Ken Junyang Goh1, Rui Ya Soh1,2, Leong Chai Leow1,2, Song Tar Toh2,3, Pei Rong Song2, Ying Hao4, Ken Cheah Hooi Lee1, Gan Liang Tan1, Thun How Ong1,2. 1. Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 2. Sleep Disorder Unit, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 3. Department of Otolaryngology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 4. Health Services Research Unit (HSRU), Division of Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A major challenge with the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Mask tolerability is an important determinant of adherence, however evidence to guide selection of mask interfaces is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover trial of mask interfaces in CPAP therapy for moderate-to-severe OSA to assess adherence and efficacy of CPAP therapy with nasal mask, nasal pillow and oronasal masks. Demographic data, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scores and craniofacial measurements were also analysed for associations with adherence with oronasal masks. RESULTS:Eighty-five patients were included in the study (mean ±SD age: 46 ± 12 years; body mass index: 29.9 ± 5.6 kg/m2 ; apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI): 53.6 ± 24.0 events/h). Patients had better adherence with nasal masks (average night use: 3.96 ± 2.26 h/night) compared to oronasal masks (3.26 ± 2.18 h/night, P < 0.001) and nasal pillows (3.48 ± 2.20 h/night, P = 0.007). Residual AHI was higher with oronasal masks (7.2 ± 5.2) compared to nasal masks (4.0 ± 4.2, P < 0.001) and nasal pillows (4.1 ± 3.3, P < 0.001). Twenty-two (25.9%) patients had the best adherence with oronasal masks (4.22 ± 2.14 vs 2.93 ± 2.12 h/night, P = 0.016). These patients had lower NOSE scores (15 (0-35) vs 40 (10-55), P = 0.024) and larger menton-labrale inferioris/biocular width ratios (31 ± 3% vs 28 ± 4%, P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Nasal masks are the preferred interface during CPAP initiation. Patients with less nasal obstruction and a proportionally increased chin-lower lip distance to mid-face width may have better CPAP adherence with an oronasal mask interface.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A major challenge with the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is adherence to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy. Mask tolerability is an important determinant of adherence, however evidence to guide selection of mask interfaces is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover trial of mask interfaces in CPAP therapy for moderate-to-severe OSA to assess adherence and efficacy of CPAP therapy with nasal mask, nasal pillow and oronasal masks. Demographic data, Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scores and craniofacial measurements were also analysed for associations with adherence with oronasal masks. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included in the study (mean ± SD age: 46 ± 12 years; body mass index: 29.9 ± 5.6 kg/m2 ; apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI): 53.6 ± 24.0 events/h). Patients had better adherence with nasal masks (average night use: 3.96 ± 2.26 h/night) compared to oronasal masks (3.26 ± 2.18 h/night, P < 0.001) and nasal pillows (3.48 ± 2.20 h/night, P = 0.007). Residual AHI was higher with oronasal masks (7.2 ± 5.2) compared to nasal masks (4.0 ± 4.2, P < 0.001) and nasal pillows (4.1 ± 3.3, P < 0.001). Twenty-two (25.9%) patients had the best adherence with oronasal masks (4.22 ± 2.14 vs 2.93 ± 2.12 h/night, P = 0.016). These patients had lower NOSE scores (15 (0-35) vs 40 (10-55), P = 0.024) and larger menton-labrale inferioris/biocular width ratios (31 ± 3% vs 28 ± 4%, P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Nasal masks are the preferred interface during CPAP initiation. Patients with less nasal obstruction and a proportionally increased chin-lower lip distance to mid-face width may have better CPAP adherence with an oronasal mask interface.
Authors: Ricardo L M Duarte; Bruno A Mendes; Tiago S Oliveira-E-Sá; Flavio J Magalhães-da-Silveira; David Gozal Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Xiao Lei Zhang; Li Zhang; Yi Ming Li; Bo Yun Xiang; Teng Han; Yan Wang; Chen Wang Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.324