4.7 Article

Telemetric Assessment of Continuous Positive Airways Pressure (CPAP) Effectiveness and Adherence in Obstructive Sleep Apnea during COVID-19 Pandemic

期刊

BIOMEDICINES
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10051011

关键词

obstructive sleep apnea (OSA); COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; continuous positive airways pressure; CPAP; adherence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the effectiveness and adherence to CPAP therapy in 149 adults with obstructive sleep apnea during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that the pandemic had no significant impact on CPAP therapy overall, but certain demographic and clinical features influenced its effectiveness.
Obstructive sleep apnea is the most common sleep-related breathing disorder. In the pandemic times of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) therapy of obstructive sleep apnea became even more challenging. After the pandemic outbreak in March 2020, most CPAP treatment recommendations changed because of rising concerns about CPAP usage safety for patients and their families. Therefore, we examined the effectiveness of CPAP and adherence to the therapy of 149 adults with obstructive sleep apnea in the period of two years from 4 March 2019 to 3 March 2021 (before pandemic breakout and during the first year of pandemic). Data on CPAP parameters and adherence to therapy were obtained via a telemetric system. Together, our results demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic had no significant impact on CPAP therapy parameters and adherence in whole study group. However, detailed analysis acknowledged that some demographic and clinical features influenced CPAP therapy. The results showed that across subgroups of patients differentiated on the basis of age, gender, co-existing diabetes mellitus, or hypertension, the COVID-19 pandemic seemed to affect CPAP effectiveness. Our results provide a good starting point for discussion on CPAP therapy recommendations during pandemic times.

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

4.7
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