AbdelKebir Sabil1, Margaux Blanchard2, Wojciech Trzepizur3,4, François Goupil5, Nicole Meslier3,4, Audrey Paris3,4, Thierry Pigeanne6, Pascaline Priou3,4, Marc Le Vaillant7, Frédéric Gagnadoux3,4. 1. Philips, Paris, France. 2. Ecole Supérieure d'Electronique de l'Ouest, Angers, France. 3. Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France. 4. INSERM Unit 1063, Angers, France. 5. Department of Respiratory Diseases, Le Mans General Hospital, Le Mans, France. 6. Respiratory Unit, Pôle santé des Olonnes, Olonne sur Mer, France. 7. Pays de la Loire Respiratory Health Research Institute, Beaucouzé, France.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess, in a large cohort of patients with obstructive sleep apnea, the factors that are independently associated with positional obstructive sleep apnea (POSA) and exclusive POSA (e-POSA) and determine their prevalence. The secondary objective was to evaluate the outcome of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for patients with POSA and e-POSA. METHODS: This retrospective study included 6,437 patients with typical mild-to-severe OSA from the Pays de la Loire sleep cohort. Patients with POSA and e-POSA were compared to those with non-POSA for clinical and polysomnographic characteristics. In a subgroup of patients (n = 3,000) included in a PAP follow-up analysis, we determined whether POSA and e-POSA phenotypes were associated with treatment outcomes at 6 months. RESULTS: POSA and e-POSA had a prevalence of 53.5% and 20.1%, respectively, and were independently associated with time in supine position, male sex, younger age, lower apnea-hypopnea index and lower body mass index. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with POSA and e-POSA had a significantly lower likelihood of treatment adherence (PAP daily use ≥ 4 h) at 6 months and were at higher risk of PAP treatment withdrawal compared to those with non-POSA. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and independent predictors of POSA and e-POSA were determined in this large clinical population. Patients with POSA and e-POSA have lower PAP therapy adherence, and this choice of treatment may not be optimal. Thus, there is a need to offer these patients an alternative therapy.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess, in a large cohort of patients with obstructive sleep apnea, the factors that are independently associated with positional obstructive sleep apnea (POSA) and exclusive POSA (e-POSA) and determine their prevalence. The secondary objective was to evaluate the outcome of positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy for patients with POSA and e-POSA. METHODS: This retrospective study included 6,437 patients with typical mild-to-severe OSA from the Pays de la Loire sleep cohort. Patients with POSA and e-POSA were compared to those with non-POSA for clinical and polysomnographic characteristics. In a subgroup of patients (n = 3,000) included in a PAP follow-up analysis, we determined whether POSA and e-POSA phenotypes were associated with treatment outcomes at 6 months. RESULTS: POSA and e-POSA had a prevalence of 53.5% and 20.1%, respectively, and were independently associated with time in supine position, male sex, younger age, lower apnea-hypopnea index and lower body mass index. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with POSA and e-POSA had a significantly lower likelihood of treatment adherence (PAP daily use ≥ 4 h) at 6 months and were at higher risk of PAP treatment withdrawal compared to those with non-POSA. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and independent predictors of POSA and e-POSA were determined in this large clinical population. Patients with POSA and e-POSA have lower PAP therapy adherence, and this choice of treatment may not be optimal. Thus, there is a need to offer these patients an alternative therapy.
Authors: Adam V Benjafield; Najib T Ayas; Peter R Eastwood; Raphael Heinzer; Mary S M Ip; Mary J Morrell; Carlos M Nunez; Sanjay R Patel; Thomas Penzel; Jean-Louis Pépin; Paul E Peppard; Sanjeev Sinha; Sergio Tufik; Kate Valentine; Atul Malhotra Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Vishesh K Kapur; Dennis H Auckley; Susmita Chowdhuri; David C Kuhlmann; Reena Mehra; Kannan Ramar; Christopher G Harrod Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Bradley A Edwards; Danny J Eckert; David G McSharry; Scott A Sands; Amar Desai; Geoffrey Kehlmann; Jessie P Bakker; Pedro R Genta; Robert L Owens; David P White; Andrew Wellman; Atul Malhotra Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jennifer H Walsh; Matthew S Leigh; Alexandre Paduch; Kathleen J Maddison; Julian J Armstrong; David D Sampson; David R Hillman; Peter R Eastwood Journal: Sleep Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Francesco Gambino; Marta Maria Zammuto; Alessandro Virzì; Giosafat Conti; Maria Rosaria Bonsignore Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2022-04-23 Impact factor: 5.472