4.5 Article

Awake negative pressure reflex response of the genioglossus in OSA patients and normal subjects

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 94, Issue 5, Pages 1875-1882

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00324.2002

Keywords

upper airway; sleep apnea syndrome; obstructive sleep apnea

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [MO1 RR-02635] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-48531, 1 P50 HL-60292, T32 HL-07633] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We hypothesized that the response of the genioglossus to negative pressure during wakefulness should be intact in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients despite published evidence showing impairment of the response of palatal muscles (Mortimore IL and Douglas NJ. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 156: 867-873, 1997). Thus the response of the genioglossus to brief nasal negative pressure applications (NPAs) in early inspiration was compared between OSA patients and an age-matched group of normal subjects at two study sites (n = 11 per group in Long Beach, n = 14 per group in Boston). Subjects were studied in the sitting ( Long Beach) or supine ( Boston) posture, and the genioglossus electromyogram (EMGgg) was measured with an intraoral surface electrode ( Long Beach) or intramuscular electrode ( Boston). The response of the EMGgg was expressed as the percent change from baseline where the baseline EMGgg was the value at the onset of the NPA. In Long Beach, the EMGgg response was significantly higher in the OSA patients at a lower suction pressure of similar to10 cmH(2)O (75.2 +/- 8.4 vs. 37.4 +/- 4.0% increase; P < 0.001) but not at a higher suction pressure of ∼20 cmH(2)O. In Boston, the response in the OSA patients was also greater (107.2 ± 25.9 vs. 46.3 ± 8.3%; P < 0.05) at a suction pressure of similar to13 cmH(2)O. We conclude that the response of the genioglossus to NPA during wakefulness is not impaired in OSA patients compared with normal subjects and is greater at low suction pressures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available