4.6 Article

Upper airway collapsibility, dilator muscle activation and resistance in sleep apnoea

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 345-353

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00063406

关键词

airway mechanics; airways resistance; muscle function; obstructive sleep apnoea; pharynx

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL073146, R01 HL073146-03] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [K23 AG024837-04, K23 AG024837] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The calibre of the upper airway is thought to be dependant upon its passive anatomy/collapsibility and the activation of pharyngeal dilator muscles. During awake periods, the more collapsible upper airway in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) increases the dilator muscle activity through a negative-pressure reflex. A direct correlation between the critical closing pressure (Pcrit), as a measure of anatomy/ collapsability and electromyogram (EMG) activity of genioglossus EMG (GG-EMG) and tensor palatini EMG (TP-EMG), was hypothesised. The relationship between these indices and pharyngeal resistance (Rphar) was also examined. The study involved eight males with a mean age of 48 (interquartile range 46-52) yrs with OSA, and an apnoea/hypopnoea index of 75 (65-101)center dot hr(-1) on two nights breathing normally and on nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP). The Pcrit was measured during nonrapid eye movement sleep on nCPAP using brief, incremental reductions in mask pressure. GG-EMG and TP-EMG were measured breath-by-breath, awake, during sleep onset and on nCPAP. Rphar was measured using airway pressures and flow. Wakeful GG-EMG, early sleep TP-EMG and the sleep decrement in TP-EMG were directly related to Picrit. Muscle activation was negatively correlated with Rphar for TP-EMG awake and GG-EMG early in sleep. In conclusion these results confirm that dilator muscle activation is directly related to airway narrowing and reduces resistance across patients with obstructive sleep apnoea.

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