4.6 Review

A systematic review of continuous positive airway pressure for obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
Volume 13, Issue 6, Pages 427-436

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2009.02.004

Keywords

Continuous positive airway pressure; Obstructive sleep apnoea; Dental device

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme [06/57/01]
  2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted a systematic review of current evidence on the effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome (OSAHS). The primary outcomes were subjective sleepiness, using Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and objective sleepiness using Maintenance of Wakefulness Test (MWT) and Multiple Sleep Latency Test (MSLT). Mean difference (MD) in endpoints was used to compare CPAP to usual care, placebo and dental devices. The analysis was stratified by symptom and disease severity at baseline. CPAP significantly reduced ESS score compared to control (MD -2.7, 95% CI -3.45, -1.96). The benefit was greatest in patients whose symptoms were severe at baseline: severely symptomatic population (MD -5.0, -6.5, -3.5); moderate (MD -2.3, -3.0, -1.6); mild (MD -1.1, -1.8, -0.3). CPAP significantly improved MWT score compared to control (MD 3.3, 1.3, 5.3) but not on the MSLT. There was no statistically significant difference between CPAP and dental devices on the ESS, MWT or MSLT, in a population with moderate symptoms. There was some evidence of benefit for blood pressure with CPAP compared to control. CPAP is an effective treatment for OSAHS in moderate to severe symptomatic patients and there may be benefits for mild symptoms. Dental devices may be a treatment option for moderate symptoms. Crown Copyright (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available