Phyllis Murphie1,2, Stuart Little1, Robin Paton1, Brian McKinstry3, Hilary Pinnock2. 1. Allergy and Respiratory Research Group, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Respiratory Medicine, NHS Dumfries and Galloway, United Kingdom. 3. e-Health Research Group, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend regular review of individuals using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to treat obstructive sleep apnea but do not agree on the core components and frequency. We aimed to achieve consensus on essential components and frequency of review. METHODS: We used an e-Delphi approach, recruiting a multidisciplinary international expert panel to identify components based on a list compiled from guidelines and to score these on a scale 1 to 5 over three rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement for scores of 4 or higher. Free-text comments were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Forty participants completed 3 rounds scoring 36 potential components. Seventeen components achieved consensus: treatment acceptability, sleep quality, symptom resolution (including reduction in apnea-hypopnea index), assessment of sleepiness (including when driving), technical CPAP issues (mask fit/humidification/cleaning/filters), recording CPAP adherence, and quality of life. Participants suggested 12 to 18 monthly reviews (more frequent when commencing CPAP) or "on demand." Free-text comments highlighted that reviews should be multidisciplinary, flexible (including telehealth), and focus on symptom control. CONCLUSIONS: We mapped 17 prioritized components to a suggested template that may support clinical reviews. Reviews should be flexible, frequently in the early stages of commencing CPAP, shifting to "on demand" and/or remote follow-up for maintenance. Our findings may inform future guideline recommendations for reviewing CPAP users.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Guidelines recommend regular review of individuals using continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to treat obstructive sleep apnea but do not agree on the core components and frequency. We aimed to achieve consensus on essential components and frequency of review. METHODS: We used an e-Delphi approach, recruiting a multidisciplinary international expert panel to identify components based on a list compiled from guidelines and to score these on a scale 1 to 5 over three rounds. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement for scores of 4 or higher. Free-text comments were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Forty participants completed 3 rounds scoring 36 potential components. Seventeen components achieved consensus: treatment acceptability, sleep quality, symptom resolution (including reduction in apnea-hypopnea index), assessment of sleepiness (including when driving), technical CPAP issues (mask fit/humidification/cleaning/filters), recording CPAP adherence, and quality of life. Participants suggested 12 to 18 monthly reviews (more frequent when commencing CPAP) or "on demand." Free-text comments highlighted that reviews should be multidisciplinary, flexible (including telehealth), and focus on symptom control. CONCLUSIONS: We mapped 17 prioritized components to a suggested template that may support clinical reviews. Reviews should be flexible, frequently in the early stages of commencing CPAP, shifting to "on demand" and/or remote follow-up for maintenance. Our findings may inform future guideline recommendations for reviewing CPAP users.
Authors: Valentina Isetta; Miguel A Negrín; Carmen Monasterio; Juan F Masa; Nuria Feu; Ainhoa Álvarez; Francisco Campos-Rodriguez; Concepción Ruiz; Jorge Abad; Francisco J Vázquez-Polo; Ramon Farré; Marina Galdeano; Patricia Lloberes; Cristina Embid; Mónica de la Peña; Javier Puertas; Mireia Dalmases; Neus Salord; Jaime Corral; Bernabé Jurado; Carmen León; Carlos Egea; Aida Muñoz; Olga Parra; Roser Cambrodi; María Martel-Escobar; Meritxell Arqué; Josep M Montserrat Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: V Tsara; A Amfilochiou; M J Papagrigorakis; D Georgopoulos; E Liolios; C Alexopoulou; C Maniou; P Kithreotis; G Trakada; F Synodinos; G Vilos; P Steiropoulos Journal: Hippokratia Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 0.471
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: John Fleetham; Najib Ayas; Douglas Bradley; Michael Fitzpatrick; Thomas K Oliver; Debra Morrison; Frank Ryan; Frederick Series; Robert Skomro; Willis Tsai Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Nurit Fox; A J Hirsch-Allen; Elizabeth Goodfellow; Joshua Wenner; John Fleetham; C Frank Ryan; Mila Kwiatkowska; Najib T Ayas Journal: Sleep Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Lawrence J Epstein; David Kristo; Patrick J Strollo; Norman Friedman; Atul Malhotra; Susheel P Patil; Kannan Ramar; Robert Rogers; Richard J Schwab; Edward M Weaver; Michael D Weinstein Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062