» Articles » PMID: 10947032

A Long-term Randomized, Cross-over Comparison of Auto-titrating and Standard Nasal Continuous Airway Pressure

Overview
Journal Sleep
Specialty Psychiatry
Date 2000 Aug 18
PMID 10947032
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study is a 12-week randomized, cross-over, single-blind comparison of the tolerance, compliance, and symptomatic improvement obtained with standard nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) vs. an auto-titrating, self-adjusting device (APAP). Sixty newly diagnosed patients, 53 with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and seven with upper airway resistance syndrome were studied. Thirty-nine patients (65%) completed the 24-week protocol. Data were complete in 33. In these 33 patients CPAP and APAP reduced the Epworth Sleepiness score from 15+/-1 (+/-SEM) to 8+/-1 and 9+/-1 respectively (both <0.0001 from baseline but NS between modes). The APAP average pressure was lower than the CPAP pressure, 6.4+/-0.4 and 10.6+/-0.4 cm H20, respectively. The average daily machine use was greater with APAP, 6.0+/-0.3 hrs. versus 5.5+/-0.3 hrs. with CPAP (P < 0.04). The number of days of machine use, and the pattern of use were not different between CPAP and APAP. A higher proportion of patients who did not complete the study was randomized to CPAP for their initial treatment period. This study showed that: 1) CPAP and APAP produced an equivalent improvement in daytime sleepiness, 2) APAP pressure was lower than CPAP pressure, 3) patients wore the APAP device longer during nights they used the pressure support system, and 4) patients who began the study with APAP were more prone to continue treatment. We conclude that APAP was better tolerated and used a greater number of hours than CPAP, but the extent of improvement in excessive daytime sleepiness was similar between the two modes of therapy.

Citing Articles

Practice recommendations for the role of physiotherapy in the management of sleep disorders: the 2022 Brazilian Sleep Association Guidelines.

Frange C, Franco A, Brasil E, Hirata R, Lino J, Mortari D Sleep Sci. 2022; 15(4):515-573.

PMID: 36419815 PMC: 9670776. DOI: 10.5935/1984-0063.20220083.


Transition from APAP to CPAP may be a cost-effective health intervention in OSA patients.

Alves A, Gigante A, Machado D, Sanches I, Marcoa R, Franco I J Bras Pneumol. 2021; 47(6):e20210286.

PMID: 34932723 PMC: 8836620. DOI: 10.36416/1806-3756/e20210286.


Pressure modification or humidification for improving usage of continuous positive airway pressure machines in adults with obstructive sleep apnoea.

Kennedy B, Lasserson T, Wozniak D, Smith I Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 12:CD003531.

PMID: 31792939 PMC: 6888022. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003531.pub4.


Treatment of Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea With Positive Airway Pressure: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and GRADE Assessment.

Patil S, Ayappa I, Caples S, Kimoff R, Patel S, Harrod C J Clin Sleep Med. 2019; 15(2):301-334.

PMID: 30736888 PMC: 6374080. DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.7638.


Access to CPAP treatment in patients with moderate to severe sleep apnea in a Latin American City.

Nogueira J, Simonelli G, Giovini V, Angellotti M, Borsini E, Ernst G Sleep Sci. 2018; 11(3):174-182.

PMID: 30455850 PMC: 6201520. DOI: 10.5935/1984-0063.20180032.