4.7 Article

Effect of Upper Airway Stimulation in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea (EFFECT): A Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 13, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132880

Keywords

hypoglossal nerve stimulation; obstructive sleep apnea; upper airway stimulation; surgical treatments; randomized trial

Funding

  1. Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Therapeutic upper airway stimulation showed significant improvement in reducing the severity of obstructive sleep apnea, sleepiness symptoms, and enhancing quality of life compared to sham stimulation in participants with moderate-to-severe OSA.
Background: Several single-arm prospective studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of upper airway stimulation (UAS) for obstructive sleep apnea. There is limited evidence from randomized, controlled trials of the therapy benefit in terms of OSA burden and its symptoms. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial to examine the effect of therapeutic stimulation (Stim) versus sham stimulation (Sham) on the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). We also examined the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ) on sleep architecture. We analyzed crossover outcome measures after two weeks using repeated measures models controlling for treatment order. Results: The study randomized 89 participants 1:1 to Stim (45) versus Sham (44). After one week, the AHI response rate was 76.7% with Stim and 29.5% with Sham, a difference of 47.2% (95% CI: 24.4 to 64.9, p < 0.001) between the two groups. Similarly, ESS was 7.5 +/- 4.9 with Stim and 12.0 +/- 4.3 with Sham, with a significant difference of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.1 to 6.1) between the two groups. The crossover phase showed no carryover effect. Among 86 participants who completed both phases, the treatment difference between Stim vs. Sham for AHI was -15.5 (95% CI -18.3 to -12.8), for ESS it was -3.3 (95% CI -4.4 to -2.2), and for FOSQ it was 2.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). UAS effectively treated both REM and NREM sleep disordered breathing. Conclusions: In comparison with sham stimulation, therapeutic UAS reduced OSA severity, sleepiness symptoms, and improved quality of life among participants with moderate-to-severe OSA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available