Armin Steffen1, Julia T Hartmann2, Inke R König3, Madeline J L Ravesloot4,5, Benedikt Hofauer6, Clemens Heiser6. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. armin.steffen@uksh.de. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. 3. Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. 4. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Medisch Centrum Jan van Goyen, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The definition of positional obstructive sleep apnea (POSA) is widely accepted as a difference of 50% or more in AHI between supine and non-supine position. Upper airway stimulation (UAS) is an effective treatment for OSA but the implant delivers a single voltage over sleep period without consideration of body position. Clinical practice suggests different outcomes for OSA in supine position under UAS treatment. METHODS: Outcomes of 44 patients were analyzed 12 months after implantation in a two-center, prospective consecutive trial in a university hospital setting. Total night and supine AHI were evaluated and the ratio of time spent in supine was considered. Correlation between the classic and the modified definition of POSA and treatment response were evaluated. RESULTS: The time ratio spent in supine position did not differ before implantation and after 12 months. Total and supine AHI were reduced with the use of UAS therapy (p < 0.001) but both the baseline and final supine AHI were higher than total night AHI. Considering POSA definition as a ratio of supine to non-supine AHI, there was no clear cutoff for defining responders neither with nor without the additional component of time in supine position. CONCLUSIONS: The OSA reduction is strong for the total AHI and supine AHI. Nonetheless, here, there is no cutoff for defining POSA as critical for UAS therapy response. Therefore, there is no evidence for excluding POSA patients from UAS in general. Future technology improvement should take body position and adaptive voltage into account.
PURPOSE: The definition of positional obstructive sleep apnea (POSA) is widely accepted as a difference of 50% or more in AHI between supine and non-supine position. Upper airway stimulation (UAS) is an effective treatment for OSA but the implant delivers a single voltage over sleep period without consideration of body position. Clinical practice suggests different outcomes for OSA in supine position under UAS treatment. METHODS: Outcomes of 44 patients were analyzed 12 months after implantation in a two-center, prospective consecutive trial in a university hospital setting. Total night and supine AHI were evaluated and the ratio of time spent in supine was considered. Correlation between the classic and the modified definition of POSA and treatment response were evaluated. RESULTS: The time ratio spent in supine position did not differ before implantation and after 12 months. Total and supine AHI were reduced with the use of UAS therapy (p < 0.001) but both the baseline and final supine AHI were higher than total night AHI. Considering POSA definition as a ratio of supine to non-supine AHI, there was no clear cutoff for defining responders neither with nor without the additional component of time in supine position. CONCLUSIONS: The OSA reduction is strong for the total AHI and supine AHI. Nonetheless, here, there is no cutoff for defining POSA as critical for UAS therapy response. Therefore, there is no evidence for excluding POSA patients from UAS in general. Future technology improvement should take body position and adaptive voltage into account.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hypoglossal nerve stimulation; PAP failure; PAP intolerance; Positional sleep apnea; Sleep apnea; Upper airway stimulation
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: Bharati Prasad; Sarah Usmani; Alana D Steffen; Hans P A Van Dongen; Francis M Pack; Inna Strakovsky; Bethany Staley; David Dinges; Greg Maislin; Allan I Pack; Terri E Weaver Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: James J Bignold; Jeremy D Mercer; Nick A Antic; R Doug McEvoy; Peter G Catcheside Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2011-08-15 Impact factor: 4.062
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: Maria V Suurna; Ofer Jacobowitz; Jolie Chang; Ioannis Koutsourelakis; David Smith; Uri Alkan; Mark D'Agostino; Maurits Boon; Clemens Heiser; Paul Hoff; Colin Huntley; David Kent; Alan Kominsky; Richard Lewis; Joachim T Maurer; Madeline J Ravesloot; Ryan Soose; Armin Steffen; Edward M Weaver; Amy M Williams; Tucker Woodson; Kathleen Yaremchuk; Stacey L Ishman Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: David Kent; Jeffrey Stanley; R Nisha Aurora; Corinna G Levine; Daniel J Gottlieb; Matthew D Spann; Carlos A Torre; Katherine Green; Christopher G Harrod Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.062