbraecken2,4,6, Wilfried A De Backer2,4,6, Marc J Braem2,3, Paul H Van de Heyning1,2, Olivier M Vanderveken1,2,4. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. 3. Department of Special Care Dentistry, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. 4. Multidisciplinary Sleep Disorders Centre, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. 6. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the overall clinical effectiveness of a sleep position trainer (SPT) in patients with positional obstructive sleep apnea (POSA) and to evaluate how many patients were willing to continue treatment after a 1-month trial period. METHODS: Patients in whom POSA was diagnosed underwent a 1-month trial period with the SPT. Home sleep apnea tests were used to measure baseline data and data following the trial period with the SPT. RESULTS: The 79 patients who completed the study protocol were 81% male, had a mean age of 52 ± 12 years, and a median baseline respiratory event index (REI) of 11 (8, 16) events/h. A significant reduction in overall REI to 5 (3, 10) events/h was observed with the SPT as compared to baseline (P < .001). The median percentage of sleep time in the supine position decreased significantly from 27 (20, 48) to 7 (2, 20) with the SPT (P < .001). Adherence was found to be 95 ± 8%. Of the 44 patients who decided to continue treatment, 27 were categorized as responders (having a decrease in REI of at least 50%) and 17 were non-responders. The most important reasons for not purchasing the SPT were poor objective results, intolerance to the vibrations, cost of the device, persistent daytime sleepiness, or patient preference for other treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the SPT came with high adherence rates and was effective in reducing REI and supine sleep position. The trial period is in the patients' best interest, as it may prevent those who will not benefit from positional training from purchasing an SPT.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the overall clinical effectiveness of a sleep position trainer (SPT) in patients with positional obstructive sleep apnea (POSA) and to evaluate how many patients were willing to continue treatment after a 1-month trial period. METHODS:Patients in whom POSA was diagnosed underwent a 1-month trial period with the SPT. Home sleep apnea tests were used to measure baseline data and data following the trial period with the SPT. RESULTS: The 79 patients who completed the study protocol were 81% male, had a mean age of 52 ± 12 years, and a median baseline respiratory event index (REI) of 11 (8, 16) events/h. A significant reduction in overall REI to 5 (3, 10) events/h was observed with the SPT as compared to baseline (P < .001). The median percentage of sleep time in the supine position decreased significantly from 27 (20, 48) to 7 (2, 20) with the SPT (P < .001). Adherence was found to be 95 ± 8%. Of the 44 patients who decided to continue treatment, 27 were categorized as responders (having a decrease in REI of at least 50%) and 17 were non-responders. The most important reasons for not purchasing the SPT were poor objective results, intolerance to the vibrations, cost of the device, persistent daytime sleepiness, or patient preference for other treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the SPT came with high adherence rates and was effective in reducing REI and supine sleep position. The trial period is in the patients' best interest, as it may prevent those who will not benefit from positional training from purchasing an SPT.
Authors: J Peter van Maanen; Wietske Richard; Ellen R Van Kesteren; Madeline J L Ravesloot; D Martin Laman; Antonius A J Hilgevoord; Nico de Vries Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2011-10-22 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Irene Permut; Montserrat Diaz-Abad; Wissam Chatila; Joseph Crocetti; John P Gaughan; Gilbert E D'Alonzo; Samuel L Krachman Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2010-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Marijke Dieltjens; Anneclaire V Vroegop; Annelies E Verbruggen; Kristien Wouters; Marc Willemen; Wilfried A De Backer; Johan A Verbraecken; Paul H Van de Heyning; Marc J Braem; Nico de Vries; Olivier M Vanderveken Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Jolien Beyers; O M Vanderveken; C Kastoer; A Boudewyns; I De Volder; A Van Gastel; J A Verbraecken; W A De Backer; M J Braem; P H Van de Heyning; M Dieltjens Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Winfried Randerath; Jan de Lange; Jan Hedner; Jean Pierre T F Ho; Marie Marklund; Sofia Schiza; Jörg Steier; Johan Verbraecken Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2022-06-27
Authors: Richard B Berry; Matthew L Uhles; Brian K Abaluck; David H Winslow; Paula K Schweitzer; Raymond A Gaskins; Robert C Doekel; Helene A Emsellem Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Eli Van de Perck; Jolien Beyers; Marijke Dieltjens; Sara Op de Beeck; Johan Verbraecken; Paul Van de Heyning; An Boudewyns; Olivier M Vanderveken Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 2.655