4.6 Article

A Novel Nasal Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure (EPAP) Device for the Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

SLEEP
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 479-485

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/sleep/34.4.479

关键词

Obstructive sleep apnea; expiratory positive airway pressure; CPAP

资金

  1. Ventus Medical, Inc.
  2. Respironics
  3. ResMed
  4. Ventus Medical
  5. Cephalon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objectives: Investigate the efficacy of a novel nasal expiratory positive airway pressure (EPAP) device as a treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Design: A prospective, multicenter, sham-controlled, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Setting: 19 sites including both academic and private sleep disorder centers Patients: Obstructive sleep apnea with a pre-study AHI = 10/hour Interventions: Treatment with a nasal EPAP device (N = 127) or similar appearing sham device (N = 123) for 3 months. Polysomnography (PSG) was performed on 2 non-consecutive nights (random order: device-on, device-off) at week 1 and after 3 months of treatment. Analysis of an intention to treat group (ITT) (patients completing week 1 PSGs) (EPAP N = 119, sham N = 110) was performed. Measurements and Results: At week 1, the median AHI value (device-on versus device-off) was significantly lower with EPAP (5.0 versus 13.8 events/h, P < 0.0001) but not sham (11.6 versus 11.1 events/h, P = NS); the decrease in the AHI (median) was greater (-52.7% vs. -7.3%, P < 0.0001) for the ITT group. At month 3, the percentage decrease in the AHI was 42.7% (EPAP) and 10.1% (sham), P < 0.0001. Over 3 months of EPAP treatment the Epworth Sleepiness Scale decreased (9.9 +/- 4.7 to 7.2 +/- 4.2, P < 0.0001), and the median percentage of reported nights used (entire night) was 88.2%. Conclusions: The nasal EPAP device significantly reduced the AHI and improved subjective daytime sleepiness compared to the sham treatment in patients with mild to severe OSA with excellent adherence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据