4.6 Article

Therapy with nCPAP: incomplete elimination of Sleep Related Breathing Disorder

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 921-927

Publisher

MUNKSGAARD INT PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00.16592100

Keywords

compliance; continuous positive airway pressure; effectiveness; efficacy; sleep apnoea; sleep apnoea alleviation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Correct assessment of the overall treatment effectiveness requires knowledge about therapy compliance and efficacy. This study aimed to determine overall long-term apnoea alleviation after continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in a complete sleep laboratory cohort. Out of 209 consecutive CPAP candidates (mean age 57+/-12 yrs, body mass index (BMI) 30.0+/-5.1 kg.m(2), respiratory disturbance index (RDI) 32.9+/-29 h), follow-up treatment was performed in 149 of them at 9, 18 and 30 months after CPAP prescription. Compliance with CPAP (machine run time/days CPAP available) was adjusted for the individual subjective sleep-time. Apnoea alleviation was defined as adjusted compliance multiplied by the CPAP effect (RDI with CPAP applied), remaining RDI was calculated. The baseline RDI, age or BMI in 75 patients, who did not tolerate nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP), did not differ from those accepting CPAP (acceptors, n=74). In accepters at 9 months follow-up RDI with CPAP applied was 1.4+/-2.6 (CPAP effect, n=66), mean CPAP use was 3.6+/-2.5.24 h(-1) (n=68), mean apnoea alleviation was 52.4+/-32.0% (range 1-100%, n=47), the average remaining whole-night RDI was 17.8+/-26. At 9, 18 and 30 months (n=47), the mean daily CPAP use increased from 3.6+/-2.5 h to 4.1+/-2.5 h and 4.4+/-2.4 h (p<0.01). Effectiveness of continuous positive airway pressure is potentially high but acceptance was low When accounting for sleep-time, its actual effect and use, only 50% adjusted continuous positive airway pressure effectiveness was observed.

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