4.7 Article

Impact of nasal continuous positive airway pressure therapy on the quality of life of bed partners of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

Journal

CHEST
Volume 124, Issue 6, Pages 2209-2214

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.124.6.2209

Keywords

continuous positive airway pressure; hospital anxiety depression scale; obstructive sleep apnea syndrome; partner; Short-Form 36

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) improves daytime sleepiness and quality of life in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). However, few studies have examined the impact of treatment on the quality of life of bed partners of these patients. Methods: We prospectively studied 55 couples in which one person (the patient) had OSAS diagnosed and was subsequently commenced on CPAP therapy; 45 of these couples shared a bed on a regular basis. Both partner and patient completed postal questionnaires immediately prior to CPAP therapy and again after a median of 8 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 6 to 12 weeks) of therapy at home. Questionnaires consisted of the Epworth sleepiness scale (ESS), the UK Short Form-36 health survey, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale. No intervention or advice was given to the partner of the patient receiving CPAP therapy. Results: In addition to the expected significant benefits reported by patients receiving CPAP, bed partners also reported significant improvements in ESS scores (median, 4 [IQR, 1 to 8.5] before CPAP; median, 2 [IQR, 1 to 5] during CPAP), in addition to measures of anxiety, role limitation due to physical problems, role limitation due to emotional problems, social functioning, mental health, and energy/vitality (all p < 0.05 by Wilcoxon-signed rank testing). Conclusions: These data support the hypothesis that partners of patients with OSAS benefit significantly from the CPAP therapy their bed partners receive.

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