| Literature DB >> 36105925 |
Wei Wang1, Frédéric Sériès2, Wen-Yang Li1, Jean-Francois Masse3, Simon Gakwaya2, Zhenjin Zhao4.
Abstract
Background: In-lab mandibular protrusive titration using a remotely controlled mandibular positioner (RCMP) could predict the success rate of mandibular advancement device (MAD) and reliably determine the Optimal Protrusive Position (OPP) for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients. The aim of this study was to compare MAD success rate using in-lab RCMP manual titration performed in Caucasian and Chinese OSA patients.Entities:
Keywords: mandibular advancement device; obstructive sleep apnea; optimal protrusive position; remotely controlled mandibular positioner
Year: 2022 PMID: 36105925 PMCID: PMC9467296 DOI: 10.2147/NSS.S377758
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Sci Sleep ISSN: 1179-1608
Figure 1Flow chart of patients included in the study.
Baseline Characteristics of Subjects with Conclusive RCMP Titration Study
| Total | Chinese (n = 71) | Caucasians (n = 70) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropometric | ||||
| Gender (% male) | 103 (73.0%) | 59 (83.1%) | 44 (62.9%) | 0.008 |
| Age (y) | 48.0 ± 12.2 | 42.6 ± 11.3 | 53.3 ± 10.2 | <0.0001 |
| BMI (Kg.m−2) | 27.9 ± 3.8 | 27.0 ± 2.9 | 28.8 ± 4.3 | 0.005 |
| Neck Circumference (cm) | 37.5 ± 3.8 | 37.4 ±3.7 | 37.5 ±4.0 | 0.681 |
| Mallampati Score | ||||
| MS 1–2 | 96 (68.1%) | 50 (71.8%) | 45 (64.3%) | 0.04 |
| MS 3–4 | 45 (31.9%) | 21 (29.5%) | 22 (32.7%) | |
| Maxillomandibular record | ||||
| Skeletal class 1 | 78 (56.0%) | 40 (56.3%) | 38 (59.4%) | 0.46 |
| Skeletal class 2 | 53 (40.5%) | 30 (42.2%) | 23 (35.9%) | |
| Skeletal class 3 | 4 (3.5%) | 1 (1.4%) | 3 (4.7%) | |
| Pharyngeal grade | ||||
| PG0–1 | 87 (61.7%) | 43 (60.6%) | 44 (62.9%) | 0.003 |
| PG2–3 | 54 (38.3%) | 28 (39.4%) | 26 (27.1%) | |
| OSA Severity | ||||
| ESS | 9.4 ± 4.3 | 9.1 ±3.7 | 9.8 ±5.0 | 0.43 |
| AHI (n/h) | 30.6 ±16.9 | 35.5 ± 19.8 | 25.7 ± 11.7 | 0.0005 |
| AI (n/h) | 10.1 ± 12.9 | 16.9 ± 13.5 | 6.2 ± 8.8 | <0.0001 |
| REM AHI (n/h) | 37.9 ± 22.9 | 41.2 ± 23.9 | 31.9 ± 19.8 | 0.03 |
| Supine AHI (n/h) | 41.7 ± 23.3 | 42.8 ± 26.1 | 40.3 ± 20.2 | 0.56 |
| ODI (n/h) | 25.7 ± 17.0 | 30.9 ± 18.3 | 19.9 ± 13.8 | 0.0002 |
| % SaO2 < 90% | 2.5 ± 3.8 | 3.5 ± 7.0 | 2.1 ± 3.6 | 0.17 |
| Average SaO2 (%) | 92.4% ± 3.6% | 90.5%± 4.2% | 94.1% ± 1.5% | <0.0001 |
| Arousal index(n/h) | 26.2 ± 19.3 | 30.6 ± 21.6 | 18.5 ± 10.2 | <0.0001 |
| Total sleep time (min) | 420.2 ± 82.3 | 405.6 ± 82.5 | 437.5 ± 79.4 | 0.02 |
| Sleep efficiency(%) | 80.8 ± 10.0% | 80.6% ± 9.8% | 80.9% ± 10.5% | 0.80 |
| Mandibular Position (mm) | ||||
| Resting bite position | 7.0 ± 2.7 | 5.4 ± 2.0 | 8.6 ± 2.4 | <0.0001 |
| Full Protrusion position | 15.5 ± 2.8 | 14.6 ± 2.9 | 16.5 ± 2.4 | <0.0001 |
Notes: Data are presented as mean ± SD, or N (%).
Abbreviations: ESS, Epworth sleepiness score; ODI, oxygen desaturation index; AHI, apnea hypopnea score; AI, apnea index.
Figure 2AHI values obtained at baseline and at OPP as a function of BMI (kg/m2) and AHI (n/h) in each ethnic population according to the classical criteria. Shaded area denotes guidelines of recommended oral appliance therapy based on AHI and BMI values. X and Y axis indicate BMI (kg/m2) and AHI (n/h).
Determinants of Predicted Outcomes According to Results of RCMP Titration
| Predicted Outcome According to Classical Criteria | Predicted Outcome According to Remmers’ Criteria | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predicted Success (N = 77) | Predicted Failure (N = 64) | Predicted Success (N = 56) | Predicted Failure (N = 85) | |||
| Anthropometric | ||||||
| Ethnicity (Chinese) | 47 (61.0%) | 24 (37.5%) | 0.01 | 34 (60.7%) | 37 (43.5%) | 0.06 |
| Gender (Male) | 55 (71.4%) | 48 (75%) | 0.70 | 40 (71.4%) | 63 (74.1%) | 0.84 |
| Age (y) | 45.7 ± 11.8 | 50.8 ± 12.1 | 0.01 | 45.0 ± 12.0 | 50.3 ± 11.8 | 0.01 |
| BMI (Kg.m−2) | 27.7± 3.8 | 28.0± 3.7 | 0.61 | 27.2 ± 3.9 | 28.3 ± 3.6 | 0.09 |
| Neck Circumference (cm) | 37.3 ± 3.7 | 37.8 ± 4.0 | 0.46 | 36.9 ± 3.9 | 37.9 ± 3.8 | 0.12 |
| Mallampati Score | 0.27 | 0.38 | ||||
| MS 1–2 | 56 (72.7%) | 40 (62.5%) | 41 (73.2%) | 55 (64.7%) | ||
| MS 3–4 | 21 (27.3%) | 24 (37.5%) | 15 (26.8%) | 30 (35.3%) | ||
| Maxillomandibular record | 0.07 | 0.29 | ||||
| Skeletal class 1 | 40 (51.9%) | 38 (65.5%) | 33 (58.9%) | 45 (56.9%) | ||
| Skeletal class 2 | 36 (46.7%) | 17 (29.3%) | 23 (41.7%) | 30 (37.9%) | ||
| Skeletal class 3 | 1 (1.3%) | 3 (5.2%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (5.1%) | ||
| Pharyngeal class | 0.17 | 0.30 | ||||
| PC 0–1 | 52 (67.5%) | 35 (54.7%) | 38 (67.9%) | 49 (57.6%) | ||
| PC 2–3 | 25 (32.5%) | 29 (45.3%) | 18 (32.1%) | 36 (42.4%) | ||
| OSA Severity | ||||||
| ESS | 9.3± 4.6 | 9.6± 4.1 | 0.69 | 8.6 ± 4.1 | 9.9 ± 4.4 | 0.08 |
| AHI (n/h) | 27.2 ± 15.3 | 34.8 ± 18.1 | 0.008 | 23.9 ± 14.1 | 35.1 ± 17.3 | <0.0001 |
| AI (n/h) | 3.2±4.8 | 14.7± 16.0 | <0.0001 | 8.9±8.3 | 13.8±14.9 | 0.03 |
| REM AHI (n/h) | 31.6± 20.9 | 46.2± 23.1 | 0.0009 | 26.9 ± 18.4 | 45.8 ± 22.8 | <0.0001 |
| Supine AHI (n/h) | 36.6± 20.6 | 48.2± 25.2 | 0.005 | 32.4 ± 18.5 | 48.1 ± 24.3 | <0.0001 |
| ODI (n/h) | 23.4± 15.9 | 28.5± 18.0 | 0.08 | 20.1 ± 12.8 | 29.4 ± 18.5 | 0.0006 |
| % SaO2 < 90% | 0.6± 2.1 | 1.5± 3.2 | 0.007 | 0.4 ± 1.3 | 1.4 ± 3.2 | 0.003 |
| Average SaO2 (%) | 93%± 3% | 92%± 4% | 0.10 | 93%±3% | 92%±4% | 0.01 |
| Arousal index(n/h) | 26.0± 19.2 | 26.5± 19.8 | 0.89 | 22.7 ± 18.3 | 28.7 ± 19.8 | 0.11 |
| Total sleep time (min) | 417.4± 79.4 | 424.6± 86.4 | 0.62 | 412.1 ± 82.2 | 426.3 ± 82.5 | 0.33 |
| Sleep efficiency (%) | 0.80± 0.11 | 0.81± 0.09 | 0.63 | 0.813 ± 0.103 | 0.804 ± 0.098 | 0.64 |
| Mandibular Position (mm) | ||||||
| Resting bite position (mm) | 6.6 ± 2.4 | 7.6 ± 2.9 | 0.03 | 6.3 ± 2.6 | 7.5 ± 2.7 | 0.01 |
| Full Protrusion position (mm) | 15.4 ± 3.1 | 15.7± 2.4 | 0.58 | 15.2 ± 3.3 | 15.7 ± 2.4 | 0.36 |
| Final OPP (mm) | 13.8± 3.2 | 15.0±2.2 | 0.008 | 13.2 ± 3.1 | 15.1 ± 2.4 | 0.0002 |
| OPP (%) | 89.7%± 11.9% | 96.3%± 8.2% | <0.0001 | 87.2% ± 12.0% | 96.3% ± 8.3% | <0.0001 |
| OPP II (%) | 82.8%± 19.4% | 92.4%± 16.6 | <0.0001 | 78.4% ± 19.5 | 92.8% ± 15.9% | <0.0001 |
Notes: Data are presented as mean ± SD, or N (%). OPP%= Final Optimal Effective Position /Full Protrusion position*100%; OPP%II = (Final Optimal Effective Position – Habitual Bite position)/(Full Protrusion Position – Habitual Bite position)*100%.
Multivariate Regression Analysis Predicted Outcomes According to Results of RCMP Titration
| Predicted MAD Success | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| According to Classical Criteria | According to Remmers’ Criteria | |||
| Odds Ratio (95% CI) | P value | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | P value | |
| Ethnicity (Chinese) | 4.60 [2.04–10.39] | 0.0002 | 3.76 [1.68–8.39] | 0.0012 |
| AHI, events/h | 0.96 [0.93–0.98] | 0.0004 | 0.94 [0.91–0.97] | <0.0001 |
Figure 3(A) The optimal mandibular protrusion position (OPP) and OPP expressed in % of maximal voluntary protrusion are individually presented for two ethnic groups. (B) Cumulative occurrence of predicted success at different optimal protrusion position (% full protrusion position) according to Remmers’ criteria among different predicted success ethnics (Δ, Chinese, n=34; ●, Canadians, n=22).
Figure 4Cumulative occurrence of predicted success according to the Remmer’s success criteria, at different optimal protrusion position (% max voluntary position) among subgroups stratified according to BMI (A), MS (B), age (C) and AHI (D) median values.